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.
the name of Lehrer Matt, who was liberated very soon. I believe he was incarcerated for just three or four months, and in another case a certain Mr. Lebender, who had been active in labor unions. He also was liberated after a very short period of time. If I remember correctly, it was about the year 1935 or perhaps the beginning of 1936, although I cannot place the exact time when the last inmates were freed from the camp at Dachau and were greeted with music when they arrived. left wing parties from Dachau? which he could not really be responsible for, that he had liberated these people, and so forth and so on, but it was also pointed out that the Gauleiter was really responsible for such things and that he really should know just what he had to do and what should be done in each case. liberations and told him that measures would be taken against him if he continued in this procedure? If you know nothing about these matters, please say so.
DR. MARX: Then, I have concluded my questioning of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask questions Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your case, Dr. Marx?
DR. MARX: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we go on with Dr. Schacht's case next.
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): I begin my presentation with the calling of Dr. Schacht as a witness and I ask your Lordship to permit Dr. Schacht to enter the witness box.
HJALMAR SCHACHT, a witness, 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)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down BY DR. DIX: Schleswig Holstein, which until 1864 belonged to Denmark. My parents were both born as Danish citizens. After the annexation by Germany, my father emigrated to the United States, where three of his brothers had already emigrated, and he became an American citizen. My olrder brothers were born there. Then he had to return to Germany because my mother was not well.
I was educated in Hamburg. First I have studied in Germany and then in Paris and, after I had received my doctor's degree, I was active for two years in economic organizations. Then I went into the banking career. I was for thirteen years at the Dresden Bank, one of the large so-called "D" banks. Then I took over the management of a bank of my own, which was later merged with one of the "D" banks, and in 1923, I left the private career and became Reichswaehrungs Kommissar (Commissioner for the Safeguarding of the Reich Currency), later Reichsbankpresident, and until 1930 I held the office of president of the Reichsbank, at which time I resigned.
Q Why did you resign at that time as president of the Reichsbank?
A In two essential points: There were differences of opinion between the Government and myself, one was internal finance policy of the government. After the terrible catastrophe of the last war and the dictate of Versailles was already behind us, it was necessary in my opinion that the German policy should be to use thrifty and modest methods in order to enter a democratic and socialist government. The government at that time could not see that point. Their policy was such that they started an economy of debt, which to a large extent created debts to foreign countries, and it was quite clear that Germany, which was already in debt on the basis of reparation payments, was in no position to take care of that much foreign currency, which would have been necessary for the repayment of these debts. We were not even able to pay the reparations on our own. time accumulated, and to which policy they also encouraged private industries. I warned continuously, abroad and within the country, against such a policy of debt. The foreign bankers did not listen to it; neither did the German Government. It was during that period where, if one passed Unter Den Linden at the Adlon Hotel, one wasn't sure whether there was a financial agent of some kind if one did not want to establish some credit.
There was a great struggle against myself. And then, when Germany was unable to continue paying interest on the debts, I stated again that I had always been against such a policy. That was one reason.
The other reason was in the field of foreign policy. Not only had I contributed to the coming about of the Joenk plan, but in 1929, I had collaborated with the Joenk Committee, and there were a number of improvements brought about for Germany, which now, step by step, were thrown away in the succeeding negotiations at the Hague, and that impaired the financial and economic condition of the nation. I objected to it and, for both of these reasons, in March of 1930, I resigned as Reichsbankpresident as an act of protest.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in that connection, may I callyour attention to Exhibit No. 6 of my document book. If the Tribunal agrees, and in order to shorten the presentation of documents, I should like to call your attention to these documents which are in connection with the questions which I am just treating with the witness, already during the interrogation of the witness.
I believe that this will be agreeable to the Tribunal and it will bertainly shorten the presentation of documents. That is Exhibit No. 6, on page 12 of the German copy of my document book, and on page 8 of the English copy, Your Lordship, Exhibit No. 6. That is an excerpt from statements of Dr. Schacht during the session of the sub-committee for money and credit matters on the 21st of October 1926. I believe it is not necessary that I read the excerpts, these statements. They refer to foreign debts which Dr. Schacht has mentioned. They contain the same thoughts which Dr. Schacht has just expressed before the Tribunal, and they will be a proof that these thoughts are not a construction ex post facto now, and I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that document without my reading it on toto. BY DR. DIX:
Q You had resigned your office as president of the Reichsbank. What did you do then? citizen. Then I made a trip to the United States, which was during 1930. Shortly after the Reichstag elections or immediately after the Reichstag elections of September, 1930, I left and went to New York via London. presented to me by American friends. with the Party, and with Hitler personally, and when, quite particularly, did you read the Party program in Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? concerned with Party politics. At the age of twenty-six already I was offered very clear career, which I did not accept because I was never interested in Party politics. My interest was always in the field of economics and finance, but, of course, for public affairs, I always had a certain interest, which came from my interest for my country and my people.
character is concerned? My father, throughout his life, has been convinced of democratic ideals. He was a Freemason. He was a cosmopolitan. I had, and I still have, numerous relatives in Denmark on my mother's side; in the United States on my father's side; and to this day I am on friendly terms with them. I grew up with these ideas and I was led in part by these basic ideas of the Freemasons. I never left them entirely. I have always remained in contact with foreign countries. I travelled much, that is, in Europe, with the exception of Ireland and Finland, there is hardly a state and country which I have not visited. I travelled all the way down to India, Ceylon, and Burma. I went to North America frequently and, just before the war broke out, I intended to travel to South America.
Just the same, of course, after the September elections in 1930 produced the result that the Hitler Party surprisingly reached 108 seats, I became interested in that phenomenon; and on board ship going to the United States I read "Mein Kampf," and, of course, also the Party program at the same time. were about Hitler and the Party because everyone was speaking about these events in Germany. At that time in my first publication, which was an interview, I warned clearly and said "If you people in other countries will not change your policy toward Germany, then soon you will have many more adherents of Hitler in Germany than there are now." various meetings, and throughout those lectures I spoke for understanding about questions of reparation, the mistakes in the Treaty of Versailles, the economic difficulties of Germany, and I returned with the impression that the attitude of the American people toward us was indeed a friendly one, a comparatively friendly one. adherents of the National Socialist Party, and it was so that a friend of mine, a director of a Bank, at the beginning of December 1931, invited me to have dinner with him at his house and to meet Hermann Goering there. I did that, and the impression from the appearance and the statements of Goering were not exceptional. He was quite reticent and modest, and he invited me to come to his house once and meetHitler. together with my wife, and on that occasion Feitz Tiessen was also invited. There was the intention that Hitler would come also that evening and talk to us.
On that occasion I noticed that Goering's apartment was very modest. We had pea soup and bacon.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast. Co on.
THE WITNESS: After supper Hitler appeared, and there started a conversation, which worked out in such a manner that about 5 percent of what was said was said by us, and about 98 percent by Hitler.
What he said concerned questions of national interest, in which he agreed absolutely with us. No extravagant demands were stated, but, on the other hand, the national necessities of Germany were stressed throughout. good thoughts, especially intent on avoiding class struggle, strikes, lock-outs and labor disputes, by a main intervention of the State into labor relations and the economic leadership, not excluding private enterprise but taking measures in guiding private enterprise. It seemed to us as if these thoughts were quite reasonable and acceptable. concerned, he did not show any knowledge, and he did not assume to know much about it that evening; but he asked that we should have understanding for his ideas, we people of the economy, and should have sympathy and interest for them. That was the purpose of that evening. but I should like to return to the question I have put before concerning your attitude to the Party Program and the ideology such as it is developed in the book, "Mein Kampf," mainly because you have heard here that the gentlemen of the Prosecution are of the opinion that the Party program as such in certain parts, and also parts of the book, "Mein Kampf," are of a criminal character, and that that criminal character was already noticeable at the beginning when the Party program first appeared, or the book. Therefore, I sould like to ask you to explain your attitude at that time, if possible, and also your attitude of today, toward the Party program and the ideology of National Socialism so far as it can be seen from both books. impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal character of the Party program was a uniform one.
I myself do not find in the Party program any signs for criminal intentions. claimed on the basis of the right for self-determination. The foreign political position, the demands in the field of foreign politics, is only a demand for equality with the other nations; and that the discrimination which has been imposed upon the German people by the Versailles Treaty should be removed is quite clear. settling of excess population. I cannot see any crime in that, because after land and soil one added in parenthesis, colonies. I have always considered that a demand for colonies, which I considered necessary myself a long time before National Socialism came into existence. concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil rights, but, at the same time, it was quite satisfactory that the Jews should be under the same law, regulated by the same law which regulated foreigners in Germany. I have always demanded this legal protection should be given to the Jews, in fact under all circumstances. Unfortunately, they were not given that protection. rights and duties. Public instruction, public education, was stressed, and also sports for the improvement of public health. The struggle against the conscious political lie was demanded, which Goebbels very strongly led later. And, above all the demand was made for the freedom of all religions, and the point of view of a positive Christianity was taken. and I cannot find that therein is found anything criminal. It would be quite peculiar if the world for one decade had continuously had political and cultural contact withGermany if there had been a criminal Party program.
As far as the book, "Mein Kampf", is concerned, there my judgment was the same from the very beginning as it is today.
It is a book written in the worst kind of German, the propaganda writing of a man who was strongly politically minded, a semi-intellectual, which Hitler had shown himself to me to be always.
Subsequently in the book "Mein Kempf", and in part also in the Party program there was one point which made me think a lot, and that was the absolute lack of understanding toward all economic problems. The Party program had a few, very few, slogans, such as "Community interests come before private interests," which were not quite clear. One could understand all sorts of things, and that is quite uninteresting as far as the policy of economics is concerned, and it was quite uninteresting for me.
On the other hand, as regards foreign policy, the book, "Mein Kampf," had, in my opinion, a great many mistakes, because it always toyed with the idea that within Europe the living space for Germany had to be extended. And if these statements did not keep me from cooperating later with the National Socialist Reich Chancellor, then it was for the very simple reason that the expansion of the German space toward the East was made in "Mein Kampf", depending upon the fact that the British Government would approve of it.
Therefore, for myself, who seemed to know British policy very well, it was quite utopian and there I didn't see any danger in these theoretical fantasies of Hitler.
I did not think I had to take them seriously. It was clear to me that every violent change concerning territory in Europe would be an impossibility for Germany and would not be approved by other nations.
On the whole, "Mein Kampf" has a number of very silly and sometimes quite reasonable thoughts; especially, I should like to point out that I like two things; one was that if you are of a different opinion in political respects, that one had the duty to express one's opinion to the government; and another thought, that, though inplace of a democratic or parliamentary government, an authoritative government with a leader should be put; that still that Fuehrer could only exist if he was sure of the approval of the entire people. In other words, that a Fuehrer also depended on elections or plebiscites of the people of a democratic nature.
Q Now, Dr. Schacht, you have described the impression which you had of your first conversation with Adolf Hitler, as well as from studying the party program and reading "Me in Kampf." Did you believe that youcould work with Adolf Hitler and what were the consequences you took from that first conversation with Hitler? because I was a private citizen and not interested in party politics and consequently, after that conversation, as far as I was concerned, or my venture or relations in the Hitler circles, I didn't do at least -- I went back to my farm and I continued to live there. As far as I personally was concerned, I did not take any consequences but there was another consequence. I have said already that I was of course interested in participating in the fate of my country; since that conversation, I repeatedly spoke to Reichschancellor Bruenig and implored him that in continuing his cabinet, he should include the National Socialists in the Reich cabinet, because I believed that only in this way a tremendous impetus, the tremendous propagandistic strength which I had noticed with Hitler, could be caughtand could be utilized by putting them before practical tasks, governmental tasks. One should not leave them in the opposition where they could become more dangerous but one should take them into the government and see what they could achieve within the government and whether it would not kind of polish them. That was the suggestion and the very urgent demand I made to Bruenig and I wish to say that Hitler would have been quite ready at that time for it; according to my impression, Bruenig could not be had for such a policy under any circumstances and later, therefore, get caught underneath the wheel.