From Streicher's IMT testimony: About my life: I was born on 12 February 1885 in a small village in Bavaria Swabia. I was the youngest of nine children. My father was an elementary school teacher. I too became a teacher at an elementary school. In 1909, after I had taught for several years in my native district, I was called to the municipal school in Nuremberg. Here I had the opportunity of contact with the families of the working-class children in the suburbs and of observing social contrasts. This experience led to my decision in 1911 to go into politics. I became a member of the Democratic Party.1909: Streicher accepts a position teaching in a municipal school in Nuremberg.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: As a young democratic speaker, I spoke at the Reichstag election in 1919. The car put at my disposal was paid for by the banking firm of Kohn. I stress this point because at that time I had occasion to associate a good deal with Jews, even in the Democratic Party. I must therefore have been fated to become later on a writer and speaker on racial politics.
The World War came and I, too, went into the army as a lance corporal in an infantry regiment. Then I became an officer in a machine-gun unit. I returned home with both Iron Crosses, with the Bavarian Order, and the rare Austrian Cross of Merit attached to the Ribbon for Gallantry. When I had returned home, I had no desire to go into politics again. I intended only to stay in private life and devote myself to my profession. Then I saw the blood-red posters of revolution in Germany and for the first time I joined the raging masses of that time. At a meeting, when the speaker had finished, I asked to be heard as an unknown person. An inner voice sent me onto the platform and I spoke. I joined in the debate and I spoke on recent happenings in Germany.
In the November revolution of 1918 the Jews and their friends had seized the political power in Germany. Jews were in the Reich Cabinet and in all the provincial governments. In my native Bavaria the Minister President was a Polish Jew called Eisner-Kosmanowsky. The reaction among the middle classes in Germany manifested itself in the form of an organization known as Schutz und Trutzbund (Society for Protective and Offensive Action). Local branches of this organization were formed in all the large cities in Germany; and fate willed that after I had again spoken at a gathering, a man came up to me and asked me to come to the Kulturverein (Cultural Society) in the Golden Hall and hear what they had to say there.
In this way, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I became involved in what brings me here today. Destiny made of me what international propaganda thought it had made. I was called a bloodhound--a blood czar of Franconia; my honor was attacked, a criminal was paid 300 marks to swear in this very hall that he had seen me, as an officer in France during the war, rape a Madame Duquesne, a teacher's wife in Atis, near Peronne. It was 2 years before someone betrayed him and the truth came out.
Gentlemen, the receipt for 300 marks was produced here in this court. With 300 marks they tried to deprive me of my honor. I mention this case only because my case is a special case; and if it is to be judged with justice, then I must be allowed to make such a remark in passing. In this connection, I may say that it is no coincidence that the first question asked me by the Soviet Russian officer who interrogated me was whether I was a sex criminal.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Gentlemen, I told you how I was fated to be drawn into the Schutz und Trutzbund. I told you what conditions were like in Germany at the time, and it was therefore quite a natural development that I no longer visited the centers of revolution to join in debate. I felt myself impelled to call meetings of my own and so I spoke for perhaps 15 years almost every Friday before about 5,000 to 6,000 people. I admit quite frankly that I went on making speeches over a period of 20 years in the largest cities of Germany, sometimes at meetings on sport fields and on public squares, to audiences of 150,000 to 200,000 people. I did that for 20 years, and I state here that I was not paid by the Party. The Prosecution will never succeed, not even through a public appeal, in getting anybody into this room who could testify that I had ever been paid. I still had a small salary which continued after I was relieved of my position in 1924. Nonetheless, I remained the one and only unpaid Gauleiter in the Movement. It goes without saying that my writing supported myself and my assistants later on.1920: Streicher forms his own political party, the German Socialist Party (Deutschsozialistische Partei).
From Streicher's IMT testimony: And so, Gentlemen, in the year 1921--I return now to that period--I went to Munich. I was curious because someone had said to me, "You must hear Adolf Hitler some time." And now destiny again takes a hand. This tragedy can only be grasped by those whose vision is not limited to the material, but who can perceive those higher vibrations which even today have not had their full outcome.
I went to the Munich Buergerbraeuekeller. Adolf Hitler was speaking there. I had only heard his name. I had never seen the man before. And there I sat, an unknown among unknowns. I saw this man shortly before midnight, after he had spoken for 3 hours, drenched in perspiration, radiant. My neighbor said he thought he saw a halo around his head; and I, Gentlemen, experienced something which transcended the commonplace. When he finished his speech, an inner voice bade me get up. I went to the platform. When Adolf Hitler came down, I approached him and told him my name. The Prosecution has submitted a document to the Tribunal which recalls that moment. Adolf Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf, that it must have cost me a great effort to hand over to him the movement which I had created in Nuremberg.
I mention this because the Prosecution thought that these things in Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, should be submitted and used against me. Yes, I am proud of it; I forced myself to hand over to Hitler the movement which I had created in Franconia. This Franconian movement gave the movement which Adolf Hitler had created in Munich and southern Bavaria a bridge to northern Germany. That was my doing.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: In 1921 ... I went to Munich; and before the public on the platform I handed over my movement to the Fuehrer. I also wrote him a letter in this connection later. No other conference took place with Adolf Hitler or any other person. I returned to Nuremberg and went on making speeches. When the Party program was proclaimed I was not present. That announcement, too, was made in public; the conspiracy was so public that political opponents could make attempts at terrorization.
To sum up: At none of the secret meetings was any oath taken or anything agreed upon which the public could not have known. The program stood; it had been submitted to the Police; on the basis of the law governing organizations the Party, like other parties, was entered in the register of organizations. So that at that time there was no conspiracy.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Well, in the early days of the Party, the solution of the Jewish problem was never mentioned just as the question of solving the problem of the Versailles Treaty was never mentioned. You must remember the state of chaos that existed at that time in Germany. An Adolf Hitler who said to his members in 1933, "I shall start to promote a war," would have been dubbed a fool. We had no arms in Germany. Our army of 100,000 men had only a few big guns left. The possibility of making or of prophesying war was out of the question, and to speak of a Jewish problem at a time when, I might say, the public made distinctions with respect to Jews only on the basis of religion, or to speak of the solution of this problem, would have been absurd. Before 1933, therefore, the solution of the Jewish problem was not a topic of discussion. I never heard Adolf Hitler mention it; and there is no one here of whom I could say I ever heard him say one word about it.July 28, 1922: From a speech of Adolf Hitler on the Jewish Problem:
From Streicher's IMT testimony: The speeches and articles which I wrote were meant to inform the public on a question which appeared to me one of the most important questions. I did not intend to agitate or inflame but to enlighten. Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them . . . .
Even before the coming to power, there were, in every Gau, weekly journals that were anti-Semitic, and one daily paper called the Volkischer Beobachter in Munich. Apart from that, there were a number of periodicals which were not working directly for the Party. There was also anti-Semitic literature. After the seizure of power, the daily press was coordinated, and now the Party found itself in control of some 3,000 daily papers, numerous weekly journals, and all type of periodicals; and orders were given by the Fuehrer that every newspaper should provide enlightening articles on the Jewish question. The anti-Semitic enlightenment was, therefore, after the seizure of power, carried out on a very large scale in the daily press as well as in the weekly journals, periodicals, and books. Consequently, Der Stuermer did not stand alone in its enlightening activity. But I want to state quite openly that I make the claim of having treated the question in the most popular way . . . .
The Propaganda Ministry in Berlin had a National Socialist press service. In this service, in every issue, there were a number of enlightening articles on the Jewish question. During the war, the Fuehrer personally gave the order that the press, far more than previously, should publish enlightening articles on the Jewish question.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: In 1923, I took part in the first National Socialist revolution or, rather, attempted revolution. It will go down in history as the Hitler Putsch. Adolf Hitler had asked me to come to Munich for it. I went to Munich and took part in the meeting in which Adolf Hitler came to a solemn agreement with representatives of the middle classes to go to northern Germany and put an end to the chaos. [Note: Shirer's version is that Streicher was making a speech when he noticed the marchers. He then joined them.]
I marched with them up to the Feldherrnhalle. Then I was arrested and, like Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and others, was taken to Landsberg on the Lech. After a few months I was put up as candidate for the Bavarian Parliament by the Volkischer Block and was elected in the year 1924 . . . .
Everybody knows that I could not have been active publicly in this profession [teaching school] if I had committed a crime. That is not true. I was dismissed from my profession because the majority of the parties in the Bavarian Parliament in the fall of 1923, after the Hitler Putsch, demanded my dismissal. That, Gentlemen, was my crime of indecent behavior.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Anyone who had occasion to make Adolf Hitler's acquaintance knows that I am correct in saying that those who imagined they could pave a way to his personal friendship were entirely mistaken. Adolf Hitler was a little eccentric in every respect and I believe I can say that friendship between him and other men did not exist--a friendship that might have been described as intimate friendship. It was not easy to approach Adolf Hitler; and anyone who wanted to approach him could do so only by performing some manly deed.
If you ask me now ... I may say that before 1923 Adolf Hitler did not trust me. Although I had handed over my movement to him unreservedly, he sent Goering--who later became Marshal of the Reich--some time later to Nuremberg. Goering was then a young SA leader--I think he was an SA leader--and he came to investigate matters and to determine whether I or those who denounced me were in the right. I do not mean this as an accusation, but merely as a statement of fact. Soon after that he sent a second and then a third person--in short, he did not trust me before 1923.
Then came Munich and the Putsch. After midnight, when most of them had left him, I appeared before him and told him that the public must be told now when the next great day would come. He looked at me intently and said, "Will you do it?" I said, "I will do it."....
Then, after midnight, he wrote on a piece of paper, "Streicher will be responsible for the entire organization." That was to be for the following day, 11 November; and on 11 November [Note: Later in his testimony, Streicher will correct the date to the 9th.] I publicly conducted the propaganda, until an hour before the march to the Feldherrnhalle. Then I returned and everything was in readiness. Our banner--which was to become a banner of blood--flew in front. I joined the second group and we marched into the city towards the Feldherrnhalle. Ashen, [Note: He must have consulted a pocket mirror] I saw rifle after rifle ranged before the Feldherrnhalle and knew that now there would be shooting; I marched up 10 paces in front of the banner and marched straight up to the rifles. Then came the massacre, and we were arrested. I have almost finished.
At Landsberg--and this is the important part--Hitler declared to me and to the men who were in prison with him, that he would never forget this action of mine. Thus, because I took part in the march to the Feldherrnhalle and marched at the head of the procession, Adolf Hitler may have felt himself drawn to me more than to the others. That was the friendship born of the deed.
From The Third Reich: A New History by Michael Burleigh: The semi-pornographic Stuermer was effectively the private vehicle of the Franconian Gauleiter Julius Streicher, who had been dismissed from school-teaching in 1928 for insisting that his class greet him with "Heil Hitler." A sort of news of the sewers, it specialized in anything of a salacious nature, printing the names and addresses of anyone over-friendly with Jews, as well as discerning a Jewish conspiracy behind the 1937 Hindenburg airship disaster at Lakeside, New Jersey. Sometimes Goebbels and Hitler rebuked Streicher for the content of the paper, but this was more in the way of restraining a comrade who was a known "character" than a reflection of any fundamental disagreement with the sentiments Stuermer expressed. Streicher claimed it was the only paper Hitler read from cover to cover.April 6, 1924: Streicher is elected to the Reichstag.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Even before Adolf Hitler became publicly known at all I had occupied myself journalistically with anti-Semitic articles. However, on the strength of his book, Mein Kampf, I first learned about the historic connections of the Jewish problem. Adolf Hitler wrote his book in the prison in Landsberg. Anyone who knows this book will know that Hitler many years back, either by study of anti-Semitic literature or through other experiences, must have developed this knowledge in himself in order then to be able to write that book in prison in so short a time. In other words, in his book Adolf Hitler stated to the world public that he was anti-Semitic and that he knew the Jewish problem through and through . . . .
You asked me whether Adolf Hitler had discussed the Jewish problem with me. The answer is [yes.] Adolf Hitler always discussed the Jewish problem in connection with Bolshevism. It is perhaps of importance in answering that question to ask whether Adolf Hitler wanted a war with Russia. Did he know long in advance that a war would come, or not? When he was with us Adolf Hitler spoke of Stalin as a man whom he honored as a man of action . . . . [at this point, Streicher is cut off by the Court and instructed to answer only the questions asked.]
The Fuehrer could not be influenced. As I know the Fuehrer, if somebody had gone to him and said that Jews should be killed, then he would have turned him down. And if, during the war, somebody had gone to him and said, "I have learned that you are giving the order that mass killings are to be carried out," then he would have turned that man down too. I therefore answer your question by saying that the Fuehrer could not be influenced.
From the memoirs of Otto Wegener, as quoted in Taylor: He did not seem to me unpleasant. He was a determined fellow, who happened to ride his hobby-horse of anti-Semitism hard, and who made it his life mission to unmask the Jew, as he put it . . . . Streicher is a fanatic. And in his fanaticism he sometimes goes too far . . . . Unlike some other Gauleiter, Streicher did not, even after the seizure of power, live like a lord . . . . Nevertheless, he lacked the ethical balance that was essential for him and that Hitler expected of him.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: In 1925 after the Movement had been permitted again and Adolf Hitler had been released from jail, I was made Gauleiter of Franconia. In 1933 I became a deputy to the Reichstag. In 1933 or 1934 the honorary title of SA Gruppenfuehrer was bestowed on me.1925: Streicher is appointed Gauleiter of Franconia by the Nazi party .
From the IMT testimony of Philipp Wurzbacher: I have known him [Streicher] from meetings, since 1923; personally, from the time of my activity as an SA Leader in the year 1928. 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. The SA never undertook anything like that [violence against the Jewish population] 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.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: I saw Adolf Hitler only at Gauleiter conferences; when he came to Nuremberg for meetings we had meals together, along with five, ten, or more people. I recall having been alone with him only once in the Brown House at Munich, after the completion of the Brown House; and our conversation was not a political one. All the conversations which I had with Adolf Hitler, whether in Nuremberg, Munich, or elsewhere, took place in the presence of Party circle members.
From Adolf Hitler by John Toland: Where Hess and Goering lagged far behind their leader in anti-Semitism, Streicher surpassed Hitler in the virulence of his language. A stocky, primitive man with bald head and gross features, he gave off an aura of raw energy. He had excessive appetites alike at table and in bed. He could be bluffly jovial or blatantly brutal, shifting effortlessly from maudlin sentimentality to ruthlessness. Like Hitler, he was rarely seen in public without a whip but where the former draped his from his wrist like a dog leash, Streicher flaunted his as a weapon. In younger days he had "restlessly wandered from place to place with a rucksack full of anti-Semitic books and pamphlets." His speech was gutted with sadistic imagery and he relished attacking personal enemies in the foulest terms. Convinced that the Jew was plotting against the Aryan world, he had an endless catalogue of abuse at the tip of his tongue.
The Fuehrer himself was repelled by pornography, disapproved of Streicher's sexual activities, and was concerned by the incessant intra-party quarrels this erratic disciple instigated. Yet at the same time he admired Streicher's boundless energy and fanatic loyalty. "More than once Dietrich [Eckhart] told me that Streicher was a school-teacher, and a lunatic to boot, from many points of view. He always added that one could not hope for a triumph of National Socialism without giving one's support to men like Streicher." Hitler had an unexpected answer for those who reproached Streicher for his gross exaggerations in Der Stuermer: "The truth is the opposite of what people say: he idealized the Jew. The Jew is baser, fiercer, more diabolical than Streicher depicted him."
From the IMT testimony of SA Leader Philipp 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 . . . .
Der Stuermer 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 Stuermer, 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.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp. I believe the first time was when all the Gauleiter were called together. I believe 1935, I do not know definitely, 1934 or 1935, I do not know. Altogether I was at Dachau four times. I do not know whether Jews disappeared [after my visits] . . . .
I went to the Dachau Camp to visit Social Democratic and Communist functionaries from my Gau who were in prison there to have them introduced to me. I picked out--I do not know how many hundreds of them there were--but every time I was in Dachau I picked out 10 or 20 of those of whom it had been ascertained by the Police that they had no criminal record; I had them picked out from among the inmates, and at Christmas every year I had them brought in buses to Nuremberg to the Hotel Deutscher Hof, where I brought them together with their wives and children and had dinner with them.
I should like to ask the Tribunal, for the benefit of the Nuremberg public, to permit me to make a very short statement as to why I took these Communists out. Party proceedings were initiated against me because I did this. There were rumors which were not true. May I make a very short statement as to why I did it? . . . .
When I walked through the streets of Nuremberg children approached me and said, "My father is in Dachau." Women came to me and asked to get their husbands back. I knew many of these officials from the time when I spoke at revolutionary meetings, and I could vouch for these people. I know of only one case where I was wrong in the selection of those people. All the others behaved impeccably. They kept the word which they had given me. Thus, perhaps my Party comrades, who sit here in the dock, see now that I did not want to harm my country but that I wanted to do, and did do, something humanely good.
From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: It was every year around Christmas time. I estimate that there were about 100 to 150 men every year. They came from Dachau. Herr Streicher had dinner prepared for them in a separate room, in the Hotel Deutscher Hof, and I believe that used to be the family reunion-that is to say, the prisoners rejoined the members of their family. Streicher also saw to it that released prisoners found work, and he intervened personally for them . . . . I remember that three men, I believe, came into the Mars motorcycle factory. Herr Streicher at that time told the plenipotentiary of the German Labor Front to find positions for these people, as far as I remember.
From the IMT testimony of SA Leader Philipp Wurzbacher: I know just one thing and that is that he [Streicher] 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 Lefender, 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 . . . . 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.March 30, 1933: From Defeat the Enemy of the World! by Julius Streicher:
From Streicher's IMT testimony: A few days before 1 April I was summoned to the Brown House in Munich. Adolf Hitler explained to me something that I already knew, namely, that a tremendous propaganda campaign against the new Germany was being carried on by the foreign press. Although he himself had only just become Chancellor, although Hindenburg was still at the head of the Reich, although Parliament existed, a tremendous campaign of hate against Germany had begun in the foreign press.
The Fuehrer told me that even the Reich flag, the emblem of sovereignty, was being subjected to insults abroad and that we would have to tell world Jewry, "Thus far and no farther." We would have to show them that we would not tolerate it any longer.
Then he told me that a boycott day was to be fixed for 1 April and that I was to organize it. Perhaps it would not be irrelevant to point out the following facts: Adolf Hitler thought that it might be a good thing to use my name in connection with this boycott day; that was not done in the end.
So I undertook the organization of the boycott and issued a directive, which I believe is in the hands of the Court. There is no need for me to say much about it. I gave instructions that no attempts should be made on the lives of Jews, that one or more guards should be posted in front of all Jewish premises--that is to say, in front of every Jewish store--and that these guards should be responsible for seeing that no damage was done to property. In short, I organized the proceedings in a way which was perhaps not expected of me; and perhaps not expected by many members of the Party. I frankly admit that.
One thing is certain; except for minor incidents the boycott day passed off perfectly. I believe that there is not even one Jew who can contradict this. The boycott day was a disciplined proceeding and was not "anti" in the sense of an attack on something. It has a purely defensive connotation . . . .
As to the [boycott] committee, it was like the Secret Cabinet Council in Berlin, which never met. In fact, I believe that all the members of the Cabinet did not even see each other or get to know each other. The boycott committee, that was put in the newspapers in Berlin by Goebbels. That was a newspaper story. I spoke to Goebbels on the telephone once. He asked how things were going in Munich, where I was. I said that everything was going perfectly. Thus no conference ever took place; it was only done for effect, to make it appear a much bigger thing than it was.
From the IMT testimony of SA Leader Philipp 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 . . . . I participated in the boycott. At that time I had instructions from my Gruppenfuehrer 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 Sturmfuehrer 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. The instructions which I received from my Gruppenfuehrer had been issued by Gauleiter Streicher . . . .
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 . . . . 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...If I may give the essence of it, he [Streicher] 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 . . . . 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."
From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer: Murderers, pimps, homosexual perverts, drug addicts or just plain rowdies were all the same to him (Hitler) if they served his purposes. He stood Julius Streicher, for example, almost to the end. This depraved sadist, who started life as an elementary school teacher, was one of the most disreputable men around Hitler from 1922 until 1939, when his star finally faded. A famous fornicator, as he boasted, who blackmailed even the husbands of the women who were his mistresses, he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical anti-Semite. His notorious weekly, Der Stuermer, thrived on lurid tales of Jewish 'ritual murders'; its obscenity was nauseating, even to many Nazis. Streicher was also a noted pornographer. He became known as the 'uncrowned King of Franconia' with the center of his power in Nuremberg, where his word was law and where no one crossed him or displeased him was safe from prison or torture. Until I faced him slumped in the dock in Nuremberg, on trial for his life as a war criminal, I never saw him without a whip in his hand or in his belt, and he laughingly boasted of the countless lashings he had meted out.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: The sources were given in that issue. Nothing was written without the sources being given at the same time. There was reference made to a book written in Greek by a former Rabbi who had been converted to Christianity. There was reference made to a publication of a high [clergyman] of Milan, a book which has appeared in Germany for the last 50 years. Not even under the democratic government did Jews raise objections to that book. That ritual murder issue refers to court files which are located in Rome, it refers to files which are in Court. There are pictures in it which show that in 23 cases the Church itself has dealt with this question. The Church has canonized 23 non-Jews killed by ritual murder. Pictures of sculptures, that is, of stone monuments were shown as illustrations; everywhere the source was pointed out; even a case in England was mentioned, and one in Kiev, Russia. But in this connection I should like to say, as I said to a Jewish officer here, that we never wanted to assert that all Jewry was ready now to commit ritual murders. But it is a fact that within Jewry there exists a sect which engaged in these murders, and has done so up until the present. I have asked my counsel to submit to the Court a file from Pisek in Czechoslovakia, very recent proceedings. A court of appeal has confirmed a case of ritual murder.October 15, 1934: Fritz Herrwerth gains employment in the Nuremberg municipal motor pool.
From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: I was employed on 15 October 1934, in Nuremberg, not in the personal service of Herr Streicher himself, but in the municipal motor pool. However, I worked for the then Gauleiter Streicher. [I left] In August 1943...It was a personal dispute, and mainly due to my fault.
From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: At the end of 1934 I was introduced to the then Gauleiter Julius Streicher in the Deutscher Hof in Nuremberg. Streicher gave me the assignment of working for his public health journal, Die Deutsche Volksgesundheit. In 1935 I also wrote reports for Der Stuermer. Streicher then had me transferred to the editorial staff of Der Stuermer.
Eventually, under Streicher's direction and the direction of other staff members of Der Stuermer, I did editorial work as a co-editor. The responsible editor of Der Stuermer was Karl Holz, Streicher's deputy, but the leading spirit of the paper was Streicher himself. In the year 1938 instructions came from Berlin to the effect that Holz was permitted to contribute to Der Stuermer, but in his capacity as [a] state official—he was the Deputy Gauleiter—he was no longer to be mentioned in the editions of Der Stuermer. Thereupon, on instruction from Streicher, my name was entered in Der Stuermer as responsible editor. The over-all direction of the paper and all authority connected therewith remained in Streicher's hands, and Streicher retained this position until the collapse . . . .
Streicher was the founder and the publisher of Der Stuermer. But he was in fact also the chief editor, and all his colleagues, no matter whether it was his deputy, Holz, or others--all of them had to submit their articles to Streicher before they were printed. Streicher then ordered changes if the need arose; he also gave the editors assignments for articles, that is, he told them with what arguments these articles were to be drawn up; and Streicher knew of all the articles that appeared in Der Stuermer. In fact, he was the responsible head, the editor of Der Stuermer. All others were his assistants. He himself was, as he often said with pride, one and the same with Der Stuermer. "Streicher and Der Stuermer are one and the same." That was his maxim.
From an account in the Volkischer Beobachter: Adolf Hitler spoke to his old comrade in arms and the latter's followers in words which went straight to their hearts. By way of introduction he remarked that it was a special pleasure for him to spend, on this day of honor to Julius Streicher, a short while in Nuremberg, the town of battle-steeled National Socialist solidarity, within the circle of the veteran standard-bearers of the National Socialist idea. Just as they all, during the years of misery, had unshakably believed in the victory of the Movement, so his friend and comrade in arms, Streicher, had stood faithfully at his side at all times. It had been this unshakable belief that had moved mountains. For Streicher it would surely be an inspiring thought that this 50th anniversary meant to him not only the turn of a half century, but also of a thousand years of German history. He had in Streicher a comrade of whom he could say that here in Nuremberg was a man who would never waver for a single second and who would unflinchingly stand behind him in every situation.1935: Streicher's racist newspaper, Der Stuermer, reaches a peak circulation of 480,000. To ensure the widest dissemination of the paper's anti-Semitic message, each issue is posted for public reading in special glassed-in display cases known as Stuermerkasten.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Der Stuermer appeared in 1923 in octave format, and in the beginning it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies. In the course of time the circulation increased to 10,000. At that time Der Stuermer circulated--until 1933 really--only in Nuremberg, in my Gau, perhaps also in Southern Bavaria. The publisher was a bookseller and he worked first with one man, then with two. This is proof that the circulation was really small.
In 1933--but I say this with certain reservations because it may be that the publisher did not always tell me the correct circulation figures and I had no written contract with him--I say with reservations, that in 1933 the circulation was 25,000 copies.
In 1935 the publisher died; and at that time it was, I believe, 40,000. Then an expert took over the publishing house and organized it to cover all of Germany. The circulation increased then to 100,000, and went up as high as 600,000. It fluctuated, decreased, and then dropped during the war; I cannot say exactly but I believe it was about 150 000 to 200,000 . . . .
Well, the attitude of the Party was made manifest in a letter, which was sent to every Gau, signed by Bormann. There it was expressly pointed out that Der Stuermer was not a Party organ and had nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiter saw this an occasion for ordering that Der Stuermer should not appear in their Gau any more. Now it is clear that within the organizations there were Party members who, because of idealism or for other reasons, worked to increase the distribution of Der Stuermer. However, I myself, neither in writing nor orally, ever issued any order to any Party organization to support Der Stuermer.
From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: This question of the circulation could, of course, be answered best by the publication manager, who was concerned with it. However, I remember approximate figures. Der Stuermer was in 1933 a very small paper; but by the year 1935 its circulation increased to about 800,000. After that, however, there was a sharp decline. Of course, during the war, Der Stuermer had a smaller circulation. I cannot give you any exact figures and during the last months the circulation of the paper was, of course, extremely small. On the average, I might say that Der Stuermer had a circulation of perhaps half a million. Of course, there were special issues which had a much larger circulation. As I said, only the publisher could authenticate these figures.
From Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer: At the cornerstone laying of the Nuremberg Kongresshalle, Hitler saw me standing in the second rank. He interrupted the solemn ceremonial to extend his hand to me. I was so overwhelmed by this unusual sign of favor that I let my own hand, raised in salute, fall with a smack on the bald head of Julius Streicher, the Gauleiter of Franconia, who stood just in front of me.September 15, 1935: A meeting of the Party Congress at Nuremberg passes the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: I believe I had a part in it [the Law for the Protection of German Blood] insofar as for years I have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for themselves--the law of Moses, which says, "If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women." And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished. I was quite honest in saying that I believe I have contributed indirectly to the making of these laws. . . .
At the Reich Party Day in Nuremberg in 1935, we were summoned to the hall without knowing what was going to happen--at least I myself had no knowledge of it--and the racial laws were proclaimed. It was only then that I heard of these laws; and I think that with the exception of Herr Hess, et cetera, this is true of most of the gentlemen in the dock who attended that Reich Party Day. The first we heard of these decrees was at the Reich Party Day. I did not collaborate directly. I may say frankly, that I regarded it as a slight when I was not consulted in the making of these laws . . . .
I was convinced that if the Party program was carried out, the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews became German citizens in 1848. Their rights as citizens were taken from them by these laws. Sexual intercourse was prohibited. For me, this represented the solution of the Jewish problem in Germany. But I believed that another international solution would still be found, and that some day discussions would take place between the various states with regard to the demands made by Zionism. These demands aimed at a Jewish state.
From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: Streicher wanted, by means of Der Stuermer, in the simplest and most popular language, to convey to every man and every woman of the German nation, knowledge about the Jews. Streicher wanted the entire German people to realize that the Jew was a stranger among them. Streicher was of the opinion that in Germany the Jewish question should be solved by emigration. He repeatedly criticized the leadership of the Reich because the emigration of Jews was not being carried through in the manner desired by Streicher. When the war came, Streicher asserted that the Jewish problem would no longer have had any significance for a Germany at war if in accordance with his idea it had been solved by complete emigration of the Jews during the preceding time of peace. Streicher stated his opinion in word as well as in writing, that Palestine and Madagascar would be suitable localities for absorbing the Jews living in Germany. However, he did not follow up this thought, since not Germany but only England and France could dispose of Palestine and Madagascar.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: May I say, by way of summary, that I assume responsibility for everything which was written by my assistants, or which came into my publishing house. The book Trust No Fox in the Field and No Jew Under His Oath was done and illustrated by a young woman artist, and she also wrote the text. The title which appears on the picture book is from Dr. Martin Luther.
The second picture book was done by the Editor-in-Chief of Der Stuermer, who was a former schoolteacher. Two criminal cases in Nuremberg, which were tried here in this courtroom, as far as I know, were the occasion for my publishing these two books. There was a manufacturer, Louis Schloss, a Jew, who with young Nuremberg girls some of them still innocent, had . . . . It is important for the Tribunal, in fact, right for them to know how it came about that all of a sudden two picture books for young people appeared in my publishing house. I am making this statement absolutely objectively. I am speaking here of legal cases. There are gentlemen here, who are witnesses, who were here in this court and were present during the proceedings. Only thus can one understand why these books were published. They were the answer to deeds that had occurred . . . . And I should like to prove by my statement that we wanted to protect youth because things had, in fact, occurred...It was a matter of public discussion in Nuremberg and beyond that all over Germany.
From the IMT testimony of Reich Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach: Of course, this book [Der Giftpilz] was not distributed among the young people. It is quite out of the question that an office of the HJ (Hitler Jugend) would have transmitted that book to the youth. Besides, the picture books of the Stuermer Publishing Firm are unknown to me. I am, of course, not competent to speak on education in the schools, but I should also like to say on behalf of education in the schools that I do not believe this picture book was ever introduced into any school outside of this Gau. At any rate, that book and similar writings of the Stuermer Publishing Firm were not, as a rule, distributed among the young people and the youth organizations. What I have already said, when judging Der Stuermer, also holds good for these books: namely, that the leadership corps of the Hitler Youth categorically rejected writings of this description.
From the IMT testimony of Reich Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach: Der Stuermer was not distributed within the youth organization. I believe that with the sole exception of those of the young people who lived in...Gau Franken--that the rest of the German youth organization never read Der Stuermer at all. The paper was definitely rejected by all the youth leaders--both boys and girls--in my organization . . . . I was always in close collaboration with the press; in fact, I came from the press myself. In my press office, as Reich Youth Leader, I gave definite instructions that all requests from Gau papers for an introduction, or something else of the kind from me should be granted on principle.
Therefore, whenever a Gau paper celebrated a jubilee--perhaps the tenth or twentieth anniversary of its existence, or published some special issue--then the experts in my press office would run up a draft and, together with the considerable volume of evening mail presented to me for my signature, these drafts and elaboration's would be submitted to me. In this way it might have happened that I signed that introduction for Der Stuermer which, of course, was the paper of the local Gau. Otherwise I have no recollection of the episode . . . . I definitely believe that I did not draft it myself, because such short introductions--as already stated--were always submitted to me. I wrote my newspaper articles myself but never introductions of this description.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Yes [the main synagogue in Nuremberg was demolished on my orders]. In my Gau there were approximately 15 synagogues, in Nuremberg one main synagogue, a somewhat smaller one, and I think several other prayer rooms. The main synagogue stood in the outskirts of the medieval Reichsstadt. Even before 1933, during the so-called period of struggle, when we still had the other government, I stated publicly during a meeting that it was a disgrace that there should be placed in the Old City such an oriental monstrosity of a building. After the seizure of power I told the Lord Mayor that he should have the synagogue torn down, and at the same time the planetarium. I might point out that after the World War, in the middle of the park grounds laid out for the recreation of the citizens, a planetarium had been built, an ugly brick building. I gave the order to tear down that building and said that the main synagogue, too, should be razed. If it had been my intention to deprive the Jews of their synagogue as a church or if I had wanted to give a general signal, then I would have given the order, after the seizure of power, that every synagogue in my Gau should be torn down. Then I would likewise have had all the synagogues in Nuremberg torn down. But it is a fact that in the spring of 1938 only the main synagogue was torn down; the synagogue in the Essenweinstrasse, in the new city, remained untouched. That the order was then given in November of that year to set fire to the synagogues, that is no fault of mine . . . .
I had frequent opportunities to discuss the subject with architects. Every architect said that there must have been a city council which had no feeling whatsoever for city architecture, that it was impossible to explain it.
These statements were not in any way directed against the synagogue as a Jewish church, but rather against such a building in this part of the city. Strangers, too, whom I guided--for on Party rally days I used to accompany British and American people across the Hans-Sachs-Platz--and I remember only one case where when I said "Do you not notice anything?" that the person did not. But all other strangers said "How could that building get there in the midst of these medieval buildings?"
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Every year, the Gauleiter and SA and SS leaders met the Fuehrer in Munich on the occasion of the historic day of 9 November. We sat down to dinner in the old Town Mall, and it was customary for the Fuehrer to make a short speech after the dinner. On 9 November 1938, I did not feel very well. I participated in the dinner and then I left; I drove back to Nuremberg and went to bed. Toward midnight I was awakened. My chauffeur told me that the SA leader von Obernitz wanted to talk to the Gauleiter. I received him and he said the following: "Gauleiter, you had left already when the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, took the floor and said"--I can now repeat it only approximately--said, "Legation Counselor vom Rath has been murdered in Paris. That is now the second murder abroad of a prominent National Socialist. This murder is not the murder by the Jew, Gruenspan; this is rather the execution of a deed, which has been desired by all Jewry. Something should now be done." I do not know now whether Goebbels said the Fuehrer had ordered it; I remember only that von Obernitz told me that Goebbels had stated the synagogues were to be set on fire; and I cannot now remember exactly, but I think he told me that the windows of Jewish business houses were to be smashed and that houses were to be demolished.
Then I said to Obernitz--for I was surprised--"Obernitz, I think it is wrong that synagogues be set on fire, and at this moment I think it is wrong that Jewish business houses be demolished; I think these demonstrations are wrong. If people are let loose during the night, deeds can be perpetrated for which one cannot be responsible." I said to Obernitz that I considered the setting on fire of synagogues particularly wrong because abroad and even among the German people the opinion might arise that National Socialism had now started the fight against religion. Obernitz replied, "I have the order." I said, "Obernitz, I will not assume any responsibility here." Obernitz left and the action took place. What I have said under oath here I have previously stated in several interrogations; and my chauffeur will confirm it, for he was witness to this night's conversation, and shortly afterwards when he went to bed told his wife what he had heard up there in my bedroom . . . .
In the National Socialist press there appeared after this action an article to the same effect, which stated that a spontaneous demonstration of the people had revenged the murder of Herr vom Rath. It had therefore been deliberately ordered from Berlin that there should be a public statement to the effect that the demonstration of 1938 was spontaneous. That this was not the case I was also able to learn in Nuremberg; and it is remarkable that the indignation at what had happened during those demonstrations expressed itself, even here in Nuremberg, even among the Party members.
The Prosecution have submitted an article which is a report on a speech which I made on 10 November; and that is a remarkable piece of evidence of the fact that the people were against this action. I was forced, because of the atmosphere which prevailed in Nuremberg, to make a public speech and say that one should not have so much sympathy for the Jews. Such was the affair of November 1938.
Perhaps it might also be important for you to ask me how I, of all people, happened to oppose the idea of these demonstrations . . . . I do not know who gave the order; I believe it was SA leader von Obernitz. I do not know the details . . . . In a small circle of leading Party members I said what I have always said, what I have always said publicly: I stated that this was wrong. I talked to lawyers during a meeting--I do not know whether my defense counsel himself was there--I believe it was as early as November 1938 that I stated, to the Nuremberg lawyers at a meeting, that what had happened here during that action, was wrong; that it was wrong as regards the people, and as regards foreign countries. I said then that anyone who knew the Jewish question as I knew it would understand why I considered that demonstration a mistake. I do not know whether this was reported to the Fuehrer at that time, but after November 1938 I was never again called to the Hotel Deutscher Hof when the Fuehrer came to Nuremberg. Whether this was the reason I do not know, but at any rate I did criticize these demonstrations publicly.
From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: It was on 9 November, yes [that I drove Streicher back to Nuremberg from Munich]. I do not know the time exactly. At that time Streicher left Munich a bit earlier, and it may have been about--I do not know for sure--9 o'clock perhaps . . . . When Herr Streicher went to bed, I was usually with him or the house superintendent. On that evening Herr Stretcher went to bed earlier than usual. I do not know the reason. And that concluded my work for the day. I went from Herr Streicher to the Casino of the Gauleitung. That was in the cellar of the Gauleitung building on Schlageterstrasse. I played cards there. And then the former SA Obergruppenfuehrer, von Obernitz, came and called me, as was customary, by the name of Fritz and told me he had to speak to Herr Streicher very urgently; and I answered him that Herr Streicher had already gone to bed. Then he said. "Then I must rouse him," and he told me he would assume the responsibility; it was an important affair. Herr von Obernitz went to Herr Streicher's apartment in my car. Herr Streicher's bedroom is above my apartment. I had the keys and of course I could get in at any time.
On the way to the apartment at night I noticed that many SA men were in the streets. I asked Herr von Obernitz the reason for that. He told me that that night something was going to happen; the Jewish homes were to be destroyed. He did not say anything further to me. I accompanied Herr von Obernitz all the way to the bed of Herr Streicher. Herr von Obernitz then reported to Streicher about what was happening that night. I cannot recall the details very well any more, but I believe that he said that, that night the Jewish homes were to be destroyed. Herr Streicher was, if I may say so, surprised. He had not known anything about it. He said literally to Herr von Obernitz, and I remember that very clearly, "That is wrong. One does not solve the Jewish question that way. Do what you have been ordered. I shall have no part in it. If anything should occur so that you need me, then you may come for me." I can also mention that thereupon Herr von Obernitz said that Hitler had declared that the SA should be allowed to have a fling as retribution for what had occurred in Paris in connection with Herr vom Rath. Streicher stayed in bed and did not go out during that night . . . . He [Obernitz]...repeated [to me] what Hitler had said--the SA should be allowed to have a fling.
I believe...[Herr von Obernitz mentioned the fact that the synagogues were to be set on fire], yes. But, as far as I remember, Herr Streicher refused to do that, too, because the synagogue, as far as I know, was burned down by the regular fire department, and upon orders from Herr von Obernitz . . . . I was there . . . . I was at the synagogue during the night...The regular fire department started the fire . . . . The building was not yet on fire [when I arrived], but the fire department was there already. ....
I believe I did not speak about the conversation [to my wife]; but when I walked down from the second floor to the ground floor through my apartment, I told my wife that I would probably be a little late because, that night, that action was going to be started; I told her briefly what was happening but nothing about the conversation . . . .
I can recall that Herr Streicher once said that he had been right in his opinion [that the pogrom was a mistake], for, not long after that night, he received information--I do not know through whom--that, for instance, the glass for the window panes had to be bought from Holland again. Herr Streicher said then that, that was the first confirmation of the correctness of the opinion he had expressed at that time.
From the IMT Testimony of Friedrich Strobel: I was informed about that action by the personnel in my office. Thereupon I walked into the city and looked around in the streets. People were standing in front of the damaged stores. I had the impression that the vast majority of the population was benumbed and speechless. People shook their heads, looked at each other, muttered something, and then walked away. But, generally, I had the impression that people could not speak aloud, and later I heard that those who had objected to these things were treated rather badly, when they were overheard by informers . . . . The Russian radio at the time hit the nail on the head by saying, "Let it be said to the credit of the German people that they had no part in the events and that they were sleeping." In fact most people heard of the events of the night only on the following morning . . . . The action was definitely not started by the people themselves, because even the majority of the SA men who took part in it did so against their will. It was an order from above; it was an organized affair. The assertion of Dr. Goebbels that the German people had risen spontaneously was an intentional incrimination of the German people.
From the IMT testimony of SA Leader Philipp 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. I talked with SA Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz in a brief conversation, when I reported my return. We spoke only a few words, since Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz was called away so that in the course of the conversation I could not return to the subject. I remember that Obergruppenfuehrer 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. 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.November 11, 1938: From an account of the Nuremberg demonstrations (Kristallnacht) as they were reported in the Fraenkische Tageszeitung, a newspaper owned by Streicher:
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Well, here I can say only that I am convinced that there was a connection [between the orders for the demonstrations of 9 November and that further decree of 12 November 1938]. The order, rather the decrees, which were to have such an extensive effect in the economic field, came from Berlin. We did not have any conference. I do not remember any Gauleiter meetings in which that was discussed. I do not know of any. That happened just as everything happened; we were not previously informed . . . . Rosenberg was the spiritual trustee of the Movement, but he was not given this particular task nor the task of the demonstration nor that of economic matters . . . . Rosenberg, as he himself said, had met the Fuehrer very early and was, anyway, because of his knowledge, intellectually suited to take over this task. I devoted myself more to popular enlightenment.December 3, 1938: Streicher speaks about Kristallnacht at a meeting of the Jurists' association (Rechtswahrerbund) in Nuremberg.
From the IMT Testimony of Friedrich Strobel: He said, "I should not have carried out this action in this way. In such a manner it is impossible to fight a power like World Jewry." Then he added, "What has been done cannot be undone," and some more phrases of that kind . . . . Streicher frequently spoke against measures and directives of the Government when he was of a different opinion, as on this occasion. I had the impression that apparently he had been passed over; for in his speech there was a certain malicious undertone to the effect that the matter was having unfavorable aftereffects. I wondered at the time whether Streicher really had a lucid interval and realized how harmful that anti-Jewish action was, or whether merely his vanity was wounded, or whether he felt that a too quick and radical an extermination of the Jews would put an end also to his own importance.March 25, 1939: From the report of the commission Goering (The Goering Report) set up to investigate what had been taking place in Streicher's Gau:
From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: Streicher was in a Turkish bath at the time when the Director Fink and his adjutant, Koenig, came and offered to sell the shares to Herr Streicher. Herr Streicher said, "What kind of shares are they?" The answer was, "They are shares of the Mars Works." He said, "How many?" The answer was "100,000 marks' worth." Then Streicher said, 'what do the shares cost?" He was told "5,000 marks." Herr Streicher asked, "Why are these shares so cheap?" Finally Herr Fink said, I believe, "Because they are Jewish shares."
Whoever knows Herr Streicher as I do, knows that Herr Streicher has never taken anything from a Jew. He protested very emphatically against the fact that such an offer had been made to him at all. That seemed to settle the matter for the time being, and then suddenly the then Gauleiter Herr Streicher had the thought that with that money he could possibly construct the third Gau building. He mentioned that to the gentlemen as they left, and they decided to buy the shares. Herr Streicher forbade them to use Party money. Then both did not know what to do. Herr Streicher said he would advance these 5,000 marks.
That settled the case, but I had another experience later. It was about one and a half years after that trial that Streicher had had in Munich, when he was dismissed. At that time the wife of NSKK Obergruppenfuehrer Zuehlen came to me and asked whether I already knew that the criminal police was again in Nuremberg concerning the Streicher case. I said "no" to Frau Zuehlen and added, "If they want to find out something why do they not come out to the farm to Herr Streicher himself? He will give them all the necessary information."
After about 2 to 3 weeks, I met the Director of Der Stuermer, Fischer, successor to Herr Fink. He told me--but I would like to mention first that the shares, together with the 5,000 marks, were confiscated from Herr Streicher. The then Director Fischer told me that on that same day he had received a phone call from the trustee association, and that the trustee association had reported to Director Fischer that they had transferred to the account of Der Stuermer the 5,000 marks which Streicher at that time had advanced for the purchase of the shares . . . . The man from the trustee association said that the 5,000 marks were released because the innocence of Streicher had been proved in this matter.
From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: Herr Streicher left the inn after dinner. I cannot remember the exact words any more, but I am going to try to describe it as well as possible. Herr Streicher left the inn, and as he went out that man approached Herr Streicher in a--may I say--improper manner. Streicher continued on his way and was silent at first. He asked the people around him, myself also, whether we knew that man. Nobody knew him. Then Herr Streicher sent his son, Lothar, back into the room again to speak to the man and to ask him what the reason was for such behavior. Lothar Streicher came out and said that the man had behaved in just the same manner again.
Herr Streicher asked the landlord for a room, and in that room Streicher spoke to the man personally. There again, the man made offensive remarks, and then it came to blows, first with Lothar Streicher. Now, as it happened, he was a strong man, and of course all of us helped to get him down.
From Streicher's IMT testimony: Steinruck, in a public place, in the presence of many witnesses, had made derogatory statements about the Fuehrer, libelous statements. He was at police headquarters. I had spoken to the Police President about it and told him that I should like to look at that Steinruck once. I went with my adjutant--the Goering report says that a Party member, Holz, was there too, but that is not correct--I went with my adjutant to police headquarters. The same Police President, who later denounced me to Reich Marshal Goering, took me to Steinruck's cell. We went into the cell; I stated here that I had come with the intention of talking to him, talking to him reasonably. We talked to him. But he behaved so cowardly that it became necessary at the moment that he be chastised. I do not mind stating here that I am sorry about that case, that I regret it as a slip . . . . If I had beaten him up, then I would say so here. But I believe that my adjutant and somebody else had an argument with him . . . .
I went to Munich to the Inn Kuenstlerstatte, or something like that. I was received by the manager. Then a young man came up to me, drunk and quarrelsome, and shouted at me. The manager protested and ordered him out of the place. But the drunken young fellow came back again and again and then my chauffeur grabbed him and my son helped. They took him into a room and beat him up and then the proprietor of the inn thanked me for having rid him of the drunkard.
And now I should like to have the Tribunal's permission to state, very briefly, my position on one case which, I believe the Prosecution also have dropped, where I was accused of sadistic tendencies . . . .
Here in the Goering report is a reference to a statement of the deceased Party member, Holz. In that statement it is pointed out that Holz came to see me after that action, that he made a report about the action and likewise declared the action to be wrong; he said furthermore that now that this had happened, he considered it necessary to go further and Aryanize the property. The Goering report states that I then told Holz that could not be done and that I opposed it. Then it states further that Holz said to me that he still thought it would be right if one were to do it. We could then get out of it the means for the establishment of a Gau school. Holz also states that I said something like: "Well, Holz, if you believe you can do it, then go ahead and do it."
I want to state here that what Party member Holz said is true. I was opposed at first; and then, acting on a sudden impulse, which I cannot understand today, I said, "Well, if you can do it, then go ahead and do it." I want to state that at that time when I said it, I did not believe at all that it was to be done or would be done; but it was done. The Reich Marshal, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, later stated his position on it in Berlin, sharply rejecting it. Only at that time did I find out exactly how Holz accomplished this Aryanization. I had a talk with him, got into a serious dispute; and our friendly relations were broken off at that time. Holz volunteered in an armored unit, went to the front, and resigned as deputy. I returned from Berlin to Nuremberg, and later there appeared in Nuremberg a Police Inspector sent by the Reich Marshal in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan. He reported to me and asked me if I would agree to an investigation of the whole matter, and I stated that I would welcome the investigation. Then the investigation took place. The Aryanization was repealed, and it was established that Holz personally had not gotten any material advantage from it. Aryanization was then taken over by the State, repealed, and taken over.
I state frankly that, in that affair, I am at least guilty of negligence . . . . Holz had not come to see me for weeks. He had carried on the Aryanization in the Labor Front Office with the expert there. Not until later, in Berlin, during the meeting which the Reich Marshal held, did I learn of the real facts; and thus the dispute and the break between Holz and me came about, because I had to disapprove the manner in which the Aryanization had been handled . . . .
It says in the Goering report, literally, that I had instructed and in another place that I had given the order that the Mars shares be acquired for me. I state here that I neither instructed nor ordered anyone to acquire the Mars shares. The whole thing was like this. The director of my publishing house, who had power of attorney because I, personally, never in all the years bothered with financial or business matters, could do what he wanted. One day he came to see me with my adjutant. I do not recollect now whether the adjutant or the director of my publishing house was the one who spoke first. I was told the following: An attorney had called and said that the Mars shares were being offered for sale at an advantageous price. The director of my publishing house asked me whether I agreed. I stated that never in my life had I owned any shares, that I had never bothered about financial matters in my publishing house. If he thought that the stock should be bought, then he could do it. The shares were bought. It was the most serious breach of confidence ever committed against me by any Party comrade or employee. After a short time it turned out; that is, I was informed how these shares had been acquired. I found out that the owner had been threatened. When I found out under what conditions this stock purchase had been made, I gave the order at once to return the stock. In the Goering report it is noted that this return took place. Among the confiscated files of my publishing house there is an official statement about this affair which shows that these shares were returned.
In this connection perhaps I may be permitted to say that my publishing house was located until the end of the war in a rented house. At the time of the Aryanization I was approached with the plan that an Aryanized house be acquired for my publishing firm. I refused that. I state here in conclusion that I have in my possession no Jewish property.
When those demonstrations occurred in 1938, jewels had been brought into the Gau house. These pieces of jewelry were turned over to the police. A man who was bearer of the honorary Party emblem was convicted and sentenced to 6 years penal servitude because he had given his sweetheart a ring and another piece of jewelry dating from that time. But I may add one thing: The guilt of this bearer of the Party emblem rests perhaps with those who gave the order: "Go into the Jewish houses." That man, as far as I knew him, had always been personally decent. Because of that order, he got into a position in which he committed a crime.
I have finished what I wanted to say . . . . The whole thing was that Fink, the publishing house manager, was called to police headquarters and interrogated. The police Chief was interested in the hearing since for many years he had been a friend of mine and of my family. Fink returned from the interrogation completely upset. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted, "I was threatened, I have made statements which are not true. I am [a] blackguard. I am a criminal" A witness of that incident was my chauffeur. I calmed him down and told him, "I was called in for a hearing once, too. I was even imprisoned once.
From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: Der Stuermer was in possession of a large archive. This archive consisted of many thousands of German and foreign-language books, documents, edicts, and so forth. These books were either put at the disposal of the Stuermer archive by friends of Der Stuermer, or they came from Jewish apartments. The police put books which were found in Jewish houses at the disposal of Rosenberg's Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem for research purposes. Whatever remained in the Jewish dwellings in Nuremberg was turned over to the Stuermer archive. Among these books there were also numerous which dealt with sexual knowledge, books by Magnus Hirschfeld, Bloch, and some which were simply pornographic. These, then, consisted both of books which had been sent in by friends of the Stuermer, and books which had been found in Jewish dwellings.
These books were kept in a special section of the Stuermer archive under lock and key, and the public did not have access to them. This literature was no personal pornographic library of Streicher, but formed a part of Der Stuermer's archive. Streicher never read these books. They were to be reviewed after the war in the course of the reconstruction. All those which were not of direct Jewish origin were to be removed, but as I said, Streicher did not read these books.
From the IMT Testimony of Frau Adele [Tappe] Streicher: On 7 June 1940, I became Julius Streicher's secretary and I remained in that job until the end of the war...I was always with him. Julius Streicher did mainly physical work; that is, agriculture and gardening, and from time to time he wrote articles for Der Stuermer. During the first few years of his stay there Julius Streicher did not leave the farm at all; later, once in a while, he would pay a visit in the neighborhood. His longest absence did not comprise an entire day and never a single night . . . .
Julius Streicher never bothered about financial affairs at all, neither in the house nor in the firm. Again and again the gentlemen of the firm were disappointed when they wanted to report about annual balances or the like and Julius Streicher would tell them, "Do not worry me with your business matters. There are other things besides that are more important than money." ...
I received 1,000 marks every month from the firm. That provided for the household, presents, and so on...I consider it quite impossible that Julius Streicher acquired shares that way [by getting shares through illegal pressure against a Jewish banker]. I believe that he does not even know what a share looks like...I only heard that he never received shares...Julius Streicher gave the power of attorney to whoever happened to be the manager of the firm, and thereby gave him his full confidence without any restrictions.