horrible war of all times came to an end, the German was slow to rise again from the stupor in which it had, for the most part, spent the last months of the war. Like all the peoples of Europe, for years it had suffered unspeakably. The last months in particular, with their bombs, had brought so much mysery to both country and people that it almost surpassed all human capacity. the fear of the uncertain fate which the occupation period would bring. And when finally the period of first anxiety had passed, when the German people were slowly beginning to breathe again, paralyzing horror spread once more. knowledge was spread of the atrocities which had taken place in the East, in the Steppes, and in the concentration camps. Germany learned that people, men of its own blood, millions and millions of innocent Jewish people, had been slaughtered and destroyed. Most people felt instinctively that these deeds would necessarily be the greatest accusation amongst all the charges the world had to make against Germany. approved of these actions was and is the great question for its fate. It is the touchstone by which the decision must be made as to whether Germany will ever be able to return again as a nation with equal rights into the common cultural and spiritual cycle of the world. the question as to who was responsible. And then, a search for that person who had ordered these atrocities, who had carried them out, and how such inconceivable things could have happened at all. Gauleiter of Franconie and publisher of "Der Steurmer", that is, the present defendant Julius Streicher, had fallen into the hands of the American troops. From the echo this news aroused in the press which was exclusively directed and published by the occupying power and just as well in the radio new, it could be gathered that the world imagined that in the person of Julius Streicher it For Afternoon Session, 11 July 1946 had not only taken prisoner one of the numerous anti-Semitic propaganda agents of the Third Reich, but in short, enemy No. 1 of the Jews.
in Julius Streicher they had seized not only the most active propaganda agents for the persecution and extermination of the Jews, but that he had also participated to the highest degree in carrying out these acts of extermination. of the Jews and the greatest preacher of extermination of the Jews, but also the person to whose direct influence one must trace back the extermination of European Jewry. defendant Streicher sits here in the defendant's dock, together with the other defendants, amongst the chief responsible persons of the NationalSocialists system. For, in itself, neither according to his personality nor measured by his offices and positions does he belong to the circle of leaders of the N.S.D.A.P. nor to the Party's decisive personalities. Prosecution, was abandoned by them, however, at an early stage, for the written indictment no longer charged the defendant Streicher with any personal and direct part in the abominable massmurders. Rather, it stated, on the other hand, that there was less evidence to offer for him than for any of the other defendants in favour ofa direct and personal guilt. Only his propaganda, his work both written and verbal, was made the subject of an accusation. against the defendant Streicher were summed up as follows:
I. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the power of the N.S.D.A.P. after the latter's entry into the
II. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda, aimed at the
III. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education to
a) in the German people,
b) in the German youth, and
c) in the active annihilators of Jewry. Without Julius Streicher, no Auschwitz, no Mauthausen, no Maidanek, no Lublin. In such a manner, the indictment may be summed up briefly. regards the Party's later seizure of power he supported and promoted it with all his might from the very beginning. His support went to the extent of a whole movement which he had built up personally in Franconia, and which he put at the disposal of Adolf Hitler's party, the latter being small, as one can imagine after the first world war, and limited to southern Bavaria only. Furthermore, after Hitler's release from the fortress of Landsberg, he immediately jointed him again and subsequently championed his ideas and goals with the greatest determination.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a good time to break off. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 12 July 1946.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn today at 4 o'clock.
Dr. Marx?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, with the Permission of the Tribunal I shall now continue with the presentation of the final plea for the defendant Streicher. against Streicher had been summarized, and I had taken the liberty of explaining that these accusations are subdivided into three different paragraphs:
1. Support of seizure of power and consolidation of the power of the NSDAP after the latter's entry into the government.
2. Preparation of aggressive wars by propaganda aimed at the persecution of the Jews.
3. Intellectual and spiritual preparation and education to encourage hatred against the Jews. as regards the Party's later seizure of power he supported and promoted it with all his might from the very beginning. His support went to the extent of a whole movement which he had built up personally in Franconia, and which he put at the disposal of Adolf Hitler's party, the latter being extrememly small after the first world war and limited to southern Bavaria only. Furthermore, after Hitler's release from the fortress of Lansberg he immediately joined him again and subsequently championed his ideas and goals with the greatest determination.
Until 1933, the defendant's activity was limited to propaganda for the NSDAP and its goals, particularly in the field of the Jewish question.
such. The participation in a party within a state, which allows such an opposition party, can be regarded as criminal only if, first of all, the goals of such a party are objectively criminal, and if subjectively a member of such a movement knows, approves of, and thereby supports these criminal goals. this very fact, that the NSDAP is accused of having had criminal goals from the very beginning. According to the assertion of the prosecution, the members of this party started out with the plan of subjugating the world, of annihilating foreign races, and of setting the German master-race above the whole world. They are accused of having harboured the will to carry out these aims and plans from the very outset by means of aggressive wars, murder and violence.
If, therefore, defendant Streicher's mere participation in the NSDAP and his support of it are to be ascribed to him as a crime, it must be proved that the party had such plans and that the defendant knew and approved of them.
The gentlemen who took the floor before me have already demonstrated sufficiently that such a conspiracy with such aims did not exist. Therefore I can save myself the trouble of making further statements on this subject and I can refer to what has already been set forth by the other defense counsels. I have only to deal with the point that the defendant Streicher did not in any case participate in such a conspiracy, if the latter should be considered by the High Tribunal to have existed. way. The aims advocated therein cannot be considered as criminal. Thus, if such aims did actually exist, they could only -- given the nature of a conspiracy -- be known in a restricted circle. meeting in Munich, so that not only the whole public of Germany but also that of the entire world could be informed about the aims of the party. the secret agreement in a common aim, which is usually the characteristic sign of a conspiracy. at that time already there existed a plan for a war of revenge or aggression, connected with the preceding of simultaneous determination of the Jews. If nevertheless a conspiracy should have existed, the latter would have confined itself to the narrow circle which revolved exclusively around Hitler. But the defendant Streicher did not belong to this circle. None of the offices he occupied provides the leastfoothold for it. As an old party member he was just one among many thousands. As honorary Gauleiter, as honorary SA-Obergruppenfuehrer, he was also only an equal among equals. Thus one cannot find in any of the offices he held any link or entanglement with the innermost circle of the party. It is also impossible to discern after the end of 1938 any personal relations with the leading men of the movement, be it with Hitler himself, be it with the defendant Goering,be it Goebbels, Himmler or Bormann. proceedings produce any proof to that effect. Of all the material presented during all those months of the Trial, nothing can be taken even as a shadow of a proof that the defendant Streicher was so closely connected with the highest authority of the party that he could have or even must have known its ultimate aims.
The final aims of the N.S.D.A.P. in the Jewish question -- the effects of which were manifest in the concentration camps -- had not been formulated and fixed the way they appeared in the end, neither before the seizure of power nor several years after. The party program itself provided for the Jews to be placed under a law for aliens, thus the laws issued in the Third Reich followed this line. Only later on, it can be said here, theprogram became more severe and finally came head over heels under the influence of war. But any proof of the fact that the defendant Streicher recognized other aims than those of the official party program has not been offered. of the criminal aims of the party supported the seizure of power of the NSDAP, and only on such a basis could a penal charge be brought against him. increase and maintain the power of the NSDAP after the seizure of power, is also not disputed by him. But here, too, only if the defendant know at that time the objectionable aims of the party, can his conduct be considered punishable. defendant Streicher, contrary to almost all other defendants, did not remain in his position until the end, not even until the war. Officially, he was dismissed in 1940 from his position of Gauleiter, but actually and practically he had been without any influence and power for more than a year. But while he could still work within the modest framework which was at his disposal in his capacity of Gauleiter, no criminal plans of the NSDAP were recognizable. In any case not for somebody, who like the defendant Streicher was outside the close circle surrounding Adolf Hitler. namely the persecution of Jews as a means of preparation for a war of aggression, can be included here. Up to 1937 the existence of a plan for a war of aggression was absolutely not noticeable. In any case, if Hitler should have entertained an intention to that effect, he did not let it be known to the outside. If, however, anybody should have been taken into his confidence at that time it would have been the leading men in politics and the Wehrmacht, who belonged to the closest circle around him.
However, by no means did the defendant Stretcher belong to those. Especially significant is here, that at the outbreak of the war Streicher was not even appointed Wehrkreiskommissar of the Gau (Commissioner of military administrative area HQ). The individual conferences, from which the prosecution derives the evidence for the planning of the war which occurred later on, did not see the defendant Streicher as a participant. His name does not appear anywhere, neither in a written decree, nor in a protocol. Consequently, no proof has been offered that Streicher knew of any alleged plans for waging war. Jews,in order to facilitate thereby the conduct of the war planned for some time after.
In this connection the following is to be said: "away from Versailles." The defendant adopted this program-point which, however, does not mean that he expected to do away with the Treaty by means of a war. negotiations with former opponents from the world war also stressed the fact at all times that the Versailles Treaty is no proper basis for a permanent world peace and particularly for an economic adjustment. Not only in Germany but everywhere in the entire world, the attitude of clear thinking economic circles toward the Versailles Treaty was to reject it. We may point especially to the United Statesof America as an example. aims, concurred in the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles should be revised. Neither was there any doubt that such revision was possible only on the basis of a new agreement. Even to consider any other possibility of a solution would seem like Utopia, since the German Reich lacked all military power. The N.S.D.A.P. stove, at any rate so far as the outer signs indicated, to find a solution to the problem in just this Way. The supporting of such aim, however, cannot be looked upon as a violation of treaty obligations, and made the object of a charge against the defendant. No proof has been offered that he expected military complications and that he desired them. I am about to take up the matter of the defendant's attitude in the Jewish question.
He is accused of having incited and instigated through decades the persecution of the Jews and of being responsible for the final extermination of Europe's Jewry. indictment against Julius Streicher and perhaps of the total indictment, for in this connection the position of the German people to this question must be tried and judged as well.
The Prosecution takes the point of view that there is just as little doubt as to the responsibility of the defendant, as there is doubt about the guilt involvement of the German people. As evidence the Prosecution brought up :
a) The speeches by Striecher before and after the seizure of power, namely one speech in April 925, in which he spoke about the extermination of the Jews. In the Prosecutor's opinion this is altogether the first evidence regarding the final solution of the Jewish question planned by the Party, namely the extermination of all Jews, is to been in these speeches.
b) Active commitment of the personality and authority of the defendant namely on the boycott-day on April 1, 1933.
c) Numerous articles published in the weekly "Der Stuermer", among them especially such dealing with the ritual murder and with quotations from the Talmud. He knowingly and intentionally described in them the Jews as a criminal and inferior race and created and wanted to create hatred and the will to annihilate this people. The defendant's reply to these points is as follows: He states that he worked in the capacity of a private writer only. His aim was to enlighten the German people, on the Jewish question, as he saw it. His description of the Jews merely had the purpose to show that they are different and of a foreign race and to make it clear that they are living according to laws alien to the German conception. It was by no means his intention to incite and instigate his listeners and readers. Besides, he only propagated the thought that the Jews should be extricated from the German national and economic life and eliminated from the close association with the body of German people. mind, he thought nothing of a German or even European part-solution and rejected it. So it happened that he suggested in an editorial of the Stuermer of 1941 that the French Island of Madagascar should be taken into consideration as a settlement area for the Jews. Accordingly, he did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical extermination but in the resettlement of the Jews. defendant's actions as journalist and speaker, namely regarding his Stuermer and his answer to the accusations lodged against him. His ideology and attitude shall likewise remain unexplained, unexcused or defended, also his way of wirting and speaking.
The examination and decision in this respect is the Tribunal's duty exclusively. That much may be said, that there is a gap between the defendant's actions and the expressions frequently employed by him which cannot be bridged. It can be stated that the defendant when assigned to take charge of some antisemitic enterprise never let coercive measures prevail against the tions made by the Prosecution were ture. question of whether the defendant Streicher with his speeches, actions, and with his publications, not only strove for, but actually attained the success claimed by the Prosecution. Streicher actually educated the German people for antisemitism to a degree which made it possible for the leadership of the German people to commit such criminal acts as actually occurred. German youth with hatred against the Jews to such an extent as charged by the Prosecution. who prepared spiritually and morally the executive organs of the persecution of the Jews to commit that act. that a great many Stuermer articles from which the Prosecution endeavors to deduce an invitation to exterminate and annihilate the Jews were not written by Streicher himself, but by his collaborators, especially by the deputy Gauleiter Karl Holz, well in an for this extremely radical tendencies. for these articles, which responsibility he expressly assumed before the Tribunal, this point of view still appears very essential for the extent of his criminal responsibility. ted statement of the defendant, the sharpest articles were written in reply to articles and writings in the foreign press, which contained very radical suggestions of destruction against the German nation.
Also, no doubt, it was due to the existing war psychosis. continually wrote articles in the Stuermer and also held public speeches, when were strongly anti-Jewish and which at least aimed at the elimination of Jewish influence in Germany. for his anti-Jewish tendencies. The first world war finished with Germany's defeat but wide circles did not want to admit the fact of a military victory Germany's opponents of that time. They imputed this defeat to a decomposition of the national will of defense and resistance from within, and designated Jewry as being the main culprit for this undermining from within. In doing so one intentionally overliiked the errors which had been committed by the Government of that time before and during the war with respect to domestic and fore policy as well as the errors of strategy. believed to have found it in the Jews. Jealousy, envy and also forgetfulness of one's own insufficiencies accomplished the rest in order to influence unfavourably the feelings towards the Jewish population. In addition to that the inflation occurred and in the following years the economic depression with its steadily increasing misery, which, as experience shows, makes any nation ripe for any form of radicalism.
On this round and from this medium arose the "Stuermer". For these reasons it met with a certain amount of interest and attracted a considerable number of readers, at the beginning. But even during the last years before the accession to power it did not have a great influence. Its distribution did not go beyond Nuernberg and its close vicinity. By means of attacks against personalities locally known in Nuernberg and in the other places, it manages to are se in these localities from time to time a certain amount of interest and to extend thereby its circle of readers. Certain groups of the population were interested in the propagation of such scandal stories and for these reasons subscribed to the "Stuermer".
oratory activity led to criminal results. But was the German nation really filled with the hatred of the Jews in the sense and to the extent asserted be the prosecution through the "Stuermer" and through Streicher's speeches. manner. It draws conclusions but it has not produced actual evidence. It alleges indeed the achievement of a result, but it cannot produce factual evidence for its assumption.
The prosecutor maintained that without Streicher's incitements which lasted for years, the German people would not have approved the persecution of the Jews and that Himmler would have not found among the German people any tool for the execution of the measures taken for the extermination of the Jews. Should however the defendant Streicher be made legally responsible for this, then not only must it be proved that the incitement as such was actually carried through and that a result was achieved in this direction butand this is the decisive point - a conclusive proof must be produced that the facts exposed can be traced back to the incitement. It is not the question of the result obtained which has first to be proved with such accuracy, but the causative connection between incitement and result.
But how is the influence of the "Stuermer" upon the German people to be estimated, and what picture do we get when we look at the Jewish problem during the years between 1920 and 1944 ?
The first period comprises the interval in the defendant's activity between 1922 and 1933; the second that between 1933 and 1 September 1933 or February 1940; the third that between 1940 and the collapse. appreciation of the tendencies which had already existed in Germany for a long time, and thereby a completely groundless exaggeration of Streicher's influence if no mention were made of the fact that long before Streicher there was already a certain anti-semitism in Germany.
For instance a certain Theodor Fritsch touched on the Jewish question in his publication "Der Hammer" long before Stretcher's time and referred especially to the alleged menace offered by the immigration of Jewish elements from the East which might overflow the country and acquire too much control in it.
Immediately after the end of the first world war the so-called "GermanEthnic Protective and Defensive League (Deutsch-Voelkische Schutz und Trutzbund)" appeared which, in contrast to the "Stuermer" and the movement brought into existence by Streicher, was spread over the whole of Germany and had set up as its aim the repression of the Jewish influence. Long before Streicher, antisemitic groups existed in the South as well as in the Forth. In relation to those large-scale efforts, the "Stuermer" could only have a regional importance. For this reason alone, it is easy to explain why its influence was never at any time or in any place of great importance. not be influenced by all these groups either in its business relations or in is attitude to Jewry and that even during the last years before the NSDAP came to power no violent actions against the Jews occured anywhere of the people's own volition. war a considerable gain of the NSDAP became noticeable, it was not due to antisemitic reasons, but to the fact that the prevailing confusion in the various parties had been unable to show a way out of the ever increasing economic misery. The call for a strong man became ever more urgent. The conviction became more and more compelling among the broad masses that only a personality who would not be dependent on the change of majorities would be able to master the situation. and to win over the nation who had sunk in despair by disseminating promises in all directions. But never did the masses think when electing the NSDAP at that time, that their program would develop in such a way as we have witnessed.
introduced. The power of the state was in the hands of the party and nobody could have prevented the use of violence against the Jewish circles of the population. to effect his baiting as the prosecution has maintained. If at that time wide circles of the people, or at least the veteran members of the NSDAP, had been brought up as radical Jew haters, as stated by the prosecution, acts of violence against the Jewish population should necessarily have taken place on a greater scale, due to the accumulation of that mood of hatred. Pogroms of the greatest scope would have been the natural result of a truly anti-semitic attitude of the people. But nothing like that happened. Apart from some mind incidents, evidently caused by local or personal conditions, no attacks again Jews or their property took place anywhere. did not prevail anywhere at least up to 1933, and the charge brought by the prosecution against the defendant that he successfully educated the German people to hate the Jews ever since the very start of his fight, can thus be dropped. The year of the seizure of power by the NSDAP also put the "Stuermer" to a decisive test. Had the "Stuermer" been considered by the broad masses the German nation as the authoritative champion against the Jews and therefore indispecsable to that fight, an extraordinary increase in the demand for the publication would have followed. No such interest was displayed, however, in any way. On the contrary, even in party circles demands were heard to discontinue the "Stuermer" entirely or at least to change its illustrations, st* and tone. It became more and more clear that the interest in Streicher's Jewish policy was steadily declining, an interest which was limited anyway. press apparatus got under the control of the party, which immediately undertook to coordinate the press, i.e. to direct it from a central agency in the spirit of a national-socialist policy and ideology. This was done through the Minister of Propaganda and chief of the Reich Press via the official "National Socialist party correspondence". Particularly Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, designated by different witnesses such as Goering, Schirach, Neurath, and others, as the most inveterate representative of the anti-semitic trend in the government, was credited with giving each week to the entire press several anti-Jewish editorials, which were printed by more than 3000 news papers and magazines.
If we realize that Dr. Goebbels in addition was making broadcasts in an anti-semitic spirit, we don't need any further explanations for the fact that the interest in a onesided antisemitic journal should disappear, and that did in fact happen. suggested to forbid "The Stuermer" altogether. This is brought out clearly in the testimony of Fritsche as a witness on 27 June 1946, who stated in addition that neither Streicher nor the "Stuermer" had any influence in the Ministry of Propaganda and that the paper was considered to a certain extent as nonexistent.
It might have been for the same reason that the "Stuermer" was not even declared as a press organ of the NSDAP, and was not even entitled to bear the party's insignia. It was considered from the viewpoint of party and state administration, contrary to all papers which were held to be of any significance, as a private paper belonging to a mere private writer.
The firm which published the "Stuermer" and which belonged at that time to a certain HAERDEL, was not inclined, however, to accept so simply the shrinking circle of its readers, for it was now aided by the fact that Streicher had become the highest political leader in Franconia, and it knew how to make the most of this circumstance. Already at that time pressure was exerted on many sections of the population to the effect that they should prove their loyal political attitude and trustworthiness by taking out a subscription to the "Stuermer". The witness Fritsche has also pointed out this circumstance and has stated that many Germans only decided to subscribe to the "Stuermer" because they thought it would be a means of paying the way for their intended membership in the party. In order not to give a false impression of the number of editions of the Stuermer during the years 1923 to 1933, the following analysis will show the different stages of its development.
circulation from some 3,000 to some 10,000 copies, and this went up again to some 20,000 shortly before the seizure of power. On the average, however, between 1923 and 1931 the publication could only claim some 6,000 copies. With the transfer of power, by the end of 1934 it had reached an average of some 28,000 copies. It was only in 1935 that the publishing firm of the Stuermer became the property of the defendant Streicher, who, according to his statement, bought it from the widow of the previous owner for 40,000 RM, not a very large sum. From 1935 on the management of the firm was taken over by a professional, who succeeded by clever technical propaganda in increasing the number of copies to well over 200,000 and this figure was later surpassed in ever increasing proportion until it reached more than the double. The relatively low number of copies of the Stuermer upon the beginning of 1935 shows that despite the party's rise to power, popular interest in the Stuermer was present only in a minor degree. The extraordinary increase in the circulation which began in 1935 is to be traced back to the adroit propaganda methods already mentioned, which were employed by the new director Fink. The use of the Labor Front declared in the proclamation of Dr. Ley in No. 36 of the Stuermer of 1935 and which, Mr. President, I have taken the libertyof submitting, and the acquisition thereby of many thousands of forced subscribers must be ascribed to the personal relations of the manager with Dr. Ley. Tageblatt of 29 March 1935 which is printed in the Stuermer copy of May 1935. Here, too, it is stated that the increase of the Stuermer circulation cannot be ascribed to the desire of the German people for such kind of spiritual food. It is neither presumably nor probably in any way, that the subscripting to the Stuermer, forced on the members of the Labor Front in such a manner, could have actually turned the subscribers into readers of the Stuermer and followers of its way of thinking. On the contrary, it is well known that bundles of Stuermer copies in their original wrappings were stored in cellars and attics and that they were brought to light again only when the paper shortage became mare acute.
Document No. GB 169 - that the 15 years work of enlightenment of the Stuermer attracted to National Socialism an army of a million of "enlightened" members, he did claim a success for which there was no foundation whatsoever. The men and women who joined the party after 1933 did not apply for membership as a result of the so-called enlightenment work of the Stuermer, but either because they believed the party's promises, hoping to derive advantages from it, or, as the witness Severing expressed it, because by belonging to the party they wanted to insure themselves against political persecutions. considerably. Also the defendant Streicher, lost authority and influence in an over increasing measure even in his own district of Franconia, at least from 1937 on. The reasons her fore are sufficiently known. political influence even in his own district. The controversy between him a Goering ended, with the victory of the latter. Hitler, upon the urgent request of the defendant Goering, had dropped Streicher completely, asthe Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe at that time was naturally more important and far more influential than Gauleiter Streicher. The defendant even had to tolerate that the aryanisation carried out in the district of Franconia was being reexamined for its correctness by a special commission sent by Goering. In the course of the year 1939 Streicher was completely pushed aside and was even forbidden to talk in public. At the outbreak of the war, in contrast to all other Gauleiters, he was not even appointed to the position of Wehrkreiskommissar of his own district. had no political influence whatsoever. As of February 1940 he was removed from his position as a Gauleiter and lived on his estate in Pleikershof, out off from allconnections. Even party-members were forbidden to visit him the From the end of 1938, he had no connections whatsoever with Hitler, by whom he had been completely abandoned from that time on.
In what way now did the "Stuermer" exert any influence during the war period?
It can be said that during the war the "Stuermer" aroused no considerable attention any more. The grimness of the time, the anxiety for relatives on the front, the battles at the front, and finally the heavy air attacks, completely diverted the German people's interest from questions dealt with in the"Stuermer". The people were fed up with the continuous repetition of the same assertions. The best proof of how little the "Stuermer" was desired, as reading matter is ascertained by the fact that in restaurants and cafes the "Stuermer" was always readily available at the new stands, whereas other papers and magazines were forever taken up.
The circulation total decreased steadily and irresistibly. The influence of the "Stuermer" in the political sphere became nonexistent. During the already mentioned periods the "Stuermer" was being rejected by large circles of the population from the very start. There can be no idea of the exertion of an influence by the "Stuermer" upon the German people or even upon the party. Its crude style, its often pornographic illustrations and its onesidedness aroused manifold displeasure. Nazi propaganda, or rather because of that very fact, a journal such as the "Stuermer" could exert no influence upon its inner attitude. secution - actually been saturated with the spirit of racial hatred, other factors certainly would have been far more responsible for it than the "Stuermer" and would have contributed far more essentially to a hostile attitude towards the Jews.
But nothing of such nature can be established. The general attitude of the German people was not anti-semitic, at any rate not in such a sense or to such a degree that they would have desired or approved of physical annihilation of the Jews. The official Party propaganda in regard to the Jewish problem had exerted no influence upon the bread masses of the German people and it had not educated them in the direction desired by the State leadership.
decree of number of legal regulations in order to segregate the German population from the Jewish. The first example of this is the so-called Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor of September 1935, by the provisions of which any racial intermingling of German people with sectors of the Jewish population was subjected to the death penalty. The passing of such laws would not have been necessary, had the German people been predisposed to an anti-semitic attitude, for they would then of their own accord have insisted upon a segregation from Jews.