Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.05 Last-Modified: 2000/01/27 [Page 324] Q. You said that that new man organised the circulation to cover an of Germany. Was the Party machinery utilised in this, and were not industries and other offices - the German Labour Front, for instance - utilised in order to increase the circulation forcibly? A. Well, the attitude of the Party was made manifest in a letter, which was sent to all Gaus, signed by Bormann. There it was expressly pointed out that "Der Sturmer" was not a Party organ and had nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiter saw in this an opportunity for ordering that "Der Sturmer" should not appear in their Gaus any more. Now it is clear that within the organisations there were Party members who, because of idealism or for other reasons, worked to increase the distribution of "Der Sturmer." However, I myself, neither in writing nor orally, ever issued any order to any Party organisation to support "Der Sturmer." Q. Herr Streicher, even before 1933 you came in contact with the courts on various occasions, both because of your articles and because of your attitude as evidenced in "Der Sturmer." Would you give us a short statement as to how often that occurred and what consequences it had for you? A. How often? I cannot answer that exactly now, but it was very often. I was frequently given a court summons. You ask me about the consequences. I was many times in prison, but I can proudly say that in the sentences it stated each time "an incorruptible fanatic for the truth." That was the consequence of my activity as a speaker and writer, but perhaps it is important to add the following: I never was arraigned because of criminal charges, but only because of my anti-Semitic activity, and the charge was brought by an organisation of citizens of the Jewish faith. The Chairman filed charges repeatedly when we made a slip in speaking and thus exposed ourselves to prosecution on the basis of the laws and regulations existing at that time. But, perhaps, I may also point out here that the Jewish lawyer, Dr. Sisheim, the prosecuting attorney, stated before the Court here in this courtroom, "Your Honours, he is our inexorable enemy, but he is a fanatic for the truth. He is convinced of what he does; he is honest about it." THE PRESIDENT: What years were they that you were repeatedly in jail? THE WITNESS: That was, of course, before 1933. The first time I went to Landsberg, to prison, because I had taken part in the Hitler Putsch. Then I was sentenced to three and a half months in prison here in Nuremberg, where I am now. Then I got three months ... THE PRESIDENT: You needn't bother with the details. THE WITNESS: That is to say, before 1933 I was repeatedly given prison sentences or fined. DR. MARX: Mr. President, the Goering report also mentions the fact that the defendant Streicher was personally interested in various Jewish industries, allegedly in order to get some capital out of them. However, I am of the opinion that it is not essential to deal with these points. The same applies to the fact that the house on Lake Constance was sold, and to whom. I do not know whether the defendant should make any statements about this here. In my opinion there is no cause to ask him any questions concerning that. THE PRESIDENT: I think you could leave that and see whether it is taken up in cross-examination. If it is, then you may re-examine him. DR. MARX: Yes, certainly. Mr. President, this concludes my questions to the defendant. THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of defendants' counsel wish to ask questions of the defendant? (No response.) The prosecution? [Page 325] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: If the Tribunal please. When you handed over your Party to Hitler in 1922, did you know his policy and what was to become the policy of the Nazi Party? A. The policy - I should like to say first, "No." At that time one could not speak of things which could not exist even as thoughts. The policy then was to create a new faith for the German people, a faith which would negate the chaos and disorder and which would bring about a return to order. Q. May I take it that within a short course of time you knew the policy, the policy according to the Party programme and according to "Mein Kampf?" A. I did not need a Party programme. I admit frankly that I never read it in its entirety. At that time programmes were not important, but mass meetings ... THE PRESIDENT: That's not an answer to the question. The question was whether, a short time after 1922, you knew the policy as indicated in the Party programme and in "Mein Kampf." BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. You knew, did you not, that the policy included the Anschluss with Austria? Can you answer that "yes" or "no"? A. No. There was never any talk about Austria. I do not remember that the Fuehrer ever spoke about the fact that Austria should be annexed. Q. I only want you to answer my questions. My question was: Did you know that the Fuehrer's policy was the annexation of Austria to Germany? I understand your answer to be "no". Is that correct? A. That he intended it? No, that I did not know. Q. Did you know that he intended to take over Czechoslovakia or at least the Sudetenland? A. No. Q. Did you know that from the beginning in "Mein Kampf" his ultimate objective was Lebensraum? A. What I read in "Mein Kampf" is marked in red. The book has been confiscated. I read only what concerns the Jewish question; I did not read anything else. However, that we had the objective of acquiring Lebensraum for our people, that goes without saying. I personally also had set myself the objective of contributing in some way to providing a future for the surplus children. Q. Very well. May I take it that during the years 1922 and 1923, as editor and owner of "Der Sturmer," and as a Gauleiter from 1925, you did everything you could to put the Nazi Party into power? A. Yes: that is to be taken as a matter of course. Q. And after 1933 did you continuously support and issue propaganda on behalf of the Nazi Party's policy? A. Yes. Q. Not only in respect of the Jewish question, but, of the foreign policy as well? A. No, that is not correct. In "Der Sturmer" there is not a single article to be found which dealt with foreign policy. I devoted myself exclusively ... Q. That is quite enough. I am not going to occupy very much time with this matter. But I would ask you to look at Document 802. LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, this is a new exhibit. THE PRESIDENT: Which will be what? LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Exhibit GB-327. My Lord, I am sorry, but the document seems to be missing for the moment. Perhaps I might read this extract. [Page 326] BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. Let me just read to you an extract from an article which you wrote in "Der Sturmer" of March, 1938, immediately after the Anschluss with Austria. I want you to tell me whether or not you are advocating the Nazi policy in regard to Austria:- "Our Lord is making provision that the power of the Jews may not extend to heaven itself. What was only a dream up to a few days ago has now become reality. The brother nation of Austria has returned home to the Reich." And then, a few lines further down:- "We are entering the glorious times, a Greater Germany without Jews." Do you say that you are not there issuing propaganda on behalf of the Nazi policy? A. I did not indulge in propaganda politics, for Austria was already annexed. I just welcomed the fact. I did not need to make any more propaganda about it. Q. Very well. Perhaps you'll tell me what you mean by the "Greater Germany" that you were approaching. What Greater Germany were you approaching in March, 1938, a Germany greater than it was after the Anschluss with Austria? A. A Greater Germany, a living area (Lebensraum) in which all Germans, German-speaking people, people of German blood, can live together. Q. Do I understand that you were advocating "Lebensraum," greater space, not yet owned by Germany? A. At first, no. At first it was merely a question of Austria and Germany. The Austrians are Germans and, therefore, belong to a Greater Germany. Q. I won't argue with you. I will just ask you once more, what do you mean by the "Greater Germany" that you were approaching in March of 1938? A. I have already explained; a Germany where all those can live and work together who speak German and have German blood. Q. Would you look at Document 818, which will become Exhibit GB-328. Perhaps I can carry on. In November of 1938, after Munich, did you, yourself, personally send a telegram to Conrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten-German Party? A. If it says so here, then it is true. I do not recall it. Q. Let me refresh your recollection as to what you said:- "Without your courageous preparatory work the great act would not have succeeded." Are you there advocating and issuing propaganda in support of the policy of the Nazi Government? A. I have to ask you again, would you please repeat your question? Q. I am asking you whether or not that telegram, which you sent to Conrad Henlein and reprinted in your newspaper under a picture of that gentleman - I am asking you whether or not that was propaganda in support of the Nazi policy, Nazi foreign policy? A. I have to give the answer I gave before. That was a telegram of greeting, of thanks. I did not have to make further propaganda because the Munich Agreement had already been effected. Q. I put it to you and I'll leave it. I'll put it to you that throughout the years from 1933 until 1944 or 1945 you were in fact doing everything you could to support the policy of the Government, both domestically and in regard to its foreign affairs. A. As far as possible within my field of activity, yes. Q. I want to turn now to the question of the Jews. May I remind you of the speech that you made on 1 April, 1933, that is to say, the day of the boycott. My Lord, this will be found in the original Document Book, M- 33. It was, [Page 327] not actually put in before. It now becomes Exhibit GB-329. It is in the document book on Page 15, Page 15 in the original document book which the Tribunal have. BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. Now, I give you the document book. If you want to see the original, you may do so in every case:- "For fourteen years we have been crying to the German nation, German people, learn to recognise your true enemy,' and fourteen years ago the German philistines listened and then declared that we preached religious hatred. Today the German people have awakened, all over the world there is talk of the eternal Jews. Never since the beginning of the world and the creation of man has there been a nation which dared to fight against the nation of blood-suckers and extortioners who, for a thousand years, have spread all over the world." And then I go down to the last line of the next paragraph. "It was left to our movement to expose the eternal Jew as a mass murderer." Is it right that for fourteen years you had been repeating in Germany: "German people, learn to recognise your true enemy?" A. I state first of all that what you have given me here has nothing to do with that. You have given me an article ... THE PRESIDENT: You are asked a question. You are asked whether it is true that for fourteen years you had been repeating to Germany: "Learn to recognise your true enemy." Is that true? THE WITNESS: Yes. BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. And in doing so, is it true that you had been preaching religious hatred? A. No. Q Will you look at ... A. May I be permitted to make a statement concerning this answer? In my weekly, "Der Sturmer," I repeatedly stated that for me the Jews are not a religious group but a race, a people. Q. And do you think to call them "blood-suckers," "a nation of blood-suckers and extortioners" - do you think that is preaching hatred? A. I beg your pardon. I have not understood you? Q. You may call them a race or a nation, whichever you like, now, but you were saying on 1 April, 1933, that they were a "nation of blood-suckers and extortioners." Do you call that preaching hatred? A. That is a statement, the expression of a conviction which can be proved on the basis of historical facts. Q. Understand me. I did not ask you whether it was a fact or not. I am asking whether you called it preaching hatred. Your answer is "yes" or "no." A. No, it is not preaching hatred; it is just a statement of facts. Q. Will you look two pages further on in that last document and do you see the fourth paragraph from the end of the extract? That is Page 17 of the document book. "As long as I stand at the head of the struggle, this struggle will be conducted so honestly that the eternal Jew will derive no joy from it." A. That I wrote: that was right. Q. And you were, were you not, one of those who did stand and continue to stand at the head of that struggle? A. Did I stand at the head? I am too modest a man for that. But I do claim to have declared my conviction and my knowledge clearly and un-mistakably. Q. Why did you say that so long as you were at the head of it, the Jew would derive no joy from it? [Page 328] A. Because I considered myself a man whom destiny had placed in a position to enlighten people on the Jewish question. Q. And "enlightenment," is that another word for persecution? Do you mean by "enlightenment" persecution? A. I did not understand that.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor