Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-04/tgmwc-04-31.07
Last-Modified: 1999/09/25

The following document in the document book is the report of
Streicher's speech on the 10th November, the day of the
demonstration. I will quote from two paragraphs on that
page, or rather, starting in the middle of the first
paragraph:

   "From the cradle, the Jew is not being taught, like we
   are, such texts as, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
   thyself,' or 'If you are smitten on the left cheek,
   offer then your right one.' No, he is told: 'With the
   non-Jew you can do whatever you like.' He is even taught
   that the slaughtering of a non-Jew is an act pleasing to
   God. For 20 years we have been writing about this in
   'Der Sturmer,' for 20 years we have been preaching it
   throughout the world and we have made millions recognise
   the truth."

I go to the last paragraph:

   "The Jew slaughtered in one night 75,000 people; when he
   emigrated from Egypt he killed all the firstborn, i.e.,
   a whole future generation of Egyptians. What would have
   happened if the Jew had succeeded in driving
   
                                                  [Page 163]
   
   the nations into war against us, and if we had lost the
   war? The Jew, protected by foreign bayonets, would have
   fallen on us and would have slaughtered and murdered us.
   Never forget what history has taught us."

My Lord, after the November demonstrations, irregularities
occurred in the Gau of Franconia in connection with the
organised Aryanisation of Jewish property. Aryanisation of
Jewish property was, of course, regulated by the State, and
under a decree it had been laid down that the proceeds, or
any proceeds that there might be, from taking over Jewish
properties and giving them to Aryans, were to go to the
State. What apparently happened in Franconia was that a good
deal of the proceeds never found their way as far as the
State, and as a result Goering set up a commission to
investigate what had taken place. We have the report of that
commission, and I would refer the Tribunal to certain short
passages in it. On Page 45, we see from that report exactly
what had been taking place in this defendant Streicher's
Gau. I quote from the paragraph where it says "Page 13":


DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): The
prosecutor intends to refer, as proof of the irregularities
which occurred in connection with the Aryanisation of shops
in Nuremberg after the 9th November, to a report which the
Deputy Gauleiter Holz has given to the examining prosecutor.
I would like to protest against the wording of this report.
Between Streicher and his Deputy Gauleiter Holz there
existed a considerable difference of opinion, if not enmity.
His Deputy Gauleiter Holz was the person definitely
responsible for the measures taken. It is not at all proven
that Streicher had agreed to these measures. It is rather to
be assumed that Holz, in order to cover himself, has made
statements here which he himself could never stand for if he
appeared on the witness stand to-day. Therefore, this report
represents the statements of a man who was involved in this
matter, of a man who participated in these deeds, of a man
who was an enemy of the defendant Streicher. Holz
incriminated Streicher on account of the fact that Streicher
did not shield him from the Commission and the previous
Minister, President Goering. Therefore, I do not think that
this report should be used.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you said what you wished to say?

DR. MARX: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that this document,
being an official document, is admissible under Article XXI,
and that the objections which you have made to it are not
objections which go to its admissibility as evidence, but go
to its weight; and as to that, you will have an opportunity
to develop your objections at a later stage when you come to
speak. The Tribunal rules that the document is admissible.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I read from the
centre of that Page 45 of the document book:

   "Following upon the November demonstrations, the Deputy
   Gauleiter Holz took up the Jewish questions. His reasons
   can be given here in detail on the basis of his
   statement of 25th March, 1939:
   
   The 9th and 10th November, 1938.
   
   In the night of the 9th to the 10th of November and on
   the 10th November, 1938, events took place throughout
   Germany which I" - and I emphasise that that is Holz
   speaking - "considered to be the signal for a completely
   different treatment of the Jewish question in Germany.
   Synagogues and Jewish schools were burnt down and Jewish
   property was smashed both in shops and in private
   houses. Besides this, a large number of selected Jews
   were taken to concentration camps by the police. Towards
   midday we discussed these events in the Gauleiter's
   house. All of us were of the opinion that we now faced a
   completely new state of affairs on the Jewish question.
   By the great action against the Jews, carried out in-the
   
                                                  [Page 164]
   
   night and morning of the 10th November, all guiding
   principles and all laws on this subject had been made
   illusory. We were of the opinion (particularly myself)
   that we should now act on our own initiative in this
   respect. I proposed to the Gauleiter that, in view of
   the great existing lack of housing, the best thing would
   be to put the Jews into a kind of internment camp. Then
   the houses would become free in a twinkling, and the
   housing shortage would be relieved, at least in part.
   Besides that, we would have the Jews under control and
   supervision. I added 'The same thing happened to our
   prisoners of war and war internees.' The Gauleiter said
   that this suggestion was for the time being impossible
   to carry out. Thereupon I made a new proposal to him. I
   said that I considered it unthinkable that, after the
   Jews had had their property smashed, they should
   continue to be able to own houses and land. I proposed
   that these houses and this land ought to be taken away
   from them, and declared myself ready to carry through
   such an action. I declared that by the Aryanisation of
   Jewish land and houses a large sum could accrue to the
   Gau out of the proceeds. I named some millions of marks.
   I stated that, in my opinion, this Aryanisation could be
   carried out as legally as the Aryanisation of shops. The
   Gauleiter's answer was something to this effect: 'If you
   think you can carry this out, do so. The sum gained will
   then be used to build a Gau school.'"

I go down now to where it says "Page 18":

   "The Aryanisation was accomplished by the alienation of
   properties, the surrender of claims, especially mortgage
   claims, and reductions in buying price.
   
   The payment allowed the Jews was basically 10 per cent.
   of the nominal value or nominal sum of the claim. As a
   justification for these low prices, Holz claimed, at the
   Berlin meeting of the 6th February, 1939, that the Jews
   had mostly bought their property during the inflation
   period for a tenth of its value. As has been shown by
   investigating a large number of individual cases
   selected at random, this claim is not true."

My Lord, I would turn to Page 48 of the document book, which
appears in the second part of this report, and that part of
the report is really the part containing the findings of the
Commission. I quote from the top of the page, Page 48 of the
document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this still part of the report?

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: This is still part of the
report. It is, in fact, the findings of the Commission:

   "Gauleiter Streicher likes to beat people with a riding
   whip but only if he is in the company of several persons
   assisting him. Usually the beatings are carried out with
   sadistic brutality.
   
   The best known case is that of Steinruck, whom he beat
   in the prison cell until the blood came, together with
   Deputy Gauleiter Holz and S.A. Brigader-General Konig.
   After returning from this scene to the 'Deutscher Hof'
   he said: 'Now I am relieved. I needed that again!' Later
   he also stated several times that he needed another
   Steinruck case in order to 'relieve' himself.
   
   In August, 1938, he beat Editor Burker at the District
   House, together with District Office Leader Scholler and
   his Adjutant, Konig."

To show the authority and power that he held in his Gau, I
refer to the last
paragraph on that page.

   "According to reports of reliable witnesses, Gauleiter
   Streicher is in the habit of pointing out, on the most
   varied occasions, that he alone gives orders in the
   district of Franconia. For instance, at a meeting in the
   Colosseum in Nuremberg in 1935 he said that nobody could
   remove him
   
                                                  [Page 165]
   
   from office. In a meeting at Herkules Hall, where he
   described how he had beaten Professor Steinruck, he
   emphasised that he would not let himself be beaten by
   anybody, not even by an Adolf Hitler.
   
   For, this also must be stated here, in Franconia the Gau
   acts first and then orders the absolutely powerless
   authorities to approve."

My Lord, both of those volumes of that, report 1757-PS, will
become Exhibit GB 175.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not altogether satisfied that
that has any bearing on the case against Streicher.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, it is the object
of that document to show the kind of treatment and
persecution which, the Jews were receiving in the district
of Gau over which this defendant ruled; and secondly to show
the absolute authority with which this defendant acted in
his district. That is the purpose of that document.

As a result, either of that investigation or of some other
matter, the defendant was relieved of his position as
Gauleiter in February, 1940, but he did not cease from his
propaganda or from the control of his newspaper. I would
only quote one further short extract from "Der Sturmer," an
article written by him on the 4th November, 1943, which
appears in the document book on Page 53, is Document 1965-
PS, and becomes Exhibit GB 176, and it is an extract of
importance:

   "It is really the truth that the Jews, so to speak, have
   disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish reservoir of
   the East, from which the Jewish plague has for centuries
   beset the peoples of Europe, has ceased to exist.
   However, the Fuehrer of the German people at the
   beginning of the war prophesised what has now come to
   pass."

My Lord, that article was signed by Streicher, and it is my
submission that it shows that he had knowledge of what was
going on in the East, of which this Court has had such
evidence. That was written November, 1943. In April, 1943,
the Tribunal will remember, the Warsaw Ghetto was destroyed.
Between April, 1942, and April, 1944, 1,700,000 odd Jews
were killed in Auschwitz and Dachau - I quote now from the
transcript-and throughout the whole of that period millions
of Jews were to die. It is my submission that that article,
appearing on the 4th November and signed by him, shows that
he knew what was happening, perhaps not the details, but
that he knew that the Jews were being exterminated.

I leave "Der Sturmer" and I would draw the attention of the
Tribunal quite shortly to a matter which is perhaps as evil
as any other aspect of this man's activity, and that is the
particular attention that he paid to the instruction, if you
can call it that, or the perversion of the children and the
youth of Germany. He was not content with inciting the
German population. He seized the children as early as he
could at their schools, and he started to poison their minds
at the earliest possible date. In some of the extracts to
which I have already referred, the Tribunal will remember
that there are mentions of children and the need for
teaching them anti-Semitism. I refer  now to Page 54 of the
document book, and I would quote four or five lines from the
last paragraph, starting in the middle of the last
paragraph. It is a report of a speech by Streicher as early
as June, 1925, when he says:

   "I repeat, we demand the transformation of the school
   into a national German institution of education. If we
   let German children be taught by German teachers, then
   we shall have laid the foundations for the national
   German school. This national German school must teach
   racial doctrine."

I now go to the last line of the first paragraph on the
following page:

   "We demand, therefore, the introduction of racial
   doctrine into the school."

                                                  [Page 166]

That is in a copy of "Der Sturmer," which has already been
put in. It is Exhibit GB 165.

The following Document, M-43, is an extract from the
"Frankische Tageszeitung" of the 19th March, 1934, when he
addressed the pupils at a girls' school at Preisslerstrasse
after they had finished their vocational course. He was
continually holding children's meetings and attending
children's schools. I quote the third paragraph:

   "Then Julius Streicher spoke about his life, and told
   them about a girl who at one time went to his school and
   who fell for a Jew and was finished for the rest of her
   life."

I need not read the rest. It is all in the same tone. That
becomes GB 177.

Every summer they celebrated in Nuremberg what they called
their solstice celebration, some pagan rite where the youth
of Nuremberg were rallied, organised, or at least encouraged
by the defendant Streicher.

On Page 58 of the document book is a report taken from his
paper, "Frankische Tageszeitung," of his speech to the
Hitler Youth on what they called the "Holy Mountain" near
Nuremberg, on the 22nd June, 1935:

   "Boys and girls, look back a little more than ten years
   ago. A great war - the World War - had whirled over the
   peoples of the earth and had left in the end a heap of
   ruins. Only one people remained victorious in this
   dreadful war, a people of whom Christ said its father is
   the devil. That people had ruined the German nation in
   body and soul. Then Adolf Hitler, unknown to anybody,
   arose from among the people and became the voice which
   called to a holy war and battle. He cried to the people
   that everybody should take courage again and rise and
   give a helping hand to take the devil from the German
   people, so that the human race might be, free again from
   these people that have wandered about the world for
   centuries and millenia, marked with the sign of Cain.
   
   Boys and girls, even if they say that the Jews were once
   the chosen people, do not believe it, but believe us
   when we say that the Jews are not a chosen people.
   Because it cannot be that a chosen people should act
   among the peoples as the Jews do to-day."

And so on, with similar kind of propaganda. That document
will be Exhibit GB 178.

The next Document, M-44, from which I will not read now,
becomes GB 179. The Tribunal will see that it was a report
of Streicher's address to 2,000 children at Nuremberg at
Christmas-time, 1936. Underlined it says: "Do you know who
the Devil is?" he asked his breathlessly listening audience.
"The Jew, the Jew," resounded from a thousand children's
voices.

But he was not content only with writing and talking. He
actually issued a book for teachers, a book which he
published from his "Der Sturmer " offices, called "The
Jewish question and school instruction."

I have not had the whole of that book translated. It is
addressed to school teachers. It is intended for their
benefit, and it emphasises the necessity of anti-Semitic
teaching in schools, and it suggests ways in which the
subject can be introduced and handled.

On Page 60 of the document book, M-46, the Tribunal will see
a few extracts which
have been taken from that book. The preface part of it is as
follows:

   "The National Socialist State brought fundamental
   changes into all spheres of life of the German people.
   
   It has also presented the German teacher with some new
   tasks. The National Socialist State demands that its
   teachers instruct German children in social questions.
   As far as the German people is concerned the racial
   question is a Jewish question. Those who want to teach
   the child all about the Jew must themselves have a
   thorough knowledge of the subject."

                                                  [Page 167]

I will quote from the paragraph opposite Page 5 in the
margin. The whole of the rest of the extracts are really
suggestions for teachers as to how to introduce the Jewish
subject into their teaching, and at Page 5 of the
introduction:

   "Racial and Jewish questions are the fundamental
   problems of the National Socialist ideology. The
   solution of these problems will secure the existence of
   National Socialism, and with this the existence of our
   nation for all time. The enormous significance of the
   racial question is recognised almost without exception
   to-day by all the German people. In order to attain this
   recognition, our people had to travel on a long road of
   suffering."

DR. MARX(Counsel for defendant Streicher): I would like to
point out the following: The prosecutor omitted in his
presentation to state that the book he referred to was not
written by the defendant Streicher, but by the school
inspector Fink. If the prosecutor had read the next sentence
the Tribunal would have known about this fact. My client has
called my attention to this point. I noticed it myself also
because the next sentence reads as follows:

   "Schulrat Fritz Fink desires to help the German teachers
   on the road to wisdom with his book: 'The Jewish
   Question in the Schools.'"

It is perfectly clear that Fink is the author of the book.
It is of importance to know that Fink was the author of this
book and not Streicher.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor