The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-116.06

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

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

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.





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

  "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

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
                                                  [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

  "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

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]


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.

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.