NOTES

-----

[1] Proceeding from this interpretation of the Charter there arises the

need for a discussion on how the Indictment is to be construed with

respect to the conspiracy charged therein. This construction is based on

the legal concept of Anglo-American law which determines the

responsibility of a plurality of persons differently and in a more

far-reaching way than the German penal code, which contains the

principles of law to which the accused were subject at the time when

they committed the deed. The German penal code also provides that a

person can be held responsible for offenses committed by others provided

he participated in a common plan which was later carried out by others.

But the German penal code places decisive weight on determining the

extent to which the acts committed at a latter date correspond to the

common plan. Since in the serious crimes which are being prosecuted

before this Court the determination of the form of guilt in the original

plan is necessary in order to permit punishment, later acts of

commission by others can be charged against a defendant only to the

extent to which they corresponded to arrangements to which the defendant

deliberately agreed. A defendant who participated in certain plans

cannot be held responsible for subsequent plans of a wider scope, or for

acts of commission which far exceeded the original plans without his

co-operation.

Responsibility for subsequent plans and acts of commission can be

established according to German law only if it can be proved that the

defendant, without participating in those subsequent plans and actions,

at the time of his original participation recognized and approved this

manner of development and execution and, in other words, deliberately

encouraged it.

To revert to the example of the Prosecution:

He who participates’ in the plan for robbing a bank is responsible if

this plan is carried out, even though he does not personally participate

in the execution. But a person does not at the same time become guilty

of premeditated murder if the active members subsequently and without

his participation discuss murdering the guard or in case one of the

members should shoot one of the guards without prior agreement, because

the latter has caught him in the act.

Nobody can be convicted of premeditated murder if he did not participate

in a plan to commit murder, unless it can be proved that when he

participated in the plan for robbing the bank such killing of a guard

was already contemplated and that in spite of this he approved the plan

for the bank robbery. In that case he, too, would have deliberately

contributed to the murder. In other words, according to the provisions

of German substantive criminal law there does not exist a liability for

so-called excesses of the immediate culprits or for an unforeseen

development of plans not originally conceived on such a wide scope, so

that a more far-reaching interpretation in line with the concept of

conspiracy in Anglo-American law, which at the time when the accused

committed their deed did not exist, would violate the principle which

prohibits retroactive application of penal laws.

ONE HUNDRED

AND SEVENTY-SEVENTH DAY

Friday, 12 July 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn today at 4 o’clock.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal I shall now

continue with the presentation of the final plea for the Defendant

Streicher. Yesterday I had come to the point where the individual

accusations against Streicher had been summarized, and I had taken

liberty of explaining that these accusations are subdivided into three

different paragraphs:

1. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the power of the

NSDAP after its entry into the Government.

2. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda aimed at the persecution

of the Jews.

3. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education of the German

people and German youth to effect the destruction of Jewry and to

encourage hatred of the Jews.

With respect to Count One of the Indictment, the defendant does not deny

that, with regard to the Party’s later seizure of power, he supported

and promoted it with all his might from the very beginning. His support

went to the extent of a whole movement which he had built up personally

in Franconia and which he put at the disposal of Adolf Hitler’s Party,

which was quite small after the first World War and limited to Southern

Bavaria only. Furthermore, after Hitler’s release from the fortress of

Landsberg he immediately joined him again and subsequently championed

his ideas and aims with the greatest determination.

Until 1933 the defendant’s activity was limited to propaganda for the

NSDAP and its aims, particularly in the field of the Jewish question.

Nothing criminal can be seen in this attitude of the defendant as such.

Participation in a party within a state which allows such an opposition

party can be regarded as criminal only if, first of all, the aims of

such a party are objectively criminal and if, subjectively, a member of

such a movement knows, approves of, and thereby supports, these criminal

aims.

The foundation of the entire charges against all the defendants lies in

this very fact that the NSDAP is accused of having had criminal aims

from the very beginning. According to the assertion of the Prosecution,

the members of this Party started out with the plan of subjugating the

world, of annihilating foreign races, and of setting the German master

race above the whole world. They are accused of having harbored the will

to carry out these aims and plans from the very outset by means of

aggressive wars, murder, and violence. If, therefore, the Defendant

Streicher’s mere participation in the NSDAP and his support of it are to

be ascribed to him as a crime, it must be proved that the Party had such

plans and that the defendant knew and approved of them.

The gentlemen who spoke before me have already demonstrated sufficiently

that a conspiracy with such aims did not exist. Therefore I can save

myself the trouble of making further statements on this subject and I

can refer to what has already been set forth by the other defense

counsel. I have only to deal with the point that the Defendant Streicher

did not in any case participate in such a conspiracy, if the latter

should be considered by the High Tribunal to have existed.

The official Party Program strove to attain power in a legitimate way.

The aims advocated therein cannot be considered as criminal. Thus, if

such aims did actually exist, they could only—by the very nature of a

conspiracy—be known in a restricted circle.

The Party Program was not kept secret but was announced at a public

meeting in Munich, so that not only the whole public of Germany but also

that of the entire world could be informed about the aims of the Party.

Therefore that element supplied by secret agreement towards a common

aim, which is usually the characteristic sign of a conspiracy, is not

present.

The evidence too, has shown nothing to the effect that already at that

time there existed a plan for a war of revenge or aggression connected

with the previous or simultaneous extermination of the Jews. If,

nevertheless, a conspiracy should have existed, the latter would have

confined itself to the restricted circle which revolved exclusively

around Hitler. But the Defendant Streicher did not belong to that

circle. None of the offices he occupied provides the least proof of

that. As an old Party member he was just one among many thousands. As

honorary Gauleiter, as honorary SA Obergruppenführer, he was also only

an equal among equals. Thus one cannot find in any of the offices he

held any connection or complicity with the innermost circle of the

Party. It is also impossible to discern after the end of 1938 any

personal relations with the leading men of the Movement, either with

Hitler himself or with the Defendant Göring, or with Goebbels, Himmler,

or Bormann.

The Prosecution did not offer any evidence on this point, nor did the

proceedings produce any proof to that effect. Of all the material

presented during all these months of the Trial, nothing can be taken as

even a shadow of proof that the Defendant Streicher was so closely

connected with the supreme authority of the Party that he could have, or

even must have, known its ultimate aims.

In the Jewish question too the final aims of the Party—the effects of

which were manifest in the concentration camps—were not, before the

seizure of power and for several years after, formulated and determined

as they appeared in the end. The Party Program itself provided for Jews

to be placed under aliens’ law, and so the laws issued in the Third

Reich followed this line. Only later on, it may be added, the program in

this as in many other points became more radical and finally went

haywire altogether under the influence of the war. But any proof that

the Defendant Streicher knew other aims than those of the official Party

Program has not been offered. Consequently it has not been proved that

the defendant supported the seizure of power of the Party in cognizance

of its criminal aims; and only on such a basis could a penal charge be

brought against him.

The fact that the defendant, as Gauleiter, further endeavored to

increase and maintain the power of the Party after the seizure of power

is not disputed by him. But here, too, the defendant’s conduct can only

be considered punishable if he knew at that time the objectionable aims

of the Party. As a matter of actual fact it must be said here that the

Defendant Streicher, in contrast to almost all the other defendants, did

not remain in his position until the end, not even until the war.

Officially he was dismissed in 1940 from his position of Gauleiter, but

actually and practically he had been without any influence and power for

more than a year before that time. But as long as he could still work

within the modest framework of his capacity of Gauleiter, no criminal

plans of the NSDAP were recognizable. In any case not for anybody who,

like the Defendant Streicher, was outside the close circle surrounding

Adolf Hitler.

Count Two of the Indictment brought against the Defendant Streicher,

namely, the persecution of Jews as a means of preparation for a war of

aggression, can be included here. Up to 1937 the existence of a plan for

a war of aggression was in no way recognizable. In any case, if Hitler

had had any intentions in that direction, he did not allow them to be

recognized from the outside. If, however, anybody had been taken into

his confidence at that time, it would have been the leading men in

politics and the Armed Forces, who belonged to the closest circle around

him. To those, however, the Defendant Streicher by no means belonged. It

is especially significant here that at the outbreak of the war Streicher

was not even appointed Wehrkreiskommissar (Commissioner of Military

Administrative Headquarters) of his Gau. The individual conferences from

which the Prosecution derives the evidence for the planning of the war

which broke out later in no case ever saw the Defendant Streicher as

participant. His name does not appear anywhere, neither in any written

decree, nor in any minutes. Consequently no proof has been offered that

Streicher knew of such alleged plans for waging war. This does away with

the accusation that he preached hatred against the Jews in order to

facilitate thereby the conduct of the war planned for some later time.

In this connection I should add that one of the main points in the

program of the NSDAP was the slogan, “Get rid of Versailles!” The

defendant adopted this point of the program which, however, does not

mean he envisaged a repeal of the treaty by means of war.

Even the former democratic German governments, in the course of their

negotiations with their former opponents in the World War, stressed the

fact at all times that the Versailles Treaty presented no proper basis

for permanent world peace and particularly for economic adjustment. Not

only in Germany but everywhere in the rest of the world clear-thinking

economic circles were against the Versailles Treaty. We may point

especially to the United States of America as an example of this.

Almost all political parties in Germany, irrespective of their other

aims, agreed that the Treaty of Versailles should be revised. Neither

was there any difference of opinion over the fact that such revision was

possible only on the basis of an agreement. Even to consider any other

possibility of solution would have seemed Utopian, for the German Reich

lacked all military power. The NSDAP also strove, at any rate as far as

could be seen from outward signs, to find a solution to the problem in

this way. To support such an aim, however, cannot be looked upon as a

violation of treaty obligations and, therefore, cannot be made the

object of a charge against the defendant. No proof has been offered that

he thought of warlike complications or that he desired them.

I now come to the matter of the defendant’s attitude in the Jewish

question. He is accused of having incited and instigated for decades the

persecution of the Jews and of being responsible for the final

extermination of Europe’s Jewry. It is clear that this accusation

constitutes the decisive point of the Indictment against Julius

Streicher and perhaps the decisive point of the total Indictment, for in

this connection the attitude of the German people to this question must

be tried and judged as well. The Prosecution takes the point of view

that there is just as little doubt as to the responsibility of the

defendant as there is doubt about the guilt in which the German people

are involved. As evidence of this the Prosecution put forward:

(a) The speeches by Streicher before and after the seizure of power,

particularly one speech in April 1925, in which, he spoke about the

extermination of the Jews. Herein, in the prosecutor’s opinion, is the

first evidence to be seen regarding the final solution of the Jewish

question planned by the Party, namely, the extermination of all Jews.

(b) Active assertion of the person and authority of the defendant,

especially on “Boycott Day,” 1 April 1933.

(c) Numerous articles published in the weekly paper, _Der Stürmer_,

among them especially those dealing with ritual murder and with

quotations from the Talmud. He is said to have knowingly and

intentionally described therein the Jews as a criminal and inferior race

and created and wished to create hatred of these people and the wish to

exterminate them. The defendant’s reply to these points is as follows:

He states that he worked merely as a private writer. His aim was to

enlighten the German people on the Jewish question as he saw it. His

description of the Jews was merely intended to show them as a different

and a foreign race and to make it clear that they live according to laws

which are alien to the German conception. It was far from his intention

to incite or inflame his circle of listeners and readers. Moreover, he

always only propagated the idea that the Jews, because of their alien

character, should be removed from German national and economic life and

withdrawn from the close association with the body of the German people.

Further, he always had in mind an international solution of the Jewish

question; he did not favor a German or even European partial solution

and rejected it. That was why he suggested, in an editorial in _Der

Stürmer_ in the year 1941, that the French island of Madagascar should

be considered as a place of settlement for the Jews. Consequently, he

did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical

extermination of the Jews but in their resettlement.

It cannot be the aim of the Defense to go into further details of the

defendant’s actions as a writer and speaker, particularly with regard to

_Der Stürmer_ and his reply to the accusations raised against him. His

ideology and convictions shall not be explained, excused, or defended,

nor his manner of writing and speaking either. Examination and judgment

in this respect rest with the Tribunal alone. This much only shall be

said, that between the defendant’s actions and the expressions

frequently employed by him there is an antithesis which cannot be

bridged. It may be stated that the defendant never, when in charge of an

anti-Jewish undertaking, had coercive measures used against the Jewish

population, as might necessarily be expected of him if the accusations

made by the Prosecution were true.

I consider it my duty as defense counsel to broach and examine the

question as to whether the Defendant Streicher with his speeches, his

actions and his publications, not only strove towards the result alleged

by the Prosecution but actually attained it. The question therefore

should be examined as to whether Streicher actually educated the German

people to a degree of anti-Semitism which made it possible for the

leadership of the German nation to commit such criminal acts as actually

occurred. Furthermore, it must be examined whether the defendant filled

German youth with hatred against the Jews to the extent that is charged

by the Prosecution. Finally, the question must be examined whether

Streicher actually was the man who spiritually and morally prepared the

executive organs for their active persecution of the Jews.

At the beginning of this exposition it appears important to point out

that a great many of _Der Stürmer_ articles, from which the Prosecution

endeavors to deduce an incitement to stamp out and annihilate the Jews,

were not written by Streicher himself, but by his collaborators,

especially by the Deputy Gauleiter, Karl Holz, who was well known for

extremely radical tendencies. Even though the Defendant Streicher bears

formal responsibility for these articles, which responsibility he

expressly assumed before the Tribunal, this aspect nevertheless appears

very important for the extent of his criminal responsibility.

Further it may be said in this connection that, according to the

unrefuted statement of the defendant, the most caustic articles were

written in reply to articles and writings in the foreign press, which

contained very radical suggestions for the destruction of the German

nation—also, no doubt, due to the existing war psychosis.

The Defendant Streicher—and this cannot be denied and shall not be

defended—continually wrote articles in _Der Stürmer_ and also made

speeches in public which were strongly anti-Jewish and at least aimed at

the elimination of Jewish influence in Germany. During the first years

Streicher found a comparatively favorable soil for his anti-Jewish

tendencies. The first World War ended with Germany’s defeat, but wide

circles did not wish to admit the fact of a military victory of

Germany’s opponents of that time. They attributed this defeat

exclusively to a breakdown of national defense and resistance from

within and depicted Jewry as being the main culprit for this inner

undermining. In doing this they intentionally overlooked the mistakes

which had been committed by the Government of that time before and

during the war with respect to domestic and foreign policy, as well as

the errors of strategy. A scapegoat was sought on which to lay the blame

for the loss of the war, and it was thought to have been found in the

Jews. Jealousy, envy, and also disregard of personal shortcomings

accomplished the rest in influencing feelings unfavorably toward the

Jewish population. In addition to that came the inflation and in the

following years the economic depression with its steadily increasing

misery which, as experience shows, makes any nation ripe for any form of

radicalism.

On this ground and in this setting _Der Stürmer_ developed. For these

reasons it first met with a certain amount of interest and attracted a

considerable number of readers. But even in the last years before the

seizure of power it did not have great influence; its distribution

hardly went beyond Nuremberg and its close vicinity. By means of attacks

on persons known locally in Nuremberg and in other places, it managed to

arouse in these localities, from time to time, a certain amount of

interest and thereby to extend its circle of readers. Certain parts of

the population were interested in the propagation of such scandal and

for that reason subscribed to _Der Stürmer_.

But criminal action can only be seen here—and this is presumably the

opinion of the Prosecution also—if this type of literary and oral

activity led to criminal results. Now, was the German nation really

filled with hatred for the Jews by _Der Stürmer_ and by Streicher’s

speeches in the sense and to the extent asserted by the Prosecution?

The Prosecution submitted the evidence on this point in a very brief

manner. It draws conclusions, but it has not produced actual proof. It

alleges the existence of results, but cannot produce evidence for that

assumption. The prosecutor has maintained that without Streicher’s

incitements over a number of years the German people would not have

sanctioned the persecution of the Jews and that Himmler would not have

found among the German people anyone to carry out the measures for the

extermination of the Jews. If, however, the Defendant Streicher is to be

made legally responsible for this, then not only must it be proved that

the incitement as such was actually carried through and results achieved

in this direction; but—and this is the decisive point—conclusive proof

must be produced that the deeds which were done can be traced back to

that incitement. It is not the question of the result obtained which

must primarily and irrefutably be proved but the causative connection

between incitement and result. Now, how is the influence of _Der

Stürmer_ upon the German people to be estimated, and what picture

unfolds in the handling of the Jewish problem during the years between

1920 and 1944?

It is easy to recognize here three stages of development. The first

period comprises the time of the defendant’s activity between 1922 and

1933; the second that between 1933 and 1 September 1939, or February

1940; the third, the time from 1940 to the collapse.

With regard to the first period, it would show a considerable lack of

appreciation of the tendencies which had already existed in Germany for

a long time and thereby a completely groundless exaggeration of

Streicher’s influence, if no mention were made of the fact that long

before Streicher there was already a certain amount of anti-Semitism in

Germany. For instance a certain Theodor Fritsch had touched on the

Jewish question in his journal _Der Hammer_ long before Streicher’s

time, referring especially to the alleged menace offered by the

immigration of Jewish elements from the East, which might overflow the

country and acquire too much control in it.

Immediately after the end of the first World War the so-called “German

National Protective and Defensive League” (Deutsch-Völkischer Schutz-

und Trutzbund) appeared on the scene, which in contrast to _Der Stürmer_

and the Movement brought into being by Streicher, extended over the

whole of Germany, setting as its aim the repression of Jewish influence.

Anti-Semitic groups existed in the South as well as in the North long

before Streicher. In comparison with these large-scale efforts, _Der

Stürmer_ could only have a regional importance. This alone explains why

its influence was never at any time or in any place of great importance.

It is a decisive fact, however, that the German nation in its totality

did not let itself be influenced by all these groups either in its

business relations or in its attitude towards Jewry and that even during

the last years before the NSDAP came to power no violent actions against

the Jews were committed anywhere by the people. However, when towards

the end of the second decade after the first World War a considerable

increase of the NSDAP became noticeable, this was not due to

anti-Semitic reasons but to the fact that the prevailing confusion in

the various parties had been unable to point to a way out of the

ever-increasing economic misery. The call for a strong man became ever

more urgent. The conviction became more and more firmly rooted among the

broad masses that only a personality who was not dependent on the change

of majorities would be able to master the situation.

The NSDAP knew how to exploit this general trend for its own ends and to

win over the nation, sunk in despair, by making promises in all

directions. But never did the masses think, when electing the NSDAP at

that time, that its program would produce developments as we have

witnessed.

With the seizure of power by the NSDAP in 1933, the second epoch was

introduced. The power of the State was exclusively in the hands of the

Party and nobody could have prevented the use of violence against the

Jewish population. Now would have been just the right moment for the

Defendant Streicher to put into effect the baiting the Prosecution has

alleged. If by that time wide circles of the population, or at least the

veteran members of the NSDAP, had been trained to be radical Jew haters,

as stated by the Prosecution, acts of violence against the Jewish

population would necessarily have taken place on a greater scale due to

that feeling of hatred. Pogroms on the largest scale would have been the

natural result of a truly anti-Semitic attitude of the people. But

nothing like that happened. Apart from some minor incidents, evidently

caused by local or personal conditions, no attacks on Jews or their

property took place anywhere. It is quite clear that a feeling of hatred

for the Jewish people did not prevail anywhere at least up to 1933, and

the charge brought by the Prosecution against the defendant that ever

since the very outset of his fight he successfully educated the German

people to hate the Jews can thus be dropped.

The year of the seizure of power by the NSDAP also put _Der Stürmer_ to

a decisive test. Had _Der Stürmer_ been considered by the broad masses

of the German people as the authoritative champion against the Jews and

therefore indispensable for that fight, an unusually large increase in

the circulation would have followed. No such interest was, however,

shown. On the contrary, even in Party circles demands were made that

_Der Stürmer_ should be discontinued entirely; or at least that its

illustrations, style, and tone should be altered. It became more and

more clear that the already small interest in Streicher’s Jewish policy

was steadily declining. It must be added that with the seizure of power

by the Party the total press apparatus came under the control of the

Party, which immediately undertook to co-ordinate the press, that is, to

direct it from a central office in the spirit of the National Socialist

policy and ideology. This was done through the Minister of Propaganda

and the Reich Press Chief via the official “National Socialist

Correspondence.” Particularly Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda,

described by various witnesses such as Göring, Schirach, Neurath, and

others as the most bitter advocate of the anti-Semitic trend in the

Government, is said to have given each week to the entire German press

several anti-Jewish leaders, which were printed by more than 3,000

dailies and illustrated papers. If in addition we take into account that

Dr. Goebbels was making broadcasts of an anti-Semitic nature, we need no

further explanations for the fact that the interest in a one-sided

anti-Semitic journal should diminish and that is what actually happened.

It is particularly significant that at that time it had been repeatedly

suggested that _Der Stürmer_ should be suppressed altogether. This is

brought out clearly in the testimony given by Fritzsche, on 27 June

1946, who stated in addition that neither Streicher nor _Der Stürmer_

had any influence in the Ministry of Propaganda and that he was

considered so to speak as nonexistent. It may have been for the same

reason that _Der Stürmer_ was not even declared a press organ of the

NSDAP and was not even entitled to show the Party symbol. It was looked

upon by the Party and State administration, in contrast to all papers

which were considered to be of any importance, as a private paper

belonging to a private writer.

The firm which published _Der Stürmer_, and which belonged at that time

to a certain Härdel, was not inclined, however, to accept so quietly the

dwindling of its circle of readers, for it was now aided by the fact

that Streicher had become the highest leader in Franconia; and it knew

how to make the most of this circumstance. Already at that time pressure

was exerted on many sections of the population to prove their loyal

political attitude and trustworthiness by subscribing to _Der Stürmer_.

The witness Fritzsche also has alluded to this circumstance, stating

that many Germans only decided to subscribe to _Der Stürmer_ because

they thought it would be a means of paving the way for their intended

membership in the Party.

So as not to give a false impression of the circulation figures of _Der

Stürmer_ during the years between 1923 and 1933, the following analysis

will show the different stages of its development.

In the years 1923 to 1933 _Der Stürmer_ was able to increase its

circulation from some 3,000 to some 10,000 copies, and this in turn went

up to some 20,000 shortly before the seizure of power. On the average,

however, between 1923 and 1931 the circulation was only some 6,000

copies. Following the seizure of power, by the end of 1934 it had

reached an average of some 28,000 copies. It was not until 1935 that

_Der Stürmer_ became the property of the Defendant Streicher who,

according to his statement, bought it from the widow of the previous

owner for 40,000 RM—a not very considerable sum. From 1935 on the

management of the business was taken over by an expert, who succeeded by

clever canvassing in increasing the circulation to well over 200,000

copies; and this figure was later increased still further until it more

than doubled. The relatively low circulation figures for _Der Stürmer_

up to the beginning of 1935 show that, despite the Party’s rise to

power, popular interest in _Der Stürmer_ existed only to a small extent.

The extraordinary increase in the circulation which began in 1935 is to

be traced to the adroit canvassing methods already mentioned which were

carried out by the new director Fink. The use of the Labor Front, as

explained by the proclamation of Dr. Ley in Number 36 of _Der Stürmer_,

1935—which copy, Mr. President, I have taken the liberty of submitting

as an exhibit—and the acquisition thereby of many thousands of forced

subscribers must be ascribed to the personal relations of the manager

Fink with Dr. Ley.

In that connection I further refer to a quotation from the _Pariser

Tageblatt_ of 29 March 1935 reproduced in _Der Stürmer_ of May 1935.

Here, too, it is stated that the increase of _Der Stürmer’s_ circulation

cannot be ascribed to the desire of the German people for such kind of

spiritual food. It is neither presumable nor probable in any way that

the compulsory subscription to _Der Stürmer_, forced on the members of

the Labor Front in such a manner, could have actually turned subscribers

into readers of _Der Stürmer_ and followers of its line of thought. On

the contrary, it is known that bundles of _Der Stürmer_ in their

original wrappings were stored in cellars and attics and that they were

brought to light again only when the paper shortage became more acute.

When, therefore, the Defendant Streicher wrote in his paper in

1935—Document Number GB-169—that the 15 years’ work of enlightenment

of _Der Stürmer_ had already attracted to National Socialism an army of

a million of “enlightened” members, he claimed a success for which there

was no foundation whatsoever. The men and women who joined the Party

after 1933 did not apply for membership as a result of the so-called

enlightenment work of _Der Stürmer_ but either because they believed the

Party’s promises and hoped to derive advantages from it or because by

belonging to the Party they wanted, as the witness Severing expressed

it, to insure for themselves immunity from political persecution. The

sympathy for the Party and its leadership very soon decreased in the

most marked manner. Thus the Defendant Streicher, too, lost authority

and influence to an ever-increasing extent even in his own district of

Franconia, at least from 1937 on. The reasons for this are sufficiently

known.

Toward the end of 1938 he saw himself deprived of practically all

political influence, even in his own district. The controversy between

him and Göring ended with the victory of the latter. Hitler, when

pressed to do so by the Defendant Göring, had dropped Streicher

completely, as the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe at that time was

naturally more important and far more influential than the Gauleiter,

Streicher. The defendant even had to submit to Aryanization as carried

out in the district of Franconia with its correctness being checked by a

special commission sent by Göring. In the course of the year 1939

Streicher was completely pushed aside and was even forbidden to speak in

public. At the outbreak of the war, in contrast to all other Gauleiter,

he was not even appointed to the position of Wehrkreiskommissar of his

own district.

During the last phase, in the war years, the Defendant Streicher had no

political influence whatsoever. As from February 1940 he was relieved of

his position as a Gauleiter and lived on his estate in Pleikershof, cut

off from all connections. Even Party members were forbidden to visit

him. Since the end of 1938 he had no connections whatsoever with Hitler,

by whom he had been completely cast off from that time on.

In what way now did _Der Stürmer_ exert any influence during the war

period? It can be said that during the war _Der Stürmer_ no longer

attracted any attention worth mentioning. The gravity of the times, the

anxiety for relatives on the battlefield, the battles at the front, and

finally the heavy air attacks completely diverted the German people’s

interest from questions dealt with in _Der Stürmer_. The people were

weary of the continuous repetition of the same assertions. The best

proof of how little _Der Stürmer_ was desired as reading matter can be

seen in the fact that in restaurants and cafés _Der Stürmer_ was always

available for perusal, whereas other papers and magazines were

permanently being read. The circulation figures decreased steadily and

unceasingly in those years. Certainly the influence of _Der Stürmer_ in

the political sphere no longer amounted to anything.

During the periods mentioned _Der Stürmer_ was rejected by large circles

of the population from the very outset. Its crude style, its often

objectionable illustrations, and its one-sidedness aroused widespread

displeasure. There can be no question of any influence being exercised

by _Der Stürmer_ upon the German people or even the Party. Although the

German people for years had been deluged with Nazi propaganda, or rather

because of that very fact, a journal such as _Der Stürmer_ could exert

no influence upon its inner attitude. Had the German people—as

maintained by the Prosecution—actually been saturated with the spirit

of fanatical racial hatred, other factors certainly would have been far

more responsible for it than _Der Stürmer_ and would have contributed

far more essentially to a hostile attitude towards the Jews.

But nothing of such nature can be established. The general attitude of

the German people was not anti-Semitic, at any rate, not in such a way

or to such a degree that they would have desired, or approved of, the

physical extermination of the Jews. Even official Party propaganda with

regard to the Jewish problem had exerted no influence upon the broad

masses of the German people, neither had it educated them in the

direction desired by the State leadership.

This is shown by the fact that it was necessary to issue a number of

legal decrees in order to segregate the German population from the

Jewish. The first example of this is the so-called Law for the

Protection of German Blood and German Honor of September 1935, by the

provisions of which any racial intermingling of German people with the

Jewish population was subject to the death penalty. The passing of such

laws would not have been necessary if the German people had been

predisposed to an anti-Semitic attitude, for they would then of their

own accord have segregated themselves from the Jews.

The law for the elimination of the Jews from German economic life,

promulgated in November 1938, was along the same lines. In a people

hostile towards the Jews, any trade with Jewish circles would have

necessarily ceased and their business would have automatically come to a

standstill. Yet in fact the intervention of the State was needed to

eliminate Jewry from economic life.

The same conclusion can be drawn from the reaction of the greater part

of the German populace to the demonstrations carried out against the

Jews during the night of 9-10 November 1938. It is proved that these

acts of violence were not committed spontaneously by the German people

but that they were organized and executed with the aid of the State and

Party apparatus upon instructions of Dr. Goebbels in Berlin. The result

and the effect of these State-directed demonstrations—which in a

cynical way were depicted for their effect abroad as an expression of

the indignation of the German people at the assassination of the

Secretary of the Embassy in Paris, Vom Rath—were different from that

visualized by the instigators of this demonstration.

These acts of violence and excesses based upon the lowest instincts

found unanimous condemnation, even in the circles of the Party and its

leadership. Instead of creating hostility towards the Jewish population

they roused pity and compassion for their fate. Hardly any other measure

taken by the NSDAP was ever rejected so generally. The effect upon the

public was so marked that the Defendant Streicher in his capacity as

Gauleiter found it necessary in an address in Nuremberg to give a

warning against exaggerated sympathy for the Jews. According to his

statement he did not do this because he approved of these measures but

only in order to strengthen by his influence the impaired prestige of

the Party.

Previously, as appears from the testimony of the witness Fritz Herrwerth

examined here, he refused SA Obergruppenführer Von Obernitz’s request to

take part personally in the demonstration planned and called it useless

and prejudicial. He publicly expressed this point of view later also,

during a meeting of the League of Jurists at Nuremberg. In doing so he

risked placing himself in open opposition to the official policy of the

State.

All these facts show that despite the anti-Jewish propaganda carried on

by the Government, actual hostility against the Jewish population did

not exist among the people themselves. Thus it is as good as proved that

neither Streicher’s publications in _Der Stürmer_ nor his speeches

incited the German people in the sense maintained by the Prosecution.

Therefore the general attitude of the German nation provides no proof of

incitement to hatred of the Jews having been successfully carried out by

the Defendant Streicher and leading to criminal results. The

Prosecution, however, has further supported its accusation by the

specific assertion that only a nation educated to absolute hatred of

Jews by men like the defendant could approve of such measures as the

mass extermination of Jews. Thereby the charge is made against the whole

of the German people that they knew about the extermination of the Jews

and approved of it; the severity and consequences of such a charge on

the whole future of the German nation is impossible to estimate.

But did the German nation really approve of these measures? A fact can

only be approved of if it is known. Therefore should this assertion of

the Prosecution be considered as proved, then logically it must also be

considered as proved that the German nation actually had knowledge of

these occurrences. However, evidence in this respect has shown that

Reichsführer SS Himmler, who was entrusted by Hitler with the mass

assassinations, and his close collaborators shrouded all these events in

a veil of deepest secrecy. By threatening with the most severe

punishments any violations of the rule of absolute silence which was

imposed, they managed to lower before the events in the East and in the

extermination camps an iron curtain which hermetically sealed off those

facts from the public.

Hitler and Himmler prevented even the corps of the highest leaders of

the Party and State from gaining any insight and information. Hitler did

not hesitate to give false information to even his closest

collaborators, like Reich Minister Dr. Lammers, who was heard here as a

witness, and to make him believe that the removal of the European Jews

to the East meant their settlement in the Eastern Territories but by no

means their extermination. However much the statements of the defendants

may diverge on many points, in this connection they all agree so

completely with one another and with the statements of other witnesses

that the veracity of their testimonies simply cannot be questioned. If

it was not possible for even the Defendant Frank in his capacity as

Governor General of Poland to get through to Auschwitz, because without

Hitler’s special consent even he was denied entrance, then this fact

speaks for itself.

If even the leading personalities of the Third Reich, with the exception

of a very small circle, were not informed and if even they had at best

very vague information, then how could the general public have known

about it? Under these circumstances the possibilities for finding out

what was going on in the camps were extremely slight.

For the majority of the people, foreign news did not exist as a source

of information. Listening to foreign radio stations was punishable with

the heaviest penalties and therefore did not take place. And if it did,

the news broadcast by foreign radio stations concerning events in the

East, although, or rather because, it corresponded to facts, was so

crass, so horrible beyond any human understanding, that it was bound to

appear to any normal individual, as in fact it did, as intentional

propaganda. Germany could only gain factual knowledge of the

extermination measures against the Jews from people who either were

working in the camps themselves or came in contact with the camps or

their inmates or from former concentration camp inmates.

There is no need to explain that members of the camp personnel who were

concerned with these happenings kept silent, not only because they were

under stringent orders to do so, but also in their own interest.

Furthermore, it is known that Himmler had threatened the death penalty

for information from the camps and for spreading news about the camps

and that not only the actual culprit but also his relatives were

threatened with this punishment. Finally, it is known that the

extermination camps themselves were so hermetically sealed off from any

contact with the world that nothing concerning the events which took

place in them could penetrate to the public.

The prisoners in the camps who came into contact with fellow-workers in

their work kept silent because they had to. People who came to the camps

were also under the threat of this punishment insofar as they could

obtain any insight into things at all, which was all but impossible in

the extermination camps. From these sources, therefore, no knowledge

could come for the German people.

But the order for absolute silence was compulsory to a still greater

measure for every concentration camp inmate who had been released.

Hardly anybody ever came back to life from the actual murder camps; but

if, once in a while, a man or woman was released, in addition to the

other threatened punishments the threat of being sent back to the camp

hung over them if they violated the order for silence. And this renewed

detention would have meant gruesome death.

It was therefore nearly impossible to learn from released concentration

camp prisoners positive facts concerning the occurrences in the camps.

If this was the case with regard to normal concentration camps in

Germany, it applied in a still greater measure to the extermination

camps. Every lawyer who, as I did, defended people before detention in a

concentration camp and who was visited by them again after their

release, will be able to confirm that it was not possible, even in such

a position of trust and under the protection of professional legal

secrecy, to get former concentration camp inmates to talk.

If men such as Severing, who testified here—a Social Democrat of long

standing, who was highly trusted by his party comrades and who was,

because of this, in touch with many former concentration camp

inmates—came to know of the real facts connected with the extermination

of the Jews only very late and even then to a very restricted extent,

then such considerations must apply even more to any normal German.

It can be derived with absolute certainty from these facts that the

leaders of the State, that Hitler and Himmler, wanted under all

circumstances to keep secret the extermination of the Jews; and this

forms the base for another argument—in my opinion, a cogent

one—against the anti-Semitism of the German people asserted by the

Prosecution. If the German people had indeed been filled with such

hatred of Jewry as the Prosecution affirms, then such rigorous methods

for secrecy would have been superfluous.

If Hitler had been convinced that the German nation saw in the Jews its

principal enemy, that it approved of and desired the extermination of

Jewry, then he would obviously have published the planned and also the

effected extermination of this very enemy. As a sign of the “total war”

constantly propagandized by Hitler and Goebbels, there would indeed have

been no better means to strengthen the faith in victory and the will of

the people to fight than the information that Germany’s principal enemy,

these very Jews, had already been annihilated.

So unscrupulous a propagandist as Goebbels certainly would not have

failed to use such a striking argument if he could have based it on the

necessary presupposition, that is, the German people’s absolute

determination to exterminate the Jews. However, the “final solution” of

the Jewish question had by all possible means to be kept secret even

from the German people who had for years been subjected to the heaviest

pressure by the Gestapo. Even leading men in the State and the Party

were not allowed to be told of it.

Hitler and Himmler were evidently themselves convinced that even in the

midst of a total war, and after decades of education and gagging by

National Socialism, the German nation—and above all its Armed

Forces—would have reacted most violently on the publication of such a

policy against the Jews. The policy of secrecy followed here cannot be

explained by any considerations of the enemy nations. In the years 1942

and 1943 the whole world was already engaged in a bitter war against

National Socialist Germany.

An intensification of this struggle seemed hardly possible, at any rate

not by the mere publishing of facts which had long since become known

abroad. Apart from this, considerations of making a still worse

impression on the enemy countries could hardly influence men such as

Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler.

If they had expected to achieve even the slightest tangible results by

proclaiming to the German people the extermination of the Jews, they

would certainly not have omitted to proclaim it. On the contrary, they

would have tried in every way to strengthen by this means the German

people’s faith in victory. The fact that they did not do this is the

best proof that even they did not consider the German people radically

anti-Semitic, and it is also the best proof that there can be no

question of such anti-Semitism on the part of the German people.

I may therefore sum up by saying that all this stands in contradiction

to the Prosecution’s assertion that the Defendant Streicher brought up

the German people to hate the Jews to an extent which made them approve

of the extermination of Jewry. Therefore, even if the defendant by means

of his proclamations had aimed at achieving such an end he was not

successful.

In this connection, light must also be thrown upon the part attributed

by the Prosecution to the Defendant Streicher, namely that he had

educated German youth in the spirit of anti-Semitism and had inculcated

the poison of anti-Semitism so deeply into their hearts that these

pernicious effects would be felt long after his death.

The main reproach made against the defendant in this connection is based

on the fact that young people, as a result of Streicher’s education in

hatred toward the Jews, are supposed to have been ready to commit crimes

against Jews which otherwise they would not have committed, and that

youth thus educated might be expected to perpetrate such crimes in the

future too. Here the Prosecution relies mainly on the juvenile

literature published by Der Stürmer and some announcements addressed to

youth which appeared in this paper.

Far be it from me to gloss over these products or to defend them.

Evaluation of them can and must be left to the Tribunal. In accordance

with the basic principle of the Defense, the only question to be taken

up here will be whether or not the defendant in any way influenced the

education of youth in a manner to promote criminal hatred of Jews.

As for the books which have been mentioned here, it must be said that

German youth scarcely knew of their existence—much less did they read

them. No evidence has been produced in support of the Prosecution’s

assumption to the contrary. The healthy common sense of German youth

refused such stuff. German boys and girls preferred other reading

material. It may be emphasized in this connection that neither the text

nor the illustrations in these books could attract youth in any way.

They were, on the contrary, bound to be shunned.

Of special importance in regard to this point is the fact that,

Defendant Baldur von Schirach, the man responsible for educating the

whole body of German youth, testified under oath that the

afore-mentioned juvenile books published by this company were not

circulated by the Hitler Youth Leadership and did not find a circle of

readers among the Hitler Youth. The witness made the same assertions in

regard to _Der Stürmer_. One of his closest co-workers, the witness

Lauterbacher, stated in this connection that _Der Stürmer_ was actually

banned for the Hitler Youth by the Defendant Von Schirach. It is clear

that the very style and illustrations of _Der Stürmer_ were ill-adapted

to attract the interest of young persons or to offer them ethical

support. The step taken by the Reich Youth Leadership is therefore quite

understandable.

Although some of _Der Stürmer_ articles submitted by the Prosecution

seem to indicate that _Der Stürmer_ was read in youth circles and

produced a certain effect there, it must be borne in mind that these

were typical commissioned articles, that is, commissioned for propaganda

purposes. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the Prosecution’s

assertion that German youth harbored criminal hate toward Jews.

Therefore, neither the German people nor its youth ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, perhaps this would be a convenient time to

break off.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. MARX: One might now be tempted to assume that _Der Stürmer_

exercised a particularly strong influence upon the Party organizations,

the SA and SS; but this was not the case either. The SA, the largest

mass organization of the Party, rejected _Der Stürmer_ just as did the

mass of the people. Its publications were _Der SA-Führer_ and _Die SA_.

The mass of the SA took these as the foundation of their ideology. These

publications do not contain even one article from the pen of the

Defendant Streicher. If the latter had really been the man the

Prosecution believes him to be, the most authoritative and influential

propagandist of anti-Semitism, he would of necessity have been called

upon to collaborate in these publications, which were issued to instruct

the SA on the Jewish question. A publication intended to provide

ideological instruction could never have dispensed with the

collaboration of such a man.

The fact that not one word by Julius Streicher himself ever appeared in

these papers demonstrates afresh that the picture drawn of him by the

Prosecution does not correspond in any way with the actual facts. The

Defendant Streicher could gain no influence over the SA through his

paper and the columns of _Der SA-Führer_ and _Die SA_ were closed to

him. Even the highest SA leaders refused to advocate his ideas. The SA

Deputy Chief of Staff, SA Obergruppenführer Jüttner, testifying before

the commission on 21 May 1946, made the following statement in this

connection:

“At a leader conference, the former SA Chief of Staff, Lutze,

stated that he did not want propaganda for _Der Stürmer_ in the

SA. In certain groups _Der Stürmer_ was even prohibited. The

contents of _Der Stürmer_ disgusted and repelled most of the SA

men. The policy of the SA with regard to the Jewish question was

in no way directed at the extermination of the Jews; it aimed

only at preventing a large-scale immigration of Jews from the

East.”

The ideology of _Der Stürmer_ was thus rejected on principle by the

individual SA man as well as by the SA leaders, and there is therefore

no question of Streicher’s having influenced the SA.

Not only was the Defendant Streicher not asked to collaborate in SA

publications, but his articles did not appear in any other newspapers

and publications. He was given no chance of contributing either to the

_Völkischer Beobachter_ or to other leading organs of the German press,

although the Propaganda Ministry intended enlightenment on the Jewish

question to form one of the noblest tasks of the German press.

The Defendant Streicher was given no opportunity, either by the State

leadership or by the Propaganda Ministry, of impressing his ideas upon a

wider circle. The Defendant Fritzsche, the man who shared the decisive

authority in the Propaganda Ministry, testified that Streicher never

exerted any influence upon propaganda and that he was completely

disregarded. In particular, he was not entrusted with radio talks,

although talks given over the radio would have had much greater effect

on the masses than an article in _Der Stürmer_, which necessarily

reached only a limited circle. The fact that even the official

propaganda of the Third Reich made no use of the Defendant Streicher

makes it clear that no results could be expected from his activities,

and that, in fact, he had no influence at all. The official leaders of

the German State recognized Streicher for what he actually was, the

insignificant publisher of an entirely insignificant weekly. It must be

stressed once more as clearly as possible that the fundamental attitude

of the German people was no more radically anti-Semitic than that of

German youth or the Party organizations. Success in instigating and

inciting to criminal anti-Semitism is, therefore, not proven.

I now come to the last and decisive part of the accusation, that is, to

the examination of the question: Who were the chief persons responsible

for the orders given for the mass-extermination of Jewry; how was it

possible that men could be found who were ready to execute these orders;

and whether without the influence of the Defendant Streicher, such

orders would not have been given or executed.

The main person responsible for the final solution of the Jewish

question—the extermination of Jewry in Europe—is without doubt Hitler

himself. Though this greatest of all trials in world history suffers

from the fact that the chief offenders are not sitting in the dock,

because they are either dead or not to be found, the facts ascertained

have nevertheless resulted in cogent conclusions concerning the actual

responsibility.

It can be considered as proved beyond any doubt that Hitler was a man of

unique and even demoniacal brutality and ruthlessness who, in addition,

later lost all sense of proportion and all self-control. The fact that

his chief characteristic was ruthless brutality became apparent for the

first time in its force when the so-called Röhm Putsch was suppressed in

June 1934. On this occasion Hitler did not hesitate to have his oldest

fellow combatants shot without any kind of trial. His unrestrained

radicalism was further revealed in the way in which the war with Poland

was conducted. He ordered the ruthless extermination of leading Polish

circles merely because he feared an antagonistic attitude toward Germany

on their part. The orders which he gave at the beginning of the Russian

campaign were still more drastic. At that time he already ordered

partial operations for the extermination of Jewry:

These examples show beyond doubt that respect for any principle of

humanity was alien to this man. Furthermore the proceedings, by the

depositions of all the defendants, have clearly established the fact

that in basic decisions Hitler was not open to any outside influence.

Hitler’s basic attitude toward the Jewish question is well known. He had

already become an anti-Semite during the time he spent in Vienna in the

years before the first World War. There is, however, no actual proof

that Hitler from the very beginning had in mind such a radical solution

of the Jewish question as was finally effected in the annihilation of

European Jewry. When the Prosecution declares that from the book _Mein

Kampf_ a direct road leads to the crematories of Mauthausen and

Auschwitz, this is only an assumption; and no evidence for it has been

given. The evidence rather suggests the fact that Hitler also wanted to

see the Jewish problem in Germany solved by way of emigration. This

thought, as well as the position of the Jewish part of the population

under the laws governing aliens, formed the official State policy of the

Third Reich. Many of the leading anti-Semites considered the Jewish

question as settled after the laws of 1935 had been promulgated. The

Defendant Streicher shared this opinion. The stiffening of Hitler’s

attitude to the Jewish question cannot be traced back beyond the end of

1938 or the beginning of 1939. Only then did it become apparent that in

case of war—which he believed was propagated by the Jews—he was

planning a different solution. In his Reichstag speech on 30 January

1939 he predicted the extermination of Jewry should a second World War

be let loose against Germany. He expressed the same ideas in a speech

made in February 1942, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the

day on which the Party was founded. And, finally, his testament, too,

confirms his exclusive responsibility for the murdering of European

Jewry as a whole.

Though Hitler had adopted an increasingly implacable attitude on the

Jewish question ever since the beginning of the war, there is nothing to

show that he visualized the extermination of the Jews in the early

stages of the war. His final resolution to this effect was undoubtedly

formed when Hitler, probably as early as 1942, saw that it was

impossible to secure a victory for Germany.

It can be assumed almost with certainty that the decision to exterminate

the Jews originated—as did almost all of Hitler’s plans—exclusively

with himself. It cannot be ascertained with certainty how far others who

were closely attached to Hitler brought their influence to bear on him.

If such influence did exist, it can only have come from Himmler,

Bormann, and Goebbels. It can at least be stated beyond any doubt that

during the decisive period from September 1939 to October 1942 Streicher

did not influence him, nor, under the circumstances, could he have done

so. At that time Streicher was living—deprived of all his offices and

completely left in the cold—at his farm at Pleikershof. He had no

connection with Hitler either personally or by correspondence. This has

been proved beyond all doubt by the statements made by the witnesses

Fritz Herrwerth and Adele Streicher, and by the statement under oath of

the defendant himself. It cannot, however, be maintained in earnest that

his reading of _Der Stürmer_ moved Hitler to give orders for wholesale

murder. This should make it clear that the Defendant Streicher had no

influence whatever on either the man who made the decision to

exterminate Jewry, or on the orders issued by him.

In October 1942 Bormann’s decree ordering the extermination of Jewry was

issued (Document 3244-PS). It has been established beyond all question

that this order came from Hitler and went to Reichsführer SS Heinrich

Himmler, who was charged with the actual extermination of the Jews. He

for his part charged the Chief of the Gestapo, Müller, and his

commissioner for Jewish affairs, Eichmann, with the final execution of

the order. These three men are the three who are chiefly responsible,

next to Hitler. It has not been proved that Streicher had any

possibility of influencing them, or that he did actually influence them.

He states—and there is no proof to the contrary—that he never knew

either Eichmann or Müller, and that his relations with Himmler were

slight and far from friendly.

Casually it might be mentioned that Himmler was one of the most radical

anti-Semites of the Party. From the beginning he had advocated a

merciless fight against the Jews; and in any case, judging by what we

know of him, he was not the man to allow himself to be influenced by

others in matters of principle. Apart from that, however, a comparison

of the two personalities shows that Himmler was in every way the

stronger and superior man of the two, so that for this reason alone the

exertion of any influence by the Defendant Streicher on Himmler may be

ruled out. I believe I may refrain from further illustration of this

point.

I now come to the question of whether the activity of the Defendant

Streicher had a decisive influence on the men who actually carried out

the orders; that is, on members of the Einsatzgruppen on the one hand,

and on the execution Kommandos in the concentration camps on the other;

and whether any spiritual and intellectual preparation was necessary to

make these men willing to execute such measures.

In his speeches in Nikolaev, Posen, and Kharkov—which have often been

mentioned here—the Reichsführer SS stated unequivocally not only that

he besides Hitler was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish

question, but also that the execution of the orders was only made

possible by the employment of forces which he himself had selected from

among the SS. We know from Ohlendorf’s testimony that the so-called

Einsatzgruppen consisted of members of the Gestapo and the SD, companies

of the Waffen-SS, members of the police force with long service records,

and indigenous units.

It must be stated as a matter of principle that the Defendant Streicher

never had the slightest influence on the ideological attitude of the SS.

The extensive evidence material of this Trial contains no shadow of

proof that Streicher had any connections with the SS. The alleged Enemy

Number One of the Jews, the great propagandist of the persecution of the

Jews—as he has been pictured by the Prosecution—the Defendant

Streicher never had the opportunity of writing for the periodical _Das

Schwarze Korps_ or even for the _SS Leithefte_. These periodicals alone,

however, as the official mouthpieces of the Reichsführer SS, determined

the ideological attitude of the SS. These SS periodicals also determined

their attitude toward the Jewish question. In these circles _Der

Stürmer_ had just as small a public; it was rejected, just as it was in

other circles. Himmler himself rejected Streicher ironically as an

ideologist. Therefore the Defendant Streicher could not have had any

influence on the ideology of the SS members of the Einsatzgruppen, much

less on the old members of the Police, and least of all on the foreign

units. Nor could he dictate the ideology of the execution squad’s in the

concentration camps. Those men originated for the most part from the

Death’s Head Units, that is the old guard units, of whom the above

statement is true to a greater degree. Added to this is the fact that

the experienced members of the Police, as well as the SS men with long

service records, were trained in absolute obedience to their leaders.

Absolute obedience to a Führer command was a matter of course for both.

Even those experienced police force members, however, accustomed as they

were to absolute obedience, even the veteran SS men, could not simply be

charged by Himmler with carrying out the executions of the Jews. Rather

did he have to select men whom he trusted to lead these execution squads

and to make them personally responsible for their assignments, pointing

out explicitly that he would take all responsibility and that he himself

was only passing on a definite order from Hitler.

Even these men, whom the Prosecution alleges to have been the elite of

Nazism, were so far from being enemies of the Jews in the meaning of the

Indictment, that the entire authority of the head of State and Führer,

and of his most brutal henchman, Himmler, was required to force upon the

men responsible for carrying out the execution orders the conviction

that their order was based on the will of the authoritarian head of the

State; an order which, according to their conviction, had the power of a

fundamental State law and therefore was above all criticism.

The men charged to carry out the annihilation, therefore, obeyed their

orders not for ideological reasons and not because they were incited to

do so by Streicher, as the Prosecution contends, but solely in obedience

to an order from Hitler transmitted to them through Himmler, and knowing

that disobedience to a Führer order meant death. In this respect, too,

therefore, Streicher’s influence has not been proved.

The accusations brought against the defendant by the Prosecution are

herewith exhausted. But, in order to reach a conclusion and to form a

judgment of the defendant which will take the actual findings fully into

account, it seems advisable to give once more a short account of his

personality and his activities under the Hitler regime.

The Prosecution considers him to be the leading anti-Semite and the

leading advocate of a ruthless determination to annihilate Jewry. This

conception, however, does justice neither to the part played by the

defendant and the influence actually exercised by him, nor to his

personality. The manner of the defendant’s employment in the Third Reich

and the way in which he was called upon to co-operate in the propagation

and final solution of the Jewish question shows the Prosecution’s

conception to be false. The only occasion on which the defendant was

called upon to take an active part in the fight against Jewry was in his

capacity as chairman of the Action Committee for the Anti-Jewish Boycott

Day on 1 April 1933. His attitude on that day is in direct opposition to

his violent utterances in _Der Stürmer_ and makes it evident that the

passages in his paper which have been attacked were pure propaganda.

Although on that day he could have drawn upon the whole power of State

and Party against Jewry, he was content to order that Jewish places of

business be marked as such and put under guard. In addition, he gave

explicit instructions that any molestation of the Jews or acts of

violence, or any damage to Jewish property, was forbidden and would be

punished. In the later stages no further use at all was made of the

defendant. He was not even consulted on the ideological basis for the

settlement of the Jewish question. He was unable to voice his ideas in

the press or over the air. He was not asked to write on the

clarification of the Jewish question either in the _Schulungsbriefe_ of

the Party or the periodicals belonging to the organizations.

Not he but the Defendant Rosenberg was charged by Hitler with the

ideological training of the German people. The latter was responsible

for the Institute for Research into the Jewish Question, set up in

Frankfurt, and not the Defendant Streicher; in fact, the latter was not

even considered as a collaborator in this institute. The Defendant

Rosenberg was commissioned with the arrangement of an Anti-Jewish World

Congress in 1944. It is true that this assembly did not take place, but

it is significant that the plans made for it did not include the

participation of the Defendant Streicher.

The whole of the anti-Jewish laws and decrees of the Third Reich were

drafted without his participation. He was not even called in to draft

the racial laws proclaimed at the Party rally in Nuremberg in 1935. The

Defendant Streicher did not take part in a single conference on even

moderately important questions in either peace or wartime. His name does

not appear on any list of participants or on any minutes. Not even in

the course of the discussions themselves is one single reference made to

his name.

The fight against Jewry in the Third Reich grew more and more embittered

from year to year, especially after the outbreak of war and during its

course. In contrast to this, however, the influence of the Defendant

Streicher yearly grew weaker. Already by 1939 he was almost entirely

pushed aside and had no relations with Hitler or other leading men of

State and Party. In 1940 he was relieved of his office as Gauleiter and

after that he played no further part in political life.

If the Defendant Streicher had really been the man the Prosecution

believes him to be, his influence and his activity would have increased

automatically with the intensification of the fight against the Jews.

His career would not have ended, as it actually did, in political

powerlessness and banishment from the scene of action, but with the

commission to carry out the destruction of Jewry.

It cannot be denied that by writing _ad nauseam_ on the same subject for

years in a clumsy, crude, and violent manner, the Defendant Streicher

has brought upon himself the hatred of the world. By so doing, he has

created a strong feeling against himself which led to his importance and

influence being rated far higher than they actually were, for which he

now runs the risk of having the extent of his responsibility similarly

misjudged.

The defense counsel, who in this case had a difficult and thankless

task, had to limit himself to presenting those aspects and facts which

allow the true significance of this man and the role he played in the

tragedy of National Socialism to be recognized. But it cannot be the

task of the Defense to deny indisputable facts and to defend acts for

which absolutely no excuse exists.

The fact remains, therefore, that this defendant took part in the

demolition of the main synagogue of Nuremberg, and thus allowed a place

of religious worship to be destroyed. The defendant states as an excuse

that his aim in so doing was not the demolition of a building meant for

religious worship, but the removal of an edifice which appeared out of

place in the Old Town of Nuremberg, and that his opinion had been shared

by art experts. The truth of this was proved by the fact that he left

the second Jewish house of worship untouched until it finally, and

without his connivance, went up in flames during the night of 9 to 10

November. However that may be, the defendant shows the same lack of

scruple here as he does in his other actions. He must account here for

his actions in this connection alone; the Defense cannot shield him. But

here, too, the fact that the population of Nuremberg disapproved of

these actions clearly and unmistakably must be stressed. It was clear to

any impartial observer that the people viewed such actions with icy

detachment and that only brute force could compel them to tolerate such

measures and to look on at such senseless proceedings.

It is just as impossible for the Defense to express any opinion on the

revival of the ritual murder myth. No interest whatsoever was taken in

these articles; but their tendency is obvious. The only point in the

defendant’s favor, apart from the good faith with which we must credit

him, is the fact that the author of these articles was not himself, but

Holz; he must, however, put up with the charge that he allowed it to

happen.

It must appear incomprehensible that the defendant continued to play a

part in the publication of _Der Stürmer_ long after he had been

politically crippled and vanished from the scene of action. This very

fact reveals his one-track mind better than anything else.

When the Prosecution accuses the defendant of having aimed at the

physical annihilation of the Jews and prepared the way for this later

result by means of his publications, I would like to refer to the

statements given by the defendant under oath at his interrogation, to

which I am here referring in their entirety.

The defendant claims that in the long series of articles published by

_Der Stürmer_ since its foundation there were none demanding actual

deeds of violence against the Jews. He also claims that among the

issues, of which there were over one thousand, only about 15 were found

to contain expressions which could form the basis for a charge against

him in the meaning of the Indictment.

On the contrary, the defendant argued that his articles and speeches had

always shown an unmistakable tendency to achieve a solution of the

Jewish problem in its entirety throughout the world, since any kind of

partial solution would serve no useful purpose and failed to reach the

heart of the problem. Basing himself on this very point of view he had

always expressed himself unequivocally as opposed to any kind of

violence, and he would never have approved of an action such as that

finally carried out by Hitler in such a gruesome manner.

This must raise serious doubts as to whether the defendant can be proved

to have agreed with the mass murders practiced on Jewry, and I leave

this decision to the Tribunal. In any case, he himself refers to the

fact that he had no reasonably certain knowledge of these wholesale

murders until 1944, a fact corroborated by the statements of the

witnesses Adele Streicher and Hiemer.

He considered the articles published in the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_

as propaganda and consequently did not believe them. In this connection,

the fact that up to the autumn of 1943 he did not in any article express

satisfaction concerning the fate of Jewry in the East is in his favor.

Although he did write then on the disappearance of the Jewish reservoir

in the East, there is nothing to show that he had any reliable source of

information at his command. He might, therefore, very well have believed

that this process of disappearance was not identical with physical

annihilation but might represent the evacuation of the Jewish population

assembled there to neutral countries or the territory of the Soviet

Union. As no evidence has been presented to show that the defendant had

received hints from any quarter in regard to the intended extermination

of Jewry, he could not have conceived of such a diabolical occurrence

which appears to be utterly inconceivable to the human mind. And it

certainly cannot be assumed that the mental capacity of the defendant

should have enabled him to foresee a solution of the Jewish question

such as could only have originated in the brain of a person who was no

longer in his right senses.

The defendant describes himself as a fanatic and seeker of truth. He

professes to have written nothing and to have expressed nothing in his

speeches which he had not taken from some authentic source and properly

confirmed.

There is no doubt that he was a fanatic. The fanatic, however, is a man

who is so possessed or convinced of an idea or illusion that he is not

open to any other consideration, and is convinced of the correctness of

his own idea and no other. A psychiatrist might regard it as a sort of

mental cramp. Fanaticism of any kind is not far removed from maniacal

obsession. As a rule it goes along with considerable overestimation of

oneself and overevaluation of one’s own personality and its influence on

the world around it.

Not one of the defendants here on trial shows such a wide discrepancy

between fact and fancy as does the Defendant Streicher.

The Prosecution showed him as he appeared to the outside world. What he

really was—and is—has been shown by the Trial. But only actual facts

can form the basis for the judgment. Base your judgment also, Gentlemen,

on the fact that the defendant in his position as Gauleiter of Franconia

also showed many humane characteristics—that he had a large number of

political prisoners released from concentration camps, which even caused

criminal proceedings to be started against him. It should also be borne

in mind that he treated the prisoners of war and the foreign laborers

working on his estate very well in every respect.

Whatever the judgment against the Defendant Streicher may be, it will

concern the fate of a single individual. It seems to be established,

however, that the German people and this defendant were never in

agreement on this essential question. The German people always

disapproved of the aims of this defendant as expressed in his

publications, and retained its own opinion of and attitude toward the

Jews.

The Prosecution’s assumption that the tendentious articles in _Der

Stürmer_ found an echo or a ready acceptance among the German

population, or even produced an attitude which would readily accept

criminal measures, is herewith fully refuted.

The overwhelming majority of the German nation preserved their sound

common sense and showed themselves disinclined toward all acts of

violence. The nation may therefore claim to be declared free of all

moral complicity in, and co-responsibility for, those crimes before the

public tribunal of the world, so as to be able again to take its place

in the ranks of the nations.

I leave the decision on the guilt or innocence of this defendant in the

hands of the High Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Sauter for the Defendant Funk.

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): Gentlemen of the

Tribunal, I have the task of examining the case of the Defendant Dr.

Walter Funk. That is to say, I am to deal with a topic which

unfortunately is especially dry and prosaic. May I first make a short

statement.

I shall on principle refrain from making any statements on legal,

political, historical, or psychological matters which may be too

general, although the temptation to make such general statements,

particularly within the framework of these proceedings, may be

considerable. General statements of the kind have already been made in

abundance by my colleagues and will probably be still further

supplemented. Therefore, I shall limit myself to examining and

presenting to you from the point of view of the Defense the picture

which the evidence in this Trial shows of the personality of the

Defendant Funk, his actions, and their underlying motives.

Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the entire course of this Trial and the

particular evidence offered in his own case have shown that the

Defendant Funk did not play a decisive part in the National Socialist

regime at any time and in any of the cases indicted here.

Funk’s authority of decision was always limited by the superior powers

of others. The defendant’s statement, made during his personal

examination, that he was allowed to come up to the door, but was never

permitted to enter, has been shown by the evidence to be quite correct.

Funk was entrusted with tasks by the Party—as distinct from the

State—only during the last year prior to the seizure of power, that is,

in 1932. These, however, were of no practical significance, as they were

of very short duration. Funk was never appointed to any Party office

after the seizure of power. He was never a member of any Party

organization—SS, SA, or Corps of Political Leaders. Funk was a member

of the Reichstag for only a little more than 6 months shortly before the

seizure of power. Consequently he was not a member of the Reichstag when

the fundamental laws for the consolidation of National Socialist power

were passed. The Reich Cabinet passed the laws for which Funk is held

responsible, in particular the Enabling Act, at a time when Funk had not

yet been made a member of the Cabinet. At this, it will be remembered,

he did not become a member until the close of 1937 by virtue of his

appointment as Minister of Economics, that is, at a time when no further

Cabinet sessions were held. As Press Chief of the Reich Cabinet Funk had

neither a seat nor a vote in the Cabinet and could exert no influence

whatsoever upon the contents of the bills drafted. I refer to Lammers’

statement in this connection. The same applies to the racial laws, the

so-called Nuremberg Laws.

Funk’s relations with the Führer only became closer for a period of 18

months during which he had to give regular press reports to Hitler in

his capacity as Press Chief of the Reich Cabinet, that is, from February

1933 to August 1934, up to the death of Reich President Von Hindenburg.

Later, Funk reported to Hitler only on very rare occasions. In this

connection the witness Dr. Lammers makes the following statement:

“Later he (Funk) only visited Hitler in his capacity of Reich

Minister of Economics on very rare occasions. He was frequently

not invited to attend conferences—even those to which he should

have been invited. He complained to me about this frequently.

The Führer often raised objections, saying that there were

various reasons against Funk and that he himself viewed Funk

skeptically and did not want him.”

That is the testimony given by Dr. Lammers on 8 April 1946. When asked

whether Funk had often complained to him about his unsatisfactory

position as Reich Minister for Economics and about the anxiety caused

him by conditions generally, Dr. Lammers replied:

“I know that Funk was very much worried and that he wanted an

opportunity to discuss his anxieties with the Führer. He was

extremely anxious for an opportunity of reporting to the Führer

in order to obtain information, at least, about the war

situation.” (That was in 1943 and 1944). And Lammers continues:

“With the best intentions in the world, Funk could not obtain an

audience from the Führer, and I was unable to get him to the

Führer.”

Funk explains the striking fact that he was invited to attend only four

or five Führer conferences during the whole of his ministerial activity

by saying that Hitler did not need him. Up to 1942 Hitler issued his

instructions in economic affairs to Göring, who in his capacity of

Delegate for the Four Year Plan was responsible for the entire economy.

From the beginning of 1942 Hitler also issued instructions to Speer, who

as Armament Minister had special authority to issue directives to all

branches of production and from 1943 personally directed the entire

production. Funk therefore never played the principal part in the

economy of the National Socialist Reich, but always only a subordinate

role. This was specifically confirmed by his Codefendant Göring in his

statement on 16 March:

“Naturally, in view of the special powers delegated to me

(Göring) he had to follow my directives in the field of economy

and the Reichsbank. The responsibility for the directives and

policy of the Minister for Economics and President of the

Reichsbank Funk is entirely mine.”

In the session of 20 June the Defendant Speer also testified that in his

capacity as Armament Minister he reserved to himself from the very

beginning any authority of decision in the most important economic

spheres such as coal, iron and steel, metal, aluminum, and the

production of machinery. Prior to Speer’s commission at the beginning of

1942, electric power and building were entirely under the jurisdiction

of Armament Minister Todt.

For the greater part, the evidence submitted by the Prosecution in the

case of the Defendant Funk does not relate to acts personally committed

by Funk or instructions issued by him, but rather to the various and

widely differing positions which he occupied. On Page 29 of the trial

brief the Prosecutor himself declares that the argument offered against

Funk may be described as inferential. The Prosecution starts from the

assumption that judging by the positions which he had held Funk must

have had knowledge of the various events which form the subject of the

accusation. Generally speaking, the Prosecution refers to instructions

and directives issued by Funk personally only in the case of the

application instructions which he issued in November 1938 in connection

with the Four Year Plan decrees for the elimination of Jews from

economic life. I shall deal with this chapter separately at a later

stage.

Finally, Funk was not invited to attend political and military

conferences. His position was that of a technical minister with very

limited power of decision.

As Reich Minister for Economics Funk was subordinated to the Four Year

Plan, that is, to Göring. Later on, the Armament Minister became Funk’s

superior. And finally, as was shown by the testimony of Göring, Lammers,

and Hayler, the Ministry of Economics became a regular trade ministry,

which dealt mainly with the distribution of consumers’ goods and with

the technicalities of foreign trade. Similarly in the case of the

Reichsbank the Four Year Plan determined the use of gold and foreign

currency. The Reichsbank was deprived of its right to decide on the

credits to be granted to the Reich for the internal financing of the war

when Funk took over office as its President. Funk is thereby exonerated

of any responsibility for the financing of the war. The responsible

agency so far had always been the Reich Minister of Finance: In other

words, not Funk. Finally, as Plenipotentiary for Economics, Funk’s sole

task in August 1938 was to co-ordinate the civil economic resources for

such measures as would guarantee a smooth conversion from peace to

wartime economy. These consultations resulted in the proposals presented

by Funk to Hitler on 25 August 1939 in the letter which has been several

times quoted under Document Number 699-PS. At his examination Funk

stated that this letter did not portray matters with complete accuracy,

since it was a purely private letter, a letter of thanks for birthday

congratulations received from Hitler. This point will have to be taken

up again later, as the Prosecution particularly emphasized Funk’s

position as Plenipotentiary for Economics. The evidence shows that his

position as Plenipotentiary General was Funk’s most disputed position,

but also his weakest.

With regard to the occupied territories Funk had no decisive authority

whatsoever. All the witnesses interrogated on the point testified to

this. But all witnesses also confirmed that Funk always opposed the

spoliation of the occupied territories. He fought against German

purchases in the black markets; he opposed the abolition of the foreign

exchange relations with Holland, a measure intended to facilitate German

purchases in Holland; and, as we have heard from the witness Neubacher,

he organized exports to Greece from Germany and the eastern European

states, and even sent gold there. He also repeatedly opposed the

financial overburdening of the occupied territories especially in 1942

and 1944, and the raising of the occupation costs in France. He defended

the currency of the occupied countries against reported attempts at

devaluation. In the case of Denmark he even succeeded in raising the

value of the currency, in spite of all opposition. Furthermore, Funk

fought against the arbitrary stabilization of exchange when currency

arrangements were made with occupied countries. Germany’s clearing debt

was always recognized by Funk as a true commercial debt even with regard

to the occupied countries. This is shown especially by his proposal,

mentioned here, to commercialize this clearing debt by a loan to be

issued by Germany for subscription in all European countries. Funk was

also opposed to the overworking and especially to the compulsory

employment of foreign labor in Germany.

The Defendant Sauckel has already testified to this at his interrogation

here. The witnesses Hayler, Landfried, Puhl, and Neubacher, and the

Codefendant Seyss-Inquart, have all confirmed that these measures taken

by Funk had favorable results for the occupied countries. According to

these statements Funk always strove to keep order in the economic and

social life of the occupied territories and to preserve it as far as

possible from disintegration. He always disapproved and opposed radical

and arbitrary measures and favored agreements and compromises. Even

during the war Funk was always thinking of peace. This statement was

made by the witnesses Landfried and Hayler, who added that Funk was

repeatedly reproached for his attitude by the leading State and Party

offices. The Defendant Speer also testified at his interrogation that

during the war Funk had employed too many workers in the manufacture of

consumers’ goods and that it was for this reason that Funk had to hand

over the management of the consumers’ goods production in 1943.

That Funk revolted against the horrible “scorched earth” policy just as

Speer did has been proved to the Court by Speer himself, as well as by

the witness Hayler on 7 May 1946. This witness declared that he had

seldom seen Funk so much upset as he was when informed of this order for

destruction. Hayler testified that Funk, in his capacity of Reich

Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank, gave orders that

existing stocks should be protected from destruction as decreed, in

order to insure a supply of consumers’ goods necessary for the

population and to safeguard currency transactions in the German

territory which had been abandoned.