The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.05

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

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]



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


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.


My Lord, this is a new exhibit.

THE PRESIDENT: Which will be what?


My Lord, I am sorry, but the document seems to be missing
for the moment. Perhaps I might read this extract.

                                                  [Page 326]


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

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

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.


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

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?



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

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

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.

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.