Q We will deal with the article you mention in 1933 in one moment; but before we do that, just see if you believe your own staff. Turn, will you, to 38A, M-139. Now, on the 6th of May it so happens just after those last three extracts from the "Das Israelitische Wochenblatt" we have looked at, within two or three months, one or two months afterward your newspaper is publishing this article. It is headed "Children of the Devil."
"Der Sturmer paid a visit to the ghettoes in the East. Der Sturmer sent its photographer to various ghettoes; a member of Der Sturmer's staff is well acquainted with the Jews. Nothing can surprise him easily. But what our contributor saw in those ghettoes was a unique experience for him. Jews are not human beings but children of the devil and the spawn of crime. centuries looked upon as God's chosen people by the non-Jews. This satanic race really has no right to exist." during 1942 and 1943. Are you really telling this Tribunal that your photographer went with his camera to those ghettoes and found out nothing about the mass murder of Jews? April, 1943. Your photographer must have been around just about that time, if you were writing on the 6th of May, if he had just returned. Did you think he could have been there looking at ghettoes for Der Sturmer, for Julius Streicher, the Jew-baiter, and have discovered nothing of what was happening in the ghetto in Warsaw and elsewhere? campaign a Viennese reporter went over there, made films and made reports, and in 1942 I think you will find a name which I would like to know. There will be a signature to show whom it was written by. One thing I know is that the ghetto was destroyed; something which I saw from an illustrated report which I think originated in the Ministry of Propaganda. But mass executions or the destruction of the ghetto during an uprising -- well, that sounds legal, and I consider it right; but mass murder in the ghetto in Warsaw?
That is something I never heard of.
Q Now, just let's look at the article to which you referred a moment ago. Will you look at 44A of the Document Book. My Lord, this is the same as was included at page 35 in the original Document Book, but there is slightly more of the extract quoted at page 44A. are speaking the truth in telling the Tribunal that you did not know what was happening. You quote in that article from the Swiss newspaper, "Das Israelitische Wochenblatt", on the 27th of August 1943 -- you will see that date in the centre of the first paragraph -- I start now from that line in the centre. The Swiss Jewish newspaper goes on to say, "The Jews of Europe with the exception of those in England and of the lesser Jewish communities in a few neutral countries have, so to speak, disappeared. The Jewish reservoir of the East, that was able to counter-balance the force of the apparent assimilation of the West, no longer exists." That is the end of your quotation from the newspaper, and you go on to say, "This is not a Jewish lie; it is really true that the Jews have so to speak disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish reservoir of the East from which the Jewish pestilence spread for centuries among the European nations has ceased to exist. If the Swiss newspaper wishes to affirm that the Jaws did not expect this kind of treatment when they plunged the nations into the second world war, this is to be believed, but already at the beginning of the war the German Nation's Fuehrer prophesied the events that have taken place. He said that the second world war would divide those who wished it." not know how to interpret the word "disappearance," the disappearance of the Jews from the East? Are you really telling the Tribunal that?
The word "disappearance" doesn't mean exterminate from the mass. This is a quotation from the Israelite weekly and is a repeated quotation of what the Fuehrer had prophesied.
there, which you will find at page 36B -- and I would like you to follow it and we will read the two together. Now, the particular paragraph which I want to read with the "Israelitische Wochenblatt" is that quotation which I have just read to you and you will find the same quotation, My Lord; it starts at the end of the eighth but last line, "The Jews of Europe......." Have you got them in front of you, Defendant?
Q It would be better, I think, if you followed it. I want to help you as much as possible. Page 44A and 36B. I will read slowly first of all from your Sturmer again, "The Jews of Europe with the exception of those in England and of the lesser Jewish communities in a few neutral countries have so to speak disappeared," and you will see that you then go on in the quotation and say "the Jewish reservoir of the East which was able to counter-balance the force of the apparent assimilation of the West no longer exists."
Now, would you look at that original article, "The Jews of Europe" -this is 36B -- "the Jews of Europe with the exception of those in England and the lesser Jewish communities in the few neutral countries have so to speak disappeared."
Now -- there you go on, "The Jewish reservoir of the East" -- the original goes on -- "three million dead, the same number outlawed, mentally and physically broken." you read that article of the 27th of August, you didn't know that Jews were being murdered in the East, that you had not read of those things in the "Israelitische Wochenblatt"?
A Whether I had read it or not, I wouldn't have believed it, that three million Jews had been killed. That is something I wouldn't have believed. That is why I left it out, I think. At any rate, the German censorship wouldn't have allowed it to spread, something which isn't credible.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't read the last part of the line.
LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: "... broken. That is the result of the new order." I am obliged to you. "That is the result", you say, "of the new order in Europe."
Q You say you didn't believe it. Is that what you say, that you must have read it -
Q -- but you just didn't believe it?
Q Even if you didn't believe it, when you were reading this newspaper more or less regularly, your own camera-man had been to the ghettoes in the East, did you think it right to go on week after week in your newspaper crying out for the extermination, murder of the Jews?
A That isn't true. It isn't true that a murder was demanded, and I repeat again, it was due to the voice from America, that called for our extermination by sterilization, increased mass-murder against Germans, that I as an author can say that the Jews too can be. That is a matter for authors, for writers. But the mass-murders had taken place a long time before, and I state here that if I had known what had in fact happened in the East, then I wouldn't have used these quotations at all which I have used. article, after sending your camera-man, when the United Nations published their declaration, after Hitler's prophecies had been made again and again in his proclamations, after you had been fulfilled -- you really say you didn't know?
A The photographer is at your disposal. He is in Vienna, and I ask to heave him brought here. And I state that this photographer knew nothing and didn't know anything about mass murders.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we might adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. MARX: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, and in the interest of clarification, I should like to point out the following: The Prosecutor, Sir Griffith Jones, has mentioned a document, page 38 from Der Sturmer of 6 May 1943. That seems to be an error, because we are dealing here with the Sturmer of 6 March 1943. Sturmer published a report of the 6 March in the Sturmer, then he must have been, before 6 March 1943 at the Ghetto in Warsaw.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say 6 March? The document I have before me has 6 May.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: There has been a mistake, I am afraid, in the German that Dr. Marx has. I have the original before me, which is 6 May 1943.
DR. MARX: Excuse me. At the present moment, I can not recall when the destruction of the Ghetto of Warsaw took place. That was document 1061-PS. Would you know?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: I can not remember at the moment the document, but the date was, I think from memory, from the 1st to the 23rd of April.
DR. MARX: Then, of course, I beg you to excuse my statement.
Q. Now, we had just dealt with the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt" issue for 26 April, the copy that you quoted from. I just refer you to one more copy of that newspaper. Would you look at page 37-B, which is an issue of 10 September, 1943:
"Statistics presented by the Convening Committee showed that five million out of the eight and a half million Jews of Europe had died or been deported through methodical measures in the campaign of extermination. Through forced labor and deportations, about three million Jews had lost their lives."
Did you read that one?
A. I do not know, and again I would have have believed it. To this day, I do not believe that five million Jews were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it. I have not received proof of that.
I have not received it up until now.
Q. It is quite clear that there were plenty of figures for you quoted in this "Israelitisches Wochenblatt" over the period that we are discussing? Plenty of figures, now it turns out, doesn't it?
A. Pardon?
Q. We will go on. Now, I just want to put one or two further articles of your own to you. You remember what I am suggesting: That you are inciting the German people to murder. We know now that at least you read one article in the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt" where murder is mentioned. I just want to see what you go on to publish in your own paper after that date.
Would you look at page 47 A. This is an article by yourself on 6 January 1944. This is after you had been living on your estate for some time.
"After the national Socialist uprising in Germany, a development began in Europe, too, from which one can expect that it will free this continent once and for all of the Jewish disintegrator of nations and exploiter, and over and above this, that the German example will, after a victorious termination of the second world war, bring about the destruction of the Jewish world tormentor in the other continents as well." world? What example do you mean there?
A. Those articles explain what I have already said. I spoke of an international solution of the Jewish question. I was convinced that if Germany in this war had been victorious over Bolshevism, then the possibility would have existed to come to an agreement with the other nations for an international solution of the Jewish question, and if I speak here about destruction, you can not take it as physical destruction by mass killing; as I have said, that is an expression, and again I have to point that out. I do not really believe that Erich Kauffmann really wanted to kill the German people by sterilization, but he wrote about it, and in the same manner, we wrote about it too and used similar expressions.
Q. You have not yet told us what is this international solution that you are advocating by talking about extermination; if it is not murder, what is it What is the solution?
A. I have already said that I founded an Anti-Semites Union, and beyond that Anti-Semites Union among the nations, we wanted to create movements which should get the possibility beyond the power of governments to act in such a way that an international possibility should be created, such as has been found here in this town. Likewise, I thought that an international congress should take place, should meet, which would solve the Jewish question by the creation of a Jewish state and thereby should destroy the power of the Jews within other nations.
Q. That is your answer -- that you were advocating a Jewish state? Is that all that this comes to? Is it simply that you were advocating a Jewish national home? Is that what you have been talking about in all those extracts that we have read? Is that the solution which you are advocating?
A. Well, I do not know what you want with that question. Of course, that is the solution.
Q. Very well. Let us just go on now. Turn to page 48-A now, will your? This is 24 January 1944:
"Whoever does what a Jew does is a scroundrel, a criminal, and he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the some fate -- annihilation, death."
Are you still advocating a national Jewish home?
A. Yes, that has nothing to do with the big political plan. If you take every statement by a writer, every statement from a daily newspaper out of its context and want to prove a political aim by it, then you do not get the desired effect. You have to distinguish between a newspaper article and a great political aim.
Q. Let us just turn now to the next page, 2 March 1944:
"Eternal night must come over the born criminal race of the Jews so that eternal day may make the awakening non-Jewish mankind happy."
Were they going to have eternal night in their national Jewish state? Is that what you wanted?
A. That is an anti-Semitic play of words. Again it has nothing to do with the great political aim.
Q. It may be an anti-Semitic play of words, but the only meaning it could have is murder. Is that not true?
A. No.
Q. Will you turn to the next page, 25 May 1944, and I remind you that these are all after you must have read of the murder in "Israelitisches Wochenblatt". I quote the second paragraph?
"How can we overcome this danger and restore humanity to health? Just as a human being is able to defend himself against contagious diseases only if he proclaims war against the cause of the disease, the germ, so to speak; so the world can be restored to health only when the most terrible germ of all time, the Jew, has been removed. It is of no avail to battle against the outward symptoms of the world disease without rendering the actual cause of the disease innocuous. The disease will nevertheless break out again sooner or later. The cause and the bearer of the disease sees to this itself, the germ, but if the nations are to be restored to health and are to remain healthy in the future, then the germ of the Jewish world plague must be destroyed, root and branch."
Is that what you mean? Are you saying there when you say "must be destroyed root and branch" -- did you mean to say "ought to be given a Jewish national state?
A. Yes, from such a statement in an article, to the will and the actions of mass murder, there is a long way.
"The struggle against Judaism will be returned. Then the Jew will be extinguished. Then Judaism will be annihilated down to the last man."
Are we to read from these words: Provide the Jews with a Jewish national state
A That is a vision of the future. I would like to call it an expression of a prophetic vision. But it is not incitement to kill five million Jews. That is an opinion of ideology, of conviction, of faith.
Q It is the prophetic vision of what you wanted, isn't it--of what you have been advocating now for the last four years from the beginning of the war? Isn't that what it is?
A Mr. Prosecutor, what one heard years go at a certain moment, when one wrote that article, one cannot say today. But I had right next to me on the table confessions from the front of Judaism, confessions in which it says the German nation has to be destroyed, bombard the cities, do not save women and children.
If you have confessions like these it is possible that out of one's pen that comes which I have written. millions of Jews have been murdered since the beginning of the war? Lo you know that? You have heard the evidence, have you not? You can answer it.
Q I only wanted to know whether you had heard that evidence. You can answer yes or no, and I presume it will be yes.
There he states that the mass executions took place upon his orders. That I believe Now I believe it. six million Jews in 1921? Do you think the German people would have stood for it? Do you think it would have been possible under any regime in 1921 to have carried out the murder of six million men, women, and children of the Jewish race? no, It would not have been possible. The Prosecutor himself has said here that since 1937 the Party had full control over the people. If the people would have known even then, according to the opinion of the Prosecution, on the basis of the control exercised by the Nazis, they could not have done anything against that dictatorship. But the people did not know it. That is my belief and my conviction and my knowledge.
years of incitement and propaganda by you and other Nazis? Is that what made that possible?
A That I do not admit, that there was incitement. There was enlightement, and sometimes a harsh word may have fallen against the other side as an answer. It was enlightement--not incitement. And if before history We want to keep our place, I have to state the German people did not want any killings, whether individually or-I am going to remind you of what you have said.
Q I am going to remind you of what you said yesterday. I read from the transcript: "To speak of a Jewish question at the time--" that is 1923 -- "I would like to say the public distinguished Jews only by their religion, to speak about a Jewish problem would have been nonsense." had only been created by you and the Nazi regime? impossible sexual intercourse between different races, if that should become law, then the public has to know that Jewry does not mean religion but people and race. ment, or, as the Prosecution says, incitement. Mass killings were the last acts of the will of a man who was probably desperate because he saw that he could not conquer--of a great man of history.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: I have no further questions. Perhaps I might be allowed to just sort out the exhibits and then mention to the Tribunal their numbers. If the Tribunal would agree, those that I have put in evidence, which are the other parts of the bundle other than I have actually quoted from, perhaps I could put them all in as one number and hand the exhibits to the Clerk, if that would be the convienient course.
THE PRESIDENT: I think so, yes. If they are in one bundle, and you are going to give one number to a number of documents, it had better be one bundle, hadn't it
LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you want to reexamine.?
DR. MARX: I do not consider it necessary anymore.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Defendant can return to the dock. Dr. Marx, will you continue the Defendant's case?
DR. MARX: I call now, with the permission of the Court, the witness Fritz Herrwerth.
(The witness took the stand.)
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
THE WITNESS: Fritz Herrwerth.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Since when do you know the Defendant Streicher?
A. Since the Party day in 1934.
Q. When did you enter his service and in what function?
A. On the 15th of October, 1934, in Nurnberg. I became his employee -not his personal employee but at that time I was in the municipal motor pool. But I served for Gauleiter Streicher.
Q. When did you leave that service?
A. In August 1943.
Q. For what reason?
A. It was a personal dispute, and mainly due to my fault.
Q. Did you have any other tasks to do for Streicher?
A. Yes.
Q. And which?
A. Well whatever came up. I did agricultural work also at the end.
Q. In other words, you were very often with Streicher and therefore you knew about the most important incidents during that period?
A. Yes. I don't know, however, what you call important incidents. There were things that I don t know about. At least I assume that.
Q. I will ask you later in detail.
29,Apr-A-GES-19-2a
A. Yes, if you please.
Q. The Defendant Streicher is accused to have caused acts of violence against the Jews and to have participated in these acts. Do you know of any such case?
A. Not a single one.
Q. Will you please wait until the end of my question, and then I shall say "end of question." On the 9th of November, 1938, did you drive Streicher back from Munich to Nurnberg, and when?
A. It was on the 19th of November, yes. I do not know the time of the day anymore. Streicher left earlier at that time in Munich, and it may have been about -- I don't know for sure - 9 o'clock.
Q. Did Streicher know already during that ride back that same night that something was to be done against the Jewish population?
conversation between Streicher and the SA Fuehrer Herrvon Obernitz?
Q Where did that conversation take place? When Streicher went to bed in the evening, I was usually with him or the superintendent. On that evening Streicher went to bed earlier than usual. I don't know the reason. And that concluded my work for the day. I went from Mr. Streicher to the Casino of the Gauleitung. That was in the cellar of the Gauleitung Building on Schlageter Strasse. I played cards there. And then the SA Obergruppenfuehrer Herr von Obernitz came and called me, as usual, by the name of Fritz and told me-
THE PRESIDENT: When you see that light go on, it means that you are going too fast. Will you try to speak more slowly?
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I will try my best.
A (Continuing) The then SA Obergruppenfuehrer Herr von Obernitz came into the Gauleitung headquarters and told me he had to speak to Mr. Streicher very urgently, and I answered him that Mr. Streicher had already gone to bed. Then he told me, "Then you have to wake him up." He said that he would assume the responsibility; it was unimportant affair. Herr von Obernitz upon my call went to Streicher's apartment. Mr. Streicher's bedroom is above my apartment. I had the keys and, of course, I could got in at any time. through the streets, and I asked Herr von Obernitz about the reason for that. He told me that that night something was going to happen; Jewish apartments were to be destroyed. He did not say anything further to me.
I accompanied Herr von Obernitz to the bed of Mr. Streicher. Herr von Obernitz reported to Streicher about that which had happened that night and was to happen. I cannot recall the details very well any more, but I believe that he said that that night Jewish apartments were to be destroyed. Mr. Streicher, if I may say so, was surprised. He had not known anything about it, and he said literally to Herr von Obernitz, and I remember that very well, very clearly.
"That is wrong. One cannot solve the Jewish question like that. Do what you have been ordered. I do not takepart in it. If anything should occur that you need me, then you can come for me." Upon that, and I can also mention that Herr von Obernitz said, "Hitler has said the SA should be able to let loose their emotions once as retribution for the case which had occurred in Paris in connection with Herr von Rath." Streicher stayed in bed and did not go out during that night.
Q Stop here please. Did von Obernitz mention anything about the fact that synagogues were to be burned?
A I believe so, yes. But, as much as I remember, Streicher refused to do that, too, because the synagogues, as much as I know, were burned by the fire department, and upon orders from Herr von Obernitz.
Q How do you know that?
Q Did you watch it?
Q And how could one assume that the fire department started the fire?
A How that could be assumed I don't know, but I saw it. The people of the fire department started the fire.
Q Well, had you already seen it? Were you there to see how the fire was started or did you arrive when the building was already on fire? already. That's all I can, say. That's true. was afraid of a new wave of incitement on the part of the world press to be started now if the synagogues were burned and did he say that that is why he refused to do it?
A I believe so, yes, but I couldn't say definitely; but, if I remember correctly, they spoke about that.
Q Did Obernitz say from whom he had received the order? to let loose their emotions once. night about that conversation between Obernitz and Streicher?
down from the second floor to my apartment, I told my wife that I would probably be a little late because that night that action was going to be started, and I told her shortly what was going to happen but nothing about the conversation. had been forced to retire there or had retired?
Q Do you remember an incident where the later Mrs. Streicher spoke about the incidents at Magdeburg which had occurred the same night there?
Q Didn't you tell the then Mrs. Merkel that you wouldn't talk about these incidents because Streicher always got very excited about them?
A I couldn't recall that Streicher had said once that he was to have been right in his assumption and that is that a short time after that night he received information, for instance, I don't know through whom, that the glass for the windows had to be bought from Holland again. Streicher said at that time that that is the first time we mentioned the correctness/of his opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, just one moment. defendant von Schirach if we discussed the question about the documents at 9:30 tomorrow morning?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I will find out. Yes, counsel for von Schirach says that he thinks it is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, 9:30 tomorrow morning. BY DR. MARX: farm about the opinion of Streicher with regard to the Jewish question? What was that about the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt"?
A Well, what do you want to know about the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt" Streicher received it.
Q Did he receive it regularly?
A Yes, I believe I can say that quite certainly. I saw large heaps of newspapers of the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt". They came continuously.
Q Mr. Streicher said that during the first years of the war he had great difficulty to got that paper and the police did not release it easily?
A Yes, that can very well be. I do not know what year they were. saw them. Today it is difficult for me to tell of what year these papers were.
A Yes, on and off, but there were also some other newspapers; Swiss newspapers were there, the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt", and so on. There were always so many newspapers and among them I sawhere and there the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt". I mean to say that it would not be possible for me to say how many there were.
Q All right. Did Streicher speak at times about his knowledge of happenings in the East or of happenings in concentration camps in the East? it. He could not say anything about it. At least that's my conviction.
Q How come? Did you ever speak to him about it?
A No, not that I know of; I didn't know anything about it myself. reproached by Reicgsfuehrer SS Himmler because he treated the imprisoned Frenchmen too well? Do you understand me?
A Yes, I understood, but I have to think about it. I know quite well that Streicher mentioned at times 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, that I don't know.
Q No, no. The cause for a good treatment, you mean?
A No, the cause that Streicher spoke about it. Streicher spoke about repro.aching, about the good treatment of the Frenchmen; but the fact that he spoke about it, whether that was caused by a letter from Himmler or not, that I don't know. complain about bad treatment.
Q You were no more present when the French left? firm came to Streicher, into his garden, and told him that he had told the truth to the police in an affair concerning shares?
A I have to ask you to give me that question in more detail. I do not know all about it, but part of it. I know that Director Fink was standing in tears before Streicher, that he cried, that he accused himself, that he was a rascal and a traitor, but why I don't know. Then Streicher ran into the garden with him, and I only saw that Fink cried. I can still hear how he accused himself. brought people from the S.P.D. and the K.P.D. from the concentration camps, Social Democratic Party and Communist Party?
Q How many were there?
A I don't know. It was about every year around Christmas. I estimate that there were about 100 to 150 men every year. They came from Dachau. Mr. Streicher, in the Hotel Deutscher Hof, had dinner prepared for them in a separate room; and I believe that is where they also met their families -- that is to say, the prisoners met the members of their family. Streicher also saw to it that the prisoners who were then released found work, and he intervened personally for them.
Q Did he also get one or another of these prisoners to work?
Q What do you know about that? motorcycle factory. Streicher then at that time told the Plenipotentiary for X the Labor Front to get these people in, as much as I remember. of the Party had acquired cars and villas of Jewish property at very low prices?
A I can still remember when Mr. Streicher returned from Berlin. I don't know how much Streicher knew at that time about these purchases, but, at any rate, when Streicher returned from Berlin where Goering had made statements about these cheap, low price purchases of buildings, Streicher was at the railroad station.
I witnessed that myself. He said that at once these purchases had to be nullified. house. I don't know whether there were more of them. by the Gestapo and there was a prohibition against visiting him there? criminal agents were there, but one could assume that they were there. 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. And what was the second question?
A Oh, yes. Throughout the city I met various members of the Party, and whomever I asked told me, "Well, one cannot get out there, one cannot go out there." And if I asked, "Well, who said that?" Then no one wanted totalk about it, but, as one heard it, a prohibition was expressed by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess. out that an act of violence had been committed against Jews or other political adversaries or were only intended, that he stopped them immediately?
A Yes. At least, on the basis of his statement he always said that that was wrong. somebody who had committed such violations? If you don't know it, say so. shares?
Q What do you know about it?
A I know about that case through statements by Streicher. I was not a witness to these events myself, but Mr. Streicher told me frequently later what had happened.
Shall I describe it? came and offered the shares to Streicher. Streicher said, "What kind of share are they?" The answer was, "They are shares of the Mars Works." He said, "How many?" The answer was "One hundred thousand Marks." Then Streicher said "How much are these?" He said "5,000 Marks." Streicher asked, "Why are these shares so cheap?" then finally Fink, I believe, said, "Because they are Jewish shares." never have taken anything from a Jew. He protested very definitely against the fact that such an offer had been made to him at all. Streicher, had the thought that with that money he could possibly reconstruct the third Gau building. He pointed that out to the gentlemen as they left, and they decided to buy the shares. Streicher only said that definitely no Party money should be used for that. Then both did not know what to do. Streicher said he would like to advance these 5,000 Marks.
That settled the case, but I had an experience later about it. It was about one and a half years after that negotiation that Streicher had had in Munich. At that time the wife of NSKK Obergruppenfuehrer Zuehlen came to me and asked whether I knew already that the criminal police was given orders at Nurnberg to investigate the case Streicher. I said no and told then "If you want to know something or if they want to know something, why don't they come out to the farm to Mr. Streicher himself? He will give them all the information desired."
After about two to three weeks, I met "Der Stuermer" director Fischer, successor to Fink. He told me -- no, I have to mention first that the shares, together with the 5,000 Marks, were confiscated by Streicher. Director Fischer told me that on that same day he had received a phone call from the trustee company, and that trustee institution reported to Fischer that on the account of the "Stuermer" they had transferred 5,000 Marks which Streicher at that time had advanced for thepurchase of the shares.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, don't you think he is going into rather too much detail about this?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I will make it shorter. because the complete innocence of Streicher had been proved.
Q You witnessed the Supreme Party Court session. What did Fink say at thattime? Did he not accuse himself that he had told the trhtu? Munich occurred at the Kuenstlerhaus. That story of the man who accosted Streicher -- can you give us a description of how that incident occurred?
A Yes. Streicher left the room after dinner. I could not remember the words spoken, but I am going to try to describe it as well as possible. Streicher left the room, and as he left that man approached Streicher in a very disagreeable manner. Streicher continued on his way and was without words. He asked the people around him, myself also, whether we knew that man. Nobody knew him. to the man and to ask him what the reason was for his behavior. Lothar Streicher came out and said that the man had behaved just in the sane manner again.
Q Will you please be more brief? You should only tell us how that incident occurred and what caused you or Streicher to use violence against the man.
A You mean my behavior?
Q Yes. What happened then? man personally. There again the man made incriminating remarks, and then it came to a thrashing by Lothar Streicher. He was a strong man, and it of course took all of us to get him down.
DR. MARX: Then I am through with this witness, Mr. President.