Q Mr. Streicher, that is enough. In other words, you have indicated that you were relying on the judgment of expert architects and that you can refer to them?
Q At the time when the synagogue was dismantled, did you make a speech? from a daily paper, that has been written by quite a simple young man, and I want to state that this article was not a true representation of the statements which I had made. 1938. What can you say about them and which part did you play in that connection? Were these demonstrations made by the population on their own initiative? on the occasion of the historic day, the 9th of November--on the 9th of November we have sat down to dinner in the big hall of the Town Hall in Munich and it was customary that after dinner, the Fuehrer made a short speech. On the 9th of November 1938, I didn't feel so well. I did not participate in the dinner and then I left and returned to Nurnberg and I want to bed. It was midnight when I was awakened. My driver told me that the SA leader von Obernitz wants to talk to the Gauleiter. I received him and he said the following: "Gauleiter, you have already left and the Minister of Propaganda Dr Goebbels spoke ans said..." --If I can only repeat it approximately -- said "The Counsellor of the Embassy, von Rath, has been murdered in Paris; that it was already the second murder abroad in which a prominent Nazi was made the victim. This murder isn't the murder of the Jew Gruenspan; this is an action which has been designed by the entire Jewry and something would now have to be done." I don't know whether Goebbels said the Fuehrer ordered it, but I only remember that from Obernitz-- He told me that Goebells had stated that synagogues were to be set on fire and I cannot now remember exactly but I think he also told me that Jewish businesses, too, had to have their windows smashed and that houses should be demolished. So I said to Obernitz, because I was surprised, Of course-I said, "Obernitz, I thik it is wrong that synagogues should be set on fire and at this moment I think it is wrong that Jewish businesses should be demolished. I think this demonstration is wrong. If people are let loose during the night, perpetrations may happen for which one cannot take responsibility." And I said to Obernitz, in particular, "The setting on fire of synagogues is considered wrong by me because abroad and also in amongst the German people, the opinion might be formed that National Socialism had now started the fight against religion."
Obernitz replied "I have the order." I said "Obernitz, I will not assume resposibility in this connection." Obernitz left and the deed happened. The thing which I have said under oath, it has already been stated by me during several interrogations. My driver will confirm it, who had knowledge of this night and was a witness to it. Shortly afterwards, when he went to bed, he said to his wife what he had heard up there in my bedroom.
Q Have you finished?
Q Oh, yes; was the action spontaneous; did it come from the people, did it, on their own initiative? article, which stated that a spontaneous action of the population had revenged the murder of von Rath. It had therefore been deliberately ordered from Berlin that there should be a public statement, that the demonstrations of 1938 had been spontaneous; that this was so, that this is something which I have been able to experience in Nurnberg and it is remarkable that the dislike for what had happened during these demonstrations expressed itself in that year in Nurnberg, right down it went to the Party members. The prosecution has submitted an article which is a report about a speech which I had made on the 10th of November and that is a remarkable piece of evidence for the fact that the people were against this action. I was forced, because of the atmosphere which prevailed in Nurnberg, to make a public speech and say that one should not have so much sympathy and pity for the Jews. That is how the matter happened in November 1938. Perhaps it might be important that you should as me how it is, that is, how those people should have turned down the idea of that demonstration.
Q I thought you had explained that. Who gave the order for the burning down of the synagogue on Essenwein Strasse?
A I don't know who gave the order. I believe it was the SA leader von Obernitz. I don't know the details.
Q Next question: Did you yourself express the fact publicly that you disliked these measures?
A Yes. Amongst leading Party members I said what I have always said publicly, and stated that this was wrong. I talked before lawyers during a meet ing. I don't know whether my defense counsel was there. I believe it was still in November 1938 that I spoke before the Nurnberg lawyers at a meeting and said that what had happened herem during that action, was wrong; it was a wrong done to the people and it was wrong before the countries abroad, and I said the anyone who knew the Jewish question as well as I did would understand why I considered that demonstration a mistake.
I don't know whether this was reported to the Fuehrer at that time, but after November 1938 I was never again called by him when the Fuehrer came to Nurnberg, when he came to stay at the Hotel Deutscher Hof. I don't know whether this was the reason, but at any rate, I criticized these demonstrations publicly of Jews was introduced, Is this true, and what is the explanation?
A In 1938 the Jewish question entered a new phase. That was shown by that demonstration. I myself can only say that as far as I know there was no preliminary conference. I assumed that it was done quite impulsively as the Fuehrer would do it, acting on the spur of the moment. Probably as late as the 9th of November, he got around to saying to Dr. Goebbels, "The synagagues must be burned down." As I said, I myself didn't attend such a meeting, and I don't know what happened to bring about this acceleration. which the Jews were to be eliminated from the economic life of the country. Was there a connection between the orders of the 9th and that decree of the 12th, and would that connection be due to the same reason?
A I can only say that I am convinced that there was a connection. The decrees which referred to the economic field came from Berlin. We didn't have any conferences.
I just don't remember any Gauleiter meetings in which that was discussed. That happened just as everything happened; we weren't previouly informed. task of looking after the question?
A Rosenberg was the spiritual trustee of the movement, but he hadn't be given this particular task. He had been given neither the task of this demonstration nor economic tasks. taking care of the enlightenment on racial-political grounds. It wasn't you, was it? How can that be explained? How can it be explained that you weren't choosen? lectually, and because of his knowledge, he was suited to take on this job. I devoted myself to popular enlightenment.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, he has told us that he wasn't given the task. Unless he had some communication with Rosenberg he can't tell us anything more about it except that he wasn't given the task. All the rest is mere comment and argument.
DR. MARX: Yes. BY DR. MARX:
Q I now put the next question to you: Was there, during the year of 1939 an order issued that you mustn't speak?
A Yes. In the autumn of 1939, my enemies at last achieved that the Fuehrer, without asking me previously, and through Party Member Hess, issued a written order stopping me from making speeches. The threat of immediate arrest was contained therein, if I should infringe this order.
Q Isn't it also correct that in 1938 there even seemed to be an inclination to stop the publication of the Stuermer - I mean in Government circles? documents in this connection to save time. Schirach, and I can give an explanation right now. At that time, in 1939, there were intentions of prohibiting the Stuermer. Bormann had even issued some such order, and that chief editor of the Stuermer was writing to prominent members of the Party, asking them to state their opinion about the Stuermer, and letters were received from Himmler and von Schirach Altogether, I think about 15 letters were received from prominent members of the movement, and they were merely kind replies to my inquiries.
Armed Forces District Commissioner in your Gau?
Q And how can that be explained?
A Oh well, maybe that isn't quite so important. That is how conditions were at the time. There were certain personal attitudes. It is of no significance. At any rate, I didn't become an Armed Forces District Commissioner. September 1939, the persecution of the Jews increased more and more. What do you think that was due to? not by me.
Q But don't you think it had something to do with the outbreak of war? instituted against you. How did that happen? What was the outcome, and the result of that trial? briefly before this International Military Tribunal something which I had to keep silent about up to now because of the Fuehrer Order. I myself had introduced proceedings against myself before the Supreme Party Court so as to defend myself against people who were denouncing me. I was being accused -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Is the defendant talking about some order which Hitler gave that he was not to be allowed to speak or is he talking about something else?
You remember, Dr. Marx, that certain allegations were struck out of the record. If he is talking about those, it seems to me that we have got nothing whatever to do with it. Am I not right in recollecting that something was struck out of the record?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President, but only one passage from the Goering Report was left out, which was one dealing with that affair referring to the three young persons, but everything else was maintained by the Prosecution, and the Defense, therefore, must refer to these points. The Prosecution didn't say, of course, that they were dropping the entire Goering report, and in that connection these proceedings before the Supreme Party Court play an important part. He can make a brief statement on it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. MARX: And I can so direct him. BY DR. MARX: myself. There were about ten points which had been raised against me, and among them was a matter referring to some shares, and an affidavit existed which stated that I had been sentenced. May State here that the trial was never completed and no sentence was passed. to shares of the Marx works? Of course, we'll come to that later.
And then you were ordered to the Pleikerthof?
again to voluntarily be active in the Party movement and what is correct is that the Gestapo did supervise, did watch me and every visitor was called to the police station and interrogated regarding the discussion which they had. That is a fact. say in writing, with any leading personalities in the Party or state?
A No. As far as prominent persons in the movement and in the state is concerned I had no written contact with them and that is why the Prosecution could hardly find any letters. I never referred to the Jewish problem in writing or any such matters. So as to your question exactly, I shall have to state I have had no contact or correspondence with prominent persons in the Party or the state. after the outbreak of war or were you consulted on these questions?
Q What was your relationship to Himmler? Did you know him at all closely? Did you discuss measures against the Jews with him at any time or did he talk about intended mass executions?
A I knew Himmler just as I knew the SA or SS leaders. I knew him from joint meetings and rallies, Gauleiter conferences. On no occasion did I have a political discussion with Himmler. He then, once or twice in the presence of others, touched upon this matter or the other. The last time I saw Himmler was in Nurnberg when he spoke before officers in the Casino, the officers' mess. When that was I cannot say exactly but I think it was shortly before the war. I never had a talk about the Jewish problems with him, he himself was enlightened. He had an organ of his own called the "Black Corps". when I was still on my farm. There were denunciation against me which reached him. It was stated that I was being too humane to French prisoners of war and shortly after that I received a letter, in which he blamed me, seriously accused me and I did not answer. He made no previous inquiries and asked me whether these denunciation were true but he was accusing me seriously and I am stating quite openly that it was my feeling at the time that it might be quite possible that even I might lose my liberty and be arrested.
That was my relationship to Himmler. tioned who played a leading part in the Jewish persecutions, as for instance, Heydrich, Eichmann, Ohlendorf and so on. Were there, any connections between you and one of those higher SS and police leaders? first time here during interrogations. I did not know these gentlemen. They probably saw me but there was no contact between myself and the higher SS and police leaders.
There had never been a conference nor had I ever gone to any of Himmler's offices or any ministry in Berlin so that there were never any discussions or conferences. in the Stuermer that as early as 1942 and 1943 you had knowledge of the mass executions of Jews which had taken place and I should like you to make a statement on the subject and tell us when and in which way you heard of these mass executions which had taken place in the east. land. Sometimes that weekly journal contained hints that something was not quite in order somewhere and I think it was at the end of '43 or 1944 that an article appeared in this Jewish weekly, in which it said that in the east, I think it was Poland, masses of Jews were disappearing. The article to which I am referring will probably be presented here but I am stating quite frankly that these Israelitic weeklies in Switzerland did not represent an authoratiative source to me. It did not quote figures; it did not talk about mass executions; it just mentioned disappearances.
Q Have you finished? the Jewish question and did that go even during the war?
Q And in what sense?
view that the Jewish question can only be solved internationally since there were Jews amongst all the nations. For that reason we were publishing articles in my weekly journal referring to the Zionist demand that a Jewish state should be created, as it had been proposed in the Balfour declaration. There were therefore, two possibilities as to a preliminary solution amongst the nations and then there was the creation of a Jewish state. During the war, I think it was in 1941 or 1942, we had written another article which was to be censored in Berlin and the draft, which had been submitted, was returned by the censor with the remark that the article must not be published since it was proposing Madagascar as the location for the Jewish state. The political relations with France were given as the reason why that article should not be published. mass executions would you have written that article?
Q Weren't you wondering about the fact that you were dealing with the Jewish question from a biased standpoint? Did you not consider that those qualities of the Jews which are described as great were completely ignored by you?
A I did not understand the question. Perhaps I did not hear it quite clearly. one-sided qualities of the Jews whereas the other qualities of the Jewish people were not being discussed by you. What is the explanation?
A I think that that question is really superfluous. It is a perfectly natural affair that I, as an anti-semitic person and considering how I learned about the Jews, was in no way interested in doing that. Perhaps the advantages which you or some others might recognize in the Jews were not recognized by me, that is possible. But at any rate I was not interested in making research which might show particular advantages one might ascertain in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: This would seem a good time to break off.
(A recess was taken)
Q. Did you visit concentration camps?
A. Yes. I visited the concentration camp at Dachau.
Q. When was that?
A. I believe the first time on the occasion that all gauleiters were called together. I believe 1935 or so. I don't know for sure -- 1934 or 1935 or 1933 -- I don't know.
Q. At what intervals did you then visit these camps. It is said that every four weeks you had been in Dachau. Mr. Streicher, always will you make a short pause after my question and only then begin with your answer?
A. Will you repeat?
Q. It is asserted that you had been in Dachau every four weeks. What were the intervals between your visits?
A. Altogether I was four times at Dachau.
Q. It has been asserted that after each of your visits in Dachau, that after that date Jews disappeared.
A. That I don't know -- whether Jews disappeared.
Q. What caused you to visit Dachau repeatedly?
A. I went to Dachau to visit in prison social democratic and communistic functionaries -- to have them introduced to me, and I don't know how many hundreds of them. Every time when I was in Dachau I saw to it that a number, ten or twenty, were selected, of whom it had been found out by the police that they had no criminal sentences -- no previous criminal sentences. I selected them from the entire number and then, at Christmas of every year, I had them brought to Nurnberg into the Hotel Deutscher Hof, where I brought them together with their wires and children and gave them a communal dinner. They were quartered and took part in a dinner. I should like to add to the Tribunal for the benefit of the people of Nurnberg that I may be permitted to make a statement as to why I took these communists out. I was brought into Party proceedings because I did that. There are certain rumors which are not true. May I therefore make a short statement as to why I did it?
DR. MARX: I would like to ask the Tribunal to approve, Mr. President, so that the reasons why the Defendant -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as long as it is brief.
Q. Yes, please be brief.
A. When I walked through the streets of Nurnberg children approached me and said, "My father is in Dachau." Women came and asked to get their husbands back. I knew many of these officials from the time when they spoke in discussions with revolutionary meetings, and for these people I could vouch. I know only one case where I was wrong in the selection of those people. All the others kept their word which they gave me, and there are the other Party members who are sitting here in the dock who see that I did not want to harm my country but that I wanted to commit humane acts, and did so.
Q. Now I come to the picture books which appeared in the Stuermer publishing house. You know that two picture books were published, one with the title "Do not Trust the Fox in the Field", and the other one with the title "The Poisoned Mushroom." Do you assume responsibility for these picture books?
A. Yes. May I say in conclusion that for everything which was written by my assistants or which came from the outside to my paper I assume responsibility.
Q. Who was the author of these picture books?
A. The book "Don't Trust the Fox in the Field and No Jew Under His Oath" was done by a young girl artist. She made the drawings and also the texts. The title is by Dr. Martin Luther. who before had been a teacher. The reason for publishing these two books was that there had occurred two criminal cases in Nurnberg which had been tried here in this courtroom, as much as I know. There was a manufacturer, Louis Schloss.
Q. Mr. Streicher, we do not want to hear that now. My question was only as to who was the author of these books and whether you assumed the responsibility for these two books.
A. It is for the Tribunal of importance, of course, to know how it came about that all of a sudden two picture books appeared, and I am only speaking here of court cases. There are gentlemen here who could testify to it who were here in this court and were present during the proceedings.
Only thus can one understand why these books were published. They were the answers to facts that had occurred.
Q. Yes, but only deal with the accusations made against you, that by doing so the minds of youths were impressed in a way which was neither necessary nor beneficial, but poisoning.
A. I would like to prove by my statements that we wanted to protect youth, because facts had occurred.
Q. Yes, but you could hardly understand the case Schloss.
A. No, there were public discussions in Nurnberg, and beyond that all throughout Germany.
Q. As far as I am concerned, this question is answered, Mr. President.
A. But for me as Defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You told us that the books were published to answer facts which had occurred here. That is sufficient.
Q. Witness, another serious accusation made by the Prosecution against you is that a special issue concerning ritual murders had been published in the firm of the Stuermer and also appeared in the Stuermer. How did this special issue come about and what was the cause for it. Were you the author of that special issue.
A. No.
Q. Who was the author?
A. My collaborator, editor-in-chief at that time, Karl Holz. But I assume the responsibility.
Q. Wasn't it so that already during the 20's you dealt with that question in the Stuermer?
A. Yes; and in public speeches.
Q. Yes. Had you published these. This very serious affair in 1935, again -
A. I should line to ask my counsel to express no judgment about what I have Written. You can ask me but you cannot judge. The Prosecution is going to do that. You have asked me how this issue came about. I will explain briefly.
DR. MARX: Excuse me. Mr. President, I have to protest with the fact that Mr. Streicher here, in the course of his interrogation by me criticizes the manner in which I put my questions. Therefore, I ask for the permission of the court to state my position about it, because otherwise I could not ask my questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already stated your position and the Tribunal has given you full support in your position. Will you please continue? counsel or to the Tribunal the Tribunal will not be able to continue the hearing of your case at this moment. You will kindly treat your counsel and the Tribunal with due courtesy.
THE WITNESS: May I ask to say something about this? I want to repeat my question.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Answer the questions, please. BY DR. MARX:
Q. The Prosecution, concerning that ritual murder story, accuses you that without materials you treated the whole thing, and only referring to a story out of the Middle Ages. What, in brief, was your source?
A. In that issue the sources are mentioned. Nothing was published without at the same time giving the source. It indicated that there was a book written by a former rabbi who had been converted to Christianity, in the Greek language. We found out that there had been a publication by a high clergyman of Milan, a book which appeard in Germany for the last fifty years, and also under the democratic government Jews have not complained about that book. -- files which are at court. There are pictures which show that in twentythree cases the church itself has dealt with that question -- twenty-three cases where non-Jews had been killed by ritual murder. They had been sacrifice Pictures and sculpture were shown as illustrations, and also the source was pointed out. Even a case in England was mentioned, and one in Kiev, Russia.
it to the Jewish officer here, that we never wanted to assert that all of Jewry were ready to commit ritual murders. But it is a fact that within Judah the sect exists which committed those murders, and until recently I have asked my counsel that he should submit to the Court the file of Piseck in Czechoslovakia, where recently a court of appeal has confirmed a case of ritual murder.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this statement, your Honor. Alter his Counsel has refused to submit it, the witness insists on stating here the contents of a court record. This is not an orderly way to make charges against the Jewish people. Streiche says he is asking Counsel to submit. His Counsel apparently has refused, whereupon he starts to give evidence that he knows in any case is a resume of the matters which his Counsel has declined to submit here. It seems to mo that having appointed Counsel to conduct his case, he has shown repeatedly that he is not willing to conduct his case in an orderly mariner. He ought to be returned to his cell and any further statements that he wishes to make to this Court transmitted through his Counsel in writing. This is entirely unfair and contemptuous of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, I think you hotter continue.
DR. MARX: I should like to say that that closes this affair The essential thing is that all that can be said is that he treated the case without material, without sources. The Defense is not interested in that any further. According to my recollection, I also suggested to a gentleman of the Prosecution, if possible, to leave out that one matter, because it is possible that the matter is so gruesome and so horrible that it is better not to treat it. But the Defendant only wanted to say that only on the basis of various materials he dealt with the case, and I believe that is sufficient. That would close the matter.
Q Now, Mr. Streicher, again and again I have mentioned the mistake that you go too far in your explanations and that you discuss things which may be called propaganda on your part. I should like to ask you for the last time to stick to the answering of my questions and leave out anything unnecessary and in your own interests. You have been accused that in your district you repeatedly committed acts which were crimes against humanity, mistreatment of people who lived in your Gau, and you are also accused specifically that you mistreated the political prisoner, a man of the name of Steinruch, that you visited him in his cell and beat him there. Is that correct?
Q Was Steinruch a Jew?
Q For what reason aid you do that? many witnesses, derogatory statements about the Fuehrer, libelous statements. He was at police headquarters and I had spoken to the police president about it and told him that I should like to look at that Steinruch once and to go with my adjutant. The Goering report says that a party member, Holz, was there too, but that is not correct. I went with my adjutant to police headquarters and the same police president who later denounced me to the Reichsmarschall in the Goering report guided me to Steinruch's cell. there with the intention of talking to the man reasonably. I talked to him, but he acted so cowardly that on the spur of the moment he had to be hit. I do not mind telling you here that I am sorry about that case, that I have to state that I was slippin another fellow.
A No, that is not correct. If I had hit him, then I would say so, but I believe that my adjutant and somebody else may have had an argument with him.
Q What about the incident in the Kuenstlerhaus in Munich? Kuenstlerstaette, or something like that. I was received by the manager and at that moment a young fellow who was terribly drunk approached me and shouted, and the manager protested against it and told him to go away.
But the drunken young fellow came back again and my chauffeur grabbed him. My son helped him. They walked him into another room and beat him up and then the owner of the inn thanked me that he had peace from that drunk now.
And how I should like the Tribunal's permission that I may very briefly say something about that one case which I believe the Prosecution also has dropped, where I was accused of saddistic tendencies -
THE PRESIDENT: You know perfectly well that that incident has been stricken from the record and is not, therefore, emntioned against you, so that it is quite unnecessary to go into it. The Tribunal cannot hear you on it. some points which have been mentioned by the Prosecution. You know that after the action of November, 1938, in the district of Franconia, Aryanization of Jewish property took place to a large extent. Would you like to make a statement about that? cease d Party member, Holz. In that statement it is pointed out that Holz after that action had come to see me, had a report to make about the action, also considered that action wrong, and further, had said, "Now that has happened, we consider it necessary to go further and Aryanize the property". The Goering report states that I had told Holz that could not be done and I had refused to do it. Then it says again, Holz had told me that he thought it would be right if he would do it, we could also got means for the establishment of a district school Gauschule - out of it. Furthermore, Holz declared that I had said, "Well, Holz, if you believe you can do it, then go ahead and do it." I want to state here that this is true, what Party member Holz confessed. I rejected the idea at first and then out of a sudden impulse, which I cannot understand today, I said, "Well, if you can do it, then go ahead and do it." I want to state now and here that at that time when I said it I did not really believe that it should be done or could be done; but it happened, and the Reichsmarschall as Plenipotentiary for the fouryear plan later stated his position on it in Berlin and rejected it. Then I found out exactly how Holz took care of that Aryanization. I had a talk with him and a serious dispute, and our friendly relations were broken. He went to a Panzer outfit at the Front.
I returned from Berlin to Nurnberg and later there in Nurnberg the Reichsmarschall sent a criminal commissar to Nurnberg. He reported to me and asked me if I had approved that the whole matter should be investigated and I stated that I would welcome such an investigation. The investigation took place, Aryanization was repealed and it was stated that Holz personally had not had any material advantage out of it, and the government itself took care of Aryanization. I state frankly that in that affair I am at least guilty of negligence.
ization of property or real estate represented only about twenty per cent, or less, of the actual value?
A Holz had not come to see me for weeks. He did the Aryanization in the office of the Labor front with the officials there, and in Berlin later, during the meeting with the Reichsmarshal, I found out the true facts. Therefore, we had a dispute, Holz and myself, and a break in relations because I had to reject the manner in which Aryanization had been taken care of. ment, of having acquired shares of the Mars Works at Nurnberg at an extraordinarily low price and that in the course of the acquisition, a certain pressure was exerted on the owner of the shares. order and in another place that I had given a specific command to acquire the Mars shares for myself. I state here that I neither gave an order nor a specific command to acquire the Mars shares.
The Whole thing occurred thus. My chief of the publishing firm had power of attorney because I personally never, through all the years, bothered with financial or business matters, and he had a power of attorney and he could do what me wanted. One day he came to see me with my adjutant. Now, I do not recollect whether the adjustant was the one who spoke or the manager of the form. I was told the following: An attorney had called and said that the Mars Work shares were offered for sale at a very low price and would I agree to it. I said that never before in my life had I owned any shares, that I never bothered about financial matters in my publishing firm and that if the thought that he should acquire those shares, then he could do it. The shares were bought It was the most severe breech of confidence which was ever committed by any one of my assistants or Party Members. After a short time, I was informed as to how these shares had been acquired. I found out that the owner had been threatened. When I found out under what conditions the purchase had been made, I gave the order at once to return the shares.
In the Goering report it states that they were, returned. Among the confiscated shares of my publishing business, there is an official statement, a document, about that affair which shows that these shares had been returned. firm, until the end of the war, was in a private house. At the time of the Aryanization, somebody approached me, saying that for my publishing firm, one could easily acquire an Aryanized house. I refused that, and I state here in conclusion that I have in my possession nothing from Jewish property. to the Gass house. These pieces of jewelry were turned over to the police. A man who was the holder of the Honorary Party Emblem was convicted and sentenced to six years because he took a ring and another piece of jewelry and gave it to his girl friend.