Share this article with:
In the aftermath of World War II, the governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France established an “International Military Tribunal” (IMT) to punish surviving leaders of Third Reich Germany.
Its much publicized “Trial of the Major War Criminals” met and deliberated in Nuremberg from November 1945 to October 1946.
Of the men named by the Allied powers as defendants, the selection of Julius Streicher was one of the most difficult to justify. That’s because he had played no role whatsoever in planning or carrying out wartime policies of the Hitler regime. He was added to the list of “Major War Criminals” because of his international reputation as a vicious anti-Jewish writer, publicist and speaker, above all as publisher of the stridently anti-Semitic weekly, Der Stürmer (“The Stormer”). Citing articles that appeared in his paper, the Tribunal sentenced him to death for “Crimes Against Humanity.”
During this time of heated debate about the role of “hate speech” in society, and “cancel culture” suppression of offensive writings and images, Streicher’s life and death have new relevance.
Life and Career
Julius Streicher was one of nine children in the family of a schoolteacher in a village near the Bavarian city of Augsburg. Following in his father’s footsteps, he was working as a teacher when the First World War broke out in 1914. He volunteered for military service, joining the 6th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. He served four years with distinction, rising to the rank of lieutenant. He was repeatedly commended for courage, earning the Iron Cross second class and first class, as well as Austrian and Bavarian medals for bravery.
In the aftermath of the war of 1914-1918, Germany was a land of privation, violent discord, and despair. Marxist zealots, inspired by the success of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia, tried to seize power. In Munich a short-lived “Bavarian Soviet Republic” headed by Eugen Leviné was established. In Nuremberg, Streicher joined a new nationalist group, the “German Socialist Party” (DSP). He soon became its most prominent activist and speaker, and succeeded in winning many supporters.
His life changed in 1922 when he attended a meeting in Munich where he first heard Adolf Hitler speak. He later described the experience:
“Now he spoke. First slowly, hardly audible, then more quickly and more powerfully, and finally with great strength … It was an amazing treasure trove of thought that came from his speech of more than three hours, clothed with the beauty of inspired language. Everyone felt it: this man spoke from a divine calling. He spoke as a messenger from heaven at a time when hell threatened to swallow up everything. And everyone understood him, with the head or the heart, men as well as women. He spoke for everyone, for the entire German people … Never before had the singing of the German anthem moved me so deeply as it did during that mass meeting where I first saw Adolf Hitler and heard him speak … I hurried through the jubilant crowd to the podium, stood before him, and said: ‘Mr. Hitler! My name is Julius Streicher. At this moment I know I can only be a follower. But you are a leader! I give to you the popular movement that I’ve built in Franconia’.” / 1
Streicher soon announced his resignation from the party he had done so much to help build, simultaneously calling on DSP members to join him in supporting Hitler’s fledgling movement. Hitler never forgot this expression of confidence and trust. In Mein Kampf he made a point of praising Streicher for his “difficult and profoundly decent” deed. Years later, Hitler recalled his importance in remarks to colleagues: “Despite all his weaknesses, he’s a man who has spirit. If we wish to tell the truth, we must recognize that, without Julius Streicher, Nuremberg would never have been won over to National Socialism. He put himself under my orders at a time when others were hesitating to do so, and he completely conquered the city … That’s an unforgettable service.” / 2
The Stürmer Weekly
In 1923 Streicher founded Der Stürmer, and in November he took part in the attempt by Hitler and his followers to seize power in Munich. Because of his role in the failed putsch, Streicher was imprisoned for a time, and dismissed from his position as a teacher. In 1924 he won election as a member of the Bavarian provincial legislature, a position he held for eight years. After Hitler’s own release from prison and the re-founding of the National Socialist Party in early 1925, he appointed Streicher as regional party chief (Gauleiter) of the Franconia area of Bavaria.
While the circulation of Der Stürmer rose sharply after the National Socialists consolidated their authority in 1933-1934, Streicher’s power remained limited to his home region. He held no position of importance outside of Franconia. Similarly, his Stürmer had no government or Party status. This independent weekly was Streicher’s private publication.
In content, style and tone, his paper was not at all typical of the weekly or daily press of Third Reich Germany. Although it proclaimed itself a “German Weekly Paper in Struggle for the Truth,” its focus was narrow. At the bottom of the front page, each Stürmer issue carried the motto in bold letters: “The Jews Are Our Misfortune.” The tone of this bluntly polemical paper was strident and one-sided. Its articles were written in sentences that were shorter than those of most German papers, and the vocabulary was more limited.
Articles often highlighted crimes committed by Jews, and especially real or alleged sexual transgressions. Such items doubtless excited the salacious curiosity of many readers, but contrary to an often-repeated claim, the paper was not pornographic. Appealing to baser emotions of jealously and envy, Stürmer articles and readers’ letters often “outed” Germans who maintained cordial relations with Jews. The paper publicized businesses, especially those owned or managed by NS Party members, that retained Jewish employees or continued friendly dealings with Jewish clients. Some of its most sensational articles were actually penned by a Jewish journalist, Fritz Brand, who wrote for Der Stürmer under the name of Jonas Wolk from 1934 to 1938. / 3
The paper’s vivid cartoons were probably its most distinguishing and best remembered feature. Drawn by Philipp Rupprecht (“Fips”) these striking illustrations, many of which appeared on the front page, routinely portrayed Jews as ugly and fat, with large ears, swollen lips, cynical faces, and grotesquely exaggerated “Jewish” features.
Most Germans regarded Der Stürmer as uncouth and in bad taste. Better educated and middle class Germans were especially inclined to view it with disdain. Officials of the National Socialist Party and the Third Reich government similarly regarded Streicher’s weekly with scorn and embarrassment, not least because hostile critics abroad often cited it as representative or typical of the “new Germany.”
Even with regard to the nation’s Jewish policy, the Stürmer did not reflect the attitude or outlook of the leadership of Hitler’s Party or the German government. During the prewar years, 1933-1939, higher-level government and Party officials, including SS leaders, sought to “solve” Germany’s “Jewish problem” above all through emigration. / 4 SS Colonel (and later Reich Health Leader) Dr. Leonardo Conti, for example, stressed that the new Germany rejected racial hatred. The Jews, he said, were “not an inferior but a different race.” / 5
Himmler’s SS organization, which played a major role in carrying out the country’s Jewish policies, rejected Streicher’s sensationalist and emotive anti-Jewish polemics. The main SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, rebuked Streicher and Der Stürmer in a June 1935 article entitled “The Anti-Semitism That Causes Us Harm.” / 6
So offensive was Streicher’s paper to so many Germans that it was repeatedly restricted and suppressed by Third Reich authorities. Perhaps the most notorious edition of Der Stürmer was a special May 1934 “ritual murder” issue, which accused Jews of carrying out secret killings of non-Jews over centuries. A lurid front-page cartoon depicted ugly Jewish killers collecting blood from the throats of slain children. This issue prompted such widespread and vehement protests that further circulation of it was forbidden on Hitler’s orders, and undistributed copies were confiscated. / 7
On two occasions in January 1938, German police throughout the country seized editions of Der Stürmer. On January 19, copies of a regular issue were confiscated because it had sharply criticized the government for granting foreign exchange to Jews so that they could attend Jewish educational institutions in Switzerland, and because it had complained about German judges who allegedly failed to enforce the anti-Jewish Nuremberg laws. Two days later police seized all copies of a special Stürmer issue because of an article demanding the death penalty for Jews having sexual relations with (non-Jewish) German women. / 8
Der Stürmer was banned from distribution within the Hitler Youth organization, / 9 and in October 1938 the German Army High Command officially deemed the paper unsuitable for German military servicemen, and banned it from distribution within its branches. / 10 After Hitler and his Party consolidated power in Germany, Streicher was given no opportunity to speak on German radio, nor was he ever invited to contribute to any leading German newspaper. He was never consulted about national affairs, not even with regard to the regime’s Jewish policy. / 11
Influential journalists in the Third Reich press and key officials in Hitler’s government regarded Streicher and his paper with contempt. This point was made emphatically by Hans Fritzsche, a prominent journalist and high-ranking official in Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry, whose voice was familiar to millions through his radio news commentaries. In testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal, he said:
“My colleagues and I, in the press and radio, without exception I would say, rejected Der Stürmer radically. During a period of 13 years of regular radio broadcasts reviewing the press I never quoted that paper. It was never quoted in the German press either. The [Stürmer] editors did not belong to the professional journalists’ organization, and its publisher did not belong to the publishers’ organization … I tried twice to ban Der Stürmer. I was not successful … I wanted to ban the Stürmer, not only because the mere verbatim reproduction of a page of the Stürmer was the most effective anti-German propaganda of all, but I wanted to ban Der Stürmer simply for reasons of good taste. I wanted to ban it as a source of radicalism against which I fought wherever I met it ...” / 12
Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, came close to issuing an order in 1939 to shut down Streicher’s paper entirely. / 13 In 1939 Streicher was prohibited from making public speeches, by order of Hitler issued through his Deputy Rudolf Hess. / 14
By 1939 accusations of misconduct against Streicher by prominent Party officials became so numerous and substantial that he requested a formal investigation of them by the Party’s own internal judicial commission – naturally with the expectation that he would be exonerated. In February 1940 this “Party Court” looked into the allegations, including claims that he had illegally enriched himself with property taken from Jews. However, the evidence consisted of contradictory testimony and statements, and the Party commission was unable to reach a definitive conclusion. All the same, Streicher was removed from all official posts. / 15
It was perhaps due to Hitler’s abiding gratitude for Streicher’s loyalty and support during the difficult early years that he was permitted to nominally retain his title as Gauleiter, and to continue publishing his Stürmer weekly. Some months after his dismissal, Hitler remarked to colleagues about the Party’s internal investigation of him and its outcome:
“When all’s said, it was the Gauleiters themselves who asked me to be indulgent with Streicher. In all the circumstances, there was no comparison between the faults he committed and his recognized merits, which were brilliant … If one day I write my memoirs, I shall have to recognize that this man fought like a buffalo in our cause. The conquest of Franconia was his work. I have a bad conscience when I get the feeling that I’ve not been quite fair to somebody … I can’t help thinking that, in comparison with so many services, the reasons for Streicher’s dismissal are really very slender.” / 16
After he was stripped of all authority, Streicher lived from 1940 until the end of the war at his rural home. His Stürmer also lost influence as its circulation fell drastically during the war years. / 17
In May 1945, a few weeks after the end of the war, Streicher was taken prisoner by American troops. While in US military custody, he was kicked, whipped, spat at, forced to drink saliva, and burned with cigarettes. His genitals were beaten. Eyebrow and chest hair were pulled out. He was stripped naked and photographed. / 18 He was later taken to Nuremberg to join other former Third Reich figures as defendants before the International Military Tribunal. Gustave Gilbert, the Jewish-born US military officer who was the IMT prison psychologist, administered tests to the defendants to determine their intelligence levels. Streicher’s IQ was found to be the lowest: 106, or just slightly above average.
The lawyer who was assigned to defend Streicher was Dr. Hanns Marx. Although the two men had little regard for each other, and Streicher openly expressed distrust of his attorney, Marx handled remarkably well what he rightly called a “difficult and thankless task.” / 19
Streicher, he emphasized, was a defendant not because of any actual crimes he had committed, but rather because of his international reputation as “Enemy Number One of the Jews.” We are told, Marx went on, that Streicher was “not only the greatest hater of the Jews and the greatest preacher of extermination of the Jews, but also the person whose direct influence one could trace back the extermination of European Jewry.” In reality, the attorney told the Tribunal, “the picture drawn of him by the Prosecution does not correspond in any way with the actual facts.” / 20
“Neither by virtue of his personality nor measured by his offices and positions,” Marx said, “does he [Streicher] belong to the circle of leaders of the NSDAP [National Socialist Party] or to the Party’s decisive personalities.” The influence of his paper was also quite limited. “Even in Party circles,” Dr. Marx pointed out, “demands were made that Der Stürmer should be discontinued entirely; or at least that its illustrations, style and tone should be altered … It was looked upon by the Party and State administration, in contrast to all papers which were considered to be of any importance, as a private paper belonging to a private writer.” / 21
After 1938, Marx noted, Streicher “had no connections whatsoever with Hitler, by whom he had been completely cast off … If the defendant Streicher had really been the man the Prosecution believes him to be, his influence and his activity would have increased automatically with the intensification of the fight against the Jews. His career would not have ended, as it actually did, in political powerlessness and banishment from the scene of action, but with the commission to carry out the destruction of Jewry.” / 22
During his own testimony before the Tribunal, Streicher mentioned his mistreatment by US military personnel while being held prisoner. At the request of the US prosecutor, those remarks were stricken from the court record. / 23
Alone of the Nuremberg defendants, Streicher was held to be culpable solely for views he held and disseminated, rather than for anything he had actually done. / 24 However, no evidence was presented to the Tribunal proving that Streicher’s writings or his paper had contributed, directly or even indirectly, to killings of Jews. Allied prosecutors were unable to present witness testimony or any other evidence establishing that reading Der Stürmer actually encouraged anyone to commit any specific crime. In short, no proof was presented to show that any writing, speech or cartoon for which Streicher was responsible had motived or inspired even one killing.
The Allied prosecutors had difficulty showing that the defendant ever wished for the physical extermination of the Jews. Streicher, Dr. Marx said, “always had in mind an international solution of the Jewish question; he did not favor a German or even European partial solution and rejected it. That was why he suggested, in an editorial in Der Stürmer in the year 1941, that the French island of Madagascar should be considered as a place of settlement for the Jews. Consequently, he did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical extermination of the Jews, but in their resettlement.” / 26
His wife, Adele, was similarly emphatic on this point. “From all conversations with Julius Streicher,” she testified, “I can say with certainty that he never thought of the solution of the Jewish question in terms of violence, but wanted the emigration of the Jews from Europe, and their settlement outside of Europe.” / 25
In his final statement before the Tribunal, Streicher reaffirmed his plea of innocence:
“At the beginning of this trial I was asked by the President whether I pleaded guilty in the sense of the indictment. I answered that question in the negative. The now-completed proceedings and the evidence presented have confirmed the correctness of the statement I gave at that time … It has also been established that in many articles in my weekly paper, the Stürmer, I advocated the Zionist demand for the creation of a Jewish state as the natural solution of the Jewish problem. These facts prove that I did not want the Jewish question to be solved by violence. If I, or other authors, mentioned a destruction or extermination of Jewry in some articles of my weekly paper, the Stürmer, then these were strongly worded statements in response to provocative expressions of opinion by Jewish writers, in which the extermination of the German people was demanded … I repudiate the mass killings that were carried out, in the same way that they are repudiated by every decent German … Neither in my capacity as Gauleiter, nor as political writer, have I committed a crime, and I therefore look forward to your judgment with a good conscience.” / 27
The Tribunal judges were unmoved by any of this. They declared him guilty of “Crimes Against Humanity” and sentenced him to death by hanging. In justifying their verdict, the judges declared: “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.”
Just before he was put to death on Oct. 16, 1945, the 61-year-old Streicher cried out “Now I go to God. Purim festival 1946” – thereby comparing the hangings at Nuremberg with those of enemies of the Jews in ancient Persia, as related in the Old Testament book of Esther, an event that Jews have celebrated ever since in annual “Purim” festivities.
Of the twelve death sentences handed down by the Tribunal, the Streicher hanging was one of the more difficult to justify. For one thing, “Crimes Against Humanity,” as defined in the Tribunal’s own Charter, mentioned only acts or deeds, not speech, writings or publications.
Even at the time, some eminent Americans were troubled by the Streicher verdict. Perhaps the most important was Telford Taylor, a US Army officer who served with the American prosecution team at the Nuremberg IMT trial, and then as prosecution Chief Counsel at the twelve subsequent American-run Nuremberg “NMT” trials.
In his book, Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, written and published years later, Taylor wrote that he “(and many others) thought his [Streicher’s] case one of the most debatable.” He pointed out that Streicher’s “incitement,” at least before the outbreak of war in 1939, was not a crime. And during the war, he had been all but banished – deprived of any official status or power, while the influence of his paper had become negligible. Streicher’s attorney, Taylor noted, “made a very strong argument that the defendant could have little or no impact on the situation and fate of the Jews.” It’s true, Taylor acknowledged, that “a few issues of Der Stürmer contained articles calling for extermination of Jews, but its ‘incitement’ was surely imperceptible.” The Tribunal, he wrote, failed to carefully consider “the sole and (difficult) legal issue” in this case, that is “whether or not ‘incitement’ was a sufficient basis for conviction.” / 28
“It is hard to condone the Tribunal’s unthinking and callous handling of the Streicher case,” Taylor wrote. Streicher was put to death, he suggested, not because he was a war criminal, but because of his odious demeanor and reputation. Far from being well considered or just, Taylor concluded, “the Tribunal’s opinion had been superficial, perhaps influenced both by his [Streicher’s] repulsive appearance and by the likelihood of a negative public reaction if Streicher got anything less than the worst.” / 29
Taylor was particularly critical of the Tribunal’s two American Judges: Francis Biddle, who had been a US Attorney General, and John J. Parker, the US Alternate. “All the judges, but especially Biddle and Parker, nurtured in constitutional guarantees of liberty unfamiliar to their colleagues, were to blame” for “the Tribunal’s hasty and unthinking treatment of the Streicher case.” / 30
Other Americans were dismayed by the entire Nuremberg enterprise, and particularly by their country’s role in it. They were troubled that the US was sanctioning proceedings that violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. The Tribunal thus acted on the basis of “ex post facto” law, which is prohibited by the US Constitution.
America’s leading jurist, US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, remarked at the time: “[Chief US prosecutor Robert] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.” / 31
Probably the most prominent condemnation of the Nuremberg Tribunal was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the “conscience of the Republican party.” At considerable risk to his career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech. “The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice,” he said.
“About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice,” Taft continued. “The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials – government policy and not justice – with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.” / 32
However detestable Streicher and his paper may be, similar publications have long been legal in the United States. For more than two centuries, writings and images that are offensive, demeaning and hateful, or even that condone or arguably encourage violence, have been constitutionally protected. In 1976 and again in 1983 the “New Christian Crusade Church” in Louisiana issued an American edition, in English translation, of the notorious 1934 “ritual murder” issue of Der Stürmer – complete with eight graphic illustrations from the original, including the lurid front-page cartoon. / 33 This reprint of perhaps the most infamous Stürmer issue has been given more solid legal protection in the United States than the original was given in Third Reich Germany.
As Telford Taylor suggested, the American officials who helped put Julius Streicher to death were more eager to act in accord with the “popular” and fashionable sentiment of the times than to uphold their own country’s legal standards. In a sense, they were forerunners of Americans of our own era who similarly seek to suppress “hateful” or allegedly inflammatory rhetoric, writings and imagery.
1. Jay W. Baird, “Das politische Testament Julius Streichers,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Jg. 26, Heft 4, 1978, pp. 682-683.
2. Hitler’s Secret Conversations (New York: New American Library/ Signet [pb. ed.], 1961), pp. 168, 169. (Night of Dec. 28-29, 1941)
3. Randall L. Bytwerk, Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Stürmer (New York: 2001), p. 60; Prominente ohne Maske: Drittes Reich (FZ-Verlag, 1998), p. 351.
4. Heinz Höhne, The Order of the Death’s Head [Translation of Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf], (New York: Ballantine [pb. ed.], 1984), pp. 369, 371, 374, 383-384; See also: M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, pp. 29-37.
5. H. Höhne, The Order of the Death’s Head (1984), p. 373.
6. Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Vintage (pb. edition) 1997, p. 521, n. 165.
7. Berliner Tageblatt, May 18, 1934. Facsimile in: B. Distel, R. Jakusch, eds., Concentration Camp Dachau 1933-1945 (Comité International de Dachau, 1978), p. 40 (llus. 72); Prominente ohne Maske: Drittes Reich (1998), p. 351. In August 1934 a weekly issue was banned because it had libeled the Czech head of state. See: D. Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle (1996), pp. 79 and 329, n. 49.
8. “Stuermer is Suppressed,” The New York Times, Jan. 20, 1938, p. 8; “Another Stuermer is Seized,” The New York Times, Jan. 22, 1938, p. 2; Sarah A. Gordon, Hitler, Germans and the ‘Jewish Question’ (Princeton Univ., 1984), p. 174; Eugene Davidson, The Trial of the Germans (New York: Macmillan, 1969), p. 51.
9. International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg: 1947-1949 [IMT “blue series”]), vol. 14, pp. 420, 421 (Testimony of Baldur von Schirach, May 24, 1946); IMT, vol. 18, p. 210; W. Schütz, ed., Lexikon: Deutsche Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert (Rosenheim: DVG, 1990), p. 446.
10. “Erstaunliche Information zum Holocaust, Deutsche Wochen-Zeitung, Feb. 28, 1997, p. 13. Source cited: H. Stern (ed.), KZ-Lügen: Antwort auf Goldhagen (Munich: FZ-Verlag, 1997); Prominente ohne Maske: Drittes Reich (FZ-Verlag, 1998), p. 351.
11. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, pp. 211, 214, 215, 216 (Plea by attorney Dr. Marx, July 12, 1946)
12. Hans Fritzsche testimony of June 27, 1946. English text: IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (1947-1949), vol. 17, p. 166.
13. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 12, p. 329. (Apr. 29, 1946); Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring also took measures against the paper. See: Joachim C. Fest, The Face of the Third Reich (1970), p. 326, n. 8.
14. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 12, p. 321, 329, and, IMT, Trial …, vol. 18, p. 203, 204; Prominente ohne Maske: Drittes Reich (1998), p. 351.
15. Karl Höffkes, Hitlers politische Generale: Die Gauleiter des Dritten Reiches (Grabert, 1986), pp. 333, 335-337; Prominente ohne Maske: Drittes Reich (FZ-Verlag, 1998), p. 351; David Irving contends that Streicher was probably innocent of the charges against him. D. Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle (1996), p. 329, n. 51.
16. Hitler’s Secret Conversations (1961), pp. 168, 169. (Night of Dec. 28-29, 1941); See also the Goebbels diary entry of Jan. 25, 1942. Louis P. Lochner, ed., The Goebbels Diaries 1942-1943 (Doubleday, 1948), p. 47.
17. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, p. 204; The Stürmer’s circulation fell sharply during the war years, to 150,000 or even to a negligible 15,000, Telford Taylor wrote in Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (pages 379, 481, 590).
18. Werner Maser, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial (Scribner, 1979), pp. 51-52, 47, 60; B. Steidle (comp.), Verheimlichte Dokumente, Band 2 (FZ-Verlag, 1995), pp. 219-221; Keith Stimely, “The Torture of Julius Streicher,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1984 (Vol. 5, No. 1), pp. 106-119; David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle (1996), pp. 51-52, 325, n. 27, 28. See also: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992 (Vol. 12, No. 2), pages 167-213; Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 238-239; Montgomery Belgion, Victor’s Justice (Regnery, 1949), p. 90.
19. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, p. 217.
20. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, pp. 190-191, 211.
21. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, pp. 191, 201, 202.
22. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, pp. 204, 217.
23. “Streicher Case Opens,” The Times (London), April 27, 1946, p. 3; Eugene Davidson, The Trial of the Germans (New York: Macmillan, 1969), p. 51.
24. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 12, p. 322 (April 28, 1946)
25. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals … , vol. 18, p. 197 (Dr. Marx plea, July 12, 1946)
26. Testimony of Adele Streicher, April 29 1946, afternoon. Moreover, the prosecutors were unable to show that Streicher had known of mass killings of Jews until late in the war. Adele Streicher testified that her husband first learned of large-scale killings of Jews only in 1944 through items published in the Swiss Jewish weekly paper to which he subscribed.
27. From Streicher’s final plea at the IMT, August 31, 1946.
28. Telford Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (Skyhorse, 2013 [originally published by Knopf Doubleday, 1992]), pp. 496, 481, 376.
29. T. Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (2013), pp. 631, 599.
30. T. Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials (2013), p. 562. Taylor added: “The carefree way in which the Tribunal members sent him to the gallows, as if they were stamping on a worm, is especially hard to condone.”
31. Alpheus T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (New York: Viking, 1956), p. 716. In a private letter, Stone wrote: “… I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own governments if they were placed in the status of the accused.”
32. Taft address delivered at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day, Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47. Taft’s devotion to principle in defiance of both popular and “educated” opinion impressed John F. Kennedy, who praised the Ohio senator’s stand in his award-winning best seller, Profiles in Courage. Similar views were expressed by other distinguished Americans. US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas later wrote: “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.” See: H. K. Thompson and H. Strutz, eds., Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal (IHR, 1983), p. 196. For more on this, see: M. Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992 (Vol. 12, No. 2), pages 167-213.
33. A 1983 reprint of the 1976 “Julius Streicher Memorial Edition,” issued by the “New Christian Crusade Church” of Metairie, Louisiana, is in the IHR archives.
Source: Institute for Historical Review