That, Mr. President, is what I wanted to say to the first group, which the Prosecutor mentioned under Numbers 30 to 33.
is the last letter which the explorer Colin Ross left. If the prosecutor objects to the fact that that letter has no signature, then, in my opinion, that is not particularly important. What we have submitted there is the original copy of that letter, and the original copy was found among the papers of Dr. Colin Ross.
Now, the Prosecution asks, What has that farewell letter by Dr. Colin Ross to do with the defense of Schirach? I ask you to recall that frequently one has spoken here about that Dr. Colin Ross. That is the explorer--I believe he was an American by birth, but I do not know it for sure. That is the explorer who not only for many years was a close friend of Schirach but a man whom the defendant von Schirach used again and again in order to prevent or help prevent the outbreak of a war with the United States, and later, in order to terminate that war and to bring about peace with theUnited States. clarified in detail, I believe.
THE PRESIDENT: When was it dated?
DR. SAUTER: One moment please. The date is 30 April 1945. I consider the letter important for the reason that here a man, at the very moment before he commits suicide with his wife because he is desperate about the future of Germany, because, I say, the man right in the face of death is again concerned that, together with the defendant von Schirach, he had continuously tried to bring about peace with the United States, and 1 believe, gentlemen, that-
THEPRESIDENT: Where was he at the time when, as I understand you to say, he committed suicide?
DR. SAUTER: The defendant von Schirach -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, the man Who wrote the letter.
DR. SAUTER: The defendant von Schirach had a small house in Upper Bavaria in the Kurweld am Waldsee, and in that house Colin Ross lived at the time with his wife, and it was in that house which belonged to von Schirach that he committed suicide. proceedings if it were read.
Then, gentlemen, the third group to which the Prosecution objects is again only one number, a comparatively short article from Stars and Stripes.
That is Number 121, and that number, which I shall submit in the original in the course of my presentation, is of 21 February 1946; that is, of this year. It explains in detail how the education of youth is re-organized now in Jugoslavia by Marshal Tito, and the defendant von Schirach stresses the importance of this document because it proves that in Jugoslavia a definitely military education of youth has been started this very year. The defendant von Schirach therefore desires to make a comparison between the kind of youth education which he was in charge of and the Jugoslavian education of youth which has been decided upon this year and which goes much further than did the program of the defendant von Schirach at any time.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I make just one or two short observations? I realize that ordinarily, the Tribunal does not want to hear from Counsel twice, but there are certain matters I want to clear up.
First of all, the book, "Look, the heart of Europe", which may have been written by the man MacLatchie, who Counsel says is a man of Scotch ancestry. I think it is important that the Tribunal know that it was published in Germany. I am sure that Counsel did not mean to imply that it was an American publication, because, other than having been written by this man, it was published over here after he had attended the Olympic Games in 1936.
THE PRESIDENT: In the German language, I suppose?
MR. DODD: Yes, and the German title was "Sieh, das Herz Europas". no one knows whether Ross committed suicide or not. At least, so far as the Allied countries are concerned. His body has never been found and only this note which Counsel says was found among his effects.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I make another remark concerning the first group? That book by Maclatchie appeared in a German publishing firm. The defendant von Schirach himself intervened to make sure that that book could appear, so that again speaks for the fact that von Schirach had a certain purpose in view. That purpose was to cause a certain enlightenment between American and Germany and to smooth the contrast which he was afraid would one day lead to war.
The book by Maclatchie did not only appear in German, but also in the English language, and it was distributed in large numbers in England and in the United States.
It also appeared, of course, in German and was distributed in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you tell the Tribunal what these other documents are that Mr. Dodd has not objected to? We understand that there are 160 documents, which he has not objected to. What are they all about, and how long are they?
DR. SAUTER: I have submitted only one document book. That is, 1 have limited myself to the absolute necessities.
THE FRESIDENT: Of how many pages?
DR. SAUTER: Altogether, 134. Of course, some cover only one half or one third of a page. They are mainly short quotations. of proof concerning the activities of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader can only be dealt with by showing to the Tribunal just what the defendant von Schirach told the youth of Germany, what his teachings were, what his directives to his subordinate leaders were in detail, and in that connection it is necessary for me--and I believe that the Prosecution realizes that also-to submit a short report covering the entire period during which von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader so as to show that the opinions and theories of the defendant von Schirach during the last year of his activity as Reich Youth Leader were exactly the same as during his first year. He is one of the few within the Party who did not become more severe, because in the years he did nothing to extremes, such as most of the others, and that I want to show by these comparatively short excerpts.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have the two supplementary applications for witnesses, have you not?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You better deal with those, had you not?
DR SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of them, I understand, is a person who made an affidavit which has been used by the Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: I believe that is the witness Ueberreiter.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think so. I think it is the other one, is it not? Who are the two?
DR. SAUTER: One is, I believe-
THE PRESIDENT: Marsalek:
DR. SAUTER: No, not Marsalek, Ueberreiter. Marsalek, Mr. President--
THE PRESIDENT: I have your application before me for Marsalek. You do not want Marsalek?
DR. SAUTER: No, that must be an error.
THE PRESIDENT: Taken, the 15th of April, 1946. Anyhow, you do not want him?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you only want one, do you?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is Ueberreiter?
DR. SAUTER: Ueberreiter, Mr President.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution any objection to him?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, we have not, Your Honor. That affidavit was introduced by us in connection with the Kaltenbrunner case, an affidavit by Ueberreiter.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON? No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you Dr. Sauter. We will consider your application and respective documents and the witness. We will consider your application, and we will now proceed with the case of Streicher.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal; I should like to make a motion to the case of Stretcher. I desire to move that Streicher's testimony found at pages 8494, 8495, and 8496 of April 26th be expunged from the record, and on page 8549 of yesterday's testimony in which Streicher makes charges against the United States Army of mistreatment. If this testimony is irrelevant, it has no place in this record. If it is relevant, then it calls for an answer at considerable time and at considerable difficulty in view of the redeployment of people in the service of the United States. In our view it is utterly irrelevant. It was not responsive to any question and, no matter how it should be resolved, it would not help to determine whether Streicher is or is not guilty of the offenses charged here, but it is not a pretty charge to leave unanswered in a record for all time. but the United States has tried to conduct this war within the rules and the forces of the United States have some sensitivity about their record in that respect. whether we should take any steps in reference to this, I move that this be expunged as immaterial and irrelevant testimony and, of course, if it is irrelevant, we are excused from any duty to deal with it; if not, we willknow that we must.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you wish to say anything about that?
DR. MARX: (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Excuse me, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I did not understand the motions made by Justice Jackson completely because at that moment I was busy doing something else. As much as I understood, he dealt with-
THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you what it was. The motion was that passages on pages 8494, 8495, and 8496, and on page 8549, in which the defendant Streicher made certain charges against the United States Army, be expunged from the record.
DR. MARX: I understand. I would like to say, from the point of view of the defense, that I agree that these passages be dropped because I am of the opinion that for the defense of the defendant they are in no way relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: The passages to which Mr. Justice Jackson has drawn our attention are in the opinion of the Tribunal highly improper statements laid by the defendant Streicher. They are, in the opinion of the Tribunal, entirely irrelevant, and they have been admitted by counsel for the defendant Streicher to be entirely irrelevant, and they will, therefore, be expunged from the record.
And now Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: May I now, with the permission of the Tribunal, continue with the calling of witnesses? I call now the witness Friedrich Strobel. follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. MARX: of the lawyers Organization in Nurnberg? have spoken; is that correct? at that occasion concerning the demonstrations of the 9th of November, 1938?
A He stated, "I would not have done it that way. In such a manner it is impossible to suppress a power like world Jewry." Then he added, "What happened has happened", and some more phrases of that kind. Streicher in all public objected against that action, which had been ordered by the top?
A. Yes. Streicher frequently spoke against measures and directives of the Government when he was of a different opinion. Thus he did it also on that occasion. I had the impression that apparently one had passed over him, because in his speech there was an undertone that indicated, that there would be disagreeable consequences. had a good moment once, or that he knew how harmful that action was, or whether his vanity was injured, or maybe it was that he felt that a quick solution of the Jewish problem would take away his importance.
Q. Witness, these are opinions which you are stating here and not facts, and I did not ask you about that.
A. Well, that was my impression.
Q. All right, I ask you now: On the 9th and 10th of November, 1938, were you present in Nurnberg?
A. Yes. I don't remember it for usre, but I believe it was from the 8th to the 9th when that action happened, because on the 7th of November von Rath was shot; on the 8th he died, and the night after these things occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: We needn't argue about whether it was the 8th or the 9th. It doesn't really matter, does it? BY DR. MARX:
Q. The question which I want to put to you now is, what observations did you make after that night during which the demonstration against the Jewish population took place on the following morning, and then later about the attitude of the population in Nurnberg toward these demonstrations?
A. I was informed about that action only by the personnel in my office. Thereupon I walked into the city, looked around in the streets, and in front fo all the damaged stores there were people standing. I had the impression that the majority of the population, the great majority, was quiet. They shook their heads, looked at each other, and muttered something. Then they walked away. But, generally, one had the impression that you should not speak too loudly, and later I found out that people who objected against it were treated rather badly.
Q. But the general impression was, wasn't it, that the population definitely was not in favor of that action, and that general indignation was recognizable, and even if not loud it was there.
A. Yes. The Russian Broadcasting Station expressed it best. They said "Let it be said that it is something in favor of the German people that they did not participate in this action." Most people found out only in the morning after the aftion what had happened.
THE PRESIDENT: What has this got to do with the defendant Streicher?
DR. MARX: Well, the defendant Streicher has been accused that he had shown that he approved of these actions, and that by his speech on the 10th of November he approved it. Streicher also mentioned that that was an action which had been ordered from the top.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that a number of people in Nurnberg, or even the whole of the people of Nurnberg, disapproved of it wouldn't show that Streicher disapproved of it.
DR. MARX: Yes, but he waid that it could not have been an incitement, because that action had been ordered and directed from the top, whereas, in the case of an incitement, the action would have started out of the mass of the people. That is what he pointed out.
THE WITNESS: May I state my opinion about that? It certainly did not start from the people, because even the SA man who took part in the action did it because there was an order, and it was an organized affair. The assertion of Dr. Goebbels that the German people had risen spontaneously was a libel against the German people.
DR MARX: I have no more questions to this witness, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other of the defendants' counsel wish to ask him any questions?
(No response)
Does the Prosecution wish to cross examine?
(No response)
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, I now call the witness Ernst Hiemer.
THE MARSHAL: There is no witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he not there?
THE MARSHAL: We have not witness there.
THE PRESIDENT: He says, Dr. Marx, that he is not there, and that there are no witnesses there.
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. The witness Hiemer is right here in the prison, and I talked to him personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you inform the prison authorities yesterday that you were going to call him?
DR. MARX: I spoke to the Marshal on Monday, saying that Hiemer should be brought up Tuesday, us much as I can recall. There must be a misunderstanding somewhere.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, have you got any other witnesses besides Hiemer?
DR. MARX: Well, yes, the witness Wurzbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he? Where is Wurzbacher?
DR. MARX: Wurzbacher is also here in the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, while he is being brought, can you take up the time in dealing with your documents?
DR. MARX: Yes. We can do that also.
THE MARSHAL: They will be here in about five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, before coming to the question of the documents, I should like to point out the following: During the proceedings yesterday afternoon the Prosecution has submitted several documents which were new to me, and I did not have an opportunity yet to state my position with regard to them. Also, I did not have a chance yet to speak to the defendant Streicher about them. about these extraordinarily important documents; and I believe that has to be done in the manner that I have to examine all the articles of the "Stuermer" to see whether it can be found that Streicher has used the various informations from the "Israelitisches Wochenblatt", because his defense was, "I did not believe what I read there."
If it will be seen now that not in a single article has be used these informations, then his statement is well supported. Therefore -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. In one particular article it was demonstrated yesterday in cross-examination, as I understood it, that he had used an article from the Jewish paper.
DR. MARX: Yes. I know that article. That is of the 4th of November 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Marx, what exactly are you applying for now? What is your motion?
DR. MARX: My motion is that the Tribunal permit me to supplement my document book in such, a manner so that I can state my position to the documents submitted by the Prosecution yesterday by submitting documents on my part. My presentation of documents would be incomplete if I would not have a chance to answer these presentations by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx; the Tribunal grants your motion provided you make it in the ordinary way, in writing, referring to any passages which you contend throw light on the passages which have been put in by the prosecution.
DR. MARX: Yes. May I now begin to discuss the individual documents? Exhibit No. 1 shows that the newspaper "Stuermer", according to the decision of the Fuehrer, was not an official Party organ and that that newspaper was not even permitted to carry the Party emblem, while all other papers had that Party emblem on the front page. That should prove that we are dealing here with a private publication of the defendant Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you are going to offer these documents in evidence and give them exhibit numbers, are you not?
DR. MARX: I consider these documents as submitted and I have discussed it with the prosecution and the prosecution had no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, there is a written transcript being taken down and unless you offer each document in evidence and say that will be exhibit number so and so, it does not got into the transcript. If you like, you can do it in a group and say "I offer in evidence such and such documents as Exhibit 1 to 100," or whatever number you wish.
DR. MARK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The back I have before me does contain certain exhibit numbers; for instance, page 1 to 4 appears to be Exhibit No. 1 and page 5 is Exhibit No. 5; page 6 is Exhibit No. 6; page 7 is Exhibit No. 7.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that page 4 is Exhibit No. 1; is it?
DR. MARX: The pagination which was made here is quite different from what I had in the beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get on. You only got to tell us what documents you are offering in evidence and under what exhibit numbers. Dr. Marx, you can do it later if you want to.
DR. MARX: I further submit Exhibit No. 5, an extract from an editorial that appeared in "Der Stuermer" of July 1938. That article which was not written by Streicher but by Karl Holz, shows that it is written in a very severe term and it is mentioned that vengeance will be set free one day and Jews will be destroyed, but it is said that that article was caused by a letter which was sent from Nurnberg to New York and which itself indicated that Germany in the case of war would be destroyed from the air, so the tendency is caressed here again, which the defendant asserted yesterday, that his sharp expressions were always caused by the same way, from theother side.
That was Exhibit No. 5 and I ask to be permitted to submit it as an exhibit under that number.
Then I submit as Exhibit No. 6, an excerpt from Number 40 of "Der Stuermer," of October 1939. I believe I do not have to say anything about that because my position can be seen from the document; or is it necessary to speak about it?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you neednot speak about them; just put them in.
DR. MARX: I submit as Exhibit No. 7, an extract from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" of 25 February 1942, in answering document M-31 of the Tribunal brief against the defendant.
Then I submit Exhibit No. 8, an extract from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" February 8, 1939, page 2.
Then as Exhibit No. 9, an extract from the political testament of Adolf Hitler, dated 29 April 1945.
As Exhibit No. 10, an extract from "Der Stuermer," February 1935, No. 8.
As Exhibit No. 11, an extract from "Der Stuermer," an extract of September 1945, No. 38.
As Exhibit No. 12; then I pass on to the next page which will receive No. 12. That is an extract from "Der Stuermer," of September 1935, No. 38, page 9 of that copy.
Exhibit No. 13 is an extract from "Der Stuermer," of January 1938, No. 1.
Exhibit No. 14, an extract from "Der Stuermer", of May 1938, No. 20.
As Exhibit No. 15, an extract from "Der Sterner," of November 1943, No. 45.
As Exhibit No. 16, a document submitted by the prosecution, No. 579-PS.
As Exhibit No. 17, speeches made by Himmler in April 1943, 4 October 1943, and 28 September 1943 at Pozen and Karkov.
As Exhibit No. 18, a photostat of the special issue of "Der Stuermer," for May 1939, No.20.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think the witnessis readyyet? Perhaps we might as well adjourn for ten minutes now.
(A recess was taken.)
ERNST HEIMER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
DR. MARX: May I just interrupt for a minute, Mr. President. First of all I would like to state that I am not holding the Marshal responsible for the mistake. The matter was as follows, that is, about bringing in the witness -
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite all right, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: I consider it my duty to state here and how that the Marshal is not responsible for the mistake regarding the bringing of the witness. One of my employees spoke with a gentleman -
THE PRESIDENT: We quite understand, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: Then, Mr. President, May I be permitted to submit Exhibits No. 1,3,6,7,3,9, up to 18. The numbers are 1 and 5, and from 6 through 18. Lacking are 2,3, and 4 which were not granted. All other exhibit numbers remain and are contained therein, numbers 1 and 5, and through 18.
THE PRESIDENT: You include 19, don't you?
DR. MARX: Numbers 19 and 20.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I beg your pardon. I think I must have been wrong. I have taken down 19, but you haven't got 19, have you?
DR. MARX: Number 18 is my last one, your Honor, and I wish to submit these exhibits.
THE PRESIDENT: And now you are going to go on with the witness?
DR. MARX: Yes. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You May sit down.
BY DR. MARX
Q Since when have you known Mr. Streicher? How did you get to know him, and what position did you have in the Stuermer? at the Deutscher Hof in Nurnberg. Streicher instructed me to work for his journal which dealt with public health. In the year 1935, I wrote reports for the Stuermer. Streicher then had no transferred to the editorial department of the Stuermer office.
Finally, under Streicher's supervision, and at the suggestion and direction of other collaborators in the Stuermer, I did editorial work and duties. The responsible editor of the Stuermer was the deputy of Streicher, Karl Holz by name but the man in charge of the Stuermer was Streicher himself. to be permitted to remain in the service of the Stuermer, but since he was the Deputy Gauleiter, and in his position as Hoheitstraeger was a dignitary of the party, he could not be mentioned officially in the Stuermer as longer, and there fore, at the instruction of Streicher, my name was entered as responsible party in the Stuermer, and the entire direction of the editorial policy and all authority connected therewith remained in Streicher as heretofore, and Streicher remained in his position of authority until it collapsed.
Q What was the chief thought connected with the Stuermer's policy? What was the leit motiv? uage, to show every man and every woman of the German people and give them knowledge about the Jews. Streicher wanted the entire German people to realize and kn know that the Jew was a stranger among them.
Q Now, Mr. Hiemer, I don't want to know that. I want you to tell me whether Mr. Streicher was for emigration or whether he followed a different train of thought. I do not want you to give me a long exposition on the Jewish problem. solved through emigration. He criticised the leadership of the Reich when he said that the emigration of Jews was not being carried through in a manner desired by Streicher. When the war came, Streicher asserted that the Jewish question, so far as Germany was concerned, and Germany at war--this question would no longer have any signifcance for Germany at war, if, Streicher thought, even in peace, this problem could have been solved before this through a complete emigration. the journal?
A Yes. Streicher did utter his opinions in word and in writing. He said that Palestine and Madagascar would be suitable to receive the Jews that were living in Germany. However, he did not maintain this thought for any length of time because Germany could not dispose of Palestine and Madagascar; England and France were the only two powers who could dispose of these two countries. Streicher and the Stuermer had since 1933? Was there a retrogression of this influence since 1933 among the German people?
A Yes, that is correct. In many circles it was known that the influence of Streicher on the movement, and the influence of his paper on the movement, beginning with 1933, did decrease. Streicher had many conflicts with other leaders of the Party, and he created many enemies for himself. Above all, beginning with the year 1937, Streicher was pushed into the background more and more. that was carried on through the Party. That was carried on by the Institute for the study of Jewish Problems, under the leadership of Rosenberg, an authority so far as Jewry was concerned.
Himmler was one, as is well known, who had authority in this respect. Gauleiter, he was completely isolated. From that period on he lived on his estate and worked there as a country gentleman, and he only worked in a literary capacity for the Stuermer.
Q What was the circulation of the Stuermer since 1933? Can you tell us anything about that, beginning with your service? of that. However, I do remember some figures. The Stuermer was, even in 1933, a very small paper; in about the year 1935 it grew, and it had a circualtion of about 800,000. Then there was a sharp decrease after that. cannot give you any exact figures. During tha last months the circulation of the Stuermer was extremely small. On an average, I might say that the Stuermer had a circulation of perhaps half a million. Of course, there were special issues which had a much larger circulation.
Q What can the sharp increse in the year 1935 be traced back to?
Q Wasn't it because, in a way, there were coercive subscriptions in factories and other places?
A Mr. Attorney, you are putting questions to me which really only a circulation man can answer, I myself cannot answer the question with assurance, and there fore I must remain silent because my testimony is not certain.
Q Of course, if you don't know, you may feel free to say so. What was the knowledge of Mr. Streicher about the happenings in the East, especially in concentration camps, and what did he tell you abot these things personally?
A From Streicher's own words I never heard that he knew about the happenings in concentrations camps. On the other hand, Streicher said he heard about these happenings only in the year 1944 through the Swiss press. Streicher received the Swiss press regularly; among others, the Israelitishes Wochenblatt, or the Israellite Weekly Journal, and in the year 1944 this Journal brought rather detailed descriptions about the happenings in concentration camps.
press. He considered them lies for a purpose.
He declared that these reports were being made only so that the prestige of the German people abroad would be undermined.
Of course, Streicher soon changed his opinion. At first he was sure in his opinion, but finally he believed that these occurrences which were pictured in the Swiss press about concentration camps were true to the facts after all. crimes. He considered him the only one who could have authorized such crimes.
Q You said that Streicher soon changed his opinion. What does that mean? that these reports could not be true. Then he became unsure and said that perhaps they might be true. I was of the opinion that either the details of the reports in the Swiss press had convinced Streicher that these happenings were actually taking place or that Streicher, perhaps through one source or another, either through personal contact or through letters, had received knowledge that these happenings were actually taking place in the concentration camps and were the facts. I would like to ascribe his change of opinion to that.
Q And when was that, approximately? middle of the year 1944. to be convinced? Did he seem satisfied with the fact that so many people had been done away with?
A No. Streicher definitely rejected the happenings in concentration camps. It did happen that Streicher, in anger--that is, if he had been especially upset about political happenings he occasionally asserted that the Jew, as an enemy of the German people, should be destroyed. However, Streicher talked that way only in the first fit of rage. After he had quieted down, he alwayssspoke against the extermination of Jews. the extermination of the Jews?