Julius Streicher

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 04 Aug 2008 01:23

sure.heydrich and himmler , didn't kill anybody, either.they only make, sort of suggestions.so, they are also only symbols of crime
The difference between Himmler and Heydrich on the one hand and Streicher on the other is that the former were heads of executive organisations that were bound to obey their orders. Accordingly, Himmler and Heydrich were responsible for the actions of the organisations under their command, since those actions were a response to the orders issued by the two men.

By contrast, Streicher did not have any power to command an executive organisation. Nobody was obliged by law or regulation to obey him, or even listen to him. He was simply the editor of a newspaper which, while it appealed to many on the lower levels of German society, was regarded as a scurrilous rag by the people at the top of the National Socialist German State. By the time the war broke out, Streicher had been dismissed from his post as Gauleiter of Franconia due to his corruption and scandalous conduct. True, he was a member of the Reichstag, but that body no longer had any real power, simply being a rubber stamp.

Both Himmler and Heydrich had official powers to authorise killing on a grand scale. In October 1939, Himmler was given the power by Hitler to undertake any action deemed necessary against any population group considered to pose a threat to the German people. At the same time, Heydrich, as head of the RSHA, was given the sole power to authorise "Sonderbehandlung", that is the summary execution of a person or group of persons without any judicial procedure. Streicher had no such powers.

Here is an example of the powers exercised by Himmler and Heydrich. It is documented that the Reichsstatthalter of Reichsgau Wartheland, Arthur Greiser, at an unknown time, probably in October 1941, applied to Himmler and Heydrich for permission to administer "Sonderbehandlung" to 100,000 Jews of his Gau (that is, about one-third of the total number of the 300,000 Jews living there). Greiser made that application because Himmler and Heydrich were the persons with the supreme authority to make such life and death decisions. If Himmler and Heydrich had not given their permission, those 100,000 Polish Jews would not have been killed. But they did give their permission, and those Jews were killed at the extermination camp Chelmno, beginning in January 1942. Accordingly, Himler and Heydrich bear ultimate responsibility for those deaths, even though the actual killing was performed by a Security Police commando under Lange and then Bothmann. Streicher never at any time had the power to issue such authorisations to kill.

Here is what is said about Streicher by Randall Bytwerk, in his book "Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Stürmer":

Page 30:
Despite Streicher's activity as a speaker, journalist, and politician, he was not a particularly influential Nazi after 1925. Increasingly Hitler turned to cleverer men like Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Göring instead of reliable but less capable men like Streicher. Hitler realised well enough that Streicher simply was not very bright. Nonetheless, Streicher's limited abilities were used. Hitler made Nuremberg the site of party rallies in 1927 and 1929, partly because Nuremberg was a city rich in tradition, partly because it was a Nazi stronghold with Julius Streicher there to arrange details. In 1932 Streicher was elected to the Reichstag, the national legislature. And his newspaper gained increasing national circulation as Nazism grew.
Again on page 116:
Since Streicher's image of the Jews was so unflattering, it is amazing to find that Hitler accused him of underestimating Jewish depravity. "Streicher is reproached for his Stürmer", Hitler told his inner circle. "The truth is the opposite of what people say. The Jews is baser, fiercer, more diabolical than Streicher depicted him". What Hitler probably meant is that Streicher's caricature of the Jew was adequate only for the broad masses. Streicher assailed the visible Jew, the one who approached the stereotype, while the deadlier foe was the Jew who blended in, who could carry out his evil undetected. The higher SS leaders also held to a more "bloodless anti-Semitism", more refined, less vulgar, but also more deadly. For the masses to whom Streicher appealed, his rhetoric was appropriate. Those who rejected his brand of anti-Semitism could if they wished find less blatant Jew-baiters in the Third Reich (my emphasis).
What the above quote shows is that Streicher did not really influence the men at the top who made the decisions about the fate of the Jews. Their attitude to the Jews was derived from other sources, not from Streicher's vulgar fanaticism.

As for the claim by the British prosecutor that "without him,the Kaltenbrunners,the Himmlers, the general Stroops would have had nobody to carry out their orders" is simply ludicrous, and the prosecutor must surely have been intelligent enough to realise that. What gave Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and Stroop their power to demand that other men carry out their orders was the legal structure of the state, which required members of military and police formations to execute the orders given to them. The German military tradition of obedience to orders also played a role in enabling those three men to get others to do the killing. Nor can it be argued that the men who joined the police formations commanded by Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and Stroop were induced to do so by Streicher's journalistic activities; there is no evidence to show that such was the case, and indeed the SS specifically rejected Streicher's brand of vulgar anti-Semitism.

User avatar
Simon K
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: 19 Jul 2008 19:25
Location: London U.K

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Simon K » 04 Aug 2008 02:14

Again and again you attempt rationality,attributing power structures and chains of command to the responsibility.
How rational was the ancient European manipulation of the population to fear Jews by those very chains of command?Very. Except they were the church, the narrow christian elites. How did they spread their excrement? By wandering "holy" men, hectoring the population on market days if someones rabbit had died! By crude anti semitic doggerel, by the passion plays of the period (I believe the Obergrammagau example was particularly notorious) in short,by all the 14th or 15th or 12th C Julius Steichers of their time.
The elites and the bourgeious rabble worked hand in glove,as they did in NAZI Germany.
The King or whoever did not have to stand up and say "kill the Jews" Thats what the message carriers were for.
They were a cohesive unit,and thus were equally guilty of the crime.
Rationality and NAZI Germany dont mix.

paratatruc
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 19:24
Location: Paris

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by paratatruc » 04 Aug 2008 23:12

Michael Mills wrote

Code: Select all

[quote]Since Streicher's image of the Jews was so unflattering, it is amazing to find that Hitler accused him of underestimating Jewish depravity. "Streicher is reproached for his Stürmer", Hitler told his inner circle. "The truth is the opposite of what people say. The Jews is baser, fiercer, more diabolical than Streicher depicted him". What Hitler probably meant is that Streicher's caricature of the Jew was adequate only for the broad masses. Streicher assailed the visible Jew, the one who approached the stereotype, while the deadlier foe was the Jew who blended in, who could carry out his evil undetected. The higher SS leaders also held to a more "bloodless anti-Semitism", more refined, less vulgar, but also more deadly. For the masses to whom Streicher appealed, his rhetoric was appropriate. Those who rejected his brand of anti-Semitism could if they wished find less blatant Jew-baiters in the Third Reich (my emphasis).


What the above quote shows is that Streicher did not really influence the men at the top who made the decisions about the fate of the Jews. Their attitude to the Jews was derived from other sources, not from Streicher's vulgar fanaticism.

As for the claim by the British prosecutor that "without him,the Kaltenbrunners,the Himmlers, the general Stroops would have had nobody to carry out their orders" is simply ludicrous, and the prosecutor must surely have been intelligent enough to realise that. What gave Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and Stroop their power to demand that other men carry out their orders was the legal structure of the state, which required members of military and police formations to execute the orders given to them. The German military tradition of obedience to orders also played a role in enabling those three men to get others to do the killing. Nor can it be argued that the men who joined the police formations commanded by Himmler, Kaltenbrunner and Stroop were induced to do so by Streicher's journalistic activities; there is no evidence to show that such was the case, and indeed the SS specifically rejected Streicher's brand of vulgar anti-Semitism.[quote][/quote][/quote]
I have no doubts that "Der Strumer" didn't influence the decision of anyone who took part to the Wansee
conference.

Would you say the same about the commun german soldier or policeman shooting a child in the street,
a banal event in polland's ghetto?

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Re: Ehrenburg

Post by Panzermahn » 11 Dec 2010 15:24

It is not true that Ehrenburg articles some of which were translated into the English language, were received with approval everywhere in Great Britain and the USA. In 1945, for example, a well-known New York magazine called for a protest against the "cruelty of Soviet writers such as Alexei Tolstoy and Ilya Ehrenburg". On October 26 and November 23, 1944, Ehrenburg was publicly compelled to reply to a Lady Gibb, of Great Britain, who had written to him as follows:

"You call forth a very, very old evil in the hearts of the Russian people, i.e., the desire for revenge after the victory has been won. This old, old evil...brings the victors no blessings..We are very anxious to see you place your great talents in the service of Russia on behalf of a just and lasting peace, which can never be based on self-righteousness and the lust for revenge [26]"

Note 25: Soviet War News, 1.2.1945, 26.10.1944, 23.11.1944

Soviet propaganda, which at this time was already quite busy defending enormous Soviet territorial acquisitions, began to put massive pressure upon Lady Gibb, in an attempt to nip any impulse of justice and humanity in the bud. Ehrenburg answered in the hate-filled tones of an "unhuman", quoting from the alleged letter of a Lieutenant Zinchenko, who said to have written in schok: " My mother is religious too, and in the name of religion she asks, 'kill the Germans with my blessings.'" One must not pity a wild east," said Ehrenburg, "rather, one must destroy it...that is the opinion of our people, dear Lady"
Page 159-160, Stalin's War of Extermination (2001), Joachim Hoffmann


Regarding the "Kill" theme propagated by Ehrenburg, here is what Dr. Hoffmann stated
"Shoot to kill, Comrade!" he incited Red Army members on July 31, 1941 and on February 10, 1942: "You are ordered to kill them--put them under the ground!" Similarly, on March 16, 1944: "Kill the Germans!" Ehrenburg claimed on January 14, 1942: "A farmer's wife with a friendly Russian face told me [about a German soldier]: 'They are afraid to go to the front. One of them cried. He said to me: 'Pray for me, little Mother!' and pointed to the icon. And I really prayed for him. 'May you be killed, you devil!'"[29] "Even the old people," said Ehrenburg, "have just a single wish: 'Kill the whole heap of them!'" On March 11, 1942, he praised a young tank crewman who could no longer even say how many Germans he had killed: "His words," in Ehrenburg's opinions, "are typical of the modesty and strength of an artists who had just completed a great painting." Ehrenburg reiterated on March 30, 1942: "Our answer is the blood of invaders! In winter, it melts the eternal snow. In summer, it will drench the dry ground." Ehrenburg found innumerable new ways in which to propagate his murder lust:

"The Germans must be killed. One must kill them...Do you feel sick? Do you feel a nightmare in your breast? Kill a German! Do you want to get home faster? Kill a German! If you are righteous and conscientious man---kill a German!...Kill!"

A colonel described to him what happened to the German defenders when Soviet troops reached the fortress installations at Brest: "Inside the installations, we killed them, stabbed them and slaughtered them (...bili, kololi, rezali)!" Another Ehrenurg quote:

"The viper's nest must be trampled. We wish to march through Germany with swords...and when it is intolerably hard for me, as it is for you, I think of the beautiful word: Stalin!"

"We are exterminating this tribe [the Germans]...[etu porodu my unictozaem]," wrote Ehrenburg on October 25, 1942. "The Germans are not human beings," he claimed in his notorious proclaimation "Ubej!" (Kill!) written during the same period, widely distributed among Soviet troops, and repeatedly hammered into the heads of all Soviet soldiers:

"From now on, the word 'German' is the worst curse. From now on, the word 'German' will only cause us to empty the magazine of our weapon. We have nothing to discuss. We will not get excited. We will kill. If you have not killed at least one German in the course of a day, then that day has been wasted for you. If you believe your neighbour will kill the German instead of you, then you gave not recognized the danger. If you fail to kill a German, he will kill you. He will arrest your family, and torture them in his cursed Germany. If you cannot kill a German with a bullet, then kill him with your bayonet. If your section is quiet and there is no fighting, then kill a German before battle. If you permit the Germans to live, the Germans will hang the Russian men and rape the Russian women. If you have already killed a German, then kill a second one---to us, there is nothing more joyous than German corpses. Don't count the days. Don't count the kilometers. Count only one thing: the GErmans you have killed! Kill the Germans! Your aged mother begs this of you. Kill the Germans! Your children beg this of you. Kill the Germans! The earth of your homeland calls out to you. Don't fail! Don't make a mistake! Kill!"[30]

Note 29: Ehrenburg, Russia at War pp 241f
Note 30: Ehrenburg, "Ubej!" 1942, author's archive: see also Buchbender, Das toenende Erz, Document 8, Zayas, Die Wehrmacht Untersuchungstelle, p. 434
What's the difference between Ilya Ehrenburg and Julius Streicher? The former is with the victors whereas the latter sits at the dock of Nuremberg

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Ehrenburg

Post by David Thompson » 11 Dec 2010 16:48

Panzermahn -- You asked:
What's the difference between Ilya Ehrenburg and Julius Streicher?

See the discussion at:

Julius Streicher
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27013

PFLB
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 10:21

Re: Ehrenburg

Post by PFLB » 11 Dec 2010 17:25

The IMT found that Streicher was appraised of the fact that the crimes which he called for were actually in the process of execution according to a common plan devised by the Nazi leadership: see Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1947) vol 1 p 300 - 301. That is why his propaganda implicated him in said plan and crimes.

In the Ministries Case Otto Dietrich was convicted of the same crimes on the same basis. But he was acquitted of the killing of downed Allied pilots because although he issued directives that such lynchings were not to be reported, he was not shown to have had knowledge of a plan or program to instigate such lynchings: see Trials of War Criminals before the Nuefrnberg Military Tribunals (Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1951) vol 14 p 572 - 576.

Applying the same standard to Ehrenburg, one could not say he was an accomplice to war crimes committed by Soviet troops unless he was aware of a plan to instigate such crimes and knowingly acted in furtherance of said plan. It may well be the case that such facts existed. But it is not enough to merely show that he had horrible ideas or expressed them in vitriolic form. That makes him a nasty person but not a war criminal.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Ehrenburg

Post by michael mills » 12 Dec 2010 01:32

Applying the same standard to Ehrenburg, one could not say he was an accomplice to war crimes committed by Soviet troops unless he was aware of a plan to instigate such crimes and knowingly acted in furtherance of said plan. It may well be the case that such facts existed. But it is not enough to merely show that he had horrible ideas or expressed them in vitriolic form. That makes him a nasty person but not a war criminal.
This seems to me to be legalistic pettifogging.

The issue should be whether, when Erenburg broadcast statements such as "ubei nemtsov" (kill the Germans) or "etu porodu my unichtozhaem" (we are exterminating this race [of animals]), he intended the Soviet soldiers who heard his broadcasts to act on his words, to go out and exterminate the German race in whole or in part. If Soviet soldiers did act on his words, then he was surely responsible for incitement to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Whether or not there was a plan conceived by Stalin or other Soviet leaders to instigate war crimes by members of the armed forces under their command is really irrelevant. In fact, if there was not such a plan, then Erenburg's responsibility may be considered even greater, since he was not obeying orders but acting solely according to his own will and desire.

So far is known, Stalin did not specifically order the troops under his command to commit war crimes such as murder, rape and pillage. Rather he gave them carte blanche to do whatever they liked. He certainly knew what his troops were doing (not only to Germans, but also to Poles and other peoples), and openly stated in conversations with people like Djilas that he had no intention of stopping them, regarding their actions as justified and permissible, as just a "bit of fun".

Furthermore, there is no indication that Stalin gave instructions to Erenburg on the line he was to take in anti-German propaganda. Rather, he gave Erenburg carte blanche to say whatever he liked; thus the violence and bloodthirstiness of Erenburg's broadcasts and writings were entirely a reflection of his own character, not the reciting of a script placed before him.

There is another difference between Streicher and Erenburg. In the case of the former, there is no demonstrable causal connection between the words he published in his newspaper and the actions of the German units who perpetrated mass murder. Indeed, the very opposite; all the SS leaders regarded Streicher with disdain, and expressly rejected the sort of emotional, sexually-based anti-Semitism propagated by him.

In the case of Erenburg, he was extremely popular with the Soviet soldiery, as is shown by the letters received from Red Army men commenting on his broadcasts. It is obvious that Soviet soldiers were greatly influenced by what he said, and agreed with his calls to be ruthless toward the German enemy. When Erenburg was disavowed by Stalin in April 1945, because his violent anti-German propaganda was becoming counter-productive, there was great disappointment expressed by the Soviet soldiery.

Thus, there is much greater evidence of a causal connection between the words spoken by Erenburg and the actions of the Soviet soldiers who heard those words than there is of a causal connection between the words of Streicher and the actions of German security forces who committed mass murder.

PFLB
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 10:21

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 12 Dec 2010 05:08

This seems to me to be legalistic pettifogging.

Apparently you believe that every comment on the legal question of whether or not someone is guilty of a crime is 'legalistic pettifogging'. In future, you are welcome to save your keystrokes because I will assume that this is your opinion.

Ordinarily an instigator is responsible for a crime only if it is shown that his actions were a substantial contributing factor in the offence. That is the position of current international courts, itself derived from decisions of courts trying cases after World War Two. Most importantly, an instigator can't be liable for a crime committed by an 'omnimodo facturus', that is, a person who has in any case elected to commit a crime: Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (2008) p 218 - 219. According to these principles, contributing to a general climate of hatred does not constitute instigation of every offence occurring in that context - the obvious application of this idea is the ICTR Appeal Case Nahimana et al.

It might be assumed that th necessary connection existed with respect to at least a portion of the crimes committed by Red Army soldiers, and hence that Ehrenburg was a war criminal. But it would be impossible to prove in respect of any particular crime except by obtaining information from the perpetrator as to their state of mind of at the time i.e. whether as you say they 'did act on his words'. The alternative is to assume that Ehrenburg's conduct substantially contributed to every offence committed by Red Army soldiers. In view of his geographical, temporal and structural remoteness from the physical act of perpetration, such an assumption would be as ridiculous as assuming that every participant in the Holocaust had Streicher's propaganda in mind when they carried out their appointed role.

However, such a direct causal link can be done away with where it is shown that a whole litany of crimes resulted from some sort of planned collective action to which the accused intentionally contributed - that is the concept of 'common purpose' or what is now in modified form called 'joint criminal enterprise': Tadic Appeal Judgment, IT-94-1-A, ICTY Appeals Chamber, para 228 - 229. Hence Streicher could be convicted without proof that his actions caused the commission of any specific offence. The fact that he was disliked by others involved in same joint venture is really neither here nor there because the crux of the theory is common intent to offend not ideological solidarity or friendship.

The only cases in which instigation has been punished in the absence of any proven causal link to an offence have dealt with military commanders issuing orders for the commission of an offence, and those engaging in direct and public incitement to commit genocide (which would in any case encompass the actions of any modern-day Streicher): Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol 15, p 133. The legislation in place in some countries is broader. For example, under American law, the solicitation of a war crime is also a war crime, regardless of whether the crime solicited is attempted or committed: 18 US Code section 1802(30). Such a provision would arguably capture Ehrenburg, but it is not clear that it represents international law extant during World War Two.
Last edited by PFLB on 12 Dec 2010 07:17, edited 13 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 12 Dec 2010 05:22

This seems to me to be legalistic pettifogging.
Taking pride in ignorance is a poor argument.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 13 Dec 2010 01:08

However, such a direct causal link can be done away with where it is shown that a whole litany of crimes resulted from some sort of planned collective action to which the accused intentionally contributed
The problem with that argument is that at the time the "collective action" was planned, Streicher was not part of the group of persons holding executive power who planned that action.

There is nothing to indicate that Streicher had any offical knowledge of the "planned collective action", or that he was asked to contribute towards it in the form of making propaganda in support of it.

So far as is known, the only knowledge that Streicher had of the "planned collective action" was unofficial reports he received from his journalists who had visited the front and witnessed or heard of the plan being executed; in that respect Streicher was no different from a large number of other private citizens in Germany.

Once Streicher had become aware of the ongoing execution of the "collective action" by a group of persons of which he was not part, he openly expressed his approval of that action. But expressing approval of a "collective action" that is underway is a far cry from actually contributing to it. His published statements revealing and approving of the execution of the "planned collective action" were no different from Erenburg's published statement that the members of the Red Army were in the process of "exterminating that breed", ie the Germans, likewise implying approval; whether there was in the cases of both Streicher and Erenburg a causal relationship between their public expressions of approval of actions and the actions themselves remains unproved.

To claim that Streicher "intentionally contributed" to the "planned collective action" implies that his actions, ie the words he published in his newspaper, facilitated either the planning or the execution of the action in a material way, such that without such contribution the action could not have proceeded or not have proceeded as well as it did. However, there are no historical data to show that the "planned collective action" was in any way affected by the words published by Streicher; there is no reason to doubt that the action would have been implemented to the full in the way that it actually was even if Streicher had ceased to publish his newspaper at the beginning of the war and nothing had been heard from him during its course.

Here is what is written about the judgement of Streicher in the book "The Nuremberg Trial" by Ann Tusa and John Tusa:

Page 457:
The judges' verdict on streicher was reached without much difficulty, although there was some debate over which counts he should be convicted on. Biddle argued indignantly that it was 'preposterous' to call Streicher a conspirator just because he was 'a little Jew-baiter' and a temporary friend of Hitler. Lawrence accused Biddle of bad manners and Parker had to soothe everyone down. What the judges failed to debate, however, was the fundamental question of whether Streicher's words could be linked directly with others' deeds. This issue worried one of the American aides. He remembered finding the case troublesome - Streicher might be a beastly man, but he had never actually killed anyone himself. This issue has bothered others since. There is a suspicion that Streicher was not judged strictly on the law but on the physical and moral revulsion he evoked. He was turned into the embodiment of Nazism [my emphasis]. Not everyone felt these qualms at the time. Maxwell-Fyfe at a British prosecutors' meeting in June had expressed the opinion that Streicher should be hanged as an accessory before the fact and as a murderer under Count Four. Another American aide tok the view that Streicher could not escape responsibility for the death of six million Jews even if the exact nature of his responsibility could not be pinned down. At the very least he had been 'an aider and abetter' and could be compared (perhaps only by Americans) to the cheerleader who 'by his continual goading of the crowd to frwnzied excitement.....is a key personality in his team's success'. The judges must have shared his view. They never doubted that Streicher must be sentenced to death.
What I mean by "legalistic pettifogging" is the "massaging" of codified law in order to justify a desired result. It is clear that that was the underlying reason for the judgement on Streicher; it was desired to punish him as the "embodiment of Nazism" (or at least of its anti-Semitic component), and legalistic arguments were cooked up to justify the judgement made on the basis of that desire, even though there was no demonstrable causal link between his words and any warcrime or crime against humanity.

In summary, I refer back to my post of 4 August 2008 above, which reveals the historical reality of Streicher; a man who during the war was a private citizen without any executive power, and without any personal influence on the group of men who planned and executed the Final Solution.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 13 Dec 2010 03:15

Michael -- You wrote:
What I mean by "legalistic pettifogging" is the "massaging" of codified law in order to justify a desired result.
That's called "judicial murder." "Pettifogging" is something entirely different:
pettifogger (plural pettifoggers)

1.Someone who quibbles over trivia, and raises petty, annoying objections.
2.An unscrupulous or unethical lawyer, especially one of lesser skill.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pettifogger
to pettifog (third-person singular simple present pettifogs, present participle pettifogging, simple past and past participle pettifogged)

1.To quibble over trivial matters; nitpick
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pettifog
pettifoggery (plural pettifoggeries)

1.The actions of a pettifogger; a trivial quarrel.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pettifoggery

For interested readers -- The IMT judgment against Streicher, and the reasons for it, can be seen on p. 2 of this thread, at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 16#p240416

PFLB
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 10:21

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 13 Dec 2010 04:59

Michael, the highlighted passage you refer to states that one of the aides involved in the deliberations of the Tribunal had a 'suspicion' that Streicher was being convicted on the basis of his beliefs. Yet the same passage also states that others viewed him as either an accessory before the fact or an aider and abettor. So it seems to me that your source evinces only dissension, not some conspiracy to twist the law to obtain a conviction.

As to the issue of causation, that to me seems to be an intractable difference of opinion. But whether or not Streicher held an executive position or obtained his knowledge from people in other such positions isn't decisive, because it is well accepted that a person can implicate themselves in the crimes of others, including in collective crimes, without all the others desiring, consenting to or knowing of their involvement: see e.g. Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (2008) 214 - 218.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 13 Dec 2010 09:03

.....conspiracy to twist the law to obtain a conviction.
No conspiracy, just a firm impression in the minds of the judges, and of the Allied officials who selected Streicher as a "Major War Criminal", that Streicher embodied in his person the anti-Semitic essence of National Socialism, and therefore was in some indefinable way responsible for the crimes resulting from that anti-Semitic essence.

It appears that Biddle was able at one point to glimpse the truth, that Streicher was just a "little Jew-baiter". But that was not enough to overcome the pre-existing image of Streicher as the embodiment of Nazi anti-Semitism and the crimes it had resulted in. The impression is that the judges firmly believed that Streicher deserved death because of what he was, the supreme anti-Semite, and sought for legal reasons to justify that decision, reasons that were not entirely convincing.

PFLB
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 10:21

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 13 Dec 2010 11:31

Well michael the fact that the members of the IMT could not agree on a precise characterisation of Streicher's guilt is not particularly surprising to me. During the preliminary governmental discussions on a possible trial of major war criminals, it was remarked by various officials that it would be problematic to fit said criminals neatly into traditional categories of offender familiar to domestic lawyers. A further problem was the difficulty of combining concepts from different legal systems. In the end the drafters of the IMT Charter simply combined all of such concepts into the omnibus 'common plan or conspiracy' provision in Article 6, the gist of which was to enact the 'common purpose' doctrine to which I have referred. Perhaps not an ideal approach but still one which is employed in some legal systems.
Last edited by PFLB on 13 Dec 2010 11:36, edited 2 times in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23572
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 13 Dec 2010 19:04

The posts discussing whether the words of Ilya Ehrenburg were properly translated have been moved to the Ehrenburg thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23999, since they don't pertain directly to Julius Streicher. Please post any comments dealing only with Ehrenburg in that thread.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”