Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.06 Last-Modified: 2000/01/27 Q. Do you mean by "enlightenment" the word "persecution?" Is that why the Jew was to have no joy from it, from your enlightenment? A. I ask to hear the question again. Q. I can show it to you and we'll repeat the question as loud as you want it. Do you mean by "enlightenment" the word "persecution"? Do you hear that? A. I mean by "enlightenment" telling another person something which he does not yet know. Q. We won't go on with that. You know, do you not, that, starting with the boycott, which you led yourself in 1933, the Jews thereafter were, during the course of the years, deprived of the right to vote; deprived of holding any public office; excluded from the professions; demonstrations were conducted against them in 1938; they were tined a billion marks after that; they were forced to wear a yellow star; they had their own separate seat to sit on; and they had their houses and their businesses taken away from them. Do you call that "enlightenment?" A. That has nothing to do with what I wrote, nothing to do with it. I did not issue the orders. I did not make the laws. I was not consulted when laws were prepared. I had nothing to do with these laws and orders. Q. But as those laws and orders were passed you were applauding them, and you were going on abusing the Jews and asking for more and more orders to be passed; is not that a fact? A. I ask to have put to me which law I applauded. Q. Now, you told the Tribunal yesterday, did you not, that you were responsible, you thought, for the Nuremberg Decrees, which you had been advocating for years before they came into force; is not that a fact? A. The Nuremberg laws? I did not make them. I was not consulted before-hand, and I did not sign them either. But I state here that these laws are the same laws which the Jewish people have as their own. It is the greatest act of legislation which a modern nation has at any time made for its protection. THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the time to break off. (A recess was taken.) SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would be good enough to consider setting aside a half hour some time for the discussion of the documents of the defendant von Schirach. We are ready to clear up outstanding points at any time that is suitable to the Tribunal. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. JULIUS STREICHER - resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - continued BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. Now, I just want to ask you a few questions as to the part you played in the various actions against the Jews between 1933 and 1939. Will you look at Document M-6, which is at Page 20 in the document book that you have before you, Page 22 in the document book that the Tribunal have in English. It is Page 20 in the German book, Document M-6, which is already Exhibit GB-170. Now, I just want to refer to what you said about the Nuremberg Decrees, you told us this morning that you thought when they had been passed that that [Page 329] was already the final solution of the Jewish question. Will you look at the paragraph beginning in the centre of the page, "However, to those who believe?" "However, to those who believe that the Jewish question has been finally solved and the matter thus settled for Germany by the Nuremberg Decrees, be it said that the battle continues - world Jewry itself is seeing to that anyhow - and we shall only get through this battle victoriously if every member of the German people knows that his very existence is at stake. The work of enlightenment carried on by the Party seems to me to be more necessary than ever today, when even many Party members seem to think that these matters are no longer real or urgent." A. Yes, I wrote that. Q. What do you mean by saying "the battle continues," if you have already solved the Jewish problem by the issuance of the Nuremberg Decrees? A. I have already stated today that the solution of the Jewish problem was regarded by me as having to be solved, first of all, within the country and then in conjunction with other nations. Thus "the battle continues" means that in the International Anti-Semitic Union which I had formed and which had representatives from all countries in it, the question was discussed as to what could be done from an international point of view to solve the Jewish problem. Q. Are we, therefore, to take it that everything what you said and wrote after 1936 was in connection with an international problem and had nothing to do with the Jews in Germany as such? A. Yes, mainly international, of course. Q. Let me just refer you to half way through the next paragraph:- "Der Sturmer's" 15 years' work of enlightenment has already led an army of those who know, millions strong, to national Socialism." Is that so? A. That is correct. Q. You see, you were telling the Tribunal this morning that up to 1933, and indeed afterwards, you said the circulation of your paper was only very small. Is it true, in fact, that your 15 years' work had led an army, millions strong, to National Socialism? A. I have said today that the moment the Press was politically co-ordinated, 3,000 daily newspapers were committed to the purpose of enlightenment about the Jewish problem. There were 3,000 daily papers in addition to "Der Sturmer." Q. Very well. I don't think you need go on. Let me finish reading through that paragraph:- "The continued work of "Der Sturmer" will help to insure that down to the last man every German will, with heart and hand, join the ranks of those whose aim it is to crush the head of the serpent Pan-Judah." Wait one moment, let me ask my question. There is nothing there about an international problem. You are addressing yourself to the German people, are you not? A. In that article? Yes. And if that article was read abroad, then, of course, I was addressing countries abroad, but as to the remark about crushing the serpent's head, that is a Biblical expression. Q. Will you now let us discuss for a moment the breaking up of the synagogue in Nuremberg, which you have spoken about, on 10 August of 1938. Will you look at Page 41 of the book that you have in front of you, Page 42 of the English document book that the Tribunal has. Now, we have heard your explanation of that breaking up of the synagogue. The "Fraenkische Tageszeitung" of 11 August states this:- "In Nuremberg the synagogue is being demolished. Julius Streicher [Page 330] himself inaugurated this work by a speech lasting more than an hour and a half" - were you talking to the inhabitants of Nuremberg upon the architectural value of their city for an hour and a half on 10 August, 1938? A. I no longer know in detail what I said, but I refer to what you have remarked and what you find important. There was a branch of the Propaganda Ministry in Nuremberg. The young government official had Press conferences with the editors every day, and he told the editors during a Press conference that Streicher would speak, and that the synagogue was being demolished and that this was to be kept a secret. Q. I asked you, were you talking for that hour and a half on the architectural beauties of Nuremberg and not against the Jews? Is that what you are telling us? A. That too, of course. Q. At the Press conference to which you referred - you no doubt have seen the document; it is Page 40 of the Tribunal's document book - do you remember that it was agreed that the show should be arranged in a big way, the show of pulling down the synagogue? What was the object of arranging the demonstration to demolish that synagogue in such a big way? A. I was merely the speaker. What you are intimating here, that was done by the representative of the Ministry of Propaganda; but I wouldn't object to it if you decided to assume, let me put it like that, that I would have been in favour of making a big show if I had been asked. Q. Let me ask you now about the demonstrations which followed that in November of that year - My Lord, I refer to Page 43 of the document book; 42 of the German - As I understand it, you tell us that you disapproved of those demonstrations that took place and they took place without your knowledge or previous knowledge. Is that correct, yes or no? A. Yes, it is correct. Q. I just want to remind you of what you said on the following day, 10 November. This is an account of what happened:- "In Nuremberg and Furth there were demonstrations by the crowd against the Jewish gang of murderers (Moerdergesindel). These lasted until the early hours of the morning." I now pass to the end of that paragraph: "After midnight the excitement of the public had reached its peak, and the large crowd marched to the synagogues in Nuremberg and Furth and burned those two Jewish buildings where the murder of Germans had been preached." This is now what you say - it is on Page 44 of the document book, my Lord:- "From the cradle on the Jew is not taught as we are: 'Thou shalt love they neighbour as thyself' or 'If you are smitten on the left cheek offer then your right one.' 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 twenty, years we have been writing about this in "Der Sturmer." For twenty years we have been preaching it throughout the world, and we have made millions recognise the truth." Does that sound as though you had disapproved of the demonstrations that had taken place the night before? A. First of all I must state that the report, part of which you read, appeared in a daily paper. Thus I am not to be held responsible for this. If someone wrote that part of the populace rose up against the gang of murderers (Moerdergesindel) then that is in keeping with the order from the Propaganda Ministry in Berlin; outwardly that action was described as a spontaneous demonstration of the populace - [Page 331] Q. That does not answer my question. Does that passage that I have read sound as though you had disapproved of the demonstrations that had taken place the night before? Does it or does it not? A. I was against that demonstration. Q. Just let me read on:- "But we know that we have in our midst people who take pity on the Jews, people who are not worthy of living in this town, who are not worthy of belonging to the people of whom you are a proud part." Why should it have been necessary for people to have had pity on the Jews, if you were not-you and the Nazi Party- persecuting them? A. I have already pointed out to day that I was forced, after this demonstration had taken place, to make a public comment, and say that one should not have so much pity. I wanted to prove thereby that this was not a spontaneous action by the people; in other words, the whole thing is not against me, it is in my favour. The people, as I myself, were opposed to the demonstration and I found that I had cause to - should I say - get public opinion to the point where one might possibly not regard that action as anything too severe. Q. But why, if you were opposed to it and if the people were opposed to it, should it have been your duty to try and convert them so that they should be in favour of that kind of thing? Why were you opposed to it and why should you try to turn them against the Jew? A. I don't understand what you mean. Q. I understand you to say that you were opposed to these demonstrations, and that the people also were opposed to the demonstrations; that, therefore, it was your duty to try to stir them up and make them favour the demonstrations after they had happened. Why should it have been your duty to do that? A. Today one can possibly say that this or that was my duty, but one must consider what those times were - the chaotic conditions that existed - that to make a quick decision, as one might have to in this courtroom, was quite impossible. What happened has happened. I was against it and the public too. What was written about it to the contrary was written for tactical reasons. Q. Very well. Were you in favour of the aryanisation of Jewish houses and businesses? Were you in favour of that or did you disapprove of that issue? A. I have answered that question today in great detail, in connection with a statement of Party comrade Holz. I have stated it and I repeat that my deputy came to me ... Q. Just stop for a moment, I don't want a speech. I asked you a question which you could answer "yes" or "no." Did you approve or disapprove of the system of aryanisation of Jewish businesses and houses? A. One cannot answer that quickly with "yes" or "no." I have made it clear today, and you must allow me to repeat again just the same thing so that there is not any misunderstanding. My Party comrade ... Q. I am not going to allow you to repeat it. I will go on if you are not prepared to answer that question. The Tribunal have heard it and I pass on. A. I certainly want to answer it. After my Party comrades ... THE PRESIDENT: Defendant ... THE WITNESS: After the Party comrades came ... THE PRESIDENT: You have refused to answer the question properly, a question to which you can give either an affirmative or a negative answer. Did you approve or did you not approve? You can give an answer to that and then you can give any explanation afterwards. THE WITNESS: I personally was not for aryanisation. When Holz repeated that the houses had been pretty badly damaged, that we might get material for a district (Gau) building, I said, "All right, if you can do it, go ahead." I have already stated today that this was carelessness on my part. [Page 332] BY LIEUTENANT COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: Q. There were in fact a very great number of Jewish businesses and houses aryanised in Nuremberg and Franconia, were there not? A. Yes. Q. Would you just look at a new exhibit, D-835, which becomes Exhibit GB-330. That is a list - it is an original document - it is a list of Jewish property in Nuremberg and Furth which was aryanised. Have you seen that list or anything like it before? A. No.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor