him only did so by a manly deed. say before 1923 Adolf Hitler did not trust me. I had turned over my movement to him without any reserve. He sent the later Reichsmarshal Goering to Nurnberg as a young SA leader, which I believe he was at that time. He came and examined conditions as to whether I was right or the people who denounced me. That should not be taken as an accusation but just as clarification. A short time later he sent another one and then another one.
Adolf Hitler before 1923 did not trust me. Then come Munich, the Putsch. After midnight when most men had left him I appeared before him and told him one had to tell the public now when the day would arrive. He looked at me with his great eyes and said:
"Would you do it? I will do it."
Maybe the Prosecution has the document now. After midnight he wrote on a piece of paper:
"Streicher has to be put in charge of the entire organization. He has to prepare for the day, that is the 11th of November, for the next day."
everything was prepared. The flag was in front, which later became the blood flag. I went into the tenth rank and we marched into the city; we marched in the direction of the Feldherrnhalle. Then I saw rifle next to rifle before the Feldherrnhalle, and I knew, "Now they will shoot." I went ten paces in front of the flag and marched right into the guns. Then there was this fighting, and we were arrested. the men who were in prison with him, that he would never forget that. So, because I took part in the march to Feldherrnhalle at the head of the columns, Adolf Hitler probably had more sympathy to me than to the others.
Q Are you through?
Q Were you consulted by Adolf Hitler on important matters?
A I saw Adolf Hitler only in meetings of the Gauleiters. If he came to a meeting in Nurnberg then we were together at meals, five, ten, or more people. I recall only one time when I was alone with him, in the brown house at Munich, when the brown house was finished. That was a nonpolitical conversation. All conversations which I had with Adolf Hitler, be it in Nurnberg, be it in Munich, or anywhere else, occurred in the circle of Party members.
Q Now I come to the period of 1933. On the 1st of April, 1933, there was a day of boycott throughout the entire German Reich against the Jewish population. What can you say about that and what was your part in it? brown house. Adolf Hitler explained to me--and I knew this before--that a tremendous propaganda against Germany was going on in the foreign press; that although Hindenburg was still the head of the Reich, although the Reichstag was still there, the Parliament was still there, a tremendous hate campaign had started in the foreign press against Germany.
The Fuehrer told me that "even the Reich flag was injured, insulted abroad, and now we know that we have to tell the world Jewry to go that far and no further. We have to show them that we will not tolerate that further." and he wanted me to take care of it.
Perhaps it is of importance to point out the following. For that antiboycott day Adolf Hitler believed that it would be well to use my name. Later that was no longer done. I took charge, then, of that anti-boycott and issued a directive, which I believe has been submitted to the Court and I do not have to say any more about it. I directed that no Jewish life should be attacked; that in front of Jewish property, that is to say, in front of every Jewish store, there should be a guard or mere who would be responsible to see to it that nothing would be destroyed materially. In short, I issued a directive which one probably would not have expected from me, and probably in many parts of the Party one would not have expected it.
But this is certain; the anti-boycott day, with the exception of small, unimportant things, went on without disturbance. I believe there is no one who can state to the contrary. It was something definitely in the way of discipline and it was against boycott. leading members of the Party, and did that committee ever become active? It never met, and I believe the members-
Q You mean the committee members?
A The boycott committee. That was put in the papers by Goebels. That was just a matter for the newspapers. Once I spoke to Goebbels on the telephone. He asked when I was in Munich, How things were going. I said, "everything is O.K." That is to say, never a conference or a meeting occured, it was merely built up from the outside for the masses.
Q Witness, you made a mistake before, in speaking of Munich in 1923. You wanted to say the 9th of November, did you not?
Q What was that?
A I don't know any more, but the 9th of November is what it should be.
Q It should be the 9th of November?
Q In the year 1935. on the Reich Party Day in Nurnberg, the so-called Race Law was proclaimed. Were you consulted concerning the planning and preparation of the draft of that law, and did you have any part in its preparation particularly
A Yes. I believe I had a part in it so far as for years I wrote that a furth mixing of German blood with Jewish blood had to be avoided. I have written such articles repeatedly, and again and again in my articles I emphasized that we had to take the Jewish race as an example, the Jewish people. races because they have created a racial law, the law of Moses, which says if you come into a foreign land you should not take a foreign women. And, gentlemen, the is of tremendous importance if one wants to judge the Nurnberg laws. These laws of the Jews were the example. When, after centuries, the Jewish Legislator Ezra found out that in spite of this many Jews had married non-Jewish women. these marriages were then separated. That was the beginning and that is why Jewry, because of the race laws, has lasted through centuries while all other races and cultures have perished.
Q Mr. Streicher, this goes a little too far, I have just asked you whether you took part in the planning and the working out of the draft of the law, or whether the proclomation of these laws was not a surprise to you. buted to these laws.
Q But you were not consulted in making the draft?
A No. I declare the following.
without knowing what would happen. I had no idea. And then the race laws were proclaimed, and it was only there that I heard of these laws. I believe, so far as the gentlemen are concerned who are here as defendants now who were present on that Reich Party Day, that they also found out about these laws at the Reich Party Day. I had not collaborated directly, and I have to state frankly, and I repeat, that I had not been consulted in the preparation of these laws.
Q It was thought that your assistance was not needed for that? the final solution of the Jewish question on the part of the State?
A With reservations, yes. Yes, I was convinced that by the adherence to the party program the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews became citizens of Germany in 1848 and, these citizen rights were taken from them by these laws. Intermarriages were prohibited and that, for no, solved the Jewish question in Germany. I believe that a national solution would come, that there would be consultations from state to state and nation to nation, in the sense of the postulates that Zionism had established, and that these demands would lead to a Jewish state. lation from the 9th to the 10th of November 1938, and what was your part?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, if you are going into that, it is now 5 o'clock and I think we had better adjourn now until Monday morning.
(A recess was taken until Monday 28 April 1946 at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Before continuing with questions to the Defendant Streicher, may I ask permission to make a statement.
Mr. Streicher, on Friday afternoon, referred to a case connected with the press which had dealt with my person and my attitude as a solicitor. I have found in this case cause for me to refer to this matter in my statement, and I have pointed out that I at that time was asking for the protection of this Tribunal against an attack lowering my reputation, which was given to me in a very kind way. On that occasion, and on the occasion when I gave an extemporized explanation, I used the words "newspaper writer." I used it exclusively with reference to that particular journalist who had written the article in question in that Berlin newspaper regarding my person and regarding my activities as a lawyer. that I was talking about the press in general. That was far from me. And I did not wish in any way to refer to the group of press experts or in particular the members of the world press who are active during this trial. I did not wish to attack them or in any way insult their honor. according to which I, lawyer Marx, had attacked the press in general and made insulting remarks. I am, of course, aware of the significance of the press. I know, of course, what the press has to do, and I should want to be the last person who would fail to recognize in full the extreme responsibility and the useful work done by the press.
just said, and may I be permitted to make this statement to the gentlemen of the press in the spirit in which it is made, namely, that this was merely a special reference to this particular journalist, but not in any way to 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.
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall then continue with my examination. BY DR. MARX:
Q. Witness, which aims did you pursue with your speeches and your articles in "Der Stuermer"?
A. My speeches and my articles which I wrote were meant to inform the public about a question which appeared to me as being one of the most important problems. I didn't want to cause hatred or anger. I wanted to explain.
Q. Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly since the Party came into power, were there any other instruements of the press in Germany which were discussing the Jewish problem in an antagonistic way?
A. Anti-Semitic writings in the press in Germany existed for centuries. A book, for instance, was confiscated among my property, written by Martin Luther. He would very probably sit in my place in the Defendant's bench if this book had been used by the Prosecution. In the book "The Jews and Their Lies", Dr. Martin Luther writes that the one should bran them down to the ground and destroy them.
Q. Mr. Streicher, that wasn't my question. I am asking you to answer my question in accordance to the way I put it. Please answer with yes or no, first of all, whether were there -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to interpose an objection to this method of answering unresponsively and with speeches here. We are utterly unable in this procedure to make objections when answers are not responsive to questions. We have already got into this case through Streicher's volunteered speeches an attack on the United States which will take considerable evidence to answer if we are to answer it.
It seems to me very improper that a witness should do anything but make a responsive answer to a question, so that we may control this proceeding from getting into issues that have nothing to do with here. It will not help the Tribunal to go into questions which Streicher has raised here against us to decide the one question, which is his guilt or innocence -- a matter that is perfectly capable of explanation, if we take the time to do it. that he will understand it, if that is possible, that he is to answer question and stop, so that we can know and object to orations on irrelevant subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, will you try, when you put the questions to the witness, to stop him if he is not answering the questions you put to him?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President. I was just in the process-
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Streicher, you have heard what has been said and you will understand that the Tribunal cannot put up with your long speeche which are not answers to questions which are put to you. BY DR. MARX:
Q. I now repeat the question that I'm asking you. First of all, I want you to answer the question with yes or no, and then to add a brief explanation regarding the context of the question. Apart from your weekly journal and, particularly, since the seizure of power through the Party, were there other instruments of the press in which the Jewish problem was dealt with in an antagonistic way?
A. Yes. Even before the seizure of power in every district and county there were weekly journals that were anti-Semitic and one daily paper called the "Der Voelkische Beobachter" in Munich. Apart from that, there were a numb of publications which weren't acting directly for the Party. There were also anti-Semitic writings after the seizure of power. The daily press was coordinated, and now the Party suddenly found themselves in control of three thousand daily papers and numerous weekly journals. Any number of other periodicals and orders had been given by the Fuehrer that every newspaper should give enlightening articles about the Jewish problem. The antiSemitic enlightenment was, therefore, after the seizure of power carried out on a very large scale in the daily press as well as weekly journals, periodicals and books. The "Stuermer", therefore, with its enlightening activity was not isolated, but I want to state quite openly that I have enlightened about them all in the most popular way.
Q. Were the directives necessary for this issued by an essential source, essential department, say, for instance, the National Socialist correspondent?
A. Yes. The propaganda ministry in Berlin issued a National Socialist press correspondence. In this correspondence, and in every number of it, there were a number of articles enlightening on the Jewish problem. During the war the Fuehrer personally had given the order that the press, much more than until then, should publish enlightening articles about the Jewish question.
Q. The Prosecution have accused you that you had contributed to mass murder by causing hatred and, according to the report of the Attorner General in 1936, the following accusation has been raised against you: No Government in this world could have carried out the pass extermination as it was done without that a nation stood behind it which agreed, and that you are supposed to have brought it about. What have you got to say about it?
A. To that I have to say the following: Inciting means to bring a man into a condition of excitement to the extent of which he commits an irresponsible deed.
Have the contents of the "Stuermer" done so? Have they? The question must be answered here, "What did the 'Stuermer' write?" Several volumes of the "Stuermer" are available, but one should have to look at all the editions of all the twenty years so that you could exhaustively answer that question. twenty years dealing with the race, dealing with what the Jews have written in the Old Testament themselves, what they have written in the "Talmud." I have printed excerpts from Jewish historical works, for instance, written by Professor Dr. Graetz, the Jewish scientist Gut not, and in the "Stuermer" no leading article has been written by me or has appeared written by one of my main officers, in which I did not bring quotations from the old history of the Jews, the Old Testament and Jewish historical works of recent times. all the articles that prominent Jews, leading authors, of themselves admitted that during the twenty years I have made public statements as author and as orator. It is my conviction that the contents of the "Stuermer" as such were not inciting. During the whole of the twenty years I have never clearly said "Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death." Never once did such an incitement appear in the "Stuermer". any act, happened since the "Stuermer" appeared, and did either of them say "This is the result of an incitement; it is a deed due to an incitement." And, as such, I would, for instance, regard a program as a spontaneous deed if the population suddenly raised an excitement to beat other people to death. During the twenty years no program took place in Germany. During the twenty years, as far as I know, no Jew was killed, no murder took place, of which you could have said, "This is the result of an incitement which had been carried out by anti-Semitic authors or speech makers."
Gentlemen, we are in Nurnberg. In the past there was a saying that nowhere were the Jews in Germany so safe and so unmolested as they had been in Nurnberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Is not this becoming a rather lengthy speech?
Q Streicher, you've explained this quite sufficiently, so that one can form an opinion. Do you want to say, "I have incited so that no spontaneous action carried out by any certain groups of people or originating from the masses against the Jews did happen"?
A May I make a remark on that subject? Here we are concerned with the most mysterious and most decisive accusation raised against me by the Prosecution, and in this connection I ask the Tribunal to permit me to defend myself against it. It is the most significant fact that in Nurnberg, of all places, no murder took place, no single murder and no corrupt action. It is a fact.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already said it. I have just written down, before I intervened, saying that no Jews have been killed, not only in Nurnberg, but anywhere else, as a result of your incitement. BY DR. MARX: of the 9th and 10th of November, 1938, later.
A Yes, but may I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the question?
A (Continuing) The Prosecution have accused me that by inciting I had indirectly contributed to mass extermination, and so, may I ask to be allowed to explain? Some thing has been ascertained about which I didn't know. I received knowledge of testament left behind by the Fuehrer, and I assumed that a few moments before his death the Fuehrer would have told the truth in that testament.
He says that mass exterminations had been carried out by his orders and that these mass exterminations had been reprisals. That proves that I, myself, cannot have been a participant in those incredible matters which occurred here. I am finished. saying that these mass killings could not have been possible if, behind the Government and behind the leaders in the state, there hadn't been a knowing people. Gentlemen, first of all, the question, "Did the German people really know what was happening during the years of the war?" We know today-
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument and not a matter upon which you can give evidence. You can say what you knew.
THE WITNESS: I was a part of that nation during the war. During that war I was living in the country in loneliness. For five years I never left my farm. I was watched by the Gestapo, and since the year of 1939 the Feuhrer had -BY DR. MARX:
Q. (Interposing) Forgive me for interrupting. Mr Streicher, we were coming to that later. I have asked you a question, and I now continue to put the next question, and the other business will come later.
A. But I wish to state that I have had no opportunity so far, that I have had no chance to learn what in fact was going on. Mass killings, mass murders, I only heard of at Mondorf when I was in prison. But I am stating here that if I had been told that two or three million people were killed, then I wouldn't have believed it. I would not have believed that it was technically possible to kill so many people. saw it, I would not have believed it, that is, that mass killings to that extent to which they had taken place could have taken place at all. Finished.
Q. You are also being accused that it had been the task of the educators of the nation to educate people and poison them with hatred, and that you particularly had devoted yourself to that task. What are you replying to that accusation?
A. That is the statement that we have trained murderers. The contents of the articles which I have written couldn't train murderers and no murders took place, and that is the proof, that is the evidence that we didn't train murderers. The thing which happened during the war -- well, I certainly did not educate the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer has given the order on his own initiative.
Q. I now continue. It has also been stated by the Prosecution that Himmler and Kaltenbrunner and other SS leaders would have had had no one to carry out their orders to kill if you hadn't made that propaganda and if you hadn't conducted the education of the German people in that sense.
Will you make a statement on that?
A. I don't believe that the National Socialists you have mentioned read "Der Stuermer" every week. I don't believe that those who had been given the order by the Fuehrer to carry out killings or to pass on an order to kill, that those people would have been made to do this by my periodical. Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf", existed, and the contents of that book were the authority, the cause. And I don't believe that the mentioned persons have read that book either and carried out the order on the strength of it. vinced that if the Fuehrer gave an order everyone acted, and I am stating here that maybe fate has been kind to me. If the Fuehrer had ordered me to do those things I wouldn't have been able to kill, and perhaps today I would be indicted in some way or other which is now not possible against me. Perhaps fate has been kind. zine, was suggesting, and they didn't quite understand. His ways were so unusual. Yet, if you know, you will realize that everyone who had an order would act, and thus I must describe as untrue and incorrect what has been thought fit to be stated against me.
Q. What do you know about the general attitude of Adolf Hitler regarding the Jewish question? When did Hitler become hostile to the Jews at all, as far as you know?
A. Even before Adolf Hitler became a popularly known figure, I had written anti-Semitic articles. However, only on the strength of his book, "Mein Kampf," did I learn about the historic connection of the Jewish problem. Hitler wrote his book when he was in prison in Landsberg. Anyone who knows the book will also know that Hitler, many years back, either to study antiSemitic literature or for some other experience, must have come to the conclusion and the knowledge which made it possible for him to write that book in so short a time in prison.
was anti-Semitic and that he knew the Jewish problem to the last letter. He himself has often said to me personally -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Marx, the book, "Mein Kampf", is in evidence, and it speaks for itself.
THE WITNESS: I am now coming to the answer to your question, not with reference to the book. But you asked me whether Adolf Hitler talked about the Jewish problem to me. The answer is yes. Adolf Hitler always discussed the Jewish problem when he talked about Bolshevism. did Hitler want a war against Russia? Did he warn long in advance that such a war would come? When he sat together with us, Adolf Hitler waid that Stalin was a man whom he worshipped as a man of action, but in reality he was surrounded by Jewish leaders, and that Bolshevism -BY DR. MARX:
Q. (Interposing) Mr. Streicher, that is going too far again. The question was quite exact, the question which I put, and I am asking you not to go into so many details. You have heard that the Tribunal is objecting, and in the interest of not delaying the proceedings you must not go into so many details. You mustn't make speeches.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I believe, Mr. President, that Mr. Justice Jackson has justly remarked a short while ago that the defendant Streicher lets himself be dragged into speeches and does not answer the questions which are put to him. Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the witness would eliminate the speeches, and he should be admonished to answer directly to the questions put to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you go on, Dr. Marx, and try and keep the witness to an answer to the questions which you have no doubt prepared.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.
THE QITNESS: May I, please, as a defendant here say a few words regardin the question -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) No, you may certaily not. You will answer the questions, please.
BY DR. MARX:
Q. Next question. Is there any reason for the assumption that Hitler, when he decided that Jews should be exterminated in masses, was subject to any influence, or what is to be considered the motive for that dreadful decision?
A. The Fuehrer could not be influenced. If somebody had gone to see him and told him that Jews should be killed, then he would have turned him down. And, if, during the war someone had gone to him and said "I have learned that you are giving the orders that mass exterminations are to be carried out," then he would have turned that man down too. I therefore answer your question by saying that the Fuehrer cold not be influenced.
Q. In other words, you want to say that his decision was made on his own initiative.
A. I have already said that that becomes clear from his last will.
Q. In August 1938 the main synagoge in Nurnberg burned down. Was it set on fire by your orders?
A. Yes. In my Gau, in my district, there were approximately 15 synagogue one main synagogue in Nurnberg, a smaller one, and I think there were several praying rooms. The main synagogue stood in the middle of the medieval town of the Reich. Already before 1933, during the so-called time of struggle, when we still had another type of Government, I had stated publicly during a meeting that it was a disgrace that in the old, medieval city such an oriental, tremendously large building should have been put. synagogue dismantled, and at the same time the planetarium. May I point out that after the World War, in the middle of the "ring" of the city and in the garden which was there for the recreation of the citizens, a planetarium had been built, an ugly brick building. I gave the order to break down that building and said that the main synagogue, too, should be torn down. I would have given the order after the seizure of power that every synagogue in my district should be torn down, and all synagogues in Nurnberg would have been torn down by my orders.
synagogue, was torn down. The synagogue in the Westheim Strasse in the new town remained untouched. That the order was given in November of that year to burn down the synagogue, that is no fault of mine.
these buildings for those reasons but you ordered it because it didn't fit in the style of the city?
A For reasons of town buildings, yes. Originally, I wanted to submit a picture to the bureau but unfortunately I didn't get it.
A Yes, but you can't see the synagogue on it. I don't know whether the Tribuna wants to see this picture, this actual picture of these old houses, but the from view of the synagogue as it was seen by Hans Sachs square was not visible. I don't know whether I may submit this to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. the photograph can be put in. Let us see the photograph.
DR. MARX: In that case, I am submitting it to the Tribunal as evidence and I am asking you to accept it accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be, exhibit what?
DR. MARX: I am afraid I cannot say at the moment, Mr President. I shall take the liberty of stating the number later and for the moment, I am confining myself to having it submitted. I couldn't present it any earlier because the picture didn't reach me; it certainly came through within the last days.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on. BY DR. MARX: architectural experts and their opinion? architect said that there had been counselors who had no architecture understanding--was incredible--this one was not in any way against the synagogue as a church; it was directed against such building in such a part of the city, and strangers whom I used to accompany during the Party rally days, even British and American people, used to cross the Hans Sachs square and look, and I said-- I remember one case where I said to somebody, "Aren't you noticing anything", and he didn't; but others stopped and said, quite frightened."How could that building get in amongst those medieval buildings?" I could submit a book, written in 1877, which is in the present library and where Professor Bernais, who was famous is writing to the author in Switzerland that he had now seen the Hans Sachs Square