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.sure.heydrich and himmler , didn't kill anybody, either.they only make, sort of suggestions.so, they are also only symbols of crime
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":
Again on page 116: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.
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.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).
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.