Julius Streicher

[kiseli]

Streicher 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

The IMT's conclusions focused more on Streicher's anti-Jewish incitements during the war, at the very moment that massive crimes were being perpetrated against the Jews, than on Streicher's role in creating a climate favorable to anti-Jewish policies. The tribunal concluded that Streicher's incitements to murder and extermination, even as Jews were being killed in great numbers, constituted persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes and thus qualified as a crime against humanity.

[David Thompson]

Michael -- You wrote:

Please show how the words uttered by Streicher constituted a war crime under the international law of the time. Please indicate which of the Rules of Land Warfare the words uttered by him in spoken or written form offended against

Let's go through this non-problem slowly, step by step:

1. Article 46 of the 1907 Hague IV convention annex regulates the treatment of foreign nationals in occupied territory. It provides:

Art. 46. Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

2. The article therefore prohibits the execution, without trial, of foreign civilians from occupied territories on religious grounds.

3. Streicher encouraged the execution, without trial, of foreign civilians from occupied territories on religious grounds.

4. A person, such as Streicher, who counsels or encourages another to commit a crime is punishable as a principal – just as though he had committed the crime personally.

5. The German occupation authorities practiced widespread executions without trial, of foreign civilians from occupied territories on religious grounds.

6. Major violations of article 46 of the 1907 Hague IV convention annex are war crimes.

7. During and prior to WWII, all war crimes were punishable by death, or whatever lesser penalty the offended country saw fit to impose.

Conceptually, I think Streicher's case is indistinguishable from that of German officials and civilians who counseled, encouraged or incited Germans to lynch captured allied aviators.

[htk]

hello Mr Thompson

qte Conceptually, I think Streicher's case is indistinguishable from that of German officials and civilians who counseled, encouraged or incited Germans to lynch captured allied aviators. unqte

Up till today it is "normal" for states to give a specific group a special status like "terrorist"or "unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant" to put this group outside the law or conventions in order to deal with them in a not lawfull manner. In my opinion if it is legal today is was legal then.

If i read correct streicher is convicted of encourage crimes against foreign civilians (i.e jews) and therefore against german jews ???

[David Thompson]

htk -- You asked:

If i read correct streicher is convicted of encourage crimes against foreign civilians (i.e jews) and therefore against german jews ???

You (and the other readers) can read the IMT judgment for yourself at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 416#240416, and make up your own mind.

The policy and general purpose of the forum is to provide for an exchange of views and facts on the topic, and to allow discussion of the different points of view. The viewpoints expressed by contributors to this forum are so divergent that general agreement on almost any aspect of the holocaust is unlikely and disagreement will be the rule.

Under these circumstances, in my opinion the best policy is to provide as many facts on the issue as possible, allow the contributors to state their point of view in a civil manner, and let the readers make up their own minds.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962

[Led125]

But perhaps those co0ntributors to this thread who believe that there are valid legal precedents for the death sentence handed out to Streicher could provide actual examples of cases similar to Streicher's, ie which meet the following criteria:

1. A group of people conspire to carry out a violent act against another person or defined group of people, and proceed to implement the conspiracy; and

2. A third person (the equivalent of Streicher), who bears a strong hatred for the person or group of persons targeted by the above conspiracy, and has openly expressed that hatred, but was not party to the above conspiracy, observes or finds out about the commission of the violent act decided on by the conspirators, and publicly expresses his approval of it.

Your analogy doesn't quite fit Streicher's situation. Streicher approved and encouraged the murders whilst they were on going/i], he did not merely express satisfaction that they had taken place. With this in mind, I would encourage you to read George Kerr and Others 1871 2 Coupar 394

Or if it is too hard to track down, then look at this extract from A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law of Scotland by John MacDonald

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZJ1y ... it&f=false


Read pages 8 and 9. In particular I draw your attention to this statement:

Only those who could be guilty who encouraged it, ...by inciting the person who did it [the crime]

[Led125]

The crucial factor in the above case is that the two men who chanted approval were part of the group that decided to assault someone.

I ask Led125 to think very carefully about who constituted the group who reached a decision to murder all the Jews in their power and formulated a common plan to that end. Was Streicher part of that group?

That is NOT the crucial factor. What Lord Keith said was that had the men been uninvolved in the conspiracy until they began chanting, then the law would deem them to have joined in the conspiracy.

[WhiteFox]

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.

*Raises hand* I'm as anti-NS as can be, and I think what Streicher said was repugnant. But I still wonder if his execution was just, given that he was, at the time of the genocide, just publishing a newspaper. It''s hard for me to believe that anyone would have been more reluctant to kill Jews if Streicher had never lived.

That said, I think it's disgusting that certain revisionists have used the Streicher verdict to call into question the NMT as a whole.

[john h]

IT SEEMS TO ME STREICHER WAS HUNG FOR WHAT DAVID DUKE IN AMERICA JOHN TYNDALL IN ENGLAND AND LE PENN IN FRANCE GOT AWAY WITH FOR YEARS

[David Thompson]

Let's start seeing some sourced facts on the topic, which is what our readers come here to see.

[WhiteFox]

OK. Randy Bytwerk, in his 1983 book on Steicher, makes a fairly subtle argument against him. In Chapter 9 and in other parts of the book, he provides evidence that the Sturmer, by publishing denouncements of Gentiles who solicit Jewish shops or even associate with Jews socially, made it much more dangerous for Germans to continue doing so. His evidence on this is thin--mostly a few quotes from Germans saying they can't even socially acknowledge Jews for fear that the Sturner would write about it. Once people started ignoring the Jews, Bytwerk argues, it became easier to deport them.

He also points out that the Sturmer display cases, which were put in high-traffic areas all over Germany, increased the readership far beyond the published circulation figures. In my view, the fact that Streicher's material was posted publicly increased the effect of the denunciations exponentially

I'm still unconvinced that this argument is strong enough to put someone to death, but it's the best one I've heard so far. I still wonder if Streicher would have gotten a prison sentence instead had Himmler been alive for the trial.

I want to clarify that I am NOT questioning the Nuremberg evidence. And one problem with questioning any of the Nuremberg sentences is that it creates a slippery slope down which the denier types will happily slide. However, the question is still worth asking.

[Led125]

But I still wonder if his execution was just, given that he was, at the time of the genocide, just publishing a newspaper

I believe that myself and others have shown that the case for executing Streicher was quite compatible with the legal traditions of the United States, England and Scotland. He incited violence and encouraged the murders of members of an ethnic group, thereby making himself art and part liable for the crimes.

[PFLB]

The problem is that the actual documentary evidence suggests that Streicher was executed because he came off as antagonistic, unapologetic, rude, and so forth. Speer and Funk were much more proximately involved in the same or similar crimes but off with life or a term of years, it appears, because they gave a better performance in the dock. The contrast is even more striking when one considers the sentence meted out to a real Nazi press baron, one of the chiefs of the propaganda apparatus, in the Ministries Case.

[Led125]

I would accept that some defenders in Nuremberg got away (for want of a better phrase) rather lightly, and certainly should have received more severe sentences. However I don't think this is really an argument for letting Streicher off. Indeed, most of the arguments posted here against Streicher being charged seem to rely on the assumption that freedom of speech is a limitless freedom. Its not. and nor should it be.

[parker89]

By contemporary measure, Streicher would be a blogger and social nuisance the media would condemn. There is a fine line between freedom of speech and criminality; Streicher clearly stepped over it, but his sentence was an obvious perversion of justice that was affected by political climate; it was not the end result of impartial legal consideration.