Julius Streicher

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
sziszlow
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 01:28
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by sziszlow » 17 Dec 2010 12:58

PFLB wrote: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.
We have to take into consideration is the emotive nature of the trials given the breadth and inhumanity of the crimes.

What was being faced was a crime where the individuals whose finger pulled the trigger, arm swung the club, and hand poured the Zyklon B or started the diesel engine numbered in the thousands, but as individuals they were previously unremarkable and unknown who in most cases had the time to become just another pow or a non German displaced person. Then you had the managers, the officers who did not directly murder people but managed its operation at ground level, they had paper trails involving them directly in the operation as well as a high profile that did not allow them to blend easily into the displaced masses. Finally you had the executives such as Streicher who conceived of, or became an active participant in the background orchestration of the genocide.

The Judges and the Peoples Advocates had to decide on the defendant’s culpability or negligence. Culpability implies no matter how far removed from the crime, you are directly linked to the cause. Negligence implies that the effect was not your sought outcome but your actions directly contributed to that outcome.

As I first mentioned, the emotive nature of the trial allowed for the blurring of culpability and negligence. Did Streicher know of Operation Reinhard would be the key in my mind as to whether he was culpable or negligent.
All things must pass...

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 17 Dec 2010 15:15

Well like I said above, the court found that he did in fact have said knowledge.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 18 Dec 2010 02:46

Finally you had the executives such as Streicher who conceived of, or became an active participant in the background orchestration of the genocide.
Utter nonsense, based on an apparent ignorance of the historical facts of Streicher's activities during the war.

Streicher was in no sense an "executive". Throughout the war he was a private citizen who owned and published a newspaper, a person with no State executive functions whatever.

Before the war he had been Gauleiter of Franconia, a Party position that also had de facto State executive power. But he had been stripped of that position due to his corruption and scandalous behaviour.

Thus, during the war, Streicher was had no power to give orders to anyone to do anything, except to the journalists working for him, and the only orders he could give to them were to write articles for publication, not to carry out actions.

To say that Streicher "conceived of" the genocide is drawing a very long bow indeed. He may have thought of genocide as a means of combatting the "Jewish enemy", and he certainly expressed his approval of it. However, he did not play any role in planning it, in the sense of drawing up a series of actions to be implemented by others.

It is also contrary to historical fact to describe Streicher as an "active participant in the background orchestration of the genocide". That implies he had some sort of executive function of organising actions to be carried out by others, whereas it is clear from the historical record that he had no such role. In his publications he alluded to the genocide taking place, but that activity was purely descriptive, not causative.
Did Streicher know of Operation Reinhard would be the key in my mind as to whether he was culpable or negligent.
Streicher certainly did know of the mass shootings in occupied Soviet territory, from reports he received from journalists in the field who had witnessed or heard of those shootings. Whether he had received information specifically about Aktion Reinhardt is less clear.

But the fact is that quite a few German journalists had received information about the ongoing massacres, and some of them made veiled references to them in the articles they published in newspapers. Those references were not explicit, but were along the lines of "The Jewish Problem is now being solved in a resolute way". It is quite possible that journalists received official briefings on what was happening, and were given instructions by German Government officials on what they could publish.

So Streicher's knowledge of anti-Jewish actions was probably no greater than that of many other people in Germany who were in no way involved in those actions. Furthermore, his knowledge was not "active", in the sense of being derived from an involvement in the actions, but rather "passive", in the sense of being informed about them.

When Streicher wrote in an approving way in his newspaper about the ongoing massacre of the Jews, he was acting in the same way as a jornalist who, in the Prohibition Era in the United states, might have published an article praising the bootlegging activities of Al Capone as benefiting society by providing a product tha most people wanted but were unable to obtain otherwise. In neither case would there be any causal relationship between the views expressed in the published articles and the criminal activities referred to in them.

In summary, Streicher was an approving bystander in the genocide, not a perpetrator.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 18 Dec 2010 05:31

Michael -- You wrote:
When Streicher wrote in an approving way in his newspaper about the ongoing massacre of the Jews, he was acting in the same way as a jornalist who, in the Prohibition Era in the United states, might have published an article praising the bootlegging activities of Al Capone as benefiting society by providing a product tha most people wanted but were unable to obtain otherwise. In neither case would there be any causal relationship between the views expressed in the published articles and the criminal activities referred to in them
Please remember that our readers are intelligent, and try to rise to the occasion. Your analogy will give people the idea that there's something the matter with you. "Bootlegging" isn't even remotely comparable to mass murder, nor is 22 years of publishing Der Stuermer the same thing as "might have published an article." That's why the international community made genocide a crime, and provided penalties for those who encourage it.
Article 25
Individual criminal responsibility

[. . . ] 3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:

[. . . ] (e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide; [. . . ]
http://www.cicr.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6 ... 900039e535

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 18 Dec 2010 06:36

Michael, I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that Streicher assumed a role which was comparable to that of a 'perpetrator' or principal offender. As your own source stated, the members of the court which convicted him saw as an 'accessory' or an 'accomplice'. Streicher was joined with other more important figures in a charge that they participated in a common plan not only as 'leaders' and 'organizers' but as 'instigators' or 'accomplices', which course of action was clearly open to the prosecution on the plain language of the instrument constituting the tribunal.

That an 'approving bystander' may by their approval alone and without physical involvement associate themselves sufficiently with an offence to become implicated in it is trite law, a principle common to more or less every legal system, as has been discussed with respect to the crime of complicity in genocide in the judgment of the ICTR Trial Chamber in Akayesu, paras [533] - [548]. You are evidently of the view that Streicher's conduct was not sufficient to do so, and the IMT was of the opposite view. Those who are not sure are probably best to consult the historical evidence themselves, free of the mistaken view of the relevant law which you seem to be propagating.

Much of your post seems to be predicated on the assumption that certain things are of decisive importance in the determination of criminal guilt under international law, namely, whether an accused had an 'executive' position or had 'active' knowledge of a fact. No authority is given, which I suspect is because no authority could be found. It is, for example, well accepted that a private citizen can become an accomplice in crimes organised and executed by government officials, and that a guilty mind can arise from what you would call 'passive' knowledge: see e.g. UNWCC, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol 6, 89, vol 15, 58 - 59.
Last edited by PFLB on 18 Dec 2010 07:10, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
sziszlow
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 01:28
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by sziszlow » 18 Dec 2010 07:02

michael mills wrote: Utter nonsense, based on an apparent ignorance of the historical facts of Streicher's activities during the war.
I expect it also depends on whether you look at the "activity" as an isolated "activity" or an intrinsic part of a whole.

Thus, during the war, Streicher was had no power to give orders to anyone to do anything, except to the journalists working for him, and the only orders he could give to them were to write articles for publication, not to carry out actions..
Michael this is an example of the isolated or intrinsic that I mentioned. Without the dehumanizing propaganda that Streicher orchestrated and broadcast could the political and social isolation, the ghetoization, the mass deportations and eventually mass murder have taken place?


To say that Streicher "conceived of" the genocide is drawing a very long bow indeed. He may have thought of genocide as a means of combating the "Jewish enemy", and he certainly expressed his approval of it. However, he did not play any role in planning it, in the sense of drawing up a series of actions to be implemented by others..
Of course he conceived of it, even I who according to you is ignorant of the history of the era have seen the footage of Julius banging on about fleas lice and Jews, and their eradication.

It is also contrary to historical fact to describe Streicher as an "active participant in the background orchestration of the genocide". That implies he had some sort of executive function of organising actions to be carried out by others.
No it does not, that is where you want to place culpability, at the coal face. What I am saying is that there would be no mining if there was no perception of a value in it. Streicher created a value in the demise of the Jews in the minds of the German people which allowed the unthinkable just ten years previously to happen, and with the participation of tens of thousands who knew what the outcome of their part in the "activity" would be.
Streicher certainly did know of the mass shootings in occupied Soviet territory, from reports he received from journalists in the field who had witnessed or heard of those shootings. Whether he had received information specifically about Aktion Reinhardt is less clear.
That is my point Michael, if he knew about Reinhard he had culpability if not he was negligent.

So Streicher's knowledge of anti-Jewish actions was probably no greater than that of many other people in Germany who were in no way involved in those actions.
I beg to differ, just a Joe Blow with no "reason" to possibly have an insiders view, thats your contribution. Julius joined the NSDAP around 1922, started distributing Der Sturmer in1924 and later published anti Semitic children’s books (forget about Sturmer, the children’s books exhibit the manipulative intent of his publications), Party Gauleiter and still in favor with Hitler even when stripped of office, hardly someone who would "not" know about Reinhard, half the Poles in the General Government knew all about it.

When Streicher wrote in an approving way in his newspaper about the ongoing massacre of the Jews, he was acting in the same way as a journalist who, in the Prohibition Era in the United states, might have published an article praising the bootlegging activities of Al Capone as benefiting society by providing a product that most people wanted but were unable to obtain otherwise.
The only comment I have to that lot is "give me a break".
All things must pass...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23721
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by David Thompson » 18 Dec 2010 15:26

A polemical opinion post from Panzermahn was deleted by the moderator pursuant to numerous prior warnings - DT.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 19 Dec 2010 05:54

Without the dehumanizing propaganda that Streicher orchestrated and broadcast could the political and social isolation, the ghetoization, the mass deportations and eventually mass murder have taken place?

Yes.

The organs of the German Government that planned and implemented the anti-Jewish actions were not influenced by Streicher's publicity, and indeed positively rejected him, regarding the material published by him as ridiculous.

The many east European peoples who carried out their own independent anti-Jewish actions or assisted the German occupiers with theirs were not influenced by Streicher's publications, which they had probably never heard of. They had their own quarrels with Jews that were independent of propaganda published in Germany.
Streicher created a value in the demise of the Jews in the minds of the German people which allowed the unthinkable just ten years previously to happen, and with the participation of tens of thousands who knew what the outcome of their part in the "activity" would be.
Did he really create such a value? Do you have sociological evidence to support that bold statement?

The degree of influence that Streicher had on the German public mind is highly questionable. Even the leading National Socialists regarded him as a half-demented fool, and it is likely that the better-educated elements of the German people totally rejected him and his quasi-pornographic material.

Sociological investigations have shown that the anti-Jewish propaganda peddled by Streicher and his ilk was not a major factor in the German people's support for Hitler, and that it was regarded with a certain amount of disdain. For example, there was wide-spread public rejection of the anti-Jewish violence perpetrated on the so-called "Night of Broken Glass" on 9-19 November 1938.

Similar surveys of German personnel who actually were involved in anti-Jewish actions, including massacres, have shown that their main motivation was not the occult judeophobia peddled by Streicher but rather a sense of duty, of obedience to the Fuehrer who knew what was best for Germany. Where German personnel expressed their approval of the most radical anti-Jewish measures, it was because they saw the Jews as dangerous Bolshevik enemies who needed to be destroyed because they wished to destroy the German people, not because they believed that German blood would be poisoned by sexual intercourse with Jews, the essential message preached by Streicher.

It needs to be remembered that the massacres of the Jews did not take place in Germany, and did not take place in the view of the German people. There was really no need to create an exterminatory value in the minds of the German people, since the extermination was being perpetrated "out of sight and out of mind".

Rather the massacre of the Jews was carried out amidst Poles, Ukrainians, Balts and other peoples who either approved of it or looked the other way, even without having been influenced by Streicher's propaganda.
The only comment I have to that lot is "give me a break".
I am deeply impressed by the intellectual rigour of that argument.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 19 Dec 2010 06:10

Michael, I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that Streicher assumed a role which was comparable to that of a 'perpetrator' or principal offender. As your own source stated, the members of the court which convicted him saw as an 'accessory' or an 'accomplice'. Streicher was joined with other more important figures in a charge that they participated in a common plan not only as 'leaders' and 'organizers' but as 'instigators' or 'accomplices', which course of action was clearly open to the prosecution on the plain language of the instrument constituting the tribunal.
Our view of historical truth should not determined by a statute issued by the victors for political purposes.

The plain fact is that Streicher was not a "Major War Criminal".

The men tried as "Major War Criminals", with two exceptions, had been the civilian and military leaders of Germany before and/or during the war. The two exceptions were Fritzsche and Streicher. Fritzsche had during the war been a public servant who broadcast propaganda; Streicher had also disseminated propaganda, but as a private citizen.

Fritzsche was found not guilty by reason of the fact that he had not held a high position of authority, and was merely a cog, ie he did not belong to the category "Major War Criminal" which the IMT had been commissioned to try. Streicher really fell into the same category.

Two other defendants, Papen and Schacht, had held high positions in the German Government before the war, and were collectively responsible with the other members of that Government for its actions during their respective periods of office. They were however found not guilty because they had not held those high positions during the war itself.

The fact is that Streicher was condemned and punished for what he was and for what he represented, rather than for any definable action he actually committed, and no amount of stretching the law will alter that fact.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 19 Dec 2010 07:08

The term 'major war criminal' as it was used in the IMT Charter was a direct reference to the Moscow Declaration, which referred to those whose crimes had no particular geographical localisation. To the extent that Streicher was taken to have implicated himself in a Europe wide plan to exterminate the Jews by propagandising in favour of the program as a whole, he clearly fell into that categorisation regardless of whether he held any position of executive power.

I think we all know that Fritzsche was dragged before the court because the Soviet Union wanted to have at least a couple of their prisoners tried.

The guilt of von Papen and Schacht is a different matter, because the only charge which the prosecution seriously pursued against them was count 1 - conspiracy to wage aggressive war. Like the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and the US Military Tribunals which subsequently sat at Nuremberg, the IMT took the position that only the seniourmost members of the government and certain other elites could be guilty of crimes against peace, because only they could shape or influence the political decision to wage aggressive war. No such limitation was applied or has ever been applied to guilt for war crimes and crimes against humanity, so the comparison with Streicher is inappropriate: Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law (2008), 158 - 159.

The conspiracy count was even more restricted in its ambit, both temporally and in terms of those whom it was considered could 'conspire'. This had more to do with the fact that the French and American members of the tribunal did not like the fact that conspiracy could be a crime of itself, and therefore wanted to throw it out completely or else limit it considerably: Stanislaw Pomorski, Stanislow Pomorski, ‘Conspiracy and Criminal Organisations’, in George Ginsburgs and V.N. Kudriavstev, The Nuremberg trial and international law, (1990), 213-248. Once the conspiracy count was limited to the highest ranking members in the regime after 1937, it was inevitable that von Papen and Schacht, like all but 8 of the 22 accused natural persons, would be acquitted under count 1. Since their alleged guilt under other counts was entirely derived from participation in a conspiracy to wage aggressive war, this also ensured that they would be acquitted completely.

User avatar
sziszlow
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 12 Nov 2009 01:28
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by sziszlow » 19 Dec 2010 12:28

michael mills wrote: The many east European peoples who carried out their own independent anti-Jewish actions or assisted the German occupiers with theirs were not influenced by Streicher's publications, which they had probably never heard of
Michael as I remember telling you on another forum, one of the less than a handful stories my dad told to me about his youth was the one where he and his mates (as children) would go to the well of the Jewish village and throw a pigs head down it for obvious reasons. Pogroms against the "Christ Killers" have always been in the European psyche.

I said: "Streicher created a value in the demise of the Jews in the minds of the German people which allowed the unthinkable just ten years previously to happen, and with the participation of tens of thousands who knew what the outcome of their part in the "activity" would be."
You said: Did he really create such a value? Do you have sociological evidence to support that bold statement?

As I mentioned if you are printing and widely distributing children’s books that demonize Jews you are looking for an outcome, and that is the denigrating and demonizing of Jews in the minds of a generation. Thereby when they are asked to murder Jewish children and women they are compliant.

I may not be as well read on the holocaust as you Michael in quoting chapter and verse regarding German formations etc, but I grew up with the guys who did the dirty work and got firsthand accounts of the times...eventually...on their death beds almost, but I got it from their mouths, not the internet. So don't spin me, my search for truth has no bias, the way it turned out I wish it had not or I could deny what became evident to me.
The degree of influence that Streicher had on the German public mind is highly questionable. Even the leading National Socialists regarded him as a half-demented fool, and it is likely that the better-educated elements of the German people totally rejected him and his quasi-pornographic material.
Michael you tell me that the top Nazis had nothing but contempt for Streicher, I tell you that the top echelon Nazis all harbored hate and animosity between themselves seven days a week, because that is the way Hitler ruled his minions. Adolph did not want cozy little friendships amongst those at the top, one may not topple him but two or three might. Michael you would not survive in Nazi Germany because you really do not understand the psychology behind the major players, no offence.. Streicher was not meant to influence the top Nazis, he was meant to influence the plebs, and he did.

Sociological investigations have shown that the anti-Jewish propaganda peddled by Streicher and his ilk was not a major factor in the German people's support for Hitler, and that it was regarded with a certain amount of disdain. For example, there was wide-spread public rejection of the anti-Jewish violence perpetrated on the so-called "Night of Broken Glass" on 9-19 November 1938.
Yes Michael you are exactly right, I recall the mass protests against the pogroms in Bonn, Nuremberg and Berlin, the Germans were furious at the dehumanizing of the Jewish citizens, I stand corrected.

Similar surveys of German personnel who actually were involved in anti-Jewish actions, including massacres, have shown that their main motivation was not the occult judeophobia peddled by Streicher but rather a sense of duty,
You really are a simple soul, If I had been a part of murdering children and was caught I would say "the boss told me to do it" At this point Michael I really have to ask are you so short of a cause that you defend the absurd.

Rather the massacre of the Jews was carried out amidst Poles, Ukrainians, Balts and other peoples who either approved of it or looked the other way, even without having been influenced by Streicher's propaganda.
I went to a pre Christmas dinner with friend today, Latvian and Estonian friends. Two of the guests were over ninety, still mobile and still thinking, they were there, I got more today than you could assemble in a decade, and it is first hand. You keep denying, it's an ideological agenda, but you are fooling yourself.

I said: The only comment I have to that lot is "give me a break".
You said: I am deeply impressed by the intellectual rigor of that argument.

I am not an intellectual as you purport to be by my denigration, but what I say is not scripted and regurgitated.
All things must pass...

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by PFLB » 19 Dec 2010 12:44

As has been discussed above, a person who instigates or abets a crime by their approval can be held responsible for it notwithstanding that their counsel or influence is not the 'main motivation' of the principal offender.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 20 Dec 2010 05:55

As I mentioned if you are printing and widely distributing children’s books that demonize Jews you are looking for an outcome, and that is the denigrating and demonizing of Jews in the minds of a generation. Thereby when they are asked to murder Jewish children and women they are compliant.
Again you are making heroic assumptions, Sziszlow.

You are assuming that members of the German security forces obeyed orders to kill Jews because they had been programmed to want to kill Jews through reading the anti-Jewish children's literature published by Streicher.

However, that assumption presupposes that Streicher's material was widely read by children, and that they were substantially influenced by it in a way that lasted into adulthood. Can you cite any sociological surveys of the German population that bear out your assumption?

Streicher had a very bad reputation in Germany, including among the senior ranks of the National Socialist Party, and it was only Hitler's backing that enabled him to hold a position as Gauleiter for as long as he did. Eventually, Streicher became so notorious for his scandalous behaviour that even Hitler could not save him and he was dismissed from all his Party positions, becoming purely a private citizen. Given his poor reputation, it is questionable how many German parents encouraged or allowed their children to read his rather grotesque material, even parents who were fervent supporters of Hitler.

Detailed analyses of the attitudes and motivations of German personnel who were actually involved in massacres of Jews, by reputable historians such as Christopher Browning, have shown that the prime motivation of those personnel was not a fierce hatred of Jews derived from absorbing anti-Jewish literature such as that produced by Streicher, but rather a combination of the traditional pressure to obey orders and an "esprit de corps", a desire not to let the side down by failure to do one's duty.

It is noteworthy that the large-scale organised killing of Jews began with the attack on the Soviet Union, which was accompanied by an intense propaganda effort on the topic of the need to destroy Bolshevism which posed a mortal risk to the German people. Accordingly, the "war on the Jews" was really a part of the war on Bolshevism, and the impulse behind the mass-killing was a perceived need to kill the enemy before being killed by him.

That impulse was well expressed by Himmler in his Posen address to the Gauleiters and SS leaders in October 1943, where he proclaimed: "We had the right to kill this people that wanted to kill us". The Jews were considered to pose an existential threat to the German people through their political power in the form of Bolshevism; that is the reason why the killing began on conquered Soviet territory, and the first victims were those Jews considered to be "bearers of Bolshevism".

Accordingly, the motivation for the killing of the Jews was quite unrelated to the sexually-based, quasi-pornographic anti-Jewish imagery propagated by Streicher's publications. That fact was confirmed by the leaders of the anti-Jewish actions, the senior men of the SS, who unanimously rejected Streicher, and asserted that their anti-Jewish attitudes had any relationship with, or were influenced by, Streicher's writings. Eichmann, for example, stated firmly that the SS was totally uninfluenced by Streicher.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by michael mills » 20 Dec 2010 06:17

As has been discussed above, a person who instigates or abets a crime by their approval can be held responsible for it notwithstanding that their counsel or influence is not the 'main motivation' of the principal offender.
What exactly does "instigating or abetting a crime by approval" actually mean?

It seems to me that a person could only be held responsible for for a crime by reason of "giving approval" if that approval was a factor that allowed that crime to be committed.

Merely expressing gladness that the crime was commmitted could not possibly imply responsibility for it.

Let me illustrate that point by an example. A lower-level criminal goes to a gangster leader who controls all illegal activities in a certain territory, and asks for permission to carry out a bank robbery in that territory. The gangster leader gives his approval, but does not otherwise get involved in the planning or commission of the crime; he simply allows the lower-level criminal, whose "main motivation" is his own desire to get rich, to proceed with his own plan.

In that case, the gangsetr leader could be considered to have abetted the crime, since his approval was a necessary step in its commission.

Let us assume that the bank robbery is carried out, and in the course of its commission the lower-level criminal kills a bank guard who tried to resist. Another person who was totally unconnected with the crime is heard to say "I am glad that guard was killed, he was screwing my wife".

Can the person who uttered that sentiment, who "approved" of the crime, be held in any way responsible for its commission? Of course not, it would be perverse to attribute any responsibility to him, although one might consider his sentiment in bad taste.

Streicher's case is analogous to that of the cuckolded husband who expresses his satisfaction at the death of the guard, not to that of the gangster leader who approves the commission of the crime by someone else. Streicher was informed by his journalists in the field of the ongoing massacre of the Jews, and Streicher published his approval of the massacre in his newspaper. But in doing so, he was purely expressing an opinion about a crime, saying it was a "good thing", not doing something that allowed it to happen.

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

Re: Julius Streicher

Post by kiseli » 20 Dec 2010 09:15

Streicher's case is analogous to that of the cuckolded husband who expresses his satisfaction at the death of the guard, not to that of the gangster leader who approves the commission of the crime by someone else. Streicher was informed by his journalists in the field of the ongoing massacre of the Jews, and Streicher published his approval of the massacre in his newspaper. But in doing so, he was purely expressing an opinion about a crime, saying it was a "good thing", not doing something that allowed it to happen.
Streicher is not innocent bystander in bank robbery; he is the part of the conspiracy to murder.
1.Editor of the anti-Semitic weekly "Der Stuermer" and focus of the anti-Jewish movement in the 1930s
2.Streicher was known as "Jew-baiter Number One", and preached hatred against the Jews for 25 years.Week after week, he infected the German mind with anti-Semitism and incited the German people to persecution.From 1938, he was calling for the annihilation of the Jewish race, intensifying his exhortations during the war even though he knew of mass murders of Jews.His incitement to extermination constitutes a crime against humanity.
3 Verdict: Guilty on Count Four

(Count Four-Crimes against Humanity: Murder, extermination,enslavement and persecution on political or racial ground of any civilian population, before or during the war)

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”