The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.04

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.04
Last-Modified: 2000/01/27

Q. Who was the author?

A. My collaborator, the editor-in-chief at that time, Karl
Holz, who is now dead. But I assume the responsibility.

Q. Is it not so that even during the 20's you dealt with
that question in "Der Sturmer?"

A. Yes; and in public speeches.

Q. Yes, in public speeches. Why did you now stir up again in
1935, this decidedly very grave matter?

A. I should like to ask my counsel to express no judgement
as to what I have written; to question me, but not to
express judgement. The prosecution is going to do that.

                                                  [Page 320]

You have asked me how this issue came about. I will explain
very briefly ...

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. I have to protest
against the fact that Herr Streicher here, in the course of
his interrogation by me, thinks he can criticise the manner
in which I put my questions. Therefore, I ask the Tribunal
to give a decision on this, as otherwise I am not in a
position to ask my questions at all.

THE PRESIDENT: You have already stated your position and the
Tribunal has given you full support. Will you please

And let me tell you this, defendant, that if you are
insolent either to your counsel or to the Tribunal, the
Tribunal will not be able to continue the hearing of your
case at this moment. You will kindly treat your counsel and
the Tribunal with due courtesy.

THE WITNESS: May I be allowed to say something about this?

THE PRESIDENT: No. Answer the questions, please.


I will go on now with my questioning.

Q. The prosecution accuses you, in connection with this
ritual murder affair, of having treated the matter without
documentary proof, by referring to a story from the Middle
Ages. What, in brief, was your source?

A. The sources were given in that issue. Nothing was written
without the sources being given at the same time. There was
reference made to a book written in Greek by a former rabbi
who had been converted to Christianity. There was reference
made to a publication of a high clergyman of Milan, a book
which has appeared in Germany for the last fifty years. Not
even under the democratic government did Jews raise
objections to that book. That ritual murder issue refers to
court files which are located in Rome, it refers to files
which are in court. There are pictures in it which show that
in twenty-three cases the Church itself has dealt with this
question. The Church has canonised twenty-three non-Jews
killed by ritual murder. Pictures of sculptures, that is, of
paintings on stone, were shown as illustrations; everywhere
the source was indicated; even a case in England was
mentioned, and one in Kiev, Russia. But in this connection I
should like to say, as I said to a Jewish officer here, that
we never wanted to assert that all Jewry was ready now to
commit ritual murders. But it is a fact that within Jewry
there exists a sect which engaged in murders, and has done
so up to the present. I have asked my counsel to submit to
the Tribunal a file from Pisek in Czechoslovakia, very
recent proceedings. A court of appeal has confirmed a case
of ritual murder. Thus, in conclusion I must say ...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this statement, your
Honour. After his counsel has refused to submit it, he
insists on stating here the contents of a court record. Now
this is not an orderly way in which to make charges against
the Jewish people. His counsel apparently has refused,
whereupon he starts to give evidence that he knows what in
any case is a resume of the matters which his counsel has
declined to submit here. It seems to me that having
appointed counsel to conduct his case, he has shown
repeatedly that he is not willing to allow him to conduct
his case in an orderly manner, and he ought to be returned
to his cell and any further statements that he wishes to
make to this Tribunal should be transmitted through his
counsel in writing. This is entirely unfair and in contempt
of court.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, I think you had better continue.

DR. MARX: I should like to say that that closes this affair.
The essential thing is whether one can say that he treated
the case without documentary proof. The defence is not
interested in the affair at all, and, according to my
recollection, I even suggested to one of the gentlemen of
the prosecution that this affair perhaps be left out
altogether, because it is really so gruesome and so

                                                  [Page 321]

horrible that it is better not to deal with it. But the
defendant only wanted to say that it was only on the basis
of various evidence that he dealt with the case, and I
believe that is sufficient; that should close the matter.

Now, Herr Streicher, you fall again and again into the
mistake of going too far in your explanations, and of
discussing things which can be considered propaganda on your
part. I should like to ask you now, for the last time, to
stick to the questions and leave out everything else. It is
in your own interest. You are accused of having carried on
various activities in your Gau, which were Crimes against
Humanity, of having mistreated people who lived in your Gau.
Thus you are accused of having sought out a political
prisoner, a certain Steinruck in his cell and of having
beaten him. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Was Steinruck a Jew?

A. No.

Q. For what reason did you do that?

A. Steinruck in a public place, in the presence of many
witnesses had made derogatory statements about the Fuehrer,
libellous statements. He was at police headquarters. I had
spoken to the police chief about it and told him that I
should like to see Steinruck. I went with my adjutant - the
Goering report says that a party member, Holz, was there
too, but that is not correct - I went with my adjutant to
police headquarters. The same police chief who later
denounced me to Reich Marshal Goering, took me to
Steinruck's cell. We went into the cell, I stated that I had
come with the intention of talking to him, talking to him
reasonably. We talked to him. But he acted so cowardly that
it became necessary to chastise him. I do not mind stating
here that I am sorry about that case, that I regret it as a

Q. Then it is asserted that in August, 1938, you beat up an
editor, Burger. Is that correct?

A. No, this is not correct. If I had beaten him up, then I
would say so here. But I believe that my adjutant and
somebody else had an argument with him.

Q. What about the incident in the Kuenstlerhaus in Munich?

A. I went to Munich to the inn "Kuenstlerstaette," or
something like that. I was received by the manager. Then a
young man came up to me, drunk and quarrelsome, and shouted
at me. The manager protested and ordered him out of the
place. But the drunken young fellow came back again and
again, and then my chauffeur grabbed him and my son helped.
They took him into a room and beat him up, and then the
proprietor of the inn thanked me for having rid him of the

And now I should like to have the Tribunal's permission to
state very briefly my position on one case which I believe
the prosecution also has dropped, where I was accused of
sadistic tendencies ...

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you know perfectly well that that
incident has been stricken from the record and is not,
therefore, mentioned against you, so that it is quite
unnecessary to go into it. The Tribunal cannot hear you on

Q. Witness, from the so-called Goering report I should like
to submit to you some points which have been presented by
the prosecution.

You know that after the action of November, 1938, in the
district of Franconia, Aryanisation of Jewish property was
undertaken to a considerable extent. Would you like to make
a statement about that?

A. Here in the Goering report is a reference to a statement
of the deceased Party member, Holz. In that statement it is
pointed out that Holz came to see me after that action, that
he made a report about the action and likewise declared the
action to be wrong; he said, furthermore, that now this had
happened, he considered it necessary to go further and
Aryanise the property. The Goering report states that I then
told Holz that could not be done and that I opposed it. Then
it reports further that Holz said to me that he still
thought it would be

                                                  [Page 322]

right if one were to do it. We could then provide the means
for the establishment of a district school. Holz also states
that I said, "Well, Holz, if you believe you can do it, then
go ahead and do it."

I want to state here that what Party member Holz said is
true. I was opposed at first and then, acting on a sudden
impulse, which I cannot understand today, I said, "Well, if
you can do it, then go ahead and do it." I want to state
here that at that time when I said it I did not believe at
all that it was to be done or would be done; but it was
done. The Reich Marshal as trustee for the Four-Year Plan
later stated his position on it in Berlin, sharply rejecting
it. Only at that time did I find out exactly how Holz
accomplished this Aryanisation. I had a talk with him, got
into a serious dispute, and our friendly relations were
broken off. Holz volunteered for a Panzer outfit, went to
the Front and resigned as deputy. I returned from Berlin to
Nuremberg; and later there appeared in Nuremberg a criminal
commissioner sent by the Reich Marshal in his capacity as
trustee for the Four-Year Plan. He reported to me and asked
me if I were in agreement with an investigation of the whole
matter, and I stated that I would welcome the investigation.
Then the investigation took place. The Aryanisation order
was repealed and it was established that Holz personally had
not got any material advantage from it. The question of
Aryanisation was then taken over by the government. I state
frankly that in that affair I am at least guilty of

Q. Did you know that the amounts paid in the Aryanisation of
houses or real estate represented only about twenty per
cent., or even less, of the actual value?

A. Holz had not come to see me for weeks. He had carried on
the Aryanisation in the Labour Front Office with the legal
advisers there. Not until later, in Berlin, during the
meeting which the Reich Marshal held, did I learn of the
real situation; and thus the dispute and the break between
Holz and myself came about, because I had to disapprove the
manner in which the Aryanisation question had been handled.

Q. You are further accused of having had shares in the Marx
Works at Nuremberg acquired at an extraordinarily low price,
for purposes of enriching yourself, and, in the course of
this acquisition, of having exerted an undue pressure on the
owner of the shares?

A. It says in the Goering report, literally, that I had
given an order and, in another place, that I had given the
command that the Marx shares be acquired for me. I state
here that I gave neither an order nor a command to acquire
the Marx shares. The explanation is this. My publishing
house chief, who had power of attorney, because I personally
never, through all the years, bothered with financial or
business matters, could do what he wished. One day he came
to see me with my adjutant. I do not recollect now whether
the adjutant or the publishing house chief was the one who
spoke first. I was told the following. An attorney had
called and said that the Marx shares were being offered for
sale at an advantageous price. My publishing house chief
asked me whether I agreed. I stated that never in my life
had I owned any shares, that I had never bothered about
financial matters in my publishing house, If he thought that
the stock should be bought, then he could do it. The shares
were bought. It was the most serious breach of confidence
ever committed against me by any Party associate or
employee. After a short time it came to light, that is, I
was informed how these shares had been acquired. I found out
that the owner had been threatened. When I discovered under
what conditions this stock purchase had been made, I gave
the order at once to return the stock. In the Goering report
it is noted that this return took place. Among the
confiscated files of my publishing house there is an
official statement about this affair which shows that these
shares were returned. In this connection perhaps I may be
permitted to say that my publishing

                                                  [Page 323]

house was located, until the end of the war, in a rented
house. At the time of the Aryanisation I was approached with
the plan that an Aryanised house be acquired for my
publishing firm. I refused that. I state here in conclusion
that I have in my possession no former Jewish property.

When those demonstrations occurred in 1938, jewels had been
brought into the Gauhouse. These pieces of jewellery were
turned over to the police. A man who was the holder of the
Honorary Party Emblem was convicted and sentenced to six
years penal servitude, because he had given his sweetheart a
ring and another piece of jewellery dating from that time.
But I may add one thing: The guilt of this wearer of the
Party Emblem rests perhaps with those who gave the order,
"Go into the Jewish houses." The man, as far as I knew him,
had always been personally decent. Because of that order, he
was placed in the position in which he committed a crime. I
have finished what I wanted to say.

Q. Is it not true that the allegations made by the
publishing firm chief, Fink, before the Party Court, and
also, even before that, at a police interrogation were
different, in the main points, from your present

A. The whole thing was that Fink, the publishing house
manager, was called to police headquarters and interrogated.
The police chief was interested in the hearing as for many
years he had been a friend of mine and frequently visited me
in my house. Fink returned from the interrogation completely
upset. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted: "I
was threatened, I have made statements which are not true. I
am a blackguard. I am a criminal." A witness of that
incident was my chauffeur. I calmed him down and told him,
"I was called in for a hearing once, too. I was even
imprisoned once. I will give them the opportunity ... "

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into such detail in
this matter?

DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. Perhaps this is
necessary, because in this report reference is made to the
testimony of Fink, and an attempt is made to prove with this
that the explanation made by Streicher is wrong, that he
gave the order to purchase this stock, possibly under
pressure, and that he approved of it, whereas he counters
that he knew neither that these shares were to be bought at
such a low price nor that blackmail pressure was to be used.
If that is not important, then, of course, we can close the

THE PRESIDENT: That is what he has already said. He has said
that quite clearly, has he not? I was only suggesting that
it was not necessary to go into such detail in the matter.

Q. Witness, it may be of some importance to state what the
development of "Der Sturmer" has been since 1933, as far as
circulation is concerned. Give us a short statement on the
circulation of "Der Sturmer" and then I shall put another
question to you.

A. "Der Sturmer" appeared in 1923 in octavo format, and in
the beginning it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies.
In the course of time the circulation increased to 10,000,
At that time "Der Sturmer" circulated - until 1933 really -
only in Nuremberg, in my Gau, perhaps in Southern Bavaria.
The publisher was a bookseller and he worked first with one
man, then with two. This is proof that the circulation was
really small.

In 1933 - but I say this with certain reservations because
it may be that the publisher did not always give me the
correct circulation figures and I had no written contract
with him - I say with reservations, that in 1933 the
circulation was 25,000 copies.

In 1935 the publisher died, and at that time it was, I
believe, 40,000. Then an expert took over the publishing
house and organised it to cover all of Germany. The
circulation increased then to 100,000, and increased to
600,000. It fluctuated, fell back and then dropped during
the war - I cannot say exactly - but I believe it was about

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.