“Bolshevism cannot be vanquished; it must be destroyed. The same
is true of Judaism; it cannot be vanquished, disarmed, or
rendered powerless; it must be exterminated.”
That is Page 2.
Then the word that you use or is cited for exterminated is ausgerottet,
which I understand means completely wiped out. Why was that article
appearing in _Der Stürmer_ in September 1944, when it was known by the
owner of _Der Stürmer_ what was going on in concentration camps in the
East? What was the purpose of that article?
HIEMER: I personally did not write this article. I believe that
Streicher wrote it, therefore I myself am not able to judge the
intention of the article. But I do maintain that Streicher made
statements opposing the murders in the concentration camps, and that he
did not want the murder of Jewry.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, I will leave that.
My Lord, in the interest of time I do not propose to cross-examine this
witness any further. Perhaps I might be allowed to draw the Tribunal’s
attention to those articles contained in your bundle, which are articles
actually written by this witness. There are about seven of them. Page
3A, 35A, 38A, 40A, 49A, 50A and 51A, that is, covering a period from
January 1939 up to August 1944.
And, My Lord, the other matter that I would draw the Tribunal’s
attention to was that this witness was the author of the disgusting
children’s book which I presented to the Tribunal in putting the
individual case against Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination?
[_There was no response._]
Dr. Marx, do you wish to re-examine? You heard what counsel said about
the various articles written by this witness. You wish to re-examine or
not? Have you any questions you wish to ask the witness?
DR. MARX: Yes, please.
Herr Hiemer, perhaps you did not quite understand the question a moment
ago. Please tell us again just when Herr Streicher received knowledge,
and when he told you that he was convinced of or believed in these mass
murders.
HIEMER: It is my opinion and conviction that it was in the middle of
1944.
DR. MARX: But there had been statements to that effect in the
_Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ for a number of years prior to that date.
HIEMER: Yes; at that time Streicher did not believe these things. His
change of view took place only in the year 1944 and I remember it was
not before the middle of the year.
DR. MARX: I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal I would like to call the
witness Philipp Wurzbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[_The witness Wurzbacher took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
PHILIPP WURZBACHER (Witness): Philipp Wurzbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]
You may sit down.
DR. MARX: Witness, you were an SA Leader in Nuremberg?
WURZBACHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: From when?
WURZBACHER: From 1928.
DR. MARX: And what position did you have?
WURZBACHER: At that time I was an SA Standartenführer and had risen from
the lowest ranks.
DR. MARX: Witness, please speak more slowly and pause as frequently as
possible, as your testimony has to be interpreted into several
languages.
How long have you known the Defendant Streicher?
WURZBACHER: I have known him from meetings, since 1923; personally, from
the time of my activity as an SA Leader in the year 1928.
DR. MARX: Were you regularly present at the meetings at which Streicher
spoke?
WURZBACHER: I cannot say that I was present regularly, but I attended
very frequently.
DR. MARX: Did Streicher in his speeches advocate the use of violence
against the Jewish population, or did he predict it?
WURZBACHER: At no meeting did I hear suggestions that violence should be
used against the Jewish population. Nor did I ever hear Streicher
suggest or announce that he had any such intentions in mind.
DR. MARX: Did an act of violence against the Jewish population,
originating from and carried out by the people themselves, take place in
Nuremberg or the Gau Franconia at any time in the period from 1920 to
1933?
WURZBACHER: No, I cannot remember any incident of that type.
DR. MARX: Did the SA undertake any such action or was anything like that
ordered?
WURZBACHER: The SA never undertook anything like that at that time. On
the contrary, the SA had instructions, unequivocal instructions, to
refrain from such acts of violence. Severe punishment would have
resulted for anyone who did anything like that, or for an SA Leader who
gave such orders. Besides, as I have already emphasized, there was never
any suggestion or any order to that effect.
DR. MARX: What do you say to the events on the night of the 9 to 10
November 1938?
WURZBACHER: I was not in Nuremberg during the events from the 9 to 10
November 1938. At that time I was in Bad Ems on account of chronic
laryngitis. I can only say what I know from stories which I heard
afterwards.
DR. MARX: Did you talk with Obergruppenführer Obernitz?
WURZBACHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: About these events?
WURZBACHER: Yes, I talked with SA Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz in a
brief conversation, when I reported my return. We spoke only a few
words, since Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz was called away so that in
the course of the conversation I could not return to the subject. I
remember that Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz declared at the time that
as far as he was concerned the matter had been put in order. That was
the sense of what he said.
DR. MARX: Was there within the SA a uniform opinion, or were there, even
in the circles of the SA, men who disapproved of these incredible
occurrences?
WURZBACHER: Opinions were, as far as I could determine upon my return—I
believe it was on 23 or 24 November—very much divided. A part of the SA
was in favor, the other opposed what had happened, but at all events,
the majority in general considered it to be wrong and condemned what had
been done.
DR. MARX: Was there an increase, I mean, an increase of brutality in
these circles after 1933 on account of the growing numbers of the SA?
WURZBACHER: It goes without saying that after the accession to power,
when many doubtful elements joined, the situation was completely
different from what it had been before. Up to that time, as a
responsible Leader, one knew almost every member individually, but now
with the tremendous influx of new men, a general survey of the new
situation had first to be made. But I believe I may say that an increase
of brutality did not occur. Perhaps some undesirable elements which, in
the name of the SA, did this or that, had slipped in but in general I
cannot say that an overall increase of brutality took place.
DR. MARX: Did you conclude that _Der Stürmer_ exerted an influence in
the SA with the result that an anti-Semitic tendency made itself felt
among the men under your command? Did you not read a different
publication, _Der SA Mann_?
WURZBACHER: _Der Stürmer_ had a very divided reception, I might say,
especially among the people in Nuremberg and in particular in the SA.
There were large numbers in the SA who, if they did not exactly reject
_Der Stürmer_, were in fact not interested because of the tedious
repetitions contained in it, and for this reason the paper was of no
importance to them. Moreover, it was natural that members of the SA read
their own paper, _Der SA Mann_, first.
DR. MARX: When you attended a meeting in which Streicher spoke, what
impression did you gain of the objectives which he pursued in his speech
with regard to the solution of the Jewish problem?
WURZBACHER: The objectives which were stated by Streicher were, I should
say, unequivocal and clear. He pursued the policy that the strong
elements of the Jewish people which occupied positions in the German
economy and above all in public life and public offices should be
removed and that necessarily, expulsion or emigration should be
considered.
DR. MARX: Did you participate in the boycott on 1 April 1933 in any way?
WURZBACHER: Yes, I participated in the boycott. At that time I had
instructions from my Gruppenführer to see to it that this boycott should
be kept within the limits of order and propriety, and that in this way
the success of the boycott would be assured. I instructed the
Sturmführer under my command to assign to each department store a guard
of two SA men who were to see to it that nothing happened and everything
took its course in an orderly and unobjectionable fashion.
DR. MARX: Were there not instructions from Streicher also?
WURZBACHER: Yes. The instructions which I received from my Gruppenführer
had been issued by Gauleiter Streicher.
DR. MARX: Were attacks on Jews not to be prevented by all means?
WURZBACHER: That was so not only in this one case, but in all cases. It
was repeatedly pointed out that we were to refrain from attacks or
unauthorized acts of violence or other hostile acts against the Jewish
people or Jewish individuals, especially in Nuremberg, and that it was
strictly prohibited...
DR. MARX: What was Streicher’s reaction when he heard that nevertheless
such acts of violence had been perpetrated by individuals?
WURZBACHER: I can cite one example in which violence was used. I believe
it was a small scuffle, at any rate, something had happened, but I do
not recall the details of the case. In any event, he called us very
sharply to account, and we SA leaders were severely reprimanded and
rebuked.
DR. MARX: And what did he say? Did he make a general statement?
WURZBACHER: If I may give the essence of it, he said that he would not
tolerate that human beings be beaten or molested in any way in his Gau,
and for the SA leaders he had rather drastic expressions such as
ruffians or similar names—I do not recall them exactly.
DR. MARX: But he was called the Bloody Czar of Franconia. How is that to
be explained?
WURZBACHER: Perhaps it was his manner, the way he behaved at times.
Sometimes he could be very harsh and outspoken. At any rate I can only
say that during my activity I did not experience anything or hear
anything suggesting that he was a “bloody czar.”
DR. MARX: Do you know what his attitude was toward concentration camps?
Did he visit Dachau? If so, how often, and what did he do about it?
WURZBACHER: I cannot give you any information on that point. I know just
one thing and that is that he said repeatedly that people who had been
taken to Dachau should be freed as soon as possible if there was no
criminal or other charge against them. I also know of several cases of
release very soon after the arrest of the people or their removal to a
concentration camp. For example the teacher Matt, who was an old
adversary of his in the Town Hall of Nuremberg, was released after a
very short time—I believe three or four months. Another man, a certain
Defender, who had been active primarily in labor unions, was also
released after a very short period of time. If I remember correctly, it
was about the year 1935 or perhaps the beginning of 1936—I do not know
exactly—when the last inmates left the camp at Dachau and were greeted
with music upon their return.
DR. MARX: Was it not held against him that he freed so many members of
the left-wing parties from Dachau?
WURZBACHER: It was said here and there by members of the SA that the
Gauleiter’s action could hardly be justified, that he took too light a
view of these things and so on, but we also pointed out that after all
the Gauleiter bore the responsibility and that he ought to know just
what he had to do in this or that case.
DR. MARX: Do you know that Himmler told Streicher of his displeasure at
these releases and said that disciplinary action would be taken against
him if he continued with them? If you know nothing about this matter,
please say: “No.”
WURZBACHER: No.
DR. MARX: Then I have concluded my questioning of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask
questions?
Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
[_The witness left the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your case, Dr. Marx?
DR. MARX: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we go on with Dr. Schacht’s case next.
DR. DIX: I begin my presentation of evidence with the calling of Dr.
Schacht as a witness, and I ask Your Lordship to permit Dr. Schacht to
enter the witness box.
[_The Defendant Schacht took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
HJALMAR SCHACHT (Defendant): Hjalmar Schacht.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
You may sit down.
DR. DIX: Please tell the Tribunal briefly about your descent?
SCHACHT: The families of both my parents have lived for centuries in
Schleswig-Holstein, which until 1864 belonged to Denmark. My parents
were both born as Danish citizens. After the annexation by Germany my
father emigrated to the United States, where three of his older brothers
had already emigrated, and he became an American citizen. My two
brothers, who were older than I, were born there. Later my mother’s
health prompted my father’s return to Germany.
I was educated in Hamburg. I studied at universities in Germany and in
Paris, and after receiving my doctor’s degree I was active for 2 years
in economic organizations. Then I began my banking career, and for 13
years I was at the Dresdner Bank, one of the large so-called “D” banks.
I then took over the management of a bank of my own, which was later
merged with one of the “D” banks, and in 1923 I abandoned my private
career and went into public service as Commissioner for German Currency
(Reichswährungskommissar). Soon afterwards I became President of the
Reichsbank, and I held that office until 1930, when I resigned.
DR. DIX: Why did you resign as President of the Reichsbank at that time?
SCHACHT: In two essential points there were differences of opinion
between the Government and me; one was the internal finance policy of
the Government. With the terrible catastrophe of the lost war and the
Dictate of Versailles behind us, it was necessary in my opinion to use
thrifty and modest methods in German politics. The democratic and
socialist governments of that period could not see that point, but
carried on an irresponsible financial policy, especially by incurring
debts which in particular were contracted to a very large extent abroad.
It was quite clear that Germany, already heavily burdened with
reparation payments, was under no circumstances in a position to build
up as much foreign currency as was necessary for the payment of these
debts. We were not even able to pay the reparations from our own
economy.
Therefore I objected to the contraction of these debts in which the
various governments of that period indulged, and to which they also
encouraged communities and private companies. I objected to this
financial policy and continually, abroad and at home, warned against
such a policy of incurring foreign debts. The foreign bankers did not
listen nor did the German Government. It was during that period that if
in Berlin one passed the Adlon Hotel, Unter Den Linden, one could not be
sure that a financial agent would not emerge and ask whether one did not
need a loan.
Later I was strongly opposed by these same people, when Germany was
forced to discontinue making payments of her debts. But I wish to state
here that I have always and on every occasion been against such a policy
of debts. That was the one reason. The other reason was in the field of
foreign policy. I had not only contributed my part toward the creation
of the Young Plan but in 1929 I also assisted in the setting up of the
Young Committee; the so-called Young Plan had resulted in a number of
improvements for Germany, which the German Government was now
sacrificing step by step during the subsequent negotiations at The
Hague. Thus the financial and economic condition of the nation again
deteriorated. I revolted against this, and for both these reasons I
resigned my office as Reichsbankpräsident in protest, in March 1930.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in this connection, may I call your
attention to Exhibit Number Schacht-6 of my Document Book. If the
Tribunal agrees, I should like, in order to shorten the presentation of
documents during the examination of the witness, to call your attention
to those documents which have a direct connection with the questions
with which the witness is dealing. I believe that this arrangement will
be agreeable to the Tribunal since it will shorten the presentation of
documents. It is Document Number Schacht-6, on Page 12 of the German
copy of my document book and on Page 8 of the English copy, Your
Lordship, Exhibit Number Schacht-6. That is a record of the statements
made by Dr. Schacht during the session of the subcommittee for monetary
and credit matters on 21 October 1926. I believe it is not necessary for
me to read these statements. They refer to the foreign debts which Dr.
Schacht has just mentioned, and contain the same thoughts which Dr.
Schacht has just expressed before the Tribunal, and are proof that these
thoughts are not views _ex post facto_. Therefore, without reading it, I
ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the whole of this document.