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.
I may add one thing: that the fault when wearers of Party Emblems did things like that rests perhaps with those who gave the order, "Go to the Jewish houses now." decent, but here, on the basis of that order, he came into a position where he committed the crime. manager of the publishing firm, Fink, before the Party, even before the police interrogation, were different in the main points from what you have told us now? called to police headquarters and interrogated. The police president was very much interested in the interrogation since for many years he had been a friend of mine and frequently visited me in my house. Fink came from that interrogation very much excited. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted loudly, "I was threatened. I have made statements which are not true. I am a heel. I am a criminal." A witness of that incident was my chauffeur. I calmed him down and told him, "I have been interrogated once also. I was even imprisoned once."
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go in such detail into this matter?
DR. MARX: Well, excuse me, Mr. President. Perhaps this would be essential because in this report, reference is made to the testimony of Fink, and it is attempted to prove that the explanations made by Streicher are wrong, that he gave the order to purchase these shares and possibly under throats, and that he ordered and approved it, whereas he says that he neither knew that these shares were bought at such a low price, nor that pressure, blackmail, was used on that occasion. the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what he has already said. He has said that quite clearly, has he not. I was only suggesting that it was not necessary to go into such detail on the matter. development of the Sturmer was since 1933, as far as circulation is concerned. Can you give us a short description about the circulation of the Sturmer and then I shall put another question to you. beginning, it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies. Later the circulation increased to 10,000. At that time the Sturmer was, until 1933, really only in Nurnberg, in my gau, my district, and possibly also in Southern Bavaria. The publisher was a man who owned a bookshop and he did the whole work with one ran in the beginning, then with two, and that is proof for the fact that circulation was very small. may be that the publisher did not always tell me the correct figures and I had no written contract with him--I say with reservations that in 1933 I believe the circulation was 25,000 copies. believe 40.000. Then the firm came into the hands of an export, and he re-organized it to cover all of Germany. The circulation increased to 100,000, and up as high as 600,000. It fluctuated, went back and dropped during the war. I could not say correctly, but I believe it was to about 150,000 to 200,000. Germany. On that occasion, for that purpose, was the Party machinery utilized, and were there not industries and other groups--the German Labor Front--which were utilized in order to increase the circulation forcibly?
which was sent to all Gaus or districts, signed by Bormann. There it was expressly pointed out that the Stuermer was not a party organ, it had nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiters found it necessary to order that the Stuermer could not appear in their Gaus any more. idealism or for other reasons, were interested and who intervened for the distribution of the Stuermer; that is clear. However, I myself, neither in writing nor orally, have even given any order to any Party organization in support of the Stuermer.
Q Mr. Streicher, before 1933 you had been before the courts repeatedly because of your articles and your attitude manifested in the Stuermer. Would you give us a short explanation of how often that occurred and what the consequences were for you?
A How often? I could not answer that today, but it was frequently; I was frequently before the courts.
You ask me about the consequences. I was repeatedly in jail, but I may say proudly that in those sentences it stated, in many cases, " an incorruptible fanatic of the truth." but perhaps it is important to state the following: I never came before a court on account of criminal charges, but only because of my antiSemitic activities. The people who made the charges were members of an organization of citizens of the Jewish faith. The Chairman said the following repeatedly when we slipped so far as language was concerned and therefore brought about a possibility of being brought before a court because of certain existing laws. I want to point out here that the Jewish Justizrat, Dr. Sisheim, the attorney who was my opponent, stated before the Court here in this courtroom, "Gentlemen of the Tribunal, he is our unfailing enemy, but he is a fanatic for the truth. He is convinced of what he does; he is honest about it."
THE PRESIDENT: What years were they that you were repeatedly in jail?
THE WITNESS: That was, of course, before 1933. The first time I came to Landsberg, to prison, because I took part if the Hitler Putsch.
Then I got three and a half months here in this jail in Nurnberg where I am now. Then I got three months-
THE PRESIDENT: You needn't bother with the details.
THE WITNESS: That is to say, before 1933 I was repeatedly sentenced to jail or fined.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, the Goering report also mentions the fact that the defendant Streicher personally was interested in certain Jewish industries in order to get some capital out of them. However, I am of the opinion that it is not essential to deal with these points. The same applies to the fact that the Bodensee--Lake of Constance-was sold, and to whom. I do not know whether the defendant should make any statements about this here. In my opinion there is no cause to ask him any questions concerning that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you could leave that and see whether it is taken up in cross-examination. If it is, then you may re-examine him.
DR. MARX: Yes, certainly.
Mr. President, this concludes my questions to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of defendants' counsel wish to ask questions of the defendant?
(No response)
The prosecution?
BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: know his policy and what was to become the policy of the Nazi Party?
A The policy--I should like to say first, "no". At that time one could not see things which were not even possible in our minds. The policy was to create a new faith for the German people, a faith which would negate the chaos and disorder and which would bring about a return to order. knew the policy, the policy according to the Party program and according to Mein Kampf?
A I did not need a Party program. I admit frankly that I never reed it in its entirety. At that time programs were not important, but mass demonstrations-
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question. The question was whether, a short time after 1922, you knew the policy as indicated in the Party program and in Mein Kampf.
THE WITNESS: Yes. BY COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: Anschluss with Austria? Can you answer that yes or no?
A No. There was never anything mentioned of Austria. I do not remember that the Fuehrer over spoke about the fact that Austria should be annexed.
A I only want you to answer my question. My question was: Did you know that the Fuehrer's policy was the annexation of Austria to Germany? I understand your answer to be "no". Is that correct?
A That he intended it? No, that I do not know.
Q Did you know that he intended to take over Czechoslovakia?
or at least the Sudetenland? ultimate objective was Lebensraum?
A What I have read in Mein Kampf is marked in red. The book has been confiscated. I read only that which concerns the Jewish question; I did not read anything else. However, that we had to acquire Lebensraum for our people, that goes without waying. I personally had that aim, to contribute in whatever way for a better future for a large number of people. editor and owner of the Stuermer, and as a Gauleiter from 1925, you did everything you could to put the Nazi Party into power?
A Yes; that is a matter of course. propaganda on behalf of the Nazi Party policy? the foreign policy as well?
A No, that is not correct. In the Stuermer you would not find a single article which deals with foreign policy. And -
Q That is quite enough. I am not going to occupy very much time over this matter. However, I would ask you to look at D-802.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, this is a new exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Which will be what?
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: GB-327. for the moment. Perhaps I might read the extract. BY COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: you wrote in the Stuermer of March 1938, immediately after the Anschluss with Austria.
I want you to tell no whether or not you are advocating the Nazi policy in regard to Austria:
"We must make sure that the power of the Jews does not grow up to heaven itself. What was only a dream up to a few days ago has now become a reality. The sister nation of Austria has returned home to the Reich."
And then, a few lines further down:
"We are approaching wonderful times, a greater Germany without Jews." policy?
A I have not issued propaganda policies. Austria was already annexed. I just welcomed the fact. I did not need to make any more propaganda about it.
Q Very well. Perhaps you'll tell me what you mean by the "greater Germany" that you are approaching. What greater Germany are you approaching in March, 1938, a Germany greater than it was after the Anschluss with Austria?
AA greater Germany (Grosse Deutschland), a living area in which all people who speak Germany or are of German blood could live together.
Q Do I understand that you are advocating "Lebensraum", greater space, not yet advocated by Germany?
AAt first not, no. At first we only dealt with Austria and Germany. The Austrians are Germans and, therefore, belong into a greater Germany.
Q I won't argue with you. I will just ask you once more, what do you mean by the "greater Germany" that you are approaching in March of 1938? together who speak German and have German blood.
Q Would you look at D-118, which will become GB-238. Perhaps I can carry on. In November of 1938, after Munich, did you, yourself, personally send a telegram to Conrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten-German Party?
A If it says so there, then that mil be true. I do not recall it.
"Without your courageous preparatory work the great act would not have succeeded." of the Nazi Government?
A I have to ask you again, would you please repeat your question? Conrad Henlein and reprinted in your newspaper under a picture of that gentleman -- I am asking you whether or not that was propaganda in support of the Nazi policy, Nazi foreign policy?
A I have to say the same about this as I said before. That was a telegram of Frank's. I did not have to make any more propaganda because the Munich agreement had already taken place.
Q I put it to you and I'll leave it. I'll put it to you that throughout the years from 1933 until 1944 or 1945 you were in fact doing everything you could to support the policy of the Government, both domestically and in regard to its foreign affairs.
Q I want to turn now to the question of the Jews. May I remind you of the speech which you made on the 1st of April, 1933, that is to say, the day of the boycott.
My Lord, this will be found in the original document book, M-33. It was not actually put in before. It now becomes GB-329.
THE PRESIDENT: M- What was it?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: M-33. It is in the document book on page 15, in the original document book which the Tribunal have. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
Q Now, I give you the document book. If you want to see the original, you may do so in every case.
"For fourteen years", you say," we have been repeating in Germany 'German people, learn to recognize your true enemy', and the German simpletons listened carefully and then declared that we preached religious hatred. Never since the beginning of the world and the creation of man has there been a nation which dared to fight against the nation of blood-suckers and extortioner who, for a thousand years, have spread all over the world."
"It was left to our movement to expose the eternal Jew as a mass murderer," "German people, learn to recognize your true enemy"? do with it. You gave me a -
29th April - M - GH -11a - 1
THE PRESIDENT: You are asked a question. You are asked who there it is true that for fourteen years you had been repeating to Germans "Learn to recognize your true enemy." Is that true?
THE WITNESS: That I did, yes. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: hatred?
A Can I be permitted to make a statement concerning that answer? In my weekly "Der Stuermer" I have repeatedly stated that for me the Jews are not a religious group but a race, a people.
Q And do you think to call them "blood-suckers, a nation of bloodsuckers and extortioners" -- de you think that's preaching hatred?
A I beg your pardon. I have to say I did not quite understand it. you were saying on the 1st April, 1933, that they were a "nation of blood suckers and extortioners."
Do you call that preaching hatred? can be proved on the basis of historical facts.
Q Understand me. I did not ask you whether or not it was a fact; I asked you whether you called it preaching hatred. Your answer is yes or no.
A No, it's not preaching hatred; it's just a statement of facts. and do you see the fourth paragraph from the end of the extract? That is page 17 of the document book.
"So long as I stand at the head of the struggle, this struggle will be conducted so thoroughly that the external Jew will deprive no joy from it."
A That I wrote: that was right. to stand at the head of that struggle?
AAt the head? Whether I stood at the head? Oh, It to modest. But I assume that clearly and frankly I spoke about my convictions and about 29th April - M - GH - 11a - 2 my knowledge.