dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. MARX: Mr. President, before coming to the question of the documents, I should like to point out the following: During the session yesterday afternoon the Prosecution submitted several documents which were new to me, and I have not yet had an opportunity of stating my position with regard to them. Nor have I yet had a chance of speaking to the Defendant Streicher about them. From the point of view of the Defense, I consider it necessary to explain my position with regard to these very important documents; and I believe that I must now examine all the articles of Der Stuermer to see whether Streicher used in some way or other the various pieces of information from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt ; for his defense is, "I did not believe what I read there." If he did not use these items of information in any of his articles, then his answer is, to a certain extent, corroborated. Therefore I have to review the matter...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. In one particular article it was demonstrated yesterday in cross-examination, as I understood it, that he had used an article from the Jewish paper.
DR. MARX: Yes. I know that article. It is one of 4 November 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Marx, what exactly are you applying for now? What is your motion?
DR. MARX: My motion is that the Tribunal permit me to supplement my document book so as to be able to state my position with regard to yesterday's presentation of documents by the Prosecution by submitting counter documents of my own. My presentation of documents would be incomplete if I had no chance of replying to these new documents submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx; the Tribunal grants your motion provided you make it in the ordinary way, in writing, referring to any passages which you contend throw light on the passages which have been put in by the Prosecution.
DR. MARX: Yes. May I now begin to discuss the individual documents? Document Number Streicher-1 shows that the newspaper Der Stuermer , according to the decision of the Fuehrer, was not an official Party organ and was not even entitled to carry the state insignia while all other press organs displayed the insignia conspicuously. That is evidence that the paper Der Stuermer was a private publication of the Defendant Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you are going to offer these documents in evidence and give them exhibit numbers, are you not?
DR. MARX: I consider these documents as submitted; I have discussed the subject with the Prosecution, and the Prosecution had no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, there is a written transcript being taken down, and unless you offer each document in evidence and say that will be exhibit number so-and-so, it does not get into the transcript. If you like you can do it in a group and say, "I offer in evidence such and such documents as Exhibits 1 to 100," or whatever number you wish.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The book I have before me does contain certain exhibit numbers; for instance, Page 1 to 4 appears to be Exhibit Number Streicher-1 and Page 5 is Exhibit Number Streicher-5; Page 6 is Exhibit Number Streicher-6; Page 7 is Exhibit Number Streicher-7.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that Page 4 is Exhibit Number Streicher-l; is it?
DR. MARX: The pagination made here is completely different from the one I made and consequently it is now arranged altogether differently.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, let us get on. You only have to tell us what documents you are offering in evidence and under what exhibit numbers. Dr. Marx, you can do it later if you want to.
DR. MARX: I further submit Exhibit Number Streicher-5, an excerpt from an editorial of Der Stuermer of July 1938. Number 28. This article, which was not written by the Defendant Streicher but by Karl Holz, is worded in very sharp language and says that vengeance will break loose one day and all Jewry will be exterminated. But the salient point here-the article seems to have been provoked by a letter which was sent from Nuremberg to New York, and which stated that Germany in the case of war, would be destroyed from the air. And so this article also falls under the claim which the defendant made yesterday, namely that his sharp language was always caused by some preceding action from another side. That is Document Number Streicher-5 and I ask permission to submit it as an exhibit under that number. Then I submit as Document Number Streicher-6, an excerpt from Number 40 of Der Stuermer of October 1938. I think I can dispense with comment on it because my argument can be seen from the document itself; or is it necessary to speak about it?
THE. PRESIDENT: No, you need not speak about them; just put them in.
DR. MARX: I submit as Document Number Streicher-7, an excerpt from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 25 February 1942, in answer to Document M-31 of the trial brief against the defendant. Then I submit Document Number Streicher-8, an excerpt from the Voelkischer Beobachter of 8 February 1939, Page 2. Then as Document Number Streicher-9, an excerpt from the political testament of Adolf Hitler, dated 29 April 1945. As Document Number Streicher-10, an excerpt from Der Stuermer , February 1935, Number 8, Page 4. As Document Number Streicher-11, an excerpt from Der Stuermer of September 1935, Number 38. I am giving the next page the Document Number Streicher-12. That is an excerpt from Der Stuermer , of September 1935, Number 38, Page 9. Document Number Streicher-13 is an excerpt from Der Stuermer , of January 1938 Number 1. Document Number Streicher-14, an excerpt from Der Stuermer of May 1938, Number 20. As Document Number Streicher-15, an excerpt from Der Stuermer of 5 November 1943, Number 45. As Document Number Streicher-16, of the Defense, a document submitted by the Prosecution under number 759-PS. As Document Number Streicher-17, speeches made by Himmler in April 1943, on 4 October 1943, and 28 September 1943 at Posen and Kharkov. As Document Number Streicher-18, a photostat of the special issue of Der Stuermer of May 1939, Number 20. I ask to have these documents admitted. I have limited myself to the utmost.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the witnesses ready yet? Perhaps we might as well adjourn for 10 minutes now. [A recess was taken.] [The witness Ernst Hiemer took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERNST HIEMER (Witness): Ernst Hiemer.
DR. MARX: May I just interrupt for a minute, Mr. President. First of all I would like to state that I am by no means holding the Marshal responsible for the mistake. The matter was as follows: The mistake in requesting the witness...
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite all right, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: I consider it my duty to state here that the Marshal is not responsible for the mistake about the bringing in of the witness. One of my assistants spoke yesterday with a gentleman. . .
THE PRESIDENT: We quite understand, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit Documents Number Streicher 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 up to 18. I do not know whether it is clear now. The numbers are 1 and 5, and from 6 through 18. Lacking are 2, 3, and 4, which were dropped. All other exhibit numbers are contained therein, Numbers 1 and from 5 through 18.
THE PRESIDENT: You include 19, don't you?
DR. MARX: No, Numbers 19 and 20 are not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I beg your pardon. I think I must have been wrong. I have taken down 19, but you haven't got 19, have you?
DR. MARX: Number 18 is my last one, Your Honor, and I ask to have that included in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: And now you are going to go on with the witnesses?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERNST HIEMER: Ernst Hiemer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath in German.] You may sit down.
DR. MARX: Since when have you known Herr Streicher, how did you get into contact with him, and what position did you have on Der Stuermer ?
HIEMER: At the end of 1934 I was introduced to the then Gauleiter Julius Streicher in the Deutscher Hof in Nuremberg. Streicher gave me the assignment of working for his public health journal, Die Deutsche Volksgesundheit . In 1935 I also wrote reports for Der Stuermer . Streicher then had me transferred to the editorial staff of Der Stuermer . Eventually, under Streicher's direction and the direction of other staff members of Der Stuermer , I did editorial work as a co-editor. The responsible editor of Der Stuermer was Karl Holz, Streicher's deputy, but the leading spirit of the paper was Streicher himself. In the year 1938 instructions came from Berlin to the effect that Holz was permitted to contribute to Der Stuermer , but in his capacity as state official-he was the Deputy Gauleiter-he was no longer to be mentioned in the editions of Der Stuermer . Thereupon, on instruction from Streicher, my name was entered in Der Stuermer as responsible editor. The over-all direction of the paper and all authority connected therewith remained in Streicher's hands, and Streicher retained this position until the collapse.
DR. MARX: What was the main idea of Der Stuermer 's policy? What was the Leitmotiv?
HIEMER: Streicher wanted by means of Der Stuermer , in the simplest and most popular language, to convey to every man and every woman of the German nation knowledge about the Jews. Streicher wanted the entire German people to realize that the Jew was a stranger among them.
DR. MARX: Herr Hiemer, I do not want to know that. I want you to tell me whether Herr Streicher, let us say, wished to advocate emigration or whether he followed a different train of thought. Long expositions on the Jewish problem are not required. HIEMER Streicher was of the opinion that in Germany the Jewish question should be solved by emigration. He repeatedly criticized the leadership of the Reich because the emigration of Jews was not being carried through in the manner desired by Streicher. When the war came, Streicher asserted that the Jewish problem would no longer have had any significance for a Germany at war if in accordance with his idea it had been solved by complete emigration of the Jews during the preceding time of peace.
DR. MARX: Is it correct that the Palestine and Madagascar problem was discussed in the journal?
HIEMER: Yes. Streicher stated his opinion in word as well as in writing, that Palestine and Madagascar would be suitable localities for absorbing the Jews living in Germany. However, he did not follow up this thought, since not Germany but only England and France could dispose of Palestine and Madagascar.
DR. MARX: What do you think about the influence exerted by Streicher and Der Stuermer since 1933? Is it not true that since 1933 its influence among the German people was much in decline?
HIEMER: Yes, that is correct. In many circles it was known that the influence of Streicher and of his paper on the movement did decrease. After 1933 Streicher had many conflicts with other Party leaders, and he made many enemies. Particularly from the year 1937, Streicher was pushed more and more into the background. Within the Party the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem, under the leadership of Rosenberg, dealt with the theory of the Jewish problem, and actual authority over the Jews belonged, as is well known, exclusively to Himmler. When finally in the year 1940 Streicher was relieved of his post as Gauleiter, he was completely isolated. From then on he lived on his farm and worked there as a farmer; he wrote articles only for Der Stuermer .
DR. MARX: What was the circulation of Der Stuermer from 1933? Can you give us figures? Of course, only after the date when you joined the paper.
HIEMER: This question of the circulation could, of course, be answered best by the publication manager, who was concerned with it. However, I remember approximate figures. Der Stuermer was in 1933 a very small paper; but by the year 1935 its circulation increased to about 800,000. After that however, there was a sharp decline. Of course, during the war Der Stuermer had a smaller circulation. I cannot give you any exact figures and during the last months the circulation of the paper was, of course, extremely small. On the average, I might say that Der Stuermer had a circulation of perhaps half a million. Of course, there were special issues which had a much larger circulation. As I said, only the publisher could authenticate these figures.
DR. MARX: What can be the reason for the increase in the year 1935?
HIEMER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question.
DR. MARX: Wasn't it because Party authorities-because subscriptions were made compulsory in factories and other places?
HIEMER: You are putting questions to me which really only a publisher can answer. I myself cannot answer the question with assurance, and therefore must remain silent; my testimony would not be reliable.
DR. MARX: Of course, if you don't know, you are free to say, "My knowledge on this point is not sufficient." Did Herr Streicher know of the happenings in the East, especially in the concentration camps, and what did he personally tell you about these things?
HIEMER: Streicher himself never told me that he knew about the happenings in the concentration camps. On the contrary, Streicher said he learned of these things only in 1944 through the Swiss press. Streicher received the Swiss newspapers regularly, in particular the Israelitisches Wochenblatt of Switzerland, and in 1944 this journal published rather detailed descriptions about what was going on in the concentration camps. Streicher at first refused to credit these reports in the Swiss press and called them premeditated lies. He declared that these reports were being printed merely for the purpose of undermining the prestige of the German people abroad. It is true Streicher soon changed his opinion. He began to doubt that his opinion was right and finally he believed that the occurrences in concentration camps, as pictured in the Swiss press, did after all correspond to the facts. Streicher said that Himmler was the only man who could have authorized such crimes.
DR. MARX: You said that Streicher soon changed his opinion. What does that mean?
HIEMER: In the beginning he had decidedly said that these reports could not be true. Then he became uncertain and said that perhaps they might be true. I had the impression that either the detailed manner of the reports in the Swiss press had convinced Streicher that these things had actually occurred or that Streicher, from one source or another, either through personal contact or through letters, had received knowledge that these happenings were actually taking place in the concentration camps. To that I ascribe his change of view.
DR. MARX: And when was that, approximately?
HIEMER: I cannot give you the exact date, but I believe it was in the middle of 1944.
DR. MARX: What attitude did he take when he was finally convinced? Did he express satisfaction at the fact that so many people had been killed?
HIEMER: No. Streicher definitely deprecated what was done in the concentration camps. It did happen that Streicher, in anger-if he had been especially upset by political events-often or at times, asserted that Jews, as an enemy of the German people, should be exterminated. However, Streicher talked in that way only in the first phase of excitement. When he was calmed, he always opposed the extermination of the Jews.
DR. MARX: But repeatedly in articles of Der Stuermer there is talk of the extermination of the Jews?
HIEMER: Yes. It is a fact that in reports of Der Stuermer the extermination of Jewry is spoken about. However, on the other hand. Streicher again and again opposed the murder of the Jews, and I am quite convinced that Streicher and Der Stuermer had nothing whatever to do with the happenings in concentration camps. I do not believe it. For it is known now that these crimes in the concentration camps were committed on the instructions of individual leading men; that is, on official orders, and it is my firm conviction that neither Streicher nor Der Stuermer had anything to do with them.
DR. MARX: How were the articles which you wrote prepared? Did you receive directives for the articles from Streicher and then merely edit them, or were you the real author?
HIEMER: Streicher was the founder and the publisher of Der Stuermer . But he was in fact also the chief editor, and all his colleagues, no matter whether it was his deputy, Holz, or others -all of them had to submit their articles to Streicher before they were printed. Streicher then ordered changes if the need arose; he also gave the editors assignments for articles, that is, he told them with what arguments these articles were to be drawn up; and Streicher knew of all the articles which appeared in Der Stuermer . In fact, he was the responsible head, the editor of Der Stuermer . All others were his assistants. He himself was, as he often said with pride, one and the same with Der Stuermer . "Streicher and Der Stuermer are one and the same." That was his maxim.
DR. MARX: That, of course, he admits; he says that he assumes the responsibility. What can you tell us about the so-called pornographic library?
HIEMER: Der Stuermer was in possession of a large archive. This archive consisted of many thousands of German and foreign-language books, documents, edicts, and so forth. These books were either put at the disposal of the Stuermer archive by friends of Der Stuermer , or they came from Jewish apartments. The police put books which were found in Jewish houses at the disposal of Rosenberg's Institute for the Study of the Jewish problem for research purposes. Whatever remained in the Jewish dwellings in Nuremberg was turned over to the Stuermer archive. Among these books there were also numerous which dealt with sexual knowledge, books by Magnus Hirschfeld, Bloch, and some which were simply pornographic. These, then, consisted both of books which had been sent in by friends of the Stuermer , and books which had been found in Jewish dwellings. These books were kept in a special section of the Stuermer archive under lock and key, and the public did not have access to them. This literature was no personal pornographic library of Streicher, but formed a part of Der Stuermer 's archive. Streicher never read these books. They were to be reviewed after the war in the course of the reconstruction. All those which were not of direct Jewish origin were to be removed, but as I said, Streicher did not read these books.
DR. MARX: Where were these books kept? Were they in the publishing house, or how is it that a part...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, there is no charge here with respect to this particular sort of books.
DR. MARX: This is my last question. I just wanted to clarify this matter, since it played an important part in the public mind. I have no further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are there any questions from the other Defense Counsel?
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): I have one question only. [Turning to the witness.] Did Rosenberg have any connections with the editorial staff of Der Stuermer ?
HIEMER: To my knowledge, his connections were almost nonexistent. I knew personally only Dr. Ballensiefen, who worked with Rosenberg. I also knew Dr. Pohl personally, but no relations existed between the Der Stuermer and the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem for the purposes of co-operation.
DR. THOMA: Did Ballensiefen and Pohl have connections with Der Stuermer ?
HIEMER: Pohl had personal connections with me. He was a student of Hebrew and had made translations of the Talmud; he had also published the Talmudgeist . Through that I got to know him. Ballensiefen also had no personal connection with Der Stuermer .
DR. THOMA: Does this mean that Pohl did have personal connections . . .
HIEMER: Only with me, not with Der Stuermer .
DR. THOMA: . . . or was he sent by Rosenberg in this matter?
HIEMER: No.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have only one matter to ask you about. Do I understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become convinced that the reports in the Swiss newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt , were true?
HIEMER: I did not understand you. Will you please repeat the question?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do I understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become convinced of the truth of the reports he was reading in the Swiss newspaper about concentration camps?
HIEMER: Yes, I had the impression that Streicher in the middle of 1944...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only wanted an answer "yes" or "no." That is quite sufficient. Let me just read to you three lines of an article which was published in Der Stuermer on the 14th of September 1944.
HIEMER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: "Bolshevism cannot be vanquished; it must be destroyed. The same is true of Judaism; it cannot be vanquished, disarmed, or rendered powerless; it must be exterminated." That is Page 2. Then the word that you use or is cited for exterminated is ausgerottet, which I understand means completely wiped out. Why was that article appearing in Der Stuermer in September 1944, when it was known by the owner of Der Stuermer what was going on in concentration camps in the East? What was the purpose of that article?
HIEMER: I personally did not write this article. I believe that Streicher wrote it, therefore I myself am not able to judge the intention of the article. But I do maintain that Streicher made statements opposing the murders in the concentration camps, and that he did not want the murder of Jewry.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well, I will leave that. My Lord, in the interest of time I do not propose to cross-examine this witness any further. Perhaps I might be allowed to draw the Tribunal's attention to those articles contained in your bundle, which are articles actually written by this witness. There are about seven of them. Page 3A, 35A, 38A, 40A, 49A, 50A and 51A, that is, covering a period from January 1939 up to August 1944. And, My Lord, the other matter that I would draw the Tribunal's attention to was that this witness was the author of the disgusting children's book which I presented to the Tribunal in putting the individual case against Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination? [There was no response.] Dr. Marx, do you wish to re-examine? You heard what counsel said about the various articles written by this witness. You wish to re-examine or not? Have you any questions you wish to ask the witness?
DR MARX: Yes, please. Herr Hiemer, perhaps you did not quite understand the question a moment ago. Please tell us again just when Herr Streicher received knowledge, and when he told you that he was convinced of or believed in these mass murders.
HIEMER: It is my opinion and conviction that it was in the middle of 1944.
DR. MARX: But there had been statements to that effect in the Israelitisches Wochenblatt for a number of years prior to that date.
HIEMER: Yes; at that time Streicher did not believe these things. His change of view took place only in the year 1944 and I remember it was not before the middle of the year.