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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.