IronGuard -- This information may help answer your first two questions.
Streicher, Julius (1885-16.10.1946) [SA-Obergruppenführer] – WWI veteran; joined NSDAP 1922; founder, publisher (1923-1945) and editor (1923-1933) of the NSDAP weekly Der Stuermer; in Munich putsch 1923; NSDAP Provincial Leader (Gauleiter) of Nuernberg-Fuerth 1925-1929; NSDAP Provincial Leader (Gauleiter) of Franconia (Franken) 1929-1940; Reichstag deputy (Mitglied des Reichstages) 1933-1945 {arrested by American troops 23 May 1945 (LT 24 May 1945:4:c); put on trial by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuernberg; convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging; executed 16 Oct 1946 at Landsberg-am-Lech prison.}
Here is the IMT judgment of conviction for Julius Streicher:
"One of the earliest members of the Nazi Party, joining in 1921, he took part in the Munich Putsch. From 1925 to 1940 he was Gauleiter of Franconia. Elected to the Reichstag in 1933, he was an honorary general in the SA. His persecution of the Jews was notorious. He was the publisher of Der Stuermer, an anti-Semitic weekly newspaper, from 1923 to 1945 and was its editor until 1933.
Crimes against Peace
Streicher was a staunch Nazi and supporter of Hitler's main policies. There is no evidence to show that he was ever within Hitler's inner circle of advisers; nor during his career was he closely connected with the formulation of the policies which led to war. He was never present, for example, at any of the important conferences when Hitler explained his decisions to his leaders. Although he was a Gauleiter there is no evidence to prove that he had knowledge of these policies. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence fails to establish his connection with the conspiracy or common plan to wage aggressive war as that conspiracy has been elsewhere defined in this Judgment.
Crimes against Humanity
For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as "Jew-Baiter Number One." In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism and incited the German people to active persecution. Each issue of Der Stuermer, which reached a circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often lewd and disgusting. Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1 April 1933. He advocated the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on 10 August 1938 of the synagogue in Nuremberg.
And on 10 November 1938, he spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place at that time.
But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his doctrines. As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. 23 different articles of Der Stuermer between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which extermination "root and branch" was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article in September 1938 which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human being, but "a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind." Other articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the Jewish graves "will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its deserved fate."
Streicher, in February 1940, published a letter from one of Der Stuermer's readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely. Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of Der Stuermer, in May 1939, shows clearly his aim:
"A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia. A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for them that every murderer and criminal must expect. Death sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed. They must be exterminated root and branch."
As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from Der Stuermer, published between August 1941 and September 1944, 12 by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms. He wrote and published on 25 December 1941:
"If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only one way--the extermination of that people whose father is the devil." And in February 1944 his own article stated:"Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate: annihilation, death."
With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda of death. Testifying in this Trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he continually received current information on the progress of the "final solution." His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto.
The Jewish newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Romania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November 1943 Streicher quoted verbatim an article from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt which stated that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented: "This is not a Jewish lie."
In December 1942, referring to an article in the London Times about the atrocities aiming at extermination, Streicher said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead to the destruction of Jewry. In January 1943 he wrote and published an article which said that Hitler's prophecy was being fulfilled, that world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors.
In the face of the evidence before the Tribunal it is idle for Streicher to suggest that the solution of the Jewish problem which he favored was strictly limited to the classification of Jews as aliens, and the passing of discriminatory legislation such as the Nuremberg Laws, supplemented if possible by international agreement, on the creation of a Jewish state somewhere in the world, to which all Jews should emigrate.
Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with War Crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a Crime against Humanity."
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 22 - Tuesday, 1 October 1946, pps. 546-8 at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/10-01-46.htm
Julius Streicher
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23712
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
- Location: USA
-
Helly Angel
- Member
- Posts: 5082
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 20:00
- Location: Florida, USA
Know live is putting himself in the place of the rest.
Can you imagine if I write a newspaper who said all days:"All People of Brazil should burn in ovens... All people in Brazil have a Conspiracy against our Country... We must have a Final Solution against them...".
Each day, day after day.
And fight each day to increase the racial hate in my country against the people in Brazil...
Why not?
This is a crime?
Just thoughts... in this little, little world.
Best,
Can you imagine if I write a newspaper who said all days:"All People of Brazil should burn in ovens... All people in Brazil have a Conspiracy against our Country... We must have a Final Solution against them...".
Each day, day after day.
And fight each day to increase the racial hate in my country against the people in Brazil...
Why not?
This is a crime?
Just thoughts... in this little, little world.
Best,
Last edited by Helly Angel on 19 Jul 2003 06:50, edited 1 time in total.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 8982
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Let's take an analogy from our own time.
In the United States and in other countries there are many thousands of people who openly proclaim their belief that doctors who carry out abortions are murderers of babies. They call for the most severe punishment of those doctors. They institute boycoots against them.
There have been some cases where one of those persons has gone to the extreme of killing a doctor who performs abortions, or of carrying out other violent, terroristic acts, such as bombing abortion clinics.
When such events have occurred, there have been many opponents of abortion who have openly applauded the act, expressing the opinion that the victims of the acts of violence received a deserved punishment.
However, although those individuals who carried out the acts of violence have been approrpiately prosecuted when apprehended, I am not aware of any case where opponents of abortion who have openly accused abortionists of murder, have openly called for their punishment, and have openly welcomed the acts of violence against them, have been prosecuted for being an accomplice to murder and/or terrorism, or of conspiracy to commit murder and/or terrorism, or even of incitement to commit acts of violence.
I guess the authorities take the view that there is not a sufficent connection between the acts of violence and the hostile views expressed by the anti-abortion activists. Apparently, they take the view that simply standing up in public and shouting "Abortionists are baby murderers and must be stopped", or even "That baby murderer who got blown up deserved to die", is not sufficient to justify a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder or other acts of violence. For the crime of conspiracy or being an accomplice to occur, a person would have to get together with other persons and specifically request the commission of an act of violence, and specifically spur on the person who committed the act, and help in its commission.
As the law stands, a person who openly and repeatedly expresses hostility and hatred against a particular person or group, calls for action to be taken against that person or group, and expresses satisfaction when an illegal act against that person or group is committed, but is not actually involved in procuring, planning or committing the illegal act, is not held guilty of that act, whether as an accomplice or a conspirator. However, that person might be adjudged guilty of incitement if laws against incitement were in place, which is not always the case.
The same considerations should have applied to Streicher. He was certainly guilty of repeatedly and openly inciting acts of violence against Jews. He could well have been found guilty of incitement in a court of law, assuming the existence of an anti-incitement law, and received an appropriate punishment, which would obviously not have been death.
But he certainly was not involved in any acts of violence against Jews, either in procuring them, ordering them, or planning them. The fact is that, by the time war broke out, he had been removed from all his executive positions for corruption and acts of moral depravity. Hence, at the time when the mass-killing of Jews had begun, he was not in a position where he could have taken any action to assist or promote it, or really influence it in any way.
Streicher's position during the war was that of a bystander, one of many hundreds of thousands. He could see what was happening, and expressed his approval of it, as did many others, but his influence on what was happening was non-existent.
As has already been pointed out on this thread, Streicher was not the only person involved in making anti-Jewish propaganda. Furthermore, it may be questioned whether there was any connection at all between the sort of pornographic, obscene and scarcely credible anti-Jewish imagery that Streicher produced and the administrative processes that resulted in the killing of Jews on such a huge scale.
It is a fact that many of those involved in the machinery of destruction specifically denied any connection between their motives and Streicher's propaganda; many even expressed disgust for Streicher and his pornography. When it comes to the driving force behind the extermination of Jewry, I would that it is more likely that the practitioners were influenced by a belief that the Jews were the instigators of Bolshevism, or simply that they were "useless" eaters who were in the way, than that they believed that Jewish semen was poisonous.
We know from the notes left behind by the chief United States judge, Biddle, that he and some of the other judges did not think that Streicher should have been standing trial as a major war criminal, or that his actions really constituted war crimes in the true sense. Biddle even described Streicher as "just a little Jew-baiter" who was certainly not a perpetrator of acts that could be adjudged criminal on the scale of the acts committed by most of the other defendents.
Yet, despite their grave misgivings about the gravity of the things that Streicher had done, they found him guilty of Crimes against Humanity and sentenced him to death. Why?
It is doubtful whether any decision or order given by Streicher had led to mass-death. Speer was also convicted of Crimes against Humanity, but he was not sentenced to death, despite the fact that, as a minister, his decisions had certainly resulted in suffering and death for many.
We can understand why wanted to hang Streicher; they wanted to hang all of the defendants. But did the other judges, even the French who generally were more merciful than the others, finally decide to sentence Streicher to death, despite their knowledge that he was really just a dirty old man who liked to give free reign to his pornographic obsessions in print.
We will never know. But it seems obvious that the British and United States judges felt some sort of obligation upon them to condemn Streicher as a symbol for what had been done to the Jews, even though Streicher himself had not done it. In short, Streicher was tried and convicted as a representative of the anti-Semitic nature of the National Socialist government of Germany, even though he had not been a member of that government and had taken no part in the developemnt or implementation of its anti-Semitic policies.
Streicher was in a similar position to Fritzsche, the latter being tried as a substitute for Goebbels and as a representative of the propaganda arm of the German government. In fact, it was more appropriate to try Fritzsche who had occupied a fairly senior administrative position, although not in the same dock with powerful men like Goering and Ribbentrop. The judges saw quite clearly that Fritzsche was not one of those who had formed and implemented the criminal policies of the German government, and so they acquitted him of all charges.
In my opinion, Streicher should also have been acquitted of all charges, despite the fact that he was such a vile character, since he likewise had not been involved in formulating and implementing government policy. It may be that it was his sheer notoriety and the need to find somebody guilty specifically for the anti-Semitic aspects of the Nazi regime that led the judges to make a politically correct but unjust decision.
In the United States and in other countries there are many thousands of people who openly proclaim their belief that doctors who carry out abortions are murderers of babies. They call for the most severe punishment of those doctors. They institute boycoots against them.
There have been some cases where one of those persons has gone to the extreme of killing a doctor who performs abortions, or of carrying out other violent, terroristic acts, such as bombing abortion clinics.
When such events have occurred, there have been many opponents of abortion who have openly applauded the act, expressing the opinion that the victims of the acts of violence received a deserved punishment.
However, although those individuals who carried out the acts of violence have been approrpiately prosecuted when apprehended, I am not aware of any case where opponents of abortion who have openly accused abortionists of murder, have openly called for their punishment, and have openly welcomed the acts of violence against them, have been prosecuted for being an accomplice to murder and/or terrorism, or of conspiracy to commit murder and/or terrorism, or even of incitement to commit acts of violence.
I guess the authorities take the view that there is not a sufficent connection between the acts of violence and the hostile views expressed by the anti-abortion activists. Apparently, they take the view that simply standing up in public and shouting "Abortionists are baby murderers and must be stopped", or even "That baby murderer who got blown up deserved to die", is not sufficient to justify a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder or other acts of violence. For the crime of conspiracy or being an accomplice to occur, a person would have to get together with other persons and specifically request the commission of an act of violence, and specifically spur on the person who committed the act, and help in its commission.
As the law stands, a person who openly and repeatedly expresses hostility and hatred against a particular person or group, calls for action to be taken against that person or group, and expresses satisfaction when an illegal act against that person or group is committed, but is not actually involved in procuring, planning or committing the illegal act, is not held guilty of that act, whether as an accomplice or a conspirator. However, that person might be adjudged guilty of incitement if laws against incitement were in place, which is not always the case.
The same considerations should have applied to Streicher. He was certainly guilty of repeatedly and openly inciting acts of violence against Jews. He could well have been found guilty of incitement in a court of law, assuming the existence of an anti-incitement law, and received an appropriate punishment, which would obviously not have been death.
But he certainly was not involved in any acts of violence against Jews, either in procuring them, ordering them, or planning them. The fact is that, by the time war broke out, he had been removed from all his executive positions for corruption and acts of moral depravity. Hence, at the time when the mass-killing of Jews had begun, he was not in a position where he could have taken any action to assist or promote it, or really influence it in any way.
Streicher's position during the war was that of a bystander, one of many hundreds of thousands. He could see what was happening, and expressed his approval of it, as did many others, but his influence on what was happening was non-existent.
As has already been pointed out on this thread, Streicher was not the only person involved in making anti-Jewish propaganda. Furthermore, it may be questioned whether there was any connection at all between the sort of pornographic, obscene and scarcely credible anti-Jewish imagery that Streicher produced and the administrative processes that resulted in the killing of Jews on such a huge scale.
It is a fact that many of those involved in the machinery of destruction specifically denied any connection between their motives and Streicher's propaganda; many even expressed disgust for Streicher and his pornography. When it comes to the driving force behind the extermination of Jewry, I would that it is more likely that the practitioners were influenced by a belief that the Jews were the instigators of Bolshevism, or simply that they were "useless" eaters who were in the way, than that they believed that Jewish semen was poisonous.
We know from the notes left behind by the chief United States judge, Biddle, that he and some of the other judges did not think that Streicher should have been standing trial as a major war criminal, or that his actions really constituted war crimes in the true sense. Biddle even described Streicher as "just a little Jew-baiter" who was certainly not a perpetrator of acts that could be adjudged criminal on the scale of the acts committed by most of the other defendents.
Yet, despite their grave misgivings about the gravity of the things that Streicher had done, they found him guilty of Crimes against Humanity and sentenced him to death. Why?
It is doubtful whether any decision or order given by Streicher had led to mass-death. Speer was also convicted of Crimes against Humanity, but he was not sentenced to death, despite the fact that, as a minister, his decisions had certainly resulted in suffering and death for many.
We can understand why wanted to hang Streicher; they wanted to hang all of the defendants. But did the other judges, even the French who generally were more merciful than the others, finally decide to sentence Streicher to death, despite their knowledge that he was really just a dirty old man who liked to give free reign to his pornographic obsessions in print.
We will never know. But it seems obvious that the British and United States judges felt some sort of obligation upon them to condemn Streicher as a symbol for what had been done to the Jews, even though Streicher himself had not done it. In short, Streicher was tried and convicted as a representative of the anti-Semitic nature of the National Socialist government of Germany, even though he had not been a member of that government and had taken no part in the developemnt or implementation of its anti-Semitic policies.
Streicher was in a similar position to Fritzsche, the latter being tried as a substitute for Goebbels and as a representative of the propaganda arm of the German government. In fact, it was more appropriate to try Fritzsche who had occupied a fairly senior administrative position, although not in the same dock with powerful men like Goering and Ribbentrop. The judges saw quite clearly that Fritzsche was not one of those who had formed and implemented the criminal policies of the German government, and so they acquitted him of all charges.
In my opinion, Streicher should also have been acquitted of all charges, despite the fact that he was such a vile character, since he likewise had not been involved in formulating and implementing government policy. It may be that it was his sheer notoriety and the need to find somebody guilty specifically for the anti-Semitic aspects of the Nazi regime that led the judges to make a politically correct but unjust decision.
-
IronGuard
- Member
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003 11:52
- Location: Sweden
michael mills
Ok, thanks for all your info, really great!
Xanthro
You can discuss the Holocaust, you can't deny the Holocaust.
Isnt it a denial to not believe everything about the Holocaust?
I do not believe they did soap of the dead jews for one example, or lampshades.
No, it couldn't mean foreigner and it's inane for you to even imply such a thing. How could being a foreigner infect your bloodstream? Streicher is arguing that Jews aren't human, that any contact with these non-humans would forever taint you.
Hey, ok I´m sorry. I do not know that much about Streicher, thats why I asked. Sometimes they refer the aryans to be "pure blood", so I thought he meant that the "pureblooded aryans" were being "not-so-pureblooded".
And I think you are the typical Holocaust denier Nazi wannabe. If all were pre-judged, then none would have been aquitted, but they were.
Prisoner of peace? What kind of Nazi self love fest have you been attending?
No need to be rude here.
This is my point of view what happened to the Nuremberg trial. Is that to be a "nazi self lover" or a "holocaust denier". I am totally convinced that there was much hatred in this trial, this was not an impartial trial.
Hess flew to GB to try to end the world war, to make peace. GB responded and sentenced him to lifetime in prison.
The media often refer Nelson Mandela as a prisoner of peace. He on the other hand did not try to stop a world war, "just" the apartheid regime.
Ok, thanks for all your info, really great!
Xanthro
You can discuss the Holocaust, you can't deny the Holocaust.
Isnt it a denial to not believe everything about the Holocaust?
I do not believe they did soap of the dead jews for one example, or lampshades.
No, it couldn't mean foreigner and it's inane for you to even imply such a thing. How could being a foreigner infect your bloodstream? Streicher is arguing that Jews aren't human, that any contact with these non-humans would forever taint you.
Hey, ok I´m sorry. I do not know that much about Streicher, thats why I asked. Sometimes they refer the aryans to be "pure blood", so I thought he meant that the "pureblooded aryans" were being "not-so-pureblooded".
And I think you are the typical Holocaust denier Nazi wannabe. If all were pre-judged, then none would have been aquitted, but they were.
Prisoner of peace? What kind of Nazi self love fest have you been attending?
No need to be rude here.
This is my point of view what happened to the Nuremberg trial. Is that to be a "nazi self lover" or a "holocaust denier". I am totally convinced that there was much hatred in this trial, this was not an impartial trial.
Hess flew to GB to try to end the world war, to make peace. GB responded and sentenced him to lifetime in prison.
The media often refer Nelson Mandela as a prisoner of peace. He on the other hand did not try to stop a world war, "just" the apartheid regime.
-
alsaco
- Member
- Posts: 353
- Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
- Location: France, Paris
To Mr Mills
Streicher did not disappear in 1939. He remained deputy to the Reichstag and remained publisher of the Stürmer.
In fact a remained one of the NSDAP-Bonzen, and his litterature about racial hatred was still used in schools and HJ schooling in 1944.
The Stûrmer was not a personal affair, but an official publication of the NSDAP. The paper was presented on official information boards all over the country. It conveyed publicly an official point of view, and was this way a mean of education and training, presenting the right way of thinking. Probably there is no case of jew having been killed by using this paper as an instrument of assassination, but certainly some killers have found in the paper reasons to kill jews.
The question is therefore the responsability of the prescriptor. Does Streicher, publisher have a responsability in actions he professed should be done. Is a men saying "kill" guilty when he says it, or only when he says it to a killer, or when he gives to the killer the rifle to kill ?.
Having repetedly stated publicly, in an official publication he was responsible of, that jews had to be exterminated, Streicher did participate in the facts, by giving ideas, advices, councils, motives to the operators, even if he, himself, did not participate in operations.
We have had in France the same problem with Brasillach. With the aggravating factor that Brasillach was a real writer. But it was considered that the teacher or leader must be held responsible of his acts, and that preaching hate was even more dangerous than practising hate.
Your parralel with abortion does not help. First, at this time, 1945, in Germany, preaching abortion was a crime. Secondly, now, in 2003, a recent occurence, in Poland, has shown that preaching abortion is still a condamnable in some part of Europe, and you certainly know that abortion cannot be mentioned in the classic muslim world.
We must therefore return to source. Streicher was a hate predicator. He advocated the killing of jews, but remained far from the killing grounds.
Then up to you to consider that he was just exercising his tongue, and had no responsability in what he said effects, or to accept the führerprinzip, he who leads takes the responsability.
Streicher was a nazi, and is certainly proud to have been considered a führer in this field of hatred development he had excelled in.
His condemnation was certainly an honor, according to his beliefs. Treù ist meine Ehre, they said
Streicher did not disappear in 1939. He remained deputy to the Reichstag and remained publisher of the Stürmer.
In fact a remained one of the NSDAP-Bonzen, and his litterature about racial hatred was still used in schools and HJ schooling in 1944.
The Stûrmer was not a personal affair, but an official publication of the NSDAP. The paper was presented on official information boards all over the country. It conveyed publicly an official point of view, and was this way a mean of education and training, presenting the right way of thinking. Probably there is no case of jew having been killed by using this paper as an instrument of assassination, but certainly some killers have found in the paper reasons to kill jews.
The question is therefore the responsability of the prescriptor. Does Streicher, publisher have a responsability in actions he professed should be done. Is a men saying "kill" guilty when he says it, or only when he says it to a killer, or when he gives to the killer the rifle to kill ?.
Having repetedly stated publicly, in an official publication he was responsible of, that jews had to be exterminated, Streicher did participate in the facts, by giving ideas, advices, councils, motives to the operators, even if he, himself, did not participate in operations.
We have had in France the same problem with Brasillach. With the aggravating factor that Brasillach was a real writer. But it was considered that the teacher or leader must be held responsible of his acts, and that preaching hate was even more dangerous than practising hate.
Your parralel with abortion does not help. First, at this time, 1945, in Germany, preaching abortion was a crime. Secondly, now, in 2003, a recent occurence, in Poland, has shown that preaching abortion is still a condamnable in some part of Europe, and you certainly know that abortion cannot be mentioned in the classic muslim world.
We must therefore return to source. Streicher was a hate predicator. He advocated the killing of jews, but remained far from the killing grounds.
Then up to you to consider that he was just exercising his tongue, and had no responsability in what he said effects, or to accept the führerprinzip, he who leads takes the responsability.
Streicher was a nazi, and is certainly proud to have been considered a führer in this field of hatred development he had excelled in.
His condemnation was certainly an honor, according to his beliefs. Treù ist meine Ehre, they said
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23712
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
- Location: USA
For our readers who may not be aware of the fellow alsaco mentioned:
Brassilach, Robert (1909-6.2.1945) -- French journalist, novelist, historian and editor of the collaborationist periodical Je Suis Partout {arrest on collaboration charges announced by French government 15 Oct 1944 (NYT 16 Oct 1944:5:7); put on trial by a French court at Paris for collaboration; convicted and sentenced to death 19 Jan 1945 (NYT 20 Jan 1945:4:5); executed by firing squad at Fort de Montrouge, Paris 6 Feb 1945 (NYT 7 Feb 1945:7:6). (Purge pps. 137-40; Historical Encyclopedia of WWII p. 61).}
Brassilach, Robert (1909-6.2.1945) -- French journalist, novelist, historian and editor of the collaborationist periodical Je Suis Partout {arrest on collaboration charges announced by French government 15 Oct 1944 (NYT 16 Oct 1944:5:7); put on trial by a French court at Paris for collaboration; convicted and sentenced to death 19 Jan 1945 (NYT 20 Jan 1945:4:5); executed by firing squad at Fort de Montrouge, Paris 6 Feb 1945 (NYT 7 Feb 1945:7:6). (Purge pps. 137-40; Historical Encyclopedia of WWII p. 61).}
-
alsaco
- Member
- Posts: 353
- Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
- Location: France, Paris
To Ironguard
An holocaust denier is a man who says germans have not killed milliond of jews, and consequently that the disappearance of these millions of people was only an accident, a miracle, or an illusion.
And tries to prove that no proof can be given, or that proven facts are no proofs, but just coincidences or frozen words
----
So far Nuremberg is concerned, please remlace things in 1945.
Hatred was certainly present. How could it be another way, after six years of inhuman fighting, with lots of atrocities and just after the horrible end during the winter 1944/45, when more than 20 millions of civilians and nearly as much displaced persons and POW running around on roads and streets.
But Nuremberg permitted an orderly way out of this mess. Instead of individual, local, regional killings, it allowed a solution in relation with justice. Perfect, certainly not. But better than the lootings and murders that would have been generalised, if the idea had not been accepted.
You must make a study of the origin of the process, and the negociations conducted by Mr Johnson, the initiator of the concept, to have a clear idea of the facts, and of the progress achieved with the system.
Naturally, Nuremberg was unilateral. Only today we begin to try to obtain a neutrality in such matters, and it does not seem it will be easy to establish fair judgments in intrenational political and military crimes. But Nuremberg is the first case of fair trial, with independant judges, clear and written prosecution, effective defense of the prosecuted.
And all documents were written, and published. And can be consulted on Internet today.
An holocaust denier is a man who says germans have not killed milliond of jews, and consequently that the disappearance of these millions of people was only an accident, a miracle, or an illusion.
And tries to prove that no proof can be given, or that proven facts are no proofs, but just coincidences or frozen words
----
So far Nuremberg is concerned, please remlace things in 1945.
Hatred was certainly present. How could it be another way, after six years of inhuman fighting, with lots of atrocities and just after the horrible end during the winter 1944/45, when more than 20 millions of civilians and nearly as much displaced persons and POW running around on roads and streets.
But Nuremberg permitted an orderly way out of this mess. Instead of individual, local, regional killings, it allowed a solution in relation with justice. Perfect, certainly not. But better than the lootings and murders that would have been generalised, if the idea had not been accepted.
You must make a study of the origin of the process, and the negociations conducted by Mr Johnson, the initiator of the concept, to have a clear idea of the facts, and of the progress achieved with the system.
Naturally, Nuremberg was unilateral. Only today we begin to try to obtain a neutrality in such matters, and it does not seem it will be easy to establish fair judgments in intrenational political and military crimes. But Nuremberg is the first case of fair trial, with independant judges, clear and written prosecution, effective defense of the prosecuted.
And all documents were written, and published. And can be consulted on Internet today.
-
Roderick
- Member
- Posts: 704
- Joined: 19 May 2003 13:48
- Location: Brazil
-
IronGuard
- Member
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 16 Jul 2003 11:52
- Location: Sweden
alasco
An holocaust denier is a man who says germans have not killed milliond of jews, and consequently that the disappearance of these millions of people was only an accident, a miracle, or an illusion.
Hm is there really ANYONE who denies that jews died?
I mean revisionists says that there were concentrationcamps but not deathcamps, and jews died but not of gas but of starvation and illness. And they deny that it should have been 6 million jews gased.
Are these people not holocaust deniers?
Anyway, thanks all of you for your help.
I know these documents is to be found on the internet, but because of my bad english I cant understand half of them.
Thanks!
An holocaust denier is a man who says germans have not killed milliond of jews, and consequently that the disappearance of these millions of people was only an accident, a miracle, or an illusion.
Hm is there really ANYONE who denies that jews died?
I mean revisionists says that there were concentrationcamps but not deathcamps, and jews died but not of gas but of starvation and illness. And they deny that it should have been 6 million jews gased.
Are these people not holocaust deniers?
Anyway, thanks all of you for your help.
I know these documents is to be found on the internet, but because of my bad english I cant understand half of them.
Thanks!
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 8982
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Alsaco wrote:
I have read quite widely in this field, and I have not come across any historian who seriously suggests that Streicher's propaganda played any role in the process leading to the episodes of extermination. Streicher did openly express his hatred of Jews and call for their extermination, but when the German Government agencies made their decisions, the last thing they had in mind were Streicher's mad vapourings. Their decisions to kill Jews were based on quite rational criteria, eg whether they could be used for work or not.
As for the execution of Robert Brasillach, you may be in favour of killing writers whose politics differ from yours, but I think it was an outrage. Many French men of letters protested against it (except the swine Sartre and his bint).
Alsaco, I think you will be hard put to find any causal connection between Streicher's demented writings and the planning and implementation of German Government policy in regard to the Jews.Probably there is no case of jew having been killed by using this paper as an instrument of assassination, but certainly some killers have found in the paper reasons to kill jews.
I have read quite widely in this field, and I have not come across any historian who seriously suggests that Streicher's propaganda played any role in the process leading to the episodes of extermination. Streicher did openly express his hatred of Jews and call for their extermination, but when the German Government agencies made their decisions, the last thing they had in mind were Streicher's mad vapourings. Their decisions to kill Jews were based on quite rational criteria, eg whether they could be used for work or not.
As for the execution of Robert Brasillach, you may be in favour of killing writers whose politics differ from yours, but I think it was an outrage. Many French men of letters protested against it (except the swine Sartre and his bint).
-
Scott Smith
- Member
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
- Location: Arizona
It was necessary to put Streicher on the dock and to hang him with as many of the legitimate Nazi leaders as possible in order to discredit the former German regime. This would be like bringing pornographer Larry Flynt to trial for the excesses of the Democrats. But secondly, it would associate the DP with Flynt's pornography. This would be a good obfuscation of real issues, a hallmark of typical propaganda.
As far as the acquittals of von Papen, Schacht, and Fritzsche, they had to acquit some small-fry in order to appear impartial. None of these should have even been tried for warcrimes in the first place, which is absurd. Hess should not have been tried either but he was too heavily associated as a symbol of Nazism, having introduced Hitler in Leni Riefenstahl's famous documentary film and having scribed Mein Kampf for Hitler.
As far as the acquittals of von Papen, Schacht, and Fritzsche, they had to acquit some small-fry in order to appear impartial. None of these should have even been tried for warcrimes in the first place, which is absurd. Hess should not have been tried either but he was too heavily associated as a symbol of Nazism, having introduced Hitler in Leni Riefenstahl's famous documentary film and having scribed Mein Kampf for Hitler.
-
Witch-King of Angmar
- Member
- Posts: 915
- Joined: 28 Feb 2003 20:40
- Location: Europe
Come on
The argument that Streicher's writings influenced the German people into "hating Jews to death" obviously sucks. Considering the small circulation of his paper, not even most Holocaust perpetrators could have claimed to have read it. Even Hess was guiltier than him, at least Hess had taken part into enacting te Nuremberg Laws(which many people here talk about like a "crime against humanity")
~The Witch King of Angmar
The argument that Streicher's writings influenced the German people into "hating Jews to death" obviously sucks. Considering the small circulation of his paper, not even most Holocaust perpetrators could have claimed to have read it. Even Hess was guiltier than him, at least Hess had taken part into enacting te Nuremberg Laws(which many people here talk about like a "crime against humanity")
~The Witch King of Angmar
-
Dan
- Member
- Posts: 8429
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
- Location: California
-
David Thompson
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23712
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
- Location: USA
A post by British Free Corps on the subject of Rudolf Hess now has a thread of its own, "The Crimes of Rudolf Hess," at:
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27191
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=27191