I may add one thing: that the fault when wearers of Party Emblems did things like that rests perhaps with those who gave the order, "Go to the Jewish houses now."
The man, as much as I knew him, had always been personally decent, but here, on the basis of that order, he came into a position where he committed the crime.
I have finished what I wanted to say.
QWas it not true that the accusations made by the manager of the publishing firm, Fink, before the Party, even before the police interrogation, were different in the main points from what you have told us now?
AThe whole thing was that Fink, the manager, had been called to police headquarters and interrogated. The police president was very much interested in the interrogation since for many years he had been a friend of mine and frequently visited me in my house. Fink came from that interrogation very much excited. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted loudly, "I was threatened. I have made statements which are not true. I am a heel. I am a criminal." A witness of that incident was my chauffeur. I calmed him down and told him, "I have been interrogated once also. I was even imprisoned once."
THE PRESIDENT:Is it necessary to go in such detail into this matter?
DR. MARX:Well, excuse me, Mr. President. Perhaps this would be essential because in this report, reference is made to the testimony of Fink, and it is attempted to prove that the explanations made by Streicher are wrong, that he gave the order to purchase these shares and possibly under throats, and that he ordered and approved it, whereas he says that he neither knew that these shares were bought at such a low price, nor that pressure, blackmail, was used on that occasion.
If that is not important, then, of course, we can close the matter.
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 on the matter.
QWitness, it may be of some importance to state what the development of the Sturmer was since 1933, as far as circulation is concerned. Can you give us a short description about the circulation of the Sturmer and then I shall put another question to you.
AThe Sturmer appeared in 1923 in small size, and in the beginning, it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies. Later the circulation increased to 10,000. At that time the Sturmer was, until 1933, really only in Nurnberg, in my gau, my district, and possibly also in Southern Bavaria. The publisher was a man who owned a bookshop and he did the whole work with one ran in the beginning, then with two, and that is proof for the fact that circulation was very small.
In 1933--and I say this with certain reservations because it may be that the publisher did not always tell me the correct figures and I had no written contract with him--I say with reservations that in 1933 I believe the circulation was 25,000 copies.
In 1935 the publisher died, and at that time it was, I believe 40.000. Then the firm came into the hands of an export, and he re-organized it to cover all of Germany. The circulation increased to 100,000, and up as high as 600,000. It fluctuated, went back and dropped during the war. I could not say correctly, but I believe it was to about 150,000 to 200,000.
QYou said that a new man re-organized it to cover all of Germany. On that occasion, for that purpose, was the Party machinery utilized, and were there not industries and other groups--the German Labor Front--which were utilized in order to increase the circulation forcibly?
A Well, the attitude of the Party was manifested by a letter, which was sent to all Gaus or districts, signed by Bormann.
There it was expressly pointed out that the Stuermer was not a party organ, it had nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiters found it necessary to order that the Stuermer could not appear in their Gaus any more.
Now, within the organizations there were Party members who, out of idealism or for other reasons, were interested and who intervened for the distribution of the Stuermer; that is clear. However, I myself, neither in writing nor orally, have even given any order to any Party organization in support of the Stuermer.
QMr. Streicher, before 1933 you had been before the courts repeatedly because of your articles and your attitude manifested in the Stuermer. Would you give us a short explanation of how often that occurred and what the consequences were for you?
AHow often? I could not answer that today, but it was frequently; I was frequently before the courts.
You ask me about the consequences. I was repeatedly in jail, but I may say proudly that in those sentences it stated, in many cases, " an incorruptible fanatic of the truth."
That was the consequence of my activity as a speaker and writer, but perhaps it is important to state the following: I never came before a court on account of criminal charges, but only because of my antiSemitic activities. The people who made the charges were members of an organization of citizens of the Jewish faith. The Chairman said the following repeatedly when we slipped so far as language was concerned and therefore brought about a possibility of being brought before a court because of certain existing laws. I want to point out here that the Jewish Justizrat, Dr. Sisheim, the attorney who was my opponent, stated before the Court here in this courtroom, "Gentlemen of the Tribunal, he is our unfailing 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 came to Landsberg, to prison, because I took part if the Hitler Putsch.
Then I got three and a half months here in this jail in Nurnberg 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 sentenced to jail or fined.
DR. MARX:Mr. President, the Goering report also mentions the fact that the defendant Streicher personally was interested in certain Jewish industries 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 Bodensee--Lake of 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?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES:
QIf 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?
AThe policy--I should like to say first, "no". At that time one could not see things which were not even possible in our minds. The policy 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.
QMay I take it that within a short course of time you knew the policy, the policy according to the Party program and according to Mein Kampf?
AI did not need a Party program. I admit frankly that I never reed it in its entirety. At that time programs were not important, but mass demonstrations-
THE PRESIDENT:Answer the question. The question was whether, a short time after 1922, you knew the policy as indicated in the Party program and in Mein Kampf.
THE WITNESS:Yes. BY COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES:
QYou knew, did you not, that the policy included the Anschluss with Austria? Can you answer that yes or no?
ANo. There was never anything mentioned of Austria. I do not remember that the Fuehrer over spoke about the fact that Austria should be annexed.
AI only want you to answer my question. 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?
AThat he intended it? No, that I do not know.
QDid you know that he intended to take over Czechoslovakia?
or at least the Sudetenland?
ANo.
QDid you know that from the start in Mein Kampf his ultimate objective was Lebensraum?
AWhat I have read in Mein Kampf is marked in red. The book has been confiscated. I read only that which concerns the Jewish question; I did not read anything else. However, that we had to acquire Lebensraum for our people, that goes without waying. I personally had that aim, to contribute in whatever way for a better future for a large number of people.
QMay I take it that during the year 1922, until 1923, as editor and owner of the Stuermer, and as a Gauleiter from 1925, you did everything you could to put the Nazi Party into power?
AYes; that is a matter of course.
QAnd after 1933 did you continuously support and issue propaganda on behalf of the Nazi Party policy?
AYes.
QNot only in respect of the Jewish question, but of the foreign policy as well?
ANo, that is not correct. In the Stuermer you would not find a single article which deals with foreign policy. And -
QThat is quite enough. I am not going to occupy very much time over this matter. However, I would ask you to look at D-802.
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES:My Lord, this is a new exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT:Which will be what?
COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES: GB-327.
My Lord, I am sorry, but the document seems to be missing for the moment. Perhaps I might read the extract. BY COLONEL GRIFFITH JONES:
QLet me just read you an extract from an article which you wrote in the Stuermer of March 1938, immediately after the Anschluss with Austria.
I want you to tell no whether or not you are advocating the Nazi policy in regard to Austria:
"We must make sure that the power of the Jews does not grow up to heaven itself. What was only a dream up to a few days ago has now become a reality. The sister nation of Austria has returned home to the Reich."
And then, a few lines further down:
"We are approaching wonderful times, a greater Germany without Jews."
Do you say that you are not there issuing propaganda on behalf of the Nazi policy?
AI have not issued propaganda policies. Austria was already annexed. I just welcomed the fact. I did not need to make any more propaganda about it.
QVery well. Perhaps you'll tell me what you mean by the "greater Germany" that you are approaching. What greater Germany are you approaching in March, 1938, a Germany greater than it was after the Anschluss with Austria?
AA greater Germany (Grosse Deutschland), a living area in which all people who speak Germany or are of German blood could live together.
QDo I understand that you are advocating "Lebensraum", greater space, not yet advocated by Germany?
AAt first not, no. At first we only dealt with Austria and Germany. The Austrians are Germans and, therefore, belong into a greater Germany.
QI won't argue with you. I will just ask you once more, what do you mean by the "greater Germany" that you are approaching in March of 1938?
AI sad that already, a Germany where all those can live and work together who speak German and have German blood.
QWould you look at D-118, which will become GB-238. 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?
AIf it says so there, then that mil be true. I do not recall it.
QLet 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?
AI have to ask you again, would you please repeat your question?
QI 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 say the same about this as I said before. That was a telegram of Frank's. I did not have to make any more propaganda because the Munich agreement had already taken place.
QI 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.
AAs far as possible within my province, yes.
QI want to turn now to the question of the Jews. May I remind you of the speech which you made on the 1st of 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 not actually put in before. It now becomes GB-329.
I shall hand you a-
THE PRESIDENT:M- What was it?
LT. COL.GRIFFITH-JONES: M-33. It is in the document book on page 15, in the original document book which the Tribunal have. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
QNow, I give you the document book. If you want to see the original, you may do so in every case.
"For fourteen years", you say," we have been repeating in Germany 'German people, learn to recognize your true enemy', and the German simpletons listened carefully and then declared that we preached religious hatred. 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 extortioner 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 murderer," Is it right that for fourteen years you had been repeating in Germany "German people, learn to recognize your true enemy"?
AI would like to state that what you gave me here has nothing to do with it. You gave me a -
THE PRESIDENT: You are asked a question. You are asked who there it 29th April - M - GH -11a - 1 is true that for fourteen years you had been repeating to Germans "Learn to recognize your true enemy."
Is that true?
THE WITNESS:That I did, yes. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
QAnd in doing so, is it true that you had been preaching religious hatred?
ANo.
QWill you look at -
ACan I be permitted to make a statement concerning that answer? In my weekly "Der Stuermer" I have repeatedly stated that for me the Jews are not a religious group but a race, a people.
QAnd do you think to call them "blood-suckers, a nation of bloodsuckers and extortioners" -- de you think that's preaching hatred?
AI beg your pardon. I have to say I did not quite understand it.
QYou may call them a race or a nation, whichever you like, now, but you were saying on the 1st April, 1933, that they were a "nation of blood suckers and extortioners."
Do you call that preaching hatred?
AThat is a statement of facts, an egression of a conviction which can be proved on the basis of historical facts.
QUnderstand me. I did not ask you whether or not it was a fact; I asked you whether you called it preaching hatred. Your answer is yes or no.
ANo, it's not preaching hatred; it's just a statement of facts.
QWill you look two pages further on in that last exhibit M-33, and do you see the fourth paragraph from the end of the extract? That is page 17 of the document book.
"So long as I stand at the head of the struggle, this struggle will be conducted so thoroughly that the external Jew will deprive no joy from it."
AThat I wrote: that was right.
QAnd you were, were you not, one of those who did stand and continue to stand at the head of that struggle?
AAt the head? Whether I stood at the head? Oh, It to modest. But I assume that clearly and frankly I spoke about my convictions and about my knowledge.
29th April - M - GH - 11a - 2
QWhy did you say that so long as you were at the head of it, the Jew will deprive no joy from it?
ABecause I considered myself as a man whom fate had led in such a way that he is in a position to enlighten people about the Jewish question.
QAnd "enlightenment", is that another word for persecution? Do you mean by "enlightenment" persecution?
AI did not understand that.
QDo you mean by "enlightenment" the word " persecution"? Is that why the Jew was to have no joy from it, from your enlightenment?
ASo as to avoid a misunderstanding, I have to say that I was beaten in Freising so much and for days without clothes that I have lost forty per cent of my hearing capacity and people are laughing when I ask. I can't help it that I was treated like that. Therefore, I ask to hear the question again.
QI can show it to you and we'll repeat the question as loudly as you want it. Do you mean by "enlightenment" the word "persecution"? Do you hear that?
AEnlightenment? I understand and mean by "enlightenment" to tell to another person something which he does not yet know.
QWe 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 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 fined a billion marks after that; they were forced to wear a yellow star; they had their own separate seats to sit on; and they had their houses and their business taken away from them. Do you call that enlightenment?
AThat has nothing to do with what I wrote. I did not give the orders.
I did not make the laws. I was not asked when laws were prepared. I had nothing to do with these laws and orders.
QBut 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; isn't that a fact?
A I ask to be put up to me which law I have applauded.
29th April - M - GH - 11a - 3
QNow, you told the Tribunal yesterday, did you not, that you were responsible, you thought, for the Nurnberg decrees which you had been advocating for years before they came into force; isn't that a fact?
AThe Nurnberg laws? I did not make them. I was not asked before, and I have not signed them. But I state here that these laws are that which the Jewish people have for themselves as law. It is the greatest act of legislation which at any time any modern nation has made for her own protection.
QI don't propose to-
THE PRESIDENT:I think that is the time to break off.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 April 1946, 1400-1700, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-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 our outstanding points at any time that is suitable to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
JULIUS STREICHER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY LT.
COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
QNow, I just want to ask you a few questions as to the part you played in the various actions taken 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, M-6, which is already GB-170.
Now, I just want to refer to what you said about the Nu ernberg Decrees. You told us this morning that you thought when they had been passed that that was already the final solution of the Jewish question. Will you look at the paragraph beginning in the center of the page "However, to these who believe"?
"However, to those who believe that the Jewish question has been finally solved and the matter thus settled for Germany by the Nuernberg 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 their very existence is at stake. The work of enlightenment carried on by the Party seems to me to be more than ever necessary today, when even many Party members seem to think that these matters are no longer real or urgent."
AYes, yes, I have written that.
QWhat do you mean by saying the battle continues if you have already solved the Jewish problem by the issuance of the Nuernberg 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, in the country and then internationally.
In other words "the battle continues" means in the anti-Semitic Union and the International Union, which I had formed which had representatives from all countries on it, the place where it was discussed, what could be done internationally to terminate the Jewish problem.
QAre we, therefore, to take it that everything you have said and wrote after 1936 was in connection with an international problem and had nothing to do with the Jews in Germany as such.
AYes, of course, in the main, international, of course.
QLet me just refer you to half way through the next paragraph:
"The 'Stuermer's' 15 years of work of enlightenment has already led an army of those who know, millions strong, to National Socialism."
Is that so?
AThat is correct.
QYou see, you were telling the Tribunal this morning that up until 1933, and indeed afterwards, the circulation of your paper was only very small. Is it true, in fact, that your 15 years of work had led an army, millions strong, to National Socialism?
AI have said today that the moment the press was coordinated, there were 3,000 newspapers serving the purpose of enlightening about the Jewish problem. There were 3,000 daily papers of the size of "Der Stuermer."
Furthermore -
QVery well. I don't think you need go on. Let me just finish reading through that paragraph:
"The continued work of the 'Stuermer' will help to insure that every German down to the last man 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?
AYes. That article? Yes. If that article was read abroad, then of course I was also talking to countries abroad, but 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 Nurnberg, which you have told a about, on the 10th of 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. Tac "Fraenkische Tageszeitung" of the 11th of August states this:
"In Nuernberg the synagogue is being demolished. Julius Streicher himself in his greatest work by speech, lasting more than an hour and a half" -- were you talking to the inhabitants of Nuernberg upon the architectural value of their city for an hour and a half on the 10th of August 1938?
AI cannot longer recollect in detail what I have said, but I refer to what you have just remarked, and what is important, or what I found important, is that there was a branch of the Propaganda Ministry in Nuernberg. The chief had press conferences with the editors every day, and at that time during the press conferences he told the editors that Streicher was speaking 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 Nurnberg and not against the Jews?
Is that what you are telling us?
AThat, tool; of course, that too.
QAt the press conference, to which you referred -- you no doubt have seen the document; it is page 40 of the Tribunal's document book -- you remember that it was arranged 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?
AI was merely speaking -- what you are hinting here, that was done by the representative of the Ministry of Propaganda but I wouldn't object to it, if you decided to assume, to let me put it like that, that I was in the interest of making a big show if I had been asked.
QLet me just ask you now a word about the demonstrations which followed that in November of that year.
LT. COL.GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I refer to page 43 of the document book; 42 of the German. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES:
QAs 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?
AYes, it is correct.
QI just want to remind you of what you said on the following day, the 10th of November. This is an account of what happened: "In Nurnberg and Furth, it described the demonstrations by the crowd against the Jewish murders. 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 has reached its peak and the large crowd marched to the synagogue in Nurnberg and Furth and burned those two Jewish buildings where the murder of Germans had been preached." That is what happened.
This is now what you say.
LT. COLONELGRIFFITH-JONES: It is on page 44 of the document book, my Lord.
BY LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES:
Q "From the cradle, the Jew is not being taught like we are. Such text as 'Thou shall love your neighbor as they self' or 'If you are smitten on the left cheek offer then your right one'. No. He is told 'With the non-Jew you can do whatever you like.' He is even taught the slaughtering of a non-Jew is an act pleasing to God. For twenty years we have been writing about this in 'Der Stuermer.' For twenty years we have been preaching it throughout the world and we have made millions recognize the truth."
Does that sound as though you had disapproved of the demonstrations that had taken place the night before?
AFirst of all, I must state that the report, part of which you read, was appearing in a daily paper; therefore, it is a possibility that someone wrote that parts of the Nation arose against the murders and, then, that is in keeping with the order for the Propaganda Ministry in Berlin -- But to start with, that was described as a spontaneous demonstration.
QThat 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?
AI was against that demonstration.
QJust 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 to belong 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 were not persecuting them?
AI have already pointed out today that I was forced, after this demonstration had taken place, to define my attitude in public and say one should not have so much pity, and want to prove that this was a spontaneous action by the people; in other words, the whole thing is not against me, it is for me. The people like I, myself, were opposed to demonstrations and I found that I had cause to -- should I say -- get the public opinion to the point where one might possibly not regard that action as anything too severe.
QBut, 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 favor of that kind of thing?
Why were you opposed to it and why should you try to convert them against the Jew?
AI don't quite understand.
QI understand you to say that you were opposed to these demonstrations.
A yes.
QAnd that the people also were opposed to the demonstrations and that, therefore, it was your duty to try and stir them up and make them in favor of the demonstrations after they had happened; why should it have been your duty to do that?
AToday, you can possibly say that this or that might have been my duty -- if you put yourself into a situation at the time -- this muddle -- and to come to a quick conclusion, as one might have to in this courtroom, that was quite impossible; what happened has happened. I was against it and the public opinion, too. What was written about it afterwards, that was done for tactical reasons.
QVery well. Were you in favor of the aryanization of Jewish houses and businesses? Were in favor of that or did you disapprove of that issue?
AI have said today in great detail, in connection to a statement of Partymember Holz, what my answer to that question is; I have stated it and I am repeating that -
Q. Just 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 aryanization of Jewish businesses and houses?
A.You cannot answer that quickly with yes or no. I have made it clear today, and you will have to allow me, that I tell you just the same again so that there isn't any misunderstanding. My Party member Holz ---
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 want to answer it.
THE PRESIDENT:Defendant -
THE WITNESS:After the Party member 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 was not for the aryanization. When Holz repeated that the houses had been pretty badly knocked about, that we might get finances for a Fau District building, I said "all right, if you can do it, go ahead." I already stated today, that there was negligence on his party. BY LT. COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES:
Q.There were in fact a very great number of Jewish businesses and houses aryanized in Nurnberg and Franconia, were there not?
A.Yes.
Q.Would you just look at a new exhibit, D-835, which becomes GB 330. That is a list -- it is an original document -- it is a list of Jewish property in Nurnberg and Furth which was aryanized. Have you seen that list or anything like it before?
A.No.
Q.Well, you can take it from me, that that list contains the addresses of some eight hundred properties in Nurnberg and Furth which had been taken from the Jews and handed over to aryans. Would you agree that that would be at least eight hundred houses in your city here that were aryanized?
A. I don't know about it. I don't know the details, but I must make a statement.
I don't know whether there is ever to be found a statement -- I have already stated today that my Party fellow member Holz started to aryanize.
That was rescinded from Berlin and then came the aryanization carried out by the state. I wouldn't have had any influence in that connection, so that this is not my affair at all. This aryanization was ordered, you see, from Berlin; the taking way, I mean, of Jewish property.
Q.Now, you mentioned this morning that you were a subscriber to a weekly newspaper called "Das Israelitische Wochenblatt"; is that correct?
A.Yes.
Q.When did you start subscribing to that newspaper?
A.What did you say?
Q.On what date did you start subscribing to that newspaper?
A.I don't know.
Q.Well, I have no doubt you can tell the Tribunal approximately. Have you always, since 1933, been a subscriber of that newspaper?
A.Well, I don't think I would have read every edition. I travelled a great deal.
Q.You were, as I think this application of your wife to give evidence states, a regular reader of it, were you not?
A.My editors and I used to share reading this.
Q.May I take it, that between yourself and your editors -- I don't say every copy was read, but it was regularly read from 1933 onwards; is that fair?
A.You cannot say "read regularly."
Q.A large number of the copies that you subscribed for, which came weekly to you, were they read by yourself or by your editors?
A.Certainly.