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?
A Yes. It is a fact that in reports and articles of the Stuermer the extermination of the Jews is spoken about. However, to the contrary, we have to remember that Streicher always expressed himself and always was against the murdering of the Jews, and, according to my definite convictions, Streicher and the Stuermer had no connection with the happenings in concentration camps. It is my firm conviction that he did not. on the instructions of individual and particular men; that is, on official orders. And it is my firm conviction that neither Streicher nor the Stuermer had anything to do with this at all.
Q How did these articles come to be; that is, the ones that you wrote? Did the principles contained therein come from Streicher? Were these articles your own, or did you ghost for Streicher?
the editor-in-chief, and all colleagues and collaborators no matter whether his deputy, Mr. Holz, or others - all collaborators had to submit their work to Streicher before they went to print. Streicher then decreed changes as the case might necessitate and gave the collaborators articles that they were to write; that is, he told them how these articles were to be drawn up, and of all the articles which appeared in The Sturmer, Streicher knew what they were about and had seen them, so that I may be able to say with conviction that Streicher was the responsible editor of The Sturmer, the one who determined the policy. All others were collaborators and he himself was, as he often said with pride, one and the same with The Sturmer. "Streicher and The Sturmer are one and the same." That was the maxim.
What can you tell us about the pornographic library of Streicher?
A The Sturmer was in the possession of a large archive. This archive consisted of many thousands of German and foreign-language books, documents, edicts and so forth. These books were either at the disposal of The Sturmer of friends of The Sturmer, or they came from Jewish flats. The police put books which were found in Jewish dwellings at the disposal of the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem, at the disposal of Rosenberg and The Sturmer, and whatever remained, the ones that did not go to Rosenberg, went to the archive of The Sturmer. Among these books there were numerous Volumes which dealt with so-called sexual knowledge, by Herschfeld, Block, to mention some of the authors; some which were purely pornographic; books which had been sent in by friends of The Sturmer, and books which had been found in Jewish dwellings. Both types of books were among the pornographic literature. These books were kept in a special department under lock and key, and the public did not have access to these books. As far as this pornographic literature is concerned, it wasn't a personal pornographic library of Streicher's, but a component of The Sturmer's archives. Streicher never read those books. These books were to be used after the war in the new archives. They were to have been selected and those which were not purely of Jewish origin were to be deleted, but as I said, Streicher did not read these books.
Q Where were these books kept? Were they in the publishing house, or how is it that apart -
THE PRESIDENT: There is no issue here with respect to this particular sort of book.
DR. MARX: Then I have no further questions in that direction. I just wanted to clarify this matter, since in the public mind this matter was of great importance. I have no further questions for the witness at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are there any questions from the other Defense Counsel? BY DR. THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg):
Q Did Rosenberg have any connections with the editor-ship of The Sturmer? I knew Dr. Ballensiefen personally. He was active with Rosenberg. I personally knew Dr. Bohl, but as far as connections are concerned, that is, of collaboration between The Sturmer and the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem, such relations I do not know.
Q Did Ballensiefen and Bohl have connections with The Sturmer?
A Bohl had personal connection with me. He was a student of Hebrew and. had published translations of the Talmud -- Talmudgeist. Through that, I got to know him. With Ballensiefen I had no connection.
Q Or was he a deputy of Rosenberg in this matter?
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions, your Honor. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
Q I have only one matter to ask you about. Do I understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become convinced that the reports in the Swiss newspaper, "Israelitisches Wochenblatt," ware true?
A I did not understand you will you please repeat the question for me? become convinced of the truth of the reports he was reading in the Swiss newspaper about concentration camps?
Q I only wanted an answer yes or no. That is quite sufficient.
The Sturmer on the 14th of September, 1944 -
Q "Bolshevism cannot be defeated; it must be destroyed. And neither can Judaism be defeated, disarmed or made defenseless; it must be exterminated." That is page 52A. New, the word you use for "exterminate" is "ausgerottet," which I understand means completely wipe out. Why was that article appearing in The Sturmer in September, 1944, when it was known by the owner of The Sturmer what was going on in concentration camps in the East? What was the purpose of that article?
A I personally did not write this article. I believe that Streicher wrote this article. Therefore, of my own accord I am not able to judg e the intention of the article. But I would like to assert that Streicher was against the murders in the concentration camps, that he expressed his opinion and that he did not wish the murder of Jewry.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, I will leave that. the witness any further. But perhaps I may be allowed to draw the Tribunal's attention to those articles contained in your bundle, which are articles actually written by this witness. There are about seven of them. Page 3A, 35A, 38A, 40A, 49A, 50A and 51A. That is covering a period from January, 1939, up to August, 1944.
And, My Lord, the other matter that I would draw the Tribunal's attention to was that the witness was author of the disgusting children's book which I present to the Tribunal in putting the individual case against Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination?
(There was no response.)
Dr. Marx, do you wish to re-examine? You heard what Counsel said about the various articles written by the witness. Have you any questions you wish to ask the witness?
DR. MARX: Yes, please. BY DR. MARX: Please tell us again just when Mr. Streicher received knowledge and when he showed you that he was convinced of these mass-murders or at least had definite knowledge? to that date there had been controversies to that effect.
A Yes; at that time Streicher did not believe these things. His change of opinion took place in the year 1944 and to my memory the middle of the year.
DR. MARX: I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
(The witness left the witness-box and the court room.)
DR. MARX: With the permission of the High Tribunal I would like to call the witness, Phillip Wurzbacher. Streicher, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
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.) BY DR. MARX:
Q You were an SA Fuehrer in Nurnberg?
Q Since when?
Q And what position did you have? BY THE PRESIDENT: Do you understand?
A I have been talking too fast? BY DR. MARX:
Q Since when have you known the Defendant Streicher?
A I have known him, through meetings, since 1922 to 1923; personally, from the time of my activity as an SA Fuehrer in the year 1928.
Q Were you present at the meetings at which Streicher spoke? Did you attend regularly? I must say I was present very frequently. Jewish population, or did he announce such? to be used against the Jewish population. Neither did I ever hear that Streicher demanded or announced that he had any intentions along these lines. to 1933, at any time did an action of force take place against the Jewish population which originated from the people or with the people? ever directed?
A The SA never undertook anything like that. On the contrary, the SA had instructions, and unequivocal instructions, that any acts of force were to be avoided. A severe punishment for each individual would have resulted if he had done anything like that, or if an SA Fuehrer had given instructions he also would have been severely punished; and on the whole, and as I have already emphasized, there was never any demand or any instructions along these lines. 9th to 10th of September, 1938? personally experience these happenings in Nurnberg, for at that time I had a chronic throat infection, and the only knowledge I had was what I received through stories transmitted to me afterwards.
Q Did you talk with Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz about this incident? brief conversation when I reported back for my work, but on the whole it was just a very few words, since Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz was called away, so I could not fully deal with that matter in that conversation. I do remember that von Oberni declared that he had regulated matters and put them in order. That was the sense of the conversation as I recall it. of the SA that these incredible happenings were disaproved of? was about 23 or 24 November--opinion was very much divided. A part of the SA was pr the other, con, but in any event the general opinion was that in general the happen ings were considered wrong and were disapproved of. increase of the SA in 1933? taking in of many people, the situation was completely different from what it had been before. Up until that time, as a responsible fuehrer, one know almost each member, but now with the tremendous onslaught of new membership, it was hard to know each one personally, but I believe that I may say that to speak of brutality, No, that had not taken place. Perhaps a few elements had come in which, in the name of the SA, did one thing or another, but in general I can not say that a brutalising had taken place. an influence that through it an anti-Semitic current was produced in the troopswhich was under your command, or didn't your people read Der SA Mann, another publication and that the reception it received was divided. There were strong segments in the SA which did not exactly reject Der Sturmer but which were more or less disinterested in it because of the tedious repetitions contained in it. They showed very little interest in it and tended to read their own paper Der SA Mann. did you have as to the objectives which he followed in his speech, especially as to the solution of the Jewish problem?
must say, unequivocal and clear. He followed the policy that the strong elements which had been active in German economy and in public life in Germany should be removed and that, as a matter of course, andemigration should be followed.
Q On 1 April 1933 were you participating in the boycott in any way?
A Yes, I participated. At that time, I had instructions from my Gruppenfuehrer to see to it that this boycott should be kept in a framework of order and decency, and, so that the boycott could be carried through, as far as stores were concerned, I instructed the men under me that there were to be two guards in front of each store.
These men had to see to it that nothing would happen and that everything would take its course in a clear and orderly fashion.
Q Were there not instructions on the part of Streicher also?
A Yes. The instructions which I had from my Gruppenfuehrer had been published by the Gauleiter Streicher. in all cases that it was repeatedly pointed out that activities of force against the Jewish population, and especially in Nurnberg, were to be avoided and that they were strictly prohibited.
Q What was Streicher's behaviour when he found that such actions of force had been perpretrated by individuals?
A I can cite one example in which violence was involved. I believe it was a small matter. Something had happened, but I do not recall the details that were involved. In any event, there was quite an argument, quite a fight about it, and we SA men were censored.
Q And what did he say? How did he go about this? What did he say? beings -- would be beaten or tortured in any way, and rather drastic expressions were used toward SA fuehrers, such as "Lumpen" and others.
Q But he was called the "Bloody Czar of Franconia". How was that to be explained?
A Perhaps it was his manner. Sometimes he could be very harsh, but I can say that during my activity, I did not see anything or experience anything which might lead me to say that he was a bloody czar.
Q Do you know what his attitude was toward concentration camps? Did he visit Dachau? If so, how often, and what did he do then?
A I cannot give you any information on that point. I know just one thing and that is that he tried and spoke about this repeatedly -- that people who had been taken to Dachau should be freed as soon as possible if they were not criminally accused, and I know of several cases where, soon after these people were taken into the concentration camps, they were liberated.