Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-117.04
Last-Modified: 2000/01/28

RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. MARX:

Q. Herr Hiemer, perhaps you did not quite understand the
question a moment ago. Please tell us again just when Herr
Streicher received knowledge of, and when he told you that
he was convinced of or believed in these mass murders.

A. It is my opinion and conviction that it was in the middle
of 1944.

Q. But there had been statements to that effect in the
"Israelitisches Wochenblatt" for a number of years prior to
that date.

A. Yes; at that time Streicher did not believe these things.
His change of view took place only in the year 1944 and I
remember it was not before the middle of the year.

DR. MARX: I have no further questions to the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.

DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal I would like
to call the witness, Phillip Wurzbacher.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

PHILLIP WURZBACHER, called as a witness on behalf of the
defendant Streicher, took the stand and testified as
follows:-

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Will you state your full name?

                                                  [Page 370]

A. Phillip Wurzbacher.

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.)

You may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. MARX:

Q. Witness you were an S.A. Fuehrer in Nuremberg?

A. Yes.

Q. Since when?

A. Since 1928.

Q. And what position did you have?

A. At that time I was an S.A. Standartenfuehrer and had
risen from the lowest ranks.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. When you see the light, that yellow light, it means you
are going too fast. Do you understand?

A. I have been talking too fast?

DR. MARX:

Witness, please speak more slowly and pause as frequently as
possible, as your testimony has to be interpreted into
several languages.

Q. Since when have you known the defendant Streicher?

A. I have known him from meetings, since 1922 or 1923;
personally, from the time of my activity as an S.A. Fuehrer
in the year 1928.

Q. Were you regularly present at the meetings at which
Streicher spoke?

A. I cannot say that I was present regularly, but I attended
very frequently.

Q. Did Streicher in his speeches advocate the use of
violence against the Jewish population, or did he predict
it?

A. At no meeting did I hear suggestions that violence should
be used against the Jewish population. Nor did I ever hear
Streicher suggest or announce that he had any such intention
in mind.

Q. Did an act of violence against the Jewish population,
originating from and carried out by the people themselves,
take place in Nuremberg or the Gau Franconia at any time in
the period from 1920 to 1933?

A. No, I cannot remember any incident of that type.

Q. Did the S.A. undertake any such action or was anything
like that ordered?

A. The S.A. never undertook anything like that at that time.
On the contrary, the S.A. had instructions, unequivocal
instructions, to refrain from such acts of violence. Severe
punishment would have resulted for anyone who did anything
like that, or for an S.A. Fuehrer who gave such orders.
Besides, as I have already emphasised, there was never any
suggestion or any order to that effect.

Q. What do you say to the events on the night of 9 to 10
November, 1938?

A. I was not in Nuremberg during the events from 9 to 10
November, 1938. At that time I was in Bad Ems on account of
chronic laryngitis. I can only say what I know from stories
which I heard afterwards.

Q. Did you talk with Obergruppenfuehrer Obernitz?

A. Yes.

Q. About these events?

A. Yes, I talked the S.A. Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz in
a brief conversation, when I reported my return. We spoke
only a few words, since Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz was
called away, but in the course of another conversation I
returned to the subject. I remember that von Obernitz
declared at the time that as far as he was concerned the
matter had been put in order. That was the sense of what he
said.

                                                  [Page 371]

Was there within the S.A. a uniform opinion or were there,
even in the circles of the S.A., men who disapproved of
these incredible occurrences?

A. Opinions were, as far as I could determine upon my return
- I believe it was on 23 or 24 November - very much divided.
A part of the S.A. was in favour, the other opposed what had
happened, but at all events, the majority in general
considered it to be wrong and condemned what had been done.

Q. Was there an increase, I mean, an increase of brutality
in these circles, after 1933, on account of the growing
members of the S.A.?

A. It goes without saying that after the accession to power,
when many indeterminable elements joined, the situation was
completely different from what it had been before. Up to
that time, as a responsible Fuehrer, one knew almost every
member individually, but now, with the tremendous influx of
new men, a general survey of the new situation had first to
be made. But I believe I may say that an increase of
brutality did not occur. Perhaps some undesirable elements
which, in the name of the S.A., did this or that, had
slipped in, but in general I cannot say that an overall
increase of brutality took place.

Q. Did you establish that "Der Sturmer" exerted an influence
in the S.A. with the result that an anti-Semitic tendency
made itself felt among the men under your command? Did you
not read a different publication, "Der S.A. Mann"?

A. "Der Sturmer" had a very divided reception, I might say,
especially among the people in Nuremberg and in particular
in the S.A. There were large numbers in the S.A. who, if
they did not exactly reject "Der Sturmer," were in fact not
interested because of the tedious repetitions contained in
it, and for this reason the paper was of no importance to
them. Moreover, it was natural that members of the S.A.
read, preferred to read, their own paper, "Der S.A. Mann."

Q. When you participated in a meeting in which Streicher
spoke, what impression did you gain of the objectives which
he pursued in his speech with regard to the solution of the
Jewish problem?

A. The objectives which were stated by Streicher were, I
should say, unequivocal and clear. He pursued the policy
that the strong elements of the Jewish people which occupied
positions in the German economy and, above all in public
life and public offices, should be removed, and that, as a
matter of necessity, expulsion or emigration should be
considered.

Q. Did you participate in the boycott on 1 April, 1933, in
any way?

A. Yes, I participated in the boycott. At that time I had
instructions from my Gruppenfuehrer to see to it that this
boycott should be kept within the limits of order and
propriety, and that, in this way, the success of the boycott
would be assured. I instructed the Sturmfuehrer under my
command to assign to each department store a guard of two
S.A. men, who were to see to it that nothing happened and
that everything took its course in an orderly and
unobjectionable fashion.

Q. Were there not instructions on the part of Streicher
also?

A. Yes. The instructions which I received from my
Gruppenfuehrer had been issued by Gauleiter Streicher.

Q. Were attacks on Jews not to be prevented by all means?

A. That was so not only in this one case, but in all cases.
It was repeatedly pointed out that we were to refrain from
attacks or unauthorised acts of violence or other hostile
acts against the Jewish people or Jewish individuals,
especially in Nuremberg, and that it was strictly prohibited
...

Q. What was Streicher's reaction when he heard that, all the
same, such acts of violence had been perpetrated by
individuals?

A. I can cite one example in which violence was used. I
believe it was a small scuffle; at any rate, something had
happened, but I do not recall the

                                                  [Page 372]

details of the case. In any event, he called us very sharply
to account, and we S.A. leaders were severely reprimanded
and rebuked.

Q. And what did he say? Did he make a general statement?

A. If I may give the essence of it, he said that he would
not tolerate human beings being beaten or molested in any
way in his Gau, and for the S.A. leaders he had rather
drastic expressions such as ruffians or similar names - I do
not recall them exactly.

Q. But he was called the "Bloody Czar of Franconia." How is
that to be explained?

A. Perhaps it was his manner, the way he behaved at times.
Sometimes he could be very harsh and outspoken. At any rate
I can only say that during my activity I did not experience
anything or hear anything suggesting 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 about it?

A. I cannot give you any information on that point. I know
just one thing, and that is that he made attempts to ensure,
and that he said repeatedly, that people who had been taken
to Dachau should be freed as soon as possible if there were
no criminal nor other charges against them. I also know of
several cases in which people were liberated very soon after
their arrest or their removal to a concentration camp. For
example the teacher Natt, who was an old adversary of his in
the town hall of Nuremberg, was released after a very short
time, I believe three or four months. Another man, a certain
Lebender, who had been active primarily in labour unions,
was also released after a very short period of time. If I
remember correctly, it was about the year 1935 or perhaps
the beginning of 1936, I do not know exactly, when the last
inmates left the camp at Dachau and were greeted with music
upon their return.

Q. Was it not held against him that he freed many members of
the left-wing parties from Dachau?

A. It was said, here and there, by members of the S.A. that
the Gauleiter's action could hardly be justified, that he
took too light a view of these things and so on, but we
pointed out that after all the Gauleiter carried the
responsibility and that he ought to know just what he had to
do in this or that case.

Q. Do you know that Himmler told Streicher of his
displeasure at these releases and said that disciplinary
action would be taken against him if he continued with them?
If you know nothing about this matter, please say: No.

A. No.

DR. MARX: I have concluded my questioning of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the defence 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 Honour.

THE PRESIDENT: Then we go on with Dr. Schacht's case next.

DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): I begin my
presentation of evidence 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?

A. Hjalmar Schacht.

Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the
Almighty and

                                                  [Page 373]

Omniscient, that 1 will speak the pure truth and will
withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. DIX:

Q. Please tell the Tribunal briefly about your personal
history?

A. The families of both of my parents have lived for
centuries in 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, to which country three of his older brothers
had already emigrated, and he became an American citizen. My
two brothers, who were older than I, were born there. Later,
my mother's health prompted my father's return to Germany.

I was educated in Hamburg. I studied at universities in
Germany and in Paris and, after receiving my doctor's
degree, I was active for two years in economic
organisations. Then I began my banking career, and for
thirteen years I was at the Dresdner Bank, one of the large
so-called "D" banks. I then took over the management of a
bank of my own, which was later merged with one of the "D"
banks, and in 1923 I abandoned my private career and went
into public service as Commissioner for German Currency
(Reichswahrungs Kommissar). Soon afterwards I became
Reichsbankpresident, and I held that office until 1930, when
I resigned.

Q. Why did you resign as Reichsbankpresident at that time?

A. In two essential points there were differences of opinion
between the Government and myself; one was the internal
finance policy of the Government. With the terrible
catastrophe of the last war and the dictate of Versailles
behind us, it was necessary in my opinion to use thrifty and
modest methods in German politics. The democratic and
socialist governments of that period could not see that
point, but carried on a frivolous financial policy,
especially by incurring debts which, in particular, were
contracted to a very large extent abroad. It was quite clear
that Germany, already heavily burdened with reparation
payments, was not in a position to build up as much foreign
currency as was necessary for the payments of these debts.
We were not even able to pay the reparations from our own
economy.

Therefore I objected to the contraction of these debts in
which the various governments of that period indulged, and
in which they also encouraged communities and private
companies. I objected to this financial policy and, at home
and abroad, warned continuously against this policy of
uncurring [sic] foreign debts. The foreign bankers did not
listen nor did the German Government. It was during that
period when, if in Berlin one passed the Adlon Hotel Unter
Den Linden, one could not be sure that a financial agent
would not emerge with the question whether one did not need
a loan.

The very same people opposed me strongly later, when Germany
was forced to discontinue making payments of her debts. But
I wish to state here that I have always and on every
occasion been against such a policy of debts. That was one
reason. The other reason was in the field of foreign policy.
I had not only contributed my part towards the creation of
the Young plan, but in 1929 I also assisted in the setting
up of the Young Committee; the so-called Young plan had
resulted in a number of improvements for Germany, which the
German Government was now sacrificing, step by step, during
the subsequent negotiations at the Hague. Thus the financial
and economic condition of the nation again deteriorated. I
revolted against this, and for both these reasons I resigned
my office as Reichsbankpresident in protest, in March, 1930.

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