Julius Streicher

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Penn44 » 30 Jul 2008 11:23

michael mills wrote:Furthermore, it is more likely than not that the average educated, middle-class German was turned off by the obscene nature of Streicher's publications, and was uninfluenced by them.
That remains to be "proved" by you.

Obviously, someone was reading Der Stürmer in Germany (see below). I am sure that some portion of those who read Der Stürmer accepted some or all of what was claimed within its pages.
The Nazi Labor Front(DAF) urged its members to subscribe to Der Stürmer, and the SS commander of the Death's Head Division urged his recruits to read it.
(Bold mine)
Joseph Wulf, Presse und Funk im Dritten Reich, p. 252 as cited in Claudia Koontz, The Nazi Conscience, pp. 238-9.
Most of its readers were young people and people from the lowest strata of German society. Copies of der Stürmer were displayed in prominent display cases throughout the Reich. In 1927, it sold about 27,000 copies every week; by 1935, its circulation had reached around 480,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
Hitler considered Streicher's ‘primitive methods’ to be effective in influencing the man on the street. He told a senior Nazi politician in the mid 1930s that:
"Anti-Semitism … was beyond question the most important weapon in his propagandist arsenal, and almost everywhere it was of deadly efficiency. That was why he had allowed Streicher, for example, a free hand. The man’s stuff, too, was amusing, and very cleverly done. Wherever, he wondered, did Streicher get his constant supply of new material? He, Hitler, was simply on thorns to see each new issue of the Stürmer. It was the one periodical that he always read with pleasure, from the first page to the last".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer
Der Stürmer Circulation: 1927-1938
Issue/Year Circulation
1927 14,000
1933 25,000
No. 6 (1934) 47,000
No.13 (1934) 49,000
No. 17 (1934) 50,000
No. 19 (1934) 60,000
No. 33 (1934) 80,000
No. 35 (1934) 94,114
No. 42 (1934) 113,800
No. 6 (1935) 132,897
No. 19 (1935) 202,600
No. 29 (1935) 286,400
No. 36 (1935) 410,600
No. 40 (1935) 486,000
No. 5 (1938) 473,000
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/faculty/streich3.htm
Nine special editions also were published after 1933, often timed to appear at the annual Nuremberg rally. These had themes such as ritual murder, Jewish criminality, the world Jewish conspiracy, Jewish sex crimes, and the Jews of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Print runs were as high as 2,000,000, and extensive national advertising was conducted.
The readership of the Stürmer was even larger than the circulation figures suggest, for thousands of elaborate display cases were built by loyal readers throughout Germany that displayed each week's issue. A journalism handbook published during the Nazi era claimed that such display cases were to be found everywhere in Germany, giving the paper an unprecedented readership.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/faculty/streich3.htm
If between three and five adults read each issue, the magazione reached no more than 2 or 3 million readers in a nation of 65 million.
Claudia Koontz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 237.

Long before CNN invited its viewers to submit videos of newsworthy events, Der Stürmer invited readers to submit reports of Jewish "crimes."
Der Stürmer editors created networks of antisemitic vigilantes who spied on their neighbors and searched municipal records for evidence of Jewish mischief. They created a virtual community among geographically far-flung individuals which anticipated the call-in radio programs and Internet chatrooms of a later generation.
Claudia Koontz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 231.
In his stolid anti-intellectualism, Streicher personalified the SA man. Instead of coiurting well-educated readers, he played the "bad boy of the Nazi movement ...
Claudia Koontz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 232.
According to the prosecution at Streiucher's Nuremberg trial, the tabloid on over fifty occasions called for elimination, murder, or annihilation of Jews.
Claudia Koontz, The Nazi Conscience, p. 232.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by tonyh » 30 Jul 2008 12:30

Der Stürmer Circulation: 1927-1938
Issue/Year Circulation
1927 14,000
1933 25,000
No. 6 (1934) 47,000
No.13 (1934) 49,000
No. 17 (1934) 50,000
No. 19 (1934) 60,000
No. 33 (1934) 80,000
No. 35 (1934) 94,114
No. 42 (1934) 113,800
No. 6 (1935) 132,897
No. 19 (1935) 202,600
No. 29 (1935) 286,400
No. 36 (1935) 410,600
No. 40 (1935) 486,000
No. 5 (1938) 473,000
So, as we can see, the zenith of "Der Sturmer" circulation in the 30's was issue no. 40 at 486,000 copies. That's not even 1% of the population of Germany. Hardly a widespread publication in a country that was/is pre-disposed to reading newspapers daily. Plus, that has to be coupled with the fact that probably not all the readers were

a. Taking it seriously

b. being swayed by any of its contents

c. regular readers

It's hardly what one could call a successful anti-semitic "primer" for those terribly stupid people we call the Germans.


Also, from that Wiki article...
Hermann Göring forbade the Stürmer in all of his departments, and Baldur von Schirach banned it as a means of education in the Hitlerjugend (HJ)-hostels and other HJ-education facilities by a "Reichsbefehl", i.e. Reich command (IMT vol. XIII/XIV).

Tony

kiseli
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: 03 Dec 2007 14:00

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by kiseli » 30 Jul 2008 14:05

Streicher was esteemed by academic circles engaged in the “scientific” development of antisemitism. He achieved his fame and influence as a result of his fanatical incitement against the Jews.In hundreds of articles in Der Stuermer and in his speeches,in which he portrayed the Jews as the devil, the enemies of humanity, inferior beings, and dangerous germs, Streicher demanded their total extermination. He organized the economic boycott of the Jews (April 1, 1933), and his sadistic depictions of Jews in Der Stuermer as “defilers of the race” prepared the ground for the *Nuremberg Laws (1935). Even before *Kristallnacht (1938), Streicher presided over the destruction of the Nuremberg synagogue, and on the morrow of the riots (Nov. 10, 1938) publicly justified it. He was sentenced to death under the Crimes Against Humanity clause for his part in the preparation of German public opinion to accept the “*Final Solution.”

Hitler appointed him Gauleiter of Franconia (1928–40). He was elected to the Reichstag, made a general in the SA (storm troops) in 1932, and was charged with organizing the annual party convention,the Nuremberg Rally.

According to Hans Fritzsche , reason for prohibition of "der sturmer",was political harm abroad. as goebbels said: "the only thing the enemy will have to do would be to photostat der sturmer"

Why he was in disfavor with certain party elements since 1940, but nevertheless regularly received greetings from Hitler and party support?
in his own word:
"I had a trial then and it took place right here in this same prison.I was supposed to have said something about ring's child-that it was artificially conceived or something.Göring was angry with me and he has his so-called Göring Commission investigate my activities as party district administrator (gauleiter) for franconia.there were some charges,which were never substantiated,that i purchased stocks and bonds illegally-stock which has been sized from jewish holder.it was true that i had certain stocks form jews in my possesssion for short time,but i had returned them to state after i found that i had been wrongly informed about my right to take them." :D :D :D

instead to go to park with sweets and waits for kids in bushes,as any other sexual pervert, he was in bond business :D

Bibliography:
L.W. Bondy, Racketeers of Hatred (1946);
E.Davidson, Trial of the Germans (1966), 39–58;
G.M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary (1947), 301–6;
R. Hilberg, Destruction of the European Jews (1961),

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Marcus » 30 Jul 2008 19:07

Several posts were removed pending review.

/Marcus

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 02 Aug 2008 03:24

Streicher was esteemed by academic circles engaged in the “scientific” development of antisemitism.
Kiseli,

Can you give some examples of Streicher's being esteemed by academic circles? Everything that I have read about him indicates that he was despised by almost everyone of consequence in Germany, due to his notorious reputation for sexual perversion and corruption.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Simon K » 02 Aug 2008 05:11

I think it would be more correct to say; "he was esteemed in pseudo-academic circles"
I think there is an error in regarding prejudice attempting to be science as somehow invested with "scientific virtues."
I think the Allies made just this type of intellectual misidentification with Streicher, and endowed him with far more importance than he merited.
I am not however, disputing the verdict in any way.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 02 Aug 2008 06:15

I am not however, disputing the verdict in any way.
Why not?

What actual deeds by him do you think constituted "crimes against humanity" as defined in the warrant for the IMT? In particular crimes against humanity committed between 1939 and 1945, the period to which the judges of the IMT decided to limit their jurisdiction.

He certainly preached hatred, but the uttering of words was not a crime against humanity, unless those words constituted an order issued to persons who were bound to obey the person issuing them, and that order resulted in a crime against humanity being committed.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Simon K » 02 Aug 2008 07:16

It entirely depends if one accepts the narrow interpretation of the prosecution case.
He was a radical,violent anti semite and a major opinion former of the Nazi media.
The whole Nazi state, was "a crime against humanity"
Ergo he was complicit in crimes against humanity by virtue of his active support for the regimes' crimes against the Jewish nation.
He admitted himself "insisted that he had never advocated the destruction or extermination of the Jews until the year 1942, when he began to write "more severe articles" (Interrogations. Richard Overy p186)
"When passages were read to him from wartime articles in Der Sturmer calling for the extermination of the Jews, he made semantic play with the word "exterminate" to argue that he only advocated the expulsion of Jews so that they could form their own national state and no longer interfere..with the nations that had hosted them hitherto. "You are going to have a diificult time," his interrogator concluded, "trying to convince any reasonable man that your interpretation of the article is the correct one" (Ibid)

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Penn44 » 02 Aug 2008 16:52

Technically, I think Streicher's activities satisfied all the requirements to justify his sentence of hanging. One also has to consider the milieu in 1945-46. In the immediate aftermath of a horrific war that killed or maimed millions should a person like Streicher go untouched? Justice does not idealistically stand above human needs, but is plastic and shapeable to meeting those needs. The real problem for justice in 1946 is not that Streicher was hanged, but that so many others like him escaped the hangman.

It is surprising that anyone, except for a bored academic of jurisprudence who has nothing better to do, would devote more than a passing moment to the question of Streicher's guilt and well-deserved hanging. For those who do argue for Streicher's innocence, do they do so because they are sexually attracted to him like those who devotedly argue for Irma Grese's innocence? Do they do so because they wish to undermine the principles of that underlay the creation of the Nuremberg Trials? Or are they apologists for Germany and/or Nazism who wish to discredit the evidence and findings of Nuremberg in order to resuscitate the soiled image of that nation and ideology?

One purpose of the Nuremberg trials was (and remains) to show Germany and the world all the vile immorality, atrocities and injustices of Germany that Germany had brought upon herself and inflicted on the rest of the world. To bring to the stand the likes of some Nazi pervert like Streicher was apropos in that his activities showed the Germans just how far they had degenerated as a nation from modern, mainstream European culture and values and the trajectory of modernization. That some continue to defend Streicher shows that there are limits to what Nuremberg could achieve. and that perhaps we should have left the scaffold up and rope properly maintained.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Simon K » 02 Aug 2008 17:03

I concur.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 02 Aug 2008 20:38

Penn44 -- You wrote:
For those who do argue for Streicher's innocence, do they do so because they are sexually attracted to him like those who devotedly argue for Irma Grese's innocence?
We're not interested in invidious psycho-sexual discussions here. Don't bring it up again.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003 06:25
Location: US

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by Penn44 » 02 Aug 2008 21:23

David Thompson wrote:Penn44 -- You wrote:
For those who do argue for Streicher's innocence, do they do so because they are sexually attracted to him like those who devotedly argue for Irma Grese's innocence?
We're not interested in invidious psycho-sexual discussions here. Don't bring it up again.
I look forward to hearing any alternative theories regarding the matter if they so exist. However, I will say upfront, I won't accept that any of our known forum members oppose Streicher's execution for any real concern for legality or justice. As such, they should clearly express their agendas.

To obtain immediate victory over Nazi Germany several million Allied and Soviet soldiers died on the battlefield. As an effort to rehabilitate Germany and restore it to the community of civilized nations, and prevent the rise of Nazism again, the Nuremberg Trials were designed to expose the extent of the crimes of Nazi Germany to all, and the execution of the guilty was intended to set an example for posterity. Considering that so many million innocent and ordinary men*** had died to destroy Nazi Germany and its ideology, the lives of the German archcriminals was an infinitesimally small price to pay for a better future.

*** One could also offer the three million German men who died fighting for this perverted ideology. They died in order to make way for an Allied victory over Nazism. In order to redeem their loss, the German archcriminals had to die.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23720
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 02 Aug 2008 22:18

Michael -- You wrote:
He certainly preached hatred, but the uttering of words was not a crime against humanity, unless those words constituted an order issued to persons who were bound to obey the person issuing them, and that order resulted in a crime against humanity being committed.
You are mistaken. Since the reign of the English King Henry IV (AD 1399-1413), under Anglo-Saxon law, one who commands, aids, abets, counsels, advises or encourages another to commit a crime has been punished as though he committed the crime himself. The law has been that way for nearly 600 years -- since before North America and Australia were discovered by Europeans.

From Tucker's edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the laws of England (1803), vol. 5, Chapter III:
OF PRINCIPALS AND ACCESSORIES.

IT having been shewn in the preceding chapter what persons are, or are not, upon account of their situation and circumstances, capable of committing crimes, we are next to make a few remarks on the different degrees of guilt among persons that are capable of offending; viz. as principal, and as accessory.

I. A man may be principal in an offence in two degrees. A principal, in the first degree, is he that is the actor, or absolute perpetrator of the crime; and, in the second degree, he is who is present, aiding, and abetting the fact to be done a 1. Which
______________________
a 1 Hal. P C. 615.

1. Antiently these principals in the second degree were held to be accessories, only, and not principals. M. 40 Edw. III. pl. 22. p. 42, and 40. Ass. pl. 25, whereby it appears four were appealed as principals, in murder, and the others of presence, force and aid. But of late times, (says Plowden) the law has been held contrary in this point, for they are now taken to be principals by all the sages of the law. And it seems that the law was so changed in the time of Henry the fourth. Plowd. 99, 100, and by Bromley C. I. those who give the stroke are principals in deed; but those who are present, aiding and abetting, only, are principals in law. Plowden, 97. And by the same judge, if the principal in the second degree be tried and convicted before him in the first degree, and then the principal in the first degree be tried and acquitted, he in the second degree shall be also acquitted, notwithstanding his former conviction, ibid. Nevertheless where the presence need not always be an actual immediate standing by, within sight or hearing of the fact; but there may be also a constructive presence, as when one commits a robbery or murder, and another keeps watch or guard at some convenient distance b. And this rule hath also other exceptions: for, in case of murder by poisoning, a man may be a principal felon, by preparing and laying the poison, or persuading another to drink it c who is ignorant of it's poisonous quality d, or giving it to him for that purpose; and yet not administer it himself, nor be present when the very deed of poisoning is committed e. And the same reasoning will hold, with regard to other murders committed in the absence of the murderer, by means which he had prepared before-hand, and which probably could not fail of their mischievous effect. As by laying a trap or pitfall for another, whereby he is killed; letting out a wild beast, with an intent to do mischief; or exciting a madman to commit murder, so that death thereupon ensues: in every of these cases the party offending is guilty of murder as a principal, in the first degree. For he cannot be called an accessory, that necessarily presupposing a principal; and the person, the pitfall, the beast, or the madman cannot be held principals, being only the instruments of death, As, therefore, he must be certainly guilty, either as principal or accessory, and cannot be so as accessory, it follows that he must be guilty as principal: and if principal, then in the first
___________________________
b Foster, 350.
c Kel. 52. e 8 Inst. 138.
d Foster, 349.

principals in the first degree made their escape, those in the second degree, might notwithstanding, be tried and if conducted might have judgment of death against them and be executed. Plowden, 101
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb5.htm

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 03 Aug 2008 07:11

David,

In the case of a person "counselling, advising or encouraging" another person to commit a crime, I think it would be necessary to show a link between the actions of the person who committed the crime and the words of the first person.

If there is no demonstrable link, then the words spoken by the first person cannot reasonably be held to constitute "counselling,advising or encoouraging".

I cannot see anything in the examples given in the extract cited by you that would apply to any action by Streicher. The only one that comes close is that of "exciting a madman to commit murder". I read that example to mean that, since the madman is himself incapable of forming an intention to kill, he is simply the intrument of the intention of the person who excites him, the latter being the real murderer.

However, there is no resemblance between that situation and Streicher's actions. It is clear that the persons at the very top of the organisation that actually perpetrated the killing of millions of Jews, men like Himmler and Heydrich, formed their own intention to kill, and were not mere instruments. As I have previously written, there is no evidence that men like Himmler and Heydrich formed their intention to kill as a result of "excitation" by Streicher. In fact, it is well known that those two persons, like almost everybody at the senior levels of the German Government, regarded Streicher as a disreputable character, and were not influenced by him in any way.

I think what Penn44 wrote in his previous post actually bears out the very point I was trying to make. Somebody needed to be punished for the crimes committed against the Jewish people, somebody who had played a leading role in the commission of those crimes, a role commensurate with those of the top men in the German Government who were put on trial before the IMT as major war criminals.

However, the simple fact is that Streicher was not that man. Through his highly visible anti-Semitic publications, he had become a symbol in the public mind of the crimes against the Jews, but he was not the person who had committed them, or ordered them to be committed. He was tried and convicted as a symbol of a crime that had been committed, not as the actual perpetrator of them. In my opinion, that runs contrary to the spirit of the law in civilised countries, which holds that where a crime has been committed, it is the person who committed the crime that should be punished, not someone who through his utterances has become a representative of the mindset that led to the crime.

It is clear that Streicher was in no way comparable to the other defendants at the IMT, who were all (except for Fritzsche) persons who had held ministerial rank in the German Government, or who had been commanders of the military and police forces. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that any actions by Streicher were of the same degree of importance in the events of 1939-45 as those of the other defendants.

Streicher was certainly an evil man, and would have been appropriate for him to have been tried and punished for evil things that he actually did, namely gross slander and vilification. But gross slander and vilification are not capital crimes in any liberal democratic society.
Last edited by michael mills on 04 Aug 2008 00:16, edited 1 time in total.

kiseli
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: 03 Dec 2007 14:00

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by kiseli » 03 Aug 2008 22:42

However, the simple fact is that Streicher was not that man. Through his highly visible anti-Semitic publications, he had become a symbol in the public mind of the crimes against the Jews, but he was not the person who had committed them, or ordered them to be committed. He was tried and convicted as a symbol of a crime that had been committed, not as the actual perpetrator of them
sure.heydrich and himmler , didn't kill anybody, either.they only make, sort of suggestions.so, they are also only symbols of crime.the case against him, the british prosecutor explanied, was less that he had been directly involved in the regime's crimes that in the 1930s he had helped create the moral climate that had allowed them to happen.he had poisoned "millions and millions of young boys and girls with hate...without him,the kaltenbrunners,the himmlers, the general stroops would have had nobody to carry out their orders." cross-examined by british prosecutor menvyn griffith-jones,streicher insisted that he had tried not to inflame but to enlighten.for him,all he had done was to speak the truth

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”