Julius Streicher

(2 of 2)

February 1940: Streicher, neither for the first nor last time, is tried at Nuremberg's Palace of Justice—on this occasion, on charges of corruption. He is forced to resign as Gauleiter of Franconia, placed under house arrest on his country estate, and forbidden to set foot in Nuremberg. Nevertheless, he will continue to contribute to, and publish, Der Stuermer. Hitler explained: "If I let Streicher fall and banned the Stuermer, world Jewry would howl with glee. I will not give them the pleasure."

From Streicher's IMT testimony: In February 1940 I was given leave of absence. I lived for 5 years, until the end of the war, on my estate. At the end of April I went to southern Bavaria, to the Tyrol. I wanted to commit suicide. Then something happened which I do not care to relate. But I can say one thing: I said to friends, "I have proclaimed my views to the world for 20 years. I do not want to end my life by suicide. I will go my way whatever happens as a fanatic in the cause of truth until the very end, a fanatic in the cause of truth."

I might mention here that I deliberately gave my fighting paper Der Stuermer, the subtitle, A Weekly for the Fight for Truth. I was quite conscious that I could not be in possession of the entire truth, but I also know that 80 or 90 percent of what I proclaim with conviction was the truth . . . .

At that time, in 1939, there were intentions of prohibiting Der Stuermer. Bormann had even issued some such order. Then the Chief Editor of Der Stuermer wrote to prominent members of the Party, asking them to state their opinion about Der Stuermer. And thereupon letters were also received from Himmler and von Schirach. Altogether, I think about fifteen letters were received from prominent members of the Movement; they were merely kind replies to an inquiry . . . .

I am grateful that I have an opportunity to state quite briefly before the International Military Tribunal something which I have had to keep silent about up to now, because of a Fuehrer order. I myself had instituted proceedings against myself before the Supreme Party Court, in order to defend myself against people who were denouncing me. I was being accused . . . . It is important then that I instituted proceedings against myself; about 10 points were involved which had been raised against me, among them a matter referring to some shares. An affidavit exists from the Goering report which states that I had been found guilty. May I state here that the trial was never completed and no sentence was passed . . . .

I was frequently given a court summons. You ask me about the consequences. I was many times in prison, but I can say proudly that in the sentences it repeatedly stated "an incorruptible fanatic for the truth."

That was the consequence of my activity as a speaker and writer, but perhaps it is important to add the following: I never was arraigned because of criminal charges, but only because of my anti-Semitic activity; and the charge was brought by an organization of citizens of the Jewish faith. The chairman filed charges repeatedly when we made a slip in speaking, and thus exposed ourselves to prosecution on the basis of the laws and regulations existing at that time. But perhaps I may also point out here that the Jewish Justizrat, Dr. Suessheim, the Prosecuting Attorney, stated before the court here in this courtroom, "Your Honors, he is our inexorable enemy, but he is a fanatic for the truth. He is convinced of what he does; he is honest about it."

From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: I cannot say for sure that Criminal Police agents were there [on Streicher's farm]. I cannot affirm categorically that Herr Streicher was once under observation, but it could be safely assumed. I know of a woman who even stated that she had been photographed in the forest when she came from the railroad station to the farm. I met various members of the Party within the city and whomever I asked said to me, "Impossible to get out there, impossible to get out there." And if I asked who had issued the prohibition, then no one would talk about it; but as one heard it here and there, this prohibition was said to have been issued by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Herr Hess.

January 25, 1942: From the diary of Josef Goebbels:

The Fuehrer sent word to me that he does not desire the circulation of Der Stuermer to be reduced or that it stop publishing all together. I am very happy about this decision. The Fuehrer stands by his old Party members and fellow fighters . . . . I, too, believe that our propaganda on the Jewish question must continue undiminished.

From the IMT Testimony of Frau Adele Streicher: With the exception of one letter from Herr Himmler there was never any mail . . . . In that letter Herr Himmler complained about the fact that the French prisoners of war who were employed on our Pleikershof farm were treated too well . . . . On the Pleikershof eight French prisoners of war, one Polish girl, and one Slovene girl were employed. They were all treated very well and very humanely. Each service for which Julius Streicher asked, each piece of work for which he asked personally, was especially rewarded with tobacco, pastry, fruit, or even money. Such cordial relations developed with some of the Frenchmen during the years that they were there that they assured us, with tears in their eyes at their departure, that they would visit Julius Streicher after the war with their families.

From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: In many circles it was known that the influence of Streicher and of his paper on the Movement did decrease. After 1933 Streicher had many conflicts with other Party leaders, and he made many enemies. Particularly from the year 1937, Streicher was pushed more and more into the background. Within the Party, the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem, under the leadership of Rosenberg, dealt with the theory of the Jewish problem, and actual authority over the Jews belonged, as is well known, exclusively to Himmler. When, finally, in the year 1940, Streicher was relieved of his post as Gauleiter, he was completely isolated. From then on he lived on his farm and worked there as a farmer; he wrote articles only for Der Stuermer.

March 19 1942: From a speech by Streicher:

There were two ways which might have led to a liberation of Europe from the Jews: Expulsion or extermination! Both methods have been tried in the course of the centuries, but they were never carried to a conclusion . . . . The teaching of Christianity has stood in the way of a radical solution of the Jewish problem in Europe . . . .

Fate has decreed that it was finally left to the 20th century to see the total solution of the Jewish problem. Just how this solution will be achieved has been made known to the European nations and to entire non-Jewish humanity in a proclamation read out by the Fuehrer of the German people on the 24th February 1942: Today the ideas of our National Socialists and those of the Fascist revolution have conquered large and mighty nations and my prophecy will find its fulfillment, that in this war not the Aryan race will be destroyed, but the Jew will be exterminated. What ever else this struggle may lead to, or however long it may endure, this will be the final result.

From Streicher's IMT testimony: I was a part of that nation during the war. During the war, I lived alone in the country. For 5 years, I never left my farm. I was watched by the Gestapo. From 1939 on, I have been forbidden by the Fuehrer to speak . . . . But I wish to state that I had no opportunity--that is why I said this--to learn what was actually going on.

I first heard of the mass murders and mass killings at Mondorf when I was in prison. But I am stating here that if I had been told that two or three million people had been killed, then I would not have believed it. I would not have believed that it was technically possible to kill so many people; and on the basis of the entire attitude and psychology of the Fuehrer, as I knew it, I would not have believed that mass killings, to the extent to which they have taken place, could have taken place . . . .

I knew Himmler just as I knew the SA leaders, or other SS leaders. I knew him from common meetings, Gauleiter conferences, et cetera. I did not have a single political discussion with Himmler, except in society, when he may have touched on this or that, in the presence of others. The last time I saw Himmler was in Nuremberg, when he spoke to the officers in their mess. When that was, I cannot say exactly; but I think it was shortly before the war. I never had a talk with him on the Jewish question. He himself was, of course, well informed on this question. He had an organ of his own called the Schwarze Korps. And what his inner attitude toward me was, is something that I did not discover until my stay on the farm. There were denunciations against me, which reached him. It was stated that I was being too humane with the French prisoners. Shortly after that, I received a letter in which he reproached me and made serious representations against me. I gave no answer at all. Without having made any previous inquiries with me as to whether these denunciations were true, he made a serious charge against me; and I state quite openly that it was actually my feeling at the time that I might possibly lose my liberty through arrest. These were my relations with Himmler.

1942: From the fourth leaflet distributed by the White Rose resistance group in Munich:

For Hitler and his followers there is no punishment on this earth commensurate with their crimes. But out of love for coming generations we must make an example after the conclusion of the war, so that no one will ever again have the slightest urge to try a similar action. And do not forget the petty scoundrels in this regime; note their names, so that none will go free! They should not find it possible, having had their part in these abominable crimes, at the last minute to rally to another flag and then act as if nothing had happened!

September 8, 1942: Churchill addresses the House:

The German is now more hated in every country in Europe than any race has been since human records began. In a dozen countries, Hitler's firing parties are at work every morning, and a dark stream of cold execution blood flows between the Germans and almost all their fellow men. The cruelties, the massacres of hostages, the brutal persecutions in which the Germans have indulged in every land into which their armies have broken, have recently received an addition in the most bestial, the most squalid and the most senseless of all their offences, namely, the mass deportation of Jews from France, with the pitiful horrors attendant upon the calculated and final scattering of families. This tragedy fills one with astonishment as well as with indignation, and it illustrates as nothing else can, the utter degradation of the Nazi nature and theme, and the degradation of all who lend themselves to its unnatural and perverted passions.

When the hour of liberation strikes in Europe, as strike it will, it will also be the hour of retribution. I wish most particularly to identify His Majesty's Government, and the House of Commons, with the solemn words which were used lately by the President of the United States, namely, that those who are guilty of the Nazi crimes will have to stand up before tribunals in every land where their atrocities have been committed, in order that an indelible warning may be given to future ages, and that successive generations of men may say, "So perish all who do the like again..."

December 17, 1942: United Nations Statement:

[Numerous] reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content [with] denying to persons of Jewish race, in all the territories over which [the] barbarous rule of the Germans] has been extended, the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's often repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries, Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettoes established by the Nazi invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly-skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-[bodied] are slowly worked to death in labor camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation, or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women, and children. The above-mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving people to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for [these] crimes shall not escape retribution...

From Streicher's IMT testimony: I had subscribed to the Jewish weekly that appeared in Switzerland [the Israelitisches Wochenblatt]. Sometimes in that weekly, there were intimations that something was not quite in order; and I think it was at the end of 1943 or 1944--I believe 1944--that an article appeared in the Jewish weekly, in which it said that in the East--I think it was said in Poland--Jews were disappearing in masses. I then made reference to this in an article which perhaps will be presented to me later. But I state quite frankly that the Jewish weekly in Switzerland did not represent for me an authoritative source, that I did not believe everything in it. This article did not quote figures; it did not talk about mass executions, but only about disappearances . . . .

I represented the point of view that the Jewish question could be solved only internationally, since there were Jews in all countries. For that reason, we published articles in my weekly journal referring to the Zionist demand for the creation of a Jewish state, such as had also been provided for, or indicated in, the Balfour Declaration. There were therefore two possibilities for a solution, a preliminary solution within the countries through appropriate laws; and then the creation of a Jewish state.

During the war, I think it was in 1941 or 1942, we had written another article--we were subject to the Berlin censorship--and the censorship office sent back the proof submitted with the remark that the article must not be published, in which we had proposed Madagascar as the place for the establishment of a Jewish state. The political relations with France were given as the reason why that article should not be published . . . . At that time, at any rate, it would still have been nonsensical to publish it . . . .

It is perfectly natural that I, as an anti-Semitic person and as I saw the Jewish question, was in no way interested in that [the positive qualities of Jews]. Perhaps I did not see the good traits which you or some others see in the Jews. That is possible. But at any rate I was not interested in investigating as to what particular good qualities might be recognized here.

From the IMT Testimony of Fritz Herrwerth: Well, what do you want to know about the Israelitisches Wochenblatt? Herr Streicher received it . . . . I always saw large bundles of newspapers of the Israelitisches Wochenblatt. They came continuously . . . . Yes, that can very well be [that during the first years of the war he had great difficulty in getting that paper and the police did not release it easily]. For I do not know, after all, of what year they were. I just saw them and it is difficult for me to tell now of what date these papers were...but there were other newspapers too. Swiss newspapers were there, the Israelitisches Wochenblatt, and so on. There were always so many newspapers lying about and among them I saw here and there the Israelitisches Wochenblatt. I mean to say that it would not be possible for me to say how many there were. ...

Herr Streicher did not know anything at all about it [happenings in the East or of happenings in concentration camps in the East]. Thus he could not say anything about it. At least that is my conviction . . . . I did not know anything about it myself. . . . I know quite well that Herr Streicher once mentioned something about the treatment of prisoners. I know that the Frenchmen were treated very well, but whether the cause for that was a letter from Himmler I do not know . . . . Herr Streicher spoke about reproaches against the good treatment of the Frenchmen; but I do not know whether the fact that he spoke about it was due to a letter from Himmler. But I do not believe that there was a single Frenchman who could complain in any way about the treatment.

1943: Streicher's wife of thirty years, Kunigunde, dies.

November 4, 1943: From a speech by Streicher:

It is actually true that the Jews have, so to speak, disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish 'Reservoir of the East,' from which the Jewish pestilence has for centuries beset the peoples of Europe, has ceased to exist. But the Fuehrer of the German people at the beginning of the war prophesied what has now come to pass.

From Streicher's IMT testimony: We educated no murderers [in Der Stuermer]. The contents of the articles which I wrote could not have educated murderers. No murders took place, and that is proof that we did not educate murderers. What happened during the war--well, I certainly did not educate the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer issued the order on his own initiative . . . .

I do not believe that the National Socialists mentioned [the Himmler-Kaltenbrunner groups and other SS leaders] read Der Stuermer every week. I do not believe that those who received the order from the Fuehrer to carry out killings or to pass on the order to kill, were led to do this by my periodical. Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, existed, and the content of that book was the authority, the spiritual authority; nor do I believe that the persons mentioned read that book and carried out the order on the strength of it. Based on my knowledge of what went on in the Movement, I am convinced that if the Fuehrer gave an order, everyone acted upon it; and I state here quite openly that maybe fate has been kind to me. If the Fuehrer had ordered me to do such things, I would not have been able to kill; but perhaps today, I would face some indictment which it has not been possible to lodge against me. Perhaps because fate has taken a hand in this. But the conditions were thus, that the Fuehrer had such a power of hypnotic suggestion that the entire people believed in him; his way was so unusual that, if one knows this fact, one can understand why everyone who received an order, acted. And thus I want to reject, as untrue and incorrect, what was here thought fit to assert against me.

January 6, 1944: From an article in Der Stuermer by Streicher:

Developments since the rise of National Socialism make it probable that the continent will be freed from its Jewish destroyers of people and exploiters forever, and the German example after the German victory in World War II will also serve to bring about the destruction of the Jewish world-tormentors on other continents.

From Streicher's IMT testimony: [Incitement] means to bring a person into condition of excitement which causes him to perform an irresponsible act. Did the contents of Der Stuermer incite, this is the question? Briefly stated, the question must be answered, "What did Der Stuermer write?" Several volumes of Der Stuermer are available here, but one would have to look at all the issues of 20 years in order to answer that question exhaustively. During those 20 years, I published enlightening articles dealing with the race, dealing with what the Jews themselves write in the Old Testament, in their history, what they write in the Talmud. I printed excerpts from Jewish historical works, works for instance, written by a Professor Dr. Graetz and by a Jewish scholar, Gutnot.

In Der Stuermer no editorial appeared, written by me or written by anyone of my main co-workers, in which I did not include quotations from the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament, or from Jewish historical works of recent times.
It is important, and I must emphasize, that I pointed out in all articles that prominent Jews, leading authors themselves, admitted that, which during 20 years as author and public speaker, I publicly proclaimed.

Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of Der Stuermer as such were not [incitement]. During the whole 20 years, I never wrote in this connection, "Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death." Never once did such an incitement appear in Der Stuermer.

Now comes the question: Is there any proof to be furnished that any deed was done from the time Der Stuermer first appeared, a deed of which one can say that it was the result of an incitement? As a deed due to an incitement, I might mention a pogrom. That is a spontaneous deed, when sections of the people suddenly rise up, and kill other people. During the 20 years, no pogrom took place in Germany; during the 20 years, as far as I know, no Jew was killed. No murder took place, of which one could have said, "This is the result of an incitement which was caused by anti-Semitic authors or public speakers."

Gentlemen, we are in Nuremberg. In the past there was a saying that nowhere were the Jews in Germany so safe and so unmolested as in Nuremberg. The indictment accuses me of having indirectly contributed by [incitement] to mass murders, and I ask to be allowed to make a statement on this: something has been ascertained today, about which I myself did not know. I learned of the will left behind by the Fuehrer, and I assume that, a few moments before his death, the Fuehrer told the world the truth in that will. In it, he says that mass killings were carried out by his order; that the mass killings were a reprisal. Thus it is demonstrated that, I, myself, cannot have been a participant in the incredible events which occurred here.

May 7, 1944: Streicher is visited by Dr Ley. Note: Streicher has been in virtual exile on his farm in Pleikershof, prohibited visits by prominent party officials.

From Streicher's IMT testimony: It is not correct that I was ordered to stay at the Pleikershof. What is true, is that I retired voluntarily, with the intention of never again being active in the Movement. It is correct that the Gestapo watched me, and every visitor was called to the police station, and interrogated as to [the] conversations he had had. That is a fact. . . . . As far as prominent persons of the Movement and of the State are concerned, I had no correspondence whatsoever with them; that is why the Prosecution could hardly find any letters. I never stated, in letters, my opinion on the Jewish problem, or on other matters. I shall have to state then, in order to answer your question exactly, that I had no correspondence with prominent persons of the Party and the State.

From the IMT Testimony of Frau Adele Streicher: I myself remember, when Dr. Goebbels visited the farm, that Julius Streicher said to him, "Doctor, you dare to come here? Do you not know that it is prohibited by the Party chiefs to visit me?" . . . . Dr. Ley came to the farm on 7 May 1944. The visit of Dr. Goebbels occurred on 4 June 1944. Both visits were of a rather unofficial character. Dr. Ley wanted mainly to know how Julius Streicher was doing, personally. No political questions were raised. Ley said only, "Streicher, the Fuehrer is waiting for you." Julius Streicher answered that he had become accustomed to his solitude, that he was happy as a farmer, and that Ley should tell the Fuehrer that he, Streicher, wanted nothing more. At the visit of Dr. Goebbels, the subject of the conversation dealt mainly with Julius Streicher's dismissal from his office as Gauleiter, and Dr. Goebbels was of the opinion that Julius Streicher should return into the circle of old Party members; but he gave him the same answer, "Tell the Fuehrer I wish for nothing" . . . . they never spoke about the Jewish question.

June 4, 1944: Despite the prohibition, Goebbels visits Streicher.

1944: From an editorial entitled What is Americanism? by Streicher:

Cordell Hull, one of the most prominent Jewish lackeys, controls the foreign policy of the United States of America. Hull is a particular favorite of the Jews. He was the one who stood alongside as Roosevelt lied to the American people and said that no American mother needed to fear that her son would fight in Europe. He and Roosevelt did everything they could to bring the United States into the Second World War. It is claimed that Cordell Hull is not a Jew. His appearance however leaves no doubt that Jewish blood is working its mischief in him and is producing that spirit that is typically Jewish. Perhaps it is this concealed Jewish blood that enabled him to overcome his horror when he married the baptized full Jewess Frances Witz. She is the daughter of the Jew Isaac Witz, who as is well known gained his wealth in ways that almost led him to prison or the electric chair...

July 14, 1944: Churchill to Foreign Secretary Eden:

This requires careful handling. It is quite possible that rich Jews will pay large sums of money to escape being murdered by the Huns. It is tiresome that this money should get into the hands of ELAS (Greek Communist partisans), but why on earth we should go and argue with the United States about it, I cannot conceive. We should take a great responsibility if we prevented the escape of Jews, even if they should be rich Jews. I know it is the modern view that all rich people should be put to death wherever found, but it is a pity that we should take up that attitude at the present time. After all, they have no doubt paid for their liberation so [highly] that in the future they will only be poor Jews, and therefore have the ordinary rights of human beings...

February 22, 1945: From a Streicher leading article in the last issue of Der Stuermer:

Just as the Jewish leader Moses ordered his forces to do to the conquered peoples thousands of years ago, so today, the Red soldiers under the command of Jewry, behave today wherever they reach through treachery or force: Men are murdered or shipped abroad as slaves, women and girls are raped and defiled! "You shall devour the peoples!" How incomprehensible is the pious order of the "god" Jehovah to the Jews! In our day it has become clear as the Red slave army of World Jewry has broken into the heart of Europe! When this terrible war finally ends, the spirits of the murdered and tortured will rise from their mass graves in eternal accusation. The millions of faces of Cain, bastards brought into the world, will join the accusations. A horror will spread across the world...

From the IMT Testimony of Frau Adele Streicher: From all conversations with Julius Streicher I could see with certainty that he never thought of the solution of the Jewish question in terms of violence, but hoped for the emigration of Jews from Europe and their settlement in territories outside Europe . . . . I believe he found out about it [the mass executions in the East] through Swiss newspapers in 1944. We were never informed about it officially.

From the IMT Testimony of Ernst Hiemer: Streicher himself never told me that he knew about the happenings in the concentration camps. On the contrary, Streicher said he learned of these things only in 1944, through the Swiss press. Streicher received the Swiss newspapers regularly, in particular the Israelitisches Wochenblatt of Switzerland, and in 1944 this journal published rather detailed descriptions about what was going on in the concentration camps.

Streicher at first refused to credit these reports in the Swiss press and called them premeditated lies. He declared that these reports were being printed, merely for the purpose of undermining the prestige of the German people abroad. It is true Streicher soon changed his opinion. He began to doubt that his opinion was right, and finally he believed that the occurrences in concentration camps, as pictured in the Swiss press, did after all correspond to the facts. Streicher said that Himmler was the only man who could have authorized such crimes . . . .

In the beginning, he had decidedly said that these reports could not be true. Then he became uncertain, and said that perhaps they might be true. I had the impression that, either the detailed manner of the reports in the Swiss press had convinced Streicher that these things had actually occurred, or that Streicher, from one source or another, either through personal contact or through letters, had received knowledge that these happenings were actually taking place in the concentration camps. To that, I ascribe his change of view . . . . I cannot give you the exact date, but I believe it was in the middle of 1944 . . . .

Streicher definitely deprecated what was done in the concentration camps. It did happen that Streicher, in anger--if he had been especially upset by political events--often or at times, asserted that Jews, as an enemy of the German people, should be exterminated. However, Streicher talked in that way only in the first phase of excitement. When he was calmed, he always opposed the extermination of the Jews.It is a fact that in reports of Der Stuermer the extermination of Jewry is spoken about. However, on the other hand. Streicher again and again opposed the murder of the Jews, and I am quite convinced that Streicher and Der Stuermer had nothing whatever to do with the happenings in concentration camps. I do not believe it.

For it is known now that these crimes in the concentration camps were committed on the instructions of individual leading men; that is, on official orders, and it is my firm conviction that neither Streicher nor Der Stuermer had anything to do with them.

April 30, 1945: An announcement on the German wireless: "It has been reported from the Fuehrer's headquarters that our Fuehrer Adolf Hitler has died this afternoon..."

May 2, 1945: From an Executive Order of US President Truman:

Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson is hereby designated to act as the Representative of the United States and as its Chief of Counsel in preparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their principal agents and accessories, as the United States may agree, with any of the United Nations, to bring to trial before an international tribunal...

May 20, 1945: Streicher weds his secretary, Adele.

From the IMT Testimony of Frau Adele Streicher: Julius Streicher wanted to take part in the fighting in Nuremberg. I wanted to accompany him, so he married me before we left. We wanted to die together. First we wanted to go to Nuremberg, and that was refused for fear of difficulties with the authorities. So we drove in the direction of Munich. In Munich we were told to continue in the direction of Passau. From Passau they sent us to Berchtesgaden; from Berchtesgaden they sent us to Kitzbuehel.

May 23, 1945: Two weeks after Germany's surrender, Streicher, hiding out in a farmhouse in the town of Waidring, Austria, is recognized by Jewish US Army Major Plitt, and captured. Streicher, who had grown a beard, at first pretends he is not Streicher, but a painter named 'Joseph Sailer.' Streicher responds to the Major's question 'What do you think of the Nazis?' with 'I am an artist and have never bothered about politics.' Only half seriously, Britt replies: 'But you look like Julius Streicher.' Streicher exclaims: 'How did you recognize me?' (Conot)

May 23-August 12, 1945: From Streicher's manuscript account (quoted from Maser) of his first months in Allied captivity:

At top speed to Berchtesgaden via Reit im Winkel. Jeered at by press reporters (4/5ths Jews). Film. Prison in Salzburg--'Now we've got him! That's Julius Streicher!' Jewish officers: 'Cur! Swine! When I was ten years old you listed me in Der Stuermer for race pollution! Out with your hands!' Handcuffs on. Jeered at by Jews all night. Under heavy guard, nothing to eat. About midnight a woman's voice: 'You're Julius Streicher?' I: 'It is as you say.'

Next day in a lorry (truck) to Freising via Munich with Epp. I had been left only with shirt and trousers. I was terribly cold. In Freising placed in north-facing cell. Window was out so it was even colder. Two niggers undressed me and tore my shirt in two. I kept only my pants. Being handcuffed I could not pull them up when they fell down. So now I was naked. Four days! On the fourth day I was so cold that my body was numb. I couldn't hear anything. Every 2 - 4 hours (even in the night!) niggers came under command of a white man and hammered at me. Cigarette burns on the nipples. Fingers gouged into eye-sockets. Eye-brows and chest-hairs pulled out. Genitals beaten with an oxwhip. Testicles very swollen. Spat at. 'Mouth open' and it was spat into. When I refused to open, my jaws were prised apart with a stick and my mouth spat into. Beaten with the whip--swollen, dark-blue weals all over my body. Thrown against the wall. Blows to the head. Thrown on the floor. A heavy chain across the back. When I refused to kiss the niggers' feet, kicks and whipping. When I refused to eat rotten potato skins, more blows, spittings, and burns. When I refused to drink out of the chamber-pot in the latrine, fresh torments.

Jewish pressmen every day. Photographed naked! Jeered at wearing an old army greatcoat which they hung round me - 'Now, how long d'you think you've got to live?' No opportunity to lie down, no chair. I collapsed on the floor, with my hands still handcuffed. Four days handcuffed without a break. Impossible to relieve nature. I never cried out. All the time, I was thinking of my Adele. On fourth day, carted off to Wiesbaden with Epp, Gaul, and a young Englishman (a Nazi). I imagined I was going to be executed, and said to myself: 'I would never have thought that one could be so glad to die.'

To Weisbaden via Nuremberg and Frankfurt ... fifth day and still handcuffed. Deputy Prison Governor (a dentist) to Bohle: 'Why is this man handcuffed?' When Bohle said that I had been handcuffed for four days, he was indignant and took the handcuffs off me at once. Blood and puss ran out the joints. I couldn't move my hands. The feeling did not come back to them for at least a minute and I have only been able to use them since arriving in Weisbaden.

Next day interrogation by twenty Jews through the Prison Governor (a Jew). After my interrogation he came into my cell looking serious: 'Do you want anything?' 'I am a prisoner and have no wants.' 'I only meant; I like you. You are the only prisoner who has stuck to his story. All honor to you.' From Weisbaden to Mondorf camp, Luxemburg. Late August to Nuremberg."

May 24, 1945: An American correspondent witnesses Streicher's arrival at Divisional Headquarters: "Julius Streicher," he writes in his paper, "the publisher of the anti-Semitic rag Der Stuermer, was the greatest Jew-hater in history. Now he has been discovered and taken prisoner by a Jew..." (Heydecker)

June 7, 1945: From a progress report sent by Justice Jackson to President Truman:

Over a month ago, the United States proposed to the United Kingdom, Soviet Russia, and France, a specific plan, in writing, that these four powers join in a protocol establishing an International Military Tribunal, defining the jurisdiction and powers of the tribunal, naming the categories of acts declared to be crimes, and describing those individuals and organizations to be placed on trial. Negotiation of such an agreement between the four powers is not yet completed...

June 14, 1945: By His British Majesty's Command, Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals is issued by Royal Warrant:

If it appears to an officer authorized under the Regulations to convene a Military Court that a person then within the limits of his command has at any place whether within or without such limits, committed a war crime he may direct that such person if not already in military custody shall be taken into and kept in such custody pending trial in such manner and in the charge of such military unit as he may direct. The commanding officer of the unit having charge of the accused shall be deemed to be the commanding officer of the accused for the purposes of all matters preliminary and relating to trial and punishments. But such commanding officer shall have no power to dismiss the charge or deal with the accused summarily...

July 16, 1945: Since May, the Allies have been collecting Nazis and tossing the high-ranking ones into a former hotel in Mondorf, Luxemburg, affectionately referred to as 'Ashcan.' On this day, Ashcan's commander, US Colonel Burton C. Andrus, takes representatives of the world's press on a tour of the facility to squash rumors that the prisoners are living the high-life. "We stand for no mollycoddling here," Andrus proclaims. "We have certain rules and the rules are obeyed . . . . they roll their own cigarettes." (Tusa)

July 19, 1945 International Conference on Military Trials: From the minutes of this day's Conference Session:

Nikitchenko: It is quite impossible to give an exhaustive list of the crimes. If, on the other hand, we should confine ourselves to a few matters, that, too, would not be right. Therefore we should work out a formula which would make it possible to bring to trial and punish those who have committed all the various atrocities. At the same time, we should not, of course, confine ourselves to persons who have actually committed the crimes...

July 31, 1945 From the letters of Thomas Dodd, Executive Trial Counsel for the Prosecution at Nuremberg:

Much gossip is abroad about friction between the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia, over these trials. The truth is there is no trouble between US, Britain, and France--but the Russians are just holding up the whole proceeding. They are impossible, in my opinion. I do not know the details but I do know they are not cooperative on this problem so far. I believe they want to put on another Russian farce for a trial. If that happens, I go home, and promptly! The English appointed their chief counsel 21 days after the US appointed Jackson (who was the first to be appointed). The French followed soon after. Thus far, no one has been appointed for Russia. Our people meet with certain Russian representatives, but nothing happens. When representatives of the United Nations went to Nuremberg to look it over as a possible site for the trial, only the Russians failed to make the trip...

August 8, 1945: The London Agreement is signed.

August 12, 1945: From a statement released by Justice Jackson to the American press:

Another price of international cooperation is slow motion. No doubt Russia acting alone, or the United States, or any one country acting alone, could try these defendants in much shorter time than we can do it, when we consult with each other and move along together. Our associates, for example, have a claim as good as ours, to have the trial proceed in a language that they understand. This requires a trial rendered into four languages--German, Russian, French, and English. This will be a dreary business, and there is no use trying to dodge that fact. It is a tedious prospect...

August 12, 1945: Colonel Andrus and his 15 Ashcan prisoners are loaded onto a US C-47 transport plane bound for Nuremberg. As they fly above Germany, Goering continually points out various geographical features below, such as the Rhine, telling Ribbentrop to take one last look as he is unlikely to ever get the opportunity again. Streicher becomes air-sick. (Tusa)

August 25, 1945 International Conference on Military Trials: Representatives of the Big Four (Jackson, Fyfe, Gros, and Nikitchenko), agree on a list of 22 defendants, 21 of whom are in custody. The 22nd, Martin Bormann, is presumed to be in Soviet custody, but Nikitchenko cannot confirm it. The list is scheduled to be released to the press on August 28. (Conot)

August 28, 1945 International Conference on Military Trials: Just in time to delay the release of the names of the final 22, Nikitchenko informs the other three Allied representatives that, unfortunately, Bormann is not in Soviet custody. However, he announces that the valiant Red Army has captured two vile Nazis, Erich Raeder, and Hans Fritzsche, and offers them up for trial. Though neither man was on anyone's list of possible major defendants, it emerges that their inclusion has become a matter of Soviet pride; Raeder and Fritzsche being the only two ranking Nazis unlucky enough to have been caught in the grasp of the advancing Russian bear. (Conot)

August 29, 1945 International Conference on Military Trials: With the additions of Raeder and Fritzsche, the final list of 24 defendants is released to the press. Bormann, though not in custody (or even alive), is still listed. (Conot, Taylor)

August 29, 1945: The Manchester Guardian reacts to the release of the list of defendants:

Grave precedents are being set. For the first time the leaders of a state are being tried for starting a war and breaking treaties. We may expect after this that at the end of any future war the victors--whether they have justice on their side or not, as this time we firmly believe we have--will try the vanquished.

August 30, 1945: The Glasgow Herald reacts to the release of the list of defendants:

Scanning this list, one cannot but be struck by the completeness of the Nazi catastrophe. Of all these men, who but a year ago enjoyed wide influence or supreme power, not one could find a refuge in a continent united in hate against them."

September 17, 1945 From the letters of Thomas Dodd:

Yesterday, Jackson told the press that the US would be ready to start the trial on November 1. By the way, the Russian representative (Nikitchenko) had been suddenly withdrawn. No explanations--mere notice that he will no longer represent Russia in this matter. After weeks of negotiating, weeks of work with him as chief counsel for Russia, he simply goes home and does not come back. These Russians are impossible. What effect this will have on the trial or the trial date no one knows, but you can imagine the confusion that may arise out of it.

October 5, 1945: Andrus loses his first German prisoner to suicide; Dr Leonard Conti, Hitler's 'Head of National Hygiene.'

October 19, 1945: British Major Airey Neave presents each defendant in turn with a copy of the indictment.

October 25, 1945: Andrus loses yet another Nazi as Defendant Dr Robert Ley, Hitler's head of the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), commits suicide in his Nuremberg cell. Scorecard: There are now officially 23 indicted defendants; 22 of these are actually alive and in Allied custody.

October 29, 1945: Only seven of the defendants have obtained counsel by this date. Major Neave, while serving the Indictment to the defendants, had offered to assist them in obtaining counsel. Streicher rejects a list of lawyers provided by Neave, commenting that the names 'look like those of Jews.' He demands a lawyer who is an anti-Semite. Ultimately, Streicher will hire Dr Hanns Marx, a Nuremberg lawyer and former Nazi Party member. Note: Eighteen of the forty-eight German lawyers who eventually participate in the trial will have Nazi backgrounds. (Conot, Maser, Taylor)

1945: Prior to the trial, the defendants are given an IQ test. Administered by Dr. Gilbert, the Nuremberg Prison psychologist, and Dr. Kelly, the psychiatrist, the test includes ink blots and the Wechsler-Bellevue test. Streicher scores 106; the lowest score of all the defendants. Note: After the testing, Gilbert comes to the conclusion that all the defendants are 'intelligent enough to have known better.' Andrus, for one, is not impressed by the results: 'From what I've seen of them as intellects and characters I wouldn't let one of these supermen be a buck sergeant in my outfit.' (Tusa)

November 16, 1945: The Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the USSR submits a motion to the Tribunal on behalf of the Prosecution:

[It] seems to me evident that there is every reason for appointing psychiatric experts. This measure should not encounter any difficulties, as, right at this moment, there are in Nuremberg a sufficient number of highly qualified specialists, who have just solved a similar problem in connection with the Defendant Hess. An immediate examination would give the Tribunal, before even the beginning of the session, exact information as to whether the Defendant Streicher is responsible or irresponsible. There is still amply sufficient time to do so. To resort to experts when the Trial had already begun, would undoubtedly delay the normal procedure of the Tribunal. Given consideration to the above, I request that the Defendant Streicher be submitted to a psychiatric examination...

November 17, 1945: Order of the Tribunal:

The Tribunal desires that you examine the Defendant Julius Streicher to determine:

1. Is he sane or insane?

2. Is he fit to appear before the Tribunal and present his defense?

3. If he is insane, was he for that reason incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment?

From Justice at Nuremberg by Robert E. Conot: Of all the defendants, the one who most typified the storm trooper was Julius Streicher, the former Gauleiter of Nuremberg . . . . After he was incarcerated at the Palace of Justice, Streicher became the talk of the jail. He loved to attract an audience by performing exercises in the nude in his cell. He washed his face and brushed his teeth in the toilet bowl, a practice that might have given those Germans, who considered the Russians barbarians for engaging in the same custom, pause for reflection. Hitler's onetime adjutant, Fritz Wiedemann observed: 'Streicher is either insane or a very great criminal. I rather think the former is the case.' Streicher's lawyer, sixty-three-year-old Hans Marx, suspected likewise.

November 19, 1945: After a last inspection by Andrus, the defendants are escorted handcuffed into the empty courtroom and given their assigned seats. Schacht, having been assigned the seat next to Streicher, is somehow able to switch places with Funk. This not only provides Schacht with a comfortable corner seat, but moves him away from Streicher, whom he considers repulsive. (Speer, Conot)

November 19, 1945: The day before the opening of the trial, a motion is filed on behalf of all defense counsel:

[Recently,] when the Control Council for Germany enacted a law to assure the return to a just administration of penal law in Germany, it decreed in the first place the restoration of the maxim, 'No punishment without a penal law in force at the time of the commission of the act.' This maxim is precisely not a rule of expediency but it derives from the recognition of the fact that any defendant must needs consider himself unjustly treated if he is punished under an ex post facto law. The Defense of all defendants would be neglectful of their duty if they acquiesced silently in a deviation from existing international law...

November 20, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 1 of the historic trial, the prosecutors take turns reading the indictment in court. Unfortunately, no one had given any thought to the prisoners' lunch break, so, for the first and only time during 218 days of court, the defendants eat their midday meal in the courtroom itself. This is the first opportunity for the entire group to mingle, and though some know each other quite well, there are many who have never met. (Tusa, Conot)

November 21, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 2, the defendants enter their pleas: "The President: I will now call upon the defendants to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges against them. They will proceed in turn to a point in the dock opposite to the microphone . . . . Streicher: "Not guilty."

November 21, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: Immediately following the pleas of the defendants, Justice Jackson delivers his opening statement:

Jackson: [The] Charter also recognizes individual responsibility on the part of those who commit acts defined as crimes, or who incite others to do so...

November 22, 1945: On Day 3, the Tribunal announces the result of the examination of Julius Streicher:

The President: [The] Tribunal wishes me to announce the decision on the application made on behalf of the Defendant Julius Streicher by his counsel that his condition should be examined. It has been examined by three medical experts on behalf of the Tribunal and their report has been submitted to and considered by the Tribunal; and it is as follows:

1. The Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.

2. The Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the Tribunal, and to present his defense.

3. It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding the nature and policy of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment." The Tribunal accepts the report of the medical experts and the trial against Julius Streicher will, therefore, proceed."

November 22, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: Major Frank Wallis, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States, presents the case known as the Common Plan or Conspiracy:

[As] a means of implementing their master race policy and as a means of rallying otherwise discordant elements behind the Nazi banner, the conspirators adopted and publicized a program of relentless persecution of Jews. This program was contained in the official, unalterable 25 points of the Nazi Party, of which 6 were devoted to the master race doctrine. The Defendants Goering, Hess, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Funk, Schirach, Bormann, and others, all took prominent parts in publicizing this program. Upon the Nazis coming into power, this Party program became the official State program...

November 29, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal
: The Prosecution presents as evidence a film shot by US troops as they were liberating various German concentration camps.

November 30, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: On the 9th day of the historic trial, defendant Rudolf Hess makes a statement before the court:

At the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon I gave my defense counsel a note saying that I thought the proceedings could be shortened if I would be allowed to speak. I wish to say the following: In order to forestall the possibility of my being pronounced incapable of pleading, in spite of my willingness to take part in the proceedings and to hear the verdict alongside my comrades, I would like to make the following declaration before the Tribunal, although, originally, I intended to make it during a later stage of the trial: Henceforth my memory will again respond to the outside world. The reasons for simulating loss of memory were of a tactical nature. Only my ability to concentrate is, in fact, somewhat reduced. But my capacity to follow the trial, to defend myself, to put questions to witnesses, or to answer questions myself is not affected thereby. I emphasize that I bear full responsibility for everything that I did, signed, or co-signed. My fundamental attitude, that the Tribunal is not competent, is not affected by the statement I have just made. I also simulated loss of memory in consultations with my officially appointed defense counsel. He has, therefore, represented it in good faith.

From The Case of Rudolf Hess by J. R. Rees: The reactions of Hess's fellow defendants to the above statement are noted: "Goering was amazed and upset, and while he enjoyed the frustration of the Court, demonstrated considerable resentment that he had been so completely fooled. Von Schirach felt that such behavior was not the action of a normal man, and while he enjoyed Hess's jest upon the world, felt that it was not a gesture expected of a good German, whose position was as important as that of Hess. Ribbentrop, upon learning the news, was dumbfounded, and was hardly able to speak when told Hess's statement, and merely kept repeating: 'Hess, you mean Hess? The Hess we have here? He said that?' Ribbentrop became quite agitated and seemed to feel such action was not possible. He stated: `But Hess did not know me. I looked at him. I talked to him. Obviously he did not know me. It is just not possible. Nobody could fool me like that.' Streicher's comment, as usual, was direct and blunt: "If you ask me, I think Hess's behavior was a shame. It reflects on the dignity of the German people.

December 11, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: On the trial's 17th day, the Prosecution presents as evidence a four-hour movie, 'The Nazi Plan,' compiled from various Nazi propaganda films and newsreels. The film opens with Rosenberg, plump in his Party uniform, providing the pompous narration for Triumph of the Will. Far from viewing the film as another nail in their coffins, the defendants enjoy it hugely.

From the diary of an eyewitness, Dr. Victor von der Lippe: Goering was visibly delighted to see himself once more 'in the good times.' Ribbentrop spoke of the gripping force of Hitler's personality, another defendant declared himself happy that the Tribunal would see him at least once in full uniform, and with the dignity of his office. (Taylor, Conot)

December 13, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: Major William Walsh, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States, begins presentation of the Case on Persecution of the Jews:

Major Walsh: I now offer in evidence Document 2697-PS, a copy of Der Stuermer, Exhibit Number USA-259. This publication, Der Stuermer, was published by the Defendant Streicher's publishing firm. In this publication, Streicher, speaking of the Jewish faith, said, "The Holy Scripture is a horrible criminal romance abounding with murder, incest, fraud, and indecency." And again he said, "The Talmud is the great Jewish book of criminal instructions that the Jew practices in his daily life." This is contained in Document 2698-PS, Der Stuermer, which I now offer in evidence, Exhibit Number USA-260. This propaganda campaign of hate was too widespread and notorious to require further elaboration. Within the documents offered in evidence in this and in other phases of the case will be found similar and even more scurrilous statements...

December 20, 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal: After this day's session, the trial adjourns until Wednesday, the 2nd of January. Streicher reportedly spends much of this Christmas break playing games with matchsticks and drawing primitive pictures, littering the floor with them, and nightly sweeping them into a heap. (Conot)

January 3, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 26, Otto Ohlendorf testifies for the Defense concerning the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews by the Einsatz groups. Dr Gilbert records the reactions of some of the defendants during the lunch break: "Fritzsche was so depressed, he could not eat. Frick, however, remarked how nice it would be to be able to go skiing in this fine weather. Fritzsche stopped eating and looked at me in desperation, then glared at Frick." (Gilbert)

January 10, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 31, the Prosecution presents its case against Streicher:

Lieutenant Colonel M. C. Griffith-Jones (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): [The] case against this defendant can be, perhaps, described by the unofficial title that he assumed for himself as "Jew-baiter Number One." It is the Prosecution's case that, for the course of some 25 years, this man educated the whole of the German people in hatred, and that he incited them to the persecution and to the extermination of the Jewish race. He was an accessory to murder, perhaps on a scale never attained before...

January 28, 1946 From the diary of the British Alternate Judge, Mr. Justice Birkett:

The evidence is building up a most terrible and convincing case of complete horror and inhumanity in the concentration camps. But from the point of view of this trial it is a complete waste of valuable time. The case has been proved over and over again...

February 15, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: Colonel Andrus tightens the rules for the defendants by imposing strict solitary confinement. This is part of a strategy designed to minimize Goering's influence among the defendants. (Tusa)

February 22, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: In a further move to minimize his influence, Goering is now required to eat alone during the court's daily lunch break. The other defendants are split up into groups, with Streicher sharing a table with Hess, Raeder, and Ribbentrop. (Tusa)

March 5, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 74, Dr Hanns Marx puts in Streicher's application for defense witnesses:

Dr Marx: Mr. President, the Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, that he was active in the planning and in the conspiracy for preparation of aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against Humanity. As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think it necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document; neither can it be proved that he took part in any of the intimate conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not see fit to offer any proof...

April 15, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: The court listens in silence to the horrible testimony of Rudolf Hoess concerning millions murdered. Only Goering and Doenitz manage a comment later: Both remark that Hoess is obviously a South German; a Prussian could never have done such things. Astonished by his matter-of-fact apathy, Dr. Gilbert, the Nuremberg Prison psychologist, questions Hoess on the subject:

Hoess: Don't you see, we SS men were not supposed to think about these things; it never occurred to us. And besides, it was something already taken for granted, that the Jews were to blame for everything . . . . It was not just newspapers like 'Stuermer' but it was everything we ever heard. Even our military and ideological training took for granted that we had to protect Germany from the Jews . . . . We were all so trained to obey orders without even thinking that the thought of disobeying an order would never have occurred to anybody. (Gilbert, Tusa)

From The Nuremberg Trial by Ann and John Tusa: After eight relatively straightforward cases, the Prosecution now had to tackle a handful of trickier ones, cases which raised real difficulties and needed skill and some luck to win. The first of these--that of Julius Streicher--gave an appearance of simplicity, which was highly misleading. The misconception arose from assuming that someone so immediately repellent must be found guilty. Any spectator in court had an instant desire to go and wash thoroughly after being in the same room with the man. The sight of Streicher doing his daily exercises in prison soured the breakfast in the stomachs of prisoners and guards alike. He exercised stark naked. He was revolting. Everyone complained about the spectacle. Fritzsche tactfully presented him with a pair of shorts made by cutting down a pair of old trousers, but Streicher refused to wear them.

He had driven the other prisoners distracted in the early weeks in jail by bellowing in the night. Andrus stopped that--he threatened punishment and Streicher fell silent. Andrus could not, however, stop Streicher telling him incessantly that General Eisenhower was a Jew (and that was why he attacked Germany) and that Jackson was a Jew (whose real name was Jacobson). Andrus did not need a report from Gilbert to tell him that Streicher was 'rigid, insensitive, and of obsessive mentality.' That was plain for all to see. He was also well aware that Streicher was 'the least intelligent and least amenable of all defendants.'

It was, however, possible to extract occasional entertainment from Streicher's stupidity and one-track mind. Andrus once sent interrogators to him, accompanied by a blond, blue-eyed Jewish interpreter. Streicher, always susceptible to a handsome young man, had been thrilled. He called the interpreter 'a perfect example of a German Nordic.' Gilbert told Andrus that such was Streicher's fastidiousness on racial questions that he 'considers the Bible pornographic literature, and has no use even for Christ because he was a Jew. Streicher considered himself an expert on pornography . . . .

Given his repellent aspect and driveling mind, Streicher should never have gone into the witness box. If he had had a modicum of self-awareness and common sense, he would have avoided drawing attention to himself, and encouraged his counsel to play on the undoubted weakness of the prosecution case. Instead, he gave evidence and submitted to cross-examination for a day and a half . . . . It began with a bitter denunciation of his counsel . . . . Streicher continued with a shrill protest about the conditions he had suffered in captivity, complaining that he had been kept for days without clothes (an odd complaint from a nude exerciser) and that he had been "made to kiss Negroes' feet." He paused for breath and then screamed: "My mouth was forced open with a piece of wood and then I was spat on. When I asked for a drink of water I was taken to a latrine . . . . These are the sort of things the Gestapo had been blamed for." This section was later struck from the record.

With that off his chest, Streicher then settled down to a less impassioned rant about the way Jews had seized power in Germany . . . . 'Well,' said Fritzsche, as the Streicher case finished, 'they've put a rope around his neck after all; at least our end of the dock thinks so.' It might have been more accurate to say that Streicher himself had put his head in the noose. But would the judges allow the defendant to hang himself rather than expect the evidence to do it?

April 26, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 115, Streicher testifies on his own behalf:

Dr. Marx: Witness, would you give the Tribunal first a short description of your career?

Streicher: I should like to ask the Tribunal to let me make a brief statement in respect to my defense. Firstly . . . .

The President: You really ought to answer the questions that are put to you.

Streicher: My Lord, my defense counsel cannot say what I must say now. I should like to ask permission--in short, my defense counsel has not conducted and was not in a position to conduct my defense in the way I wanted; and I should like to state this to the Tribunal.

The President: Defendant, you understand that the Tribunal does not wish to have its time taken up with unnecessary matters. It has no objection to your stating what is material, or to your reading it if necessary. It hopes that you will be as brief as possible.

Streicher: I mention only facts, four facts.

Firstly, the Charter created for this International Military Tribunal guarantees the defendant the right to an unhampered and just defense.

Secondly, before the trial began the defendants received a list containing the names of the attorneys from whom the defendant could choose his counsel. Since the Munich attorney whom I had selected for my defense could no longer be put at my disposal, I asked the Military Tribunal to put the Nuremberg attorney Dr. Marx at my disposal. That was done.

Thirdly, when I met my counsel for the first time, I told him he must expect, as my counsel, to be attacked before the public. Shortly afterwards, an attack was made by a Communist newspaper published in the Russian zone of Berlin. The International Tribunal was compelled to make a public statement, repudiating the attack of that newspaper, and assuring my counsel of the express protection of the Military Tribunal.

Fourthly, although the statement made by the International Military Tribunal left no doubt as to the fact that the Tribunal wished to see the defense of the defendants unhampered, a renewed attack occurred, this time by radio. The announcer said, "There are camouflaged Nazis and anti-Semites among the defendants' counsel." That these terrorist attacks were made with the intention of intimidating the defendants' counsel is clear. These terror attacks might have contributed to the fact--that is my impression--that my own counsel had refused to submit to the Tribunal a large number of pieces of evidence which I considered important.

Fifthly, I wish to state that I have not been afforded the possibility of making an unhampered and just defense before this International Military Tribunal.

The President: You can rest assured that the Tribunal will see that everything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, bears upon the case, or is relevant to your case, or is in any way material in your case, will be presented, and that you will be given the fairest opportunity of making your defense.

Streicher: I thank you. From my life...

Dr. Marx: Excuse me, Mr. President; may I ask briefly to be permitted to state my position. May it please the Court, when I was asked to take over Herr Streicher's defense, I naturally had grave misgivings. I have...

The President: Dr. Marx, I do not think it is necessary, really, for you to make any personal explanation at this stage. It is very possible that the defendant may have different ideas about his own defense. I think we had better let him go on with his defense.

Dr. Marx: Nevertheless, I should like to ask permission, Mr. President, just to mention the following point: As attorney and as defense counsel of a defendant I have to reserve for myself the right to decide how I shall conduct the defense...

April 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 116, prior to the continuation of Streicher's testimony, his attorney makes a statement to the Court:

Dr Marx: On Friday afternoon, Herr Streicher referred to a case, namely, that press event which concerned me and my professional attitude. I thereupon took the opportunity to refer to this case in my statement as well, and I pointed out that at that time I had had to ask for the protection of the Tribunal against this damaging attack on my work and that this protection was given me very graciously. On that occasion and in that extemporary explanation I used the expression "newspaper writer." I used it exclusively with reference to the particular journalist who had written the article in question in that Berlin newspaper regarding my person and my activity as a lawyer.

By no means did I express, or mean to express, a reference to the press in general. It was far from my intention in any way to attack the press, the group of press experts, and particularly not the members of the world press who are active here; nor did I wish to injure their professional honor.

The reason for this statement of mine is a statement made on the radio, according to which I, the attorney Marx, had attacked and disparaged the press in general. I am, of course, aware of the significance of the press. I know precisely what the press has to contribute and I should be the last person to fail to recognize fully the extremely difficult work and the responsible task of the press. May I, therefore, quite publicly before this Tribunal, ask that this statement be accepted; and may I ask the gentlemen of the press to receive my statement in the spirit in which it is made, namely, that this was merely a special comment on that particular gentleman and not in any way on the entire press. That is what I wanted to say.

The President: Dr. Marx, the Tribunal understood your statement the other day in the sense in which you have now explained it...

April 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: Streicher's Defense calls Fritz Herrwerth to the witness stand.

April 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: Streicher's Defense calls Frau Adele Streicher to the witness stand.

April 30, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 117, Streicher's Defense calls Friedrich Strobel to the witness stand:

April 30, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: Streicher's Defense calls Ernst Hiemer to the witness stand:

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.

Dr Marx: Herr Hiemer, I do not want to know that. I want you to tell me whether Herr Streicher, let us say, wished to advocate emigration, or whether he followed a different train of thought. Long expositions on the Jewish problem are not required.

Hiemer: 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 at peace...

April 30, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: Streicher's Defense calls SA Standartenfuehrer Philipp Wurzbacher to the witness stand:

Dr Marx: When you attended a meeting in which Streicher spoke, what impression did you gain of the objectives which he pursued in his speech with regard to the solution of the Jewish problem?

Wurzbacher: The objectives which were stated by Streicher were, I should say, unequivocal and clear. He pursued the policy that, the strong elements of the Jewish people, which occupied positions in the German economy, and above all in public life and public offices, should be removed and that necessarily, expulsion or emigration should be considered...

May 24, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 138, Baldur von Schirach is cross-examined with regard to fellow-defendant Streicher:

Dr Sauter: Witness, the question of anti-Semitism would also include your attitude to Der Stuermer, the paper issued by your fellow-Defendant, Streicher. Did you distribute this anti-Semitic paper Der Stuermer within your youth organization, and did you in any way further its distribution?

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 this Gau...

Dr Sauter: Gau Franken (Franconia)?

Schirach: Yes, 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...

July 11, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 176, Dr Marx begins his final argument in Streicher's defense:

Marx: Throughout the rest of the world, the opinion evidently prevailed that, in the person of Julius Streicher, not only the most active propaganda agent for the persecution and extermination of the Jews had been seized, but that he had also participated to the highest degree in carrying out these acts of extermination. He was said to have been, as one heard, not only the greatest hater of the Jews and the greatest preacher of extermination of the Jews, but also the person to whose direct influence one could trace back the extermination of European Jewry. It is only from this angle that it can be explained why the Defendant Streicher should sit here in the dock, together with the other defendants, among those chiefly responsible for the National Socialist system. For neither by virtue of his personality, nor measured by his offices and positions, does he belong to the circle of leaders of the NSDAP, or to the Party's decisive personalities. This view was probably also held in the beginning by the Prosecution, but was abandoned by them at an early stage, for the written Indictment already no longer charged the Defendant Streicher with any personal and direct part in the abominable mass murders. Rather did it state that, there was less guilt with which he would be charged, than in the case of any of the other defendants...

From The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials by Telford Taylor: Julius Streicher was the next defendant in the sequence, and Dr Marx's task was easy to state. To save Streicher from a capital sentence, Marx needed to do two things: persuade the Tribunal that there was insufficient evidence that Streicher had incited the killing of Jews, and prevent [his] hateful reputation and repulsive appearance from crucially influencing the Tribunal's decision. But what did 'incitement' mean? Before the war, Streicher and many other Germans 'incited the persecution of Jews,' but under the Charter these acts were not international crimes. Most German Jews were expelled to Poland shortly before the war, and soon after the Germans occupied that country. Within a year or so, the Germans were sending Jews from other countries in the East for extermination or forced labor; that was certainly criminal persecution.

But in the meantime, the German government had rusticated Streicher, and his voice was heard only in Der Stuermer. It was a small newspaper (some 15,000 subscribers), and Streicher had no connections with Himmler or his subordinates, who were actually carrying out the Holocaust. Marx traced Streicher's record in the Party, and his activities with Der Stuermer during the war, and made a very strong argument that the defendant could have little or no impact on the situation and fate of the Jews. A few issues of Der Stuermer contained articles calling for extermination of Jews, but its 'incitement' was surely imperceptible, especially when Field Marshal von Reichenau and other military leaders were issuing [to their troops instructions] that were just as rabid against Jews, as was Streicher's rag. Marx made little effort to rehabilitate Streicher as a human being worthy of the law's protection. Indeed, at the end of his argument Marx declared that he had had 'a difficult and thankless task' as defense counsel (which no doubt was true) and left Streicher's guilt or innocence 'in the hands of the High Tribunal,' thus seeming to wash his own hands of his client.

July 11, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 177, Dr Marx concludes his final argument in Streicher's defense:

Marx: [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 Stuermer 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 Stuermer, 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...

July 16, 1946 From the letters of Thomas Dodd:

The defendants reflect the ending of these proceedings. They seem to feel that the days are definitely numbered. Even Goering, who has been positively impish up to very recently, now is gray and crestfallen. Keitel wears the mask of the doomed already. And so it goes through the entire dock. General Jodl and Seyss-Inquart being exceptions to some extent, and mostly because they are more stable emotionally.

July 22, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 187, US Justice Jackson details Prosecution's closing arguments against Streicher.

Jackson: [In] the beginning, fanaticism and political opportunism played a principal part, for anti-Semitism and its allied scapegoat, mythology, was a vehicle on which the Nazis rode to power. It was for this reason that the filthy Streicher and the blasphemous Rosenberg were welcomed at Party rallies and made leaders and officials of the State or Party. But the Nazis soon regarded the Jews as foremost among the opposition to the police state with which they planned to put forward their plans of military aggression. Fear of their pacifism and their opposition to strident nationalism was given as the reason that the Jews had to be driven from the political and economic life of Germany. Accordingly, they were transported like cattle to the concentration camps, where they were utilized as a source of forced labor for war purposes . . . . Streicher, the venomous Bulgarian [sic], manufactured and distributed obscene racial libels which incited the populace to accept and assist the progressively savage operations of "race purification."

July 22, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: From The Nuremberg Trial by Heydecker and Leeb:

At lunchtime, when Jackson's speech was finished, Gilbert observed the reaction of the defendants. It was 'hurt surprise that the Prosecution still considered them criminals.' Streicher had been hardly interested in the speech at all, just rather puzzled by Jackson's estimate of the number of Jews murdered: "I don't think it was six million...maybe four million." He said he had been deeply impressed recently by reading about Jewish riots in Palestine. "Anybody who can fight and resist and stick together...for such people I can only have the greatest respect ... I would be ready to join them now and help them in their fight." Perhaps he could go as soon as the trial was over, he thought. Jodl and Rosenberg listened for a while wide-eyed, then roared with laughter.

July 27, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 188 of deliberations, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom, details Prosecution's closing arguments:

Shawcross: [There] is one group, to which the method of annihilation was applied on a scale so immense that it is my duty to refer separately to the evidence. I mean the extermination of the Jews. If there were no other crime against these men, this one alone, in which all of them were implicated, would suffice. History holds no parallel to these horrors. As soon as the prospect of a second world war became a certainty, Streicher, who had preached this infamous doctrine as far back as 1925, began in earnest to advocate annihilation. As he, on his own admission, had been instrumental in effecting the Nuremberg Decrees by years of propaganda in favor of racial laws, so now, in January 1939, anticipating the war which was to come, he began, in articles published in the Stuermer with "the full support of the highest Reich authority," to demand with all vehemence the physical extinction of the Jewish race...

July 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 189 of deliberations, M. Charles Dubost, Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic, details Prosecutions closing arguments:

DuBost: [Streicher] entered the Party almost as soon as it was formed. He indulged in unbridled propaganda against the Jews, both in his speeches and in his writings and incited the German people to persecute and to exterminate them. He was made Gauleiter. He does not dissociate himself from anything that has been done. He stated: "When one has known the profound depths of the Fuehrer's character as I have done, and when I later learned from his testament that he deliberately gave the order to execute the Jews, well, I declare that this man had a right to do so...

July 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 189, General Rudenko, Chief Prosecutor for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, details Prosecution's closing arguments:

Rudenko: [Notwithstanding] the fact that, during the war years, the Defendant Julius Streicher did not formally hold functions directly connected with the perpetration of murders and mass executions, it is hard to overestimate the crimes committed by this man. Together with Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, and those who conceived, constructed and brought into action the gas chambers and gas wagons; together with those who personally committed mass actions, Streicher must bear responsibility for the monstrous crimes of German fascism. The incitement to national and racial dissension, the cultivation of perverted cruelty and the call to murder--all these, not only represented the Party duties of this man for many years, they were also the source of his income...

August 30, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On Day 216, the defendants make their final statements.

Final Statement of Julius Streicher: Your Honors: At the beginning of this Trial, I was asked by the President whether I pleaded guilty in the sense of the Indictment. I answered that question in the negative. The completed proceedings, and the evidence presented, have confirmed the correctness of the statement I gave at that time. It has been established that:

(1) Mass killings were carried out exclusively upon orders by the Head of the State, Adolf Hitler, without other influence.

(2) The mass killings were carried out without the knowledge of the German people, and in complete secrecy by the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. The Prosecution had asserted that mass killings would not have been possible without Streicher and his Stuermer. The Prosecution neither offered nor submitted any proof of this assertion. It is clearly established that on the occasion of the Anti-Jewish Boycott Day in 1933, which I was ordered to lead, and on the occasion of the demonstration of 1933 ordered by Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels, I, in my capacity as Gauleiter, neither ordered, demanded, nor participated in any acts of violence against Jews.

It is further established that in many, articles in my weekly paper, the Stuermer, I advocated the Zionist demand for the creation of a Jewish state as the natural solution of the Jewish problem. These facts prove that I did not want the Jewish problem to be solved by violence. If I, or other authors, mentioned a destruction or extermination of Jewry in some article of my weekly paper, the Stuermer, then these were strong statements in reply to provoking expressions of opinion by Jewish authors, in which the extermination of the German people was demanded.

According to his last testament the mass killings ordered by the leader of the State, Adolf Hitler, were supposed to be a reprisal which was only brought about by the course of the war, then recognized as becoming unfavorable. These actions of the leader of the State against the Jews can be explained by his attitude toward the Jewish question, which was thoroughly different from mine. Hitler wanted to punish the Jews because he held them responsible for unleashing the war and for the bombing of the German civilian population. It is deeply regrettable that the mass killings, which can be traced back to the personal decision of the leader of the State, Adolf Hitler, have led to a treatment of the German people which must also be considered as not humane. I repudiate the mass killings which were carried out, in the same way as they are repudiated by every decent German.

Your Honors! Neither in my capacity as Gauleiter, nor as political author, have I committed a crime, and I therefore look forward to your judgment with a good conscience. I have no request to make for myself. I have one for the German people from whom I come. Your Honors, fate has given you the power to pronounce any judgment. Do not pronounce a judgment, Your Honors, which would imprint the stamp of dishonor upon the forehead of an entire nation.

September 2, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: As the defendants await the court's judgement, Colonel Andrus somewhat relaxes the conditions of confinement, allowing those prisoners with wives or children limited visiting. Frau Adele Streicher, still housed in the prison, will visit almost daily until the 28th.

September 29, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: From notes by Dr Pfluecker, Nuremberg Prison's German Doctor: "Yesterday, the defendants said farewell to their relatives . . . . Streicher is bright; he makes fun of the last-minute Christians and weaklings, who previously played the strong man. He asks whether I will be present at the execution." (Maser)

September 30, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On the penultimate day of this historic trial, the final judgements are read in open court:

Final Judgement: Streicher is indicted on Counts One and Four. One of the earliest members of the Nazi Party, joining in 1921, he took part in the Munich Putsch. From 1925 to 1940 he was Gauleiter of Franconia. Elected to the Reichstag in 1933, he was an honorary general in the SA. His persecution of the Jews was notorious. He was the publisher of Der Stuermer, an anti-Semitic weekly newspaper, from 1923 to 1945 and was its editor until 1933.

Crimes against Peace: Streicher was a staunch Nazi and supporter of Hitler's main policies. There is no evidence to show that he was ever within Hitler's inner circle of advisers; nor during his career was he closely connected with the formulation of the policies which led to war. He was never present, for example, at any of the important conferences when Hitler explained his decisions to his leaders. Although he was a Gauleiter there is no evidence to prove that he had knowledge of these policies. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence fails to establish his connection with the conspiracy or common plan to wage aggressive war as that conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.

Crimes against Humanity: For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as "Jew-Baiter Number One." In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism and incited the German people to active persecution. Each issue of Der Stuermer, which reached a circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often lewd and disgusting. Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1 April 1933. He advocated the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on 10 August 1938 of the synagogue in Nuremberg. And on 10 November 1938, he spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place at that time. But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his doctrines. As early as 1938, he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. 23 different articles of Der Stuermer between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which extermination "root and branch" was preached.

Typical of his teachings was a leading article in September 1938 which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human being, but "a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind." Other articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the Jewish graves "will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its deserved fate." Streicher, in February 1940, published a letter from one of Der Stuermer's readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely. Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of Der Stuermer, in May 1939, shows clearly his aim: "A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect: Death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be exterminated root and branch."

As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from Der Stuermer, published between August 1941 and September 1944, 12 by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms. He wrote and published on 25 December 1941: "If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way--the extermination of that people whose father is the devil." And in February 1944, his own article stated: "Whoever does what a Jew does, is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he who repeats and wishes to copy him, deserves the same fate: annihilation, death." With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda of death. Testifying in this Trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he continually received current information on the progress of the "Final Solution."

His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Romania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November 1943 Streicher quoted verbatim an article from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt which stated that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented: "This is not a Jewish lie."

In December 1942, referring to an article in the London Times about the atrocities aiming at extermination, Streicher said that Hitler had given warning that the Second World War would lead to the destruction of Jewry. In January 1943 he wrote and published an article which said that Hitler's prophecy was being fulfilled, that World Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors. In the face of the evidence before the Tribunal it is idle for Streicher to suggest that the solution of the Jewish problem which he favored was strictly limited to the classification of Jews as aliens, and the passing of discriminatory legislation such as the Nuremberg Laws, supplemented if possible by international agreement, on the creation of a Jewish state somewhere in the world, to which all Jews should emigrate. Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with War Crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a Crime against Humanity.

Conclusion: The Tribunal finds that Streicher is not guilty on Count One, but that he is guilty on Count Four.

October 1, 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal: On the 218th and last day of the trial, sentences are handed down: "Defendant Julius Streicher, on the Count of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging." Streicher: "I am going to celebrate Christmas in Valhalla!" (Conot)

From Justice at Nuremberg by Robert E. Conot: The eleven condemned to death were no longer permitted to exercise in the yard. Whenever one emerged from his cell, he was handcuffed to a guard. For a few minutes a day, one at a time, they were marched up and down in the center of the cell block, in lock step with a military policeman. When they saw their attorneys in the Palace of Justice, a GI sat with each of them like a Siamese twin joined at the wrist . . . .

The Allied Control Council ordered the executions carried out on the fifteenth day after sentencing. The condemned, however, were not informed of the date. Kaltenbrunner, Ribbentrop, Sauckel, and Streicher were in such a state of anguish that it was questionable whether they would retain their sanity till the fatal day . . . . Though the men were given sleeping pills, Streicher was visited by demons in the middle of the night--on two or three occasions his screaming and raging awakened the whole cell block. 'It is all right to hang a man, but why torture him?' he remarked, as if his nightmares were being conjured by Andrus . . . . The British and French were so apprehensive about demonstrations or a possible attempt to rescue the prisoners that they insisted that no prior announcement of the executions be made.

October 13, 1946: From Spandau Diary by Albert Speer:

A guard goes from cell to cell. He asks whether we want to make use of our right to a daily walk on the ground floor. The yard is still barred to us. I have to get out; the cell is beginning to feel unbearably oppressive. So I ask to go. But I shudder at the prospect of seeing the men on death row [Note: The 11 condemned men are housed in cells on the ground floor; the 7 sentenced to prison time are being kept in an upper tier of cells]. The guard holds out the chrome handcuffs. Linked together, we have some difficulty descending the winding staircase. In the silence, every step on the iron stairs sounds like a thunderclap. On the ground floor, I see eleven soldiers staring attentively into eleven cells. The men inside are eleven of the surviving leaders of the Third Reich . . . . Julius Streicher, the Gauleiter of Nuremberg and one of Hitler's oldest companions, was always an outsider in the Party because of his sex-obsessed anti-Semitism and his flagrant corruption. During the trial, all the other defendants avoided him . . . .

As the rules prescribe, most of them are lying on their backs, hands on the blanket, heads turned toward the inside of the cell. A ghostly sight, all of them in their immobility; it looks as though they have already been laid on their biers . . . . I cannot stand it for long. Back in my cell, I decide not to go back down again.

Note: German author Werner Maser, in Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial, comments critically on the above passage by Speer: These and the comments immediately following are typical of Speer's usual fanciful descriptions. Since he was handcuffed to a guard, he could not have seen what was going on in the cells. His remarks on his fellow-defendants speak for themselves.

October 13, 1946: Streicher, along with Goering and Frank, had declared that they wished no appeals for clemency to be filed on their behalf. Dr Marx had ignored Streicher's wishes and filed an appeal requesting that his sentence be reduced to life imprisonment. Colonel Andrus informs the prisoners on this day that all appeals have been denied. (Tusa, Maser)

October 14, 1946: The condemned men, most of whom have become convinced that the executions will be carried out on the 15th, spend this day as if it were their last. Julius Streicher spends the day reading Jelusich's novel, The Soldier. He receives one letter, and writes six. (Heydecker)

October 16, 1946: From Spandau Diary by Albert Speer:

At some hour of the night I woke up. I could hear footsteps and indistinguishable words in the lower hall. Then silence, broken by a name being called out: "Ribbentrop!" A cell door is opened; then scraps of phrases, scraping of boots, and reverberating footsteps slowly fading away. Scarcely able to breathe, I sit upright on my cot, hearing my heart beat loudly, at the same time aware that my hands are icy. Soon the footsteps come back and I hear the next name: "Keitel!" Once more a cell door opens, once more noises and the reverberation of footsteps. Name after name is called. To some of these men I was linked with common work and mutual respect; others were remote to me and scarcely crossed my path. Those I feared, primarily Bormann, then Himmler, are missing; likewise Goebbels and Goering. Some I despised. More footsteps. "Streicher!" A loud, excited exclamation follows. From our floor comes a shout: "Bravo, Streicher!" To judge by the voice, that is Hess. Below, the calling of the names goes on... (Speer II)

October 16, 1946: Of all the condemned, Streicher is the only one who resists. He refuses to dress. Three or four GI's dress him roughly and drag him to the gallows, where he refuses to answer when his name is called. Streicher's last words as he mounts the gallows: "Heil Hitler!" To Woods, the hangman: "The Bolsheviks will hang you one day," then, a bit later, "Purim Fest 1946," and finally, "I am now by God my father! Adel my dear wife." The hanging of Julius Streicher does not proceed as planned. The consensus among eyewitnesses is that he dies by slow strangulation rather than by the quick death from spinal severing promised by the executioner. It reportedly takes 14 minutes for Streicher to die. (Taylor)

October 20, 1946: From a Stars and Stripes interview with Master-Sergeant John C. Woods, the Nuremberg Executioner:

I hanged these ten Nazis in Nuremberg and I am proud of it; I did a good job. Everything went A1. I have...never been at an execution which went better. I am only sorry that that fellow Goering escaped me; I'd have been at my best with him. No, I wasn't nervous. I haven't got any nerves. You can't afford nerves in my job. But this Nuremberg job was just what I wanted. I wanted this job so terribly that I stayed here a bit longer, though I could have gone home earlier. But I'll say one thing about these Nazis. They died like brave men. Only one of them showed signs of weakness. As Frick climbed the thirteen steps to the gallows, one of his legs seemed to fail and the guard had to hold him up. They were all haughty. One could see how they hated us.

The old Jew-baiter Streicher looked at me as he said: 'One day the Bolshevists will hang you.' I looked him back straight in the eye. They couldn't ruffle me. There's not much to say about the executions themselves. They went off ... like all other routine executions. Ten men in 103 minutes. That's quick work. Only one of them moved after he fell. He groaned for a bit but not for long. Another, I think it was Sauckel, started to shout 'Heil Hitler' after I had put the hood over his head. I stopped that--with the rope. I used a new rope and a new hood for each man. I put the noose round myself and attached each rope myself to make sure nothing went wrong. The ropes and hoods were burnt with the bodies so that there was nothing left for the souvenir-hunters . . . . What do I think of the gallows job? Someone has to do it after all . . . . But I'm glad the Nuremberg affair is over. It was a strain. I had never seen any of the condemned men before they came through the door of the execution chamber ... they gave their names as they came to the scaffold . . . . It is difficult to remember exactly what each one did and said. To hang ten people one after the other it has to go fairly quick, you know. And what I had in my hand was a rope, not a notebook.

From Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial by Werner Maser, translated by Richard Barry: The 'job' had certainly not gone off 'A1,' as the hangman maintained. Streicher groaned for a long time after his execution. Jodl took eighteen minutes and Keitel as much as twenty-four minutes to die. Some of the victims' faces were scratched and bleeding. Frick had severe wounds on his face and neck. Possibly the trapdoors were too small or the ropes had not been properly positioned. The hangman's story, which is only a story, is that the faces were smeared with blood because 'they had bitten their tongues at the moment they fell.' As far as the Allies were concerned all this was a closely guarded secret.

When a German journalist named Helmut Kamphausen managed to persuade an American-licensed newspaper in Berlin to publish photographs of the blood-smeared faces and wounded heads, he was promptly arrested. The victors only released 'touched-up' pictures of the eleven bodies lying in a row on the gymnasium floor--with Goering at one end. That night the bodies were photographed--both naked and clothed--by a US Army photographer; they were in wooden packing cases. Goering's right eye was open, staring glassily at nothing; all the others still had the rope round their necks. Each carried a long narrow identification plate on the chest showing the initial of the Christian name and the surname in full. The bodies, still in their packing boxes, were then taken to Munich on two US Army lorries. There, in the Heilmannstrasse, they were cremated, and the ashes scattered into the Conwentz Brook.

Click to join 3rdReichStudies

Click to join 3rdReichStudies

Make your own free website on Tripod.com