What do you think?
Rate this book
Julius Streicher: Nazi Editor of the Notorious Anti-Semitic Newspaper Der Stürmer
The Nazis put a remarkable amount of effort into anti-Semitic propaganda, intending to bring ordinary Germans around to the destructive ideology of the Nazi party. Julius Streicher (1885-1946) spearheaded many of these efforts, publishing anti-Semitic articles and cartoons in his weekly newspaper, Der Stürmer , the most widely read paper in the Third Reich. Streicher won the close personal friendship of Hitler and Himmler, and drew deserved attacks from the world press. Bytwerk's biography examines Streicher's use of propaganda techniques, and the hate literature towards Jews that continued to appear after his death, bearing his influence.
258 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
8 people are currently reading
114 people want to read
About the author
Randall L. Bytwerk
5 books3 followersRandall L. Bytwerk is a Professor of Communication at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 29, 2016
My Amazon review is here in case you want to give this review a helpful vote - http://www.amazon.com/review/R3CTJDFP...
I started this book with low expectations. How interesting could a book about the most “unpleasant” of the Nazis? How much of value could there be in reading the biography of a person who retailed the worst, most banal, most ridiculous of Jew-baiting libels to incite hatred among the gullible and stupid? I knew that Julius Streicher was the most notorious Jew-baiter in Nazi Germany through his newspaper, Der Sturmer, and that he was executed at Nuremberg, which was enough information to make me want to keep a wide berth from reading about him.
The nice thing about low expectations is that it is so easy to be surprised. This book is positively first-rate. It provides a perspective on the society of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s that is invaluable, and it runs counter to a lot of the canards about a hopelessly anti-semitic culture that was, we are told by modern historians, naturally trending toward hateful bigotry. What I took away from this book was the amount of effort it took to create the culture of Nazi antisemitism. It didn’t happen naturally. The preconditions were there, but it took huge amounts of propaganda and social conditioning to teach Germans that they had to stop caring for their Jewish friends and neighbors.
The author is Randall Bytwerk. One of the interesting discoveries I made is that Bytwerk is responsible for the “German Propaganda Archive at calvin dot edu. I’ve used that source on numerous occasions as a resource for German propaganda but I did not make the connection. It makes sense, though, that a professor with an interest in propaganda would also be an expert on this loathsome character who played such a role in propaganda. Bytwerk observes that “the Internet also makes it possible to provide a virtual appendix to this book. In 1996 I established the German Propaganda Archive (www.calvin.edu/ academic/ cas/ gpa/) a large collection of translations of Nazi and East German propaganda. My goal is to make available, in English, the original materials of the two German dictatorships of the twentieth century. The site includes translations from the Stürmer and other products of Streicher’s publishing house.”
Welcome to the 21st century.
Bytwerk has no sympathy for Streicher. He constantly describes Streicher as unpleasant and rather stupid and boring in his obsession. Apparently, even Hitler could tire of Streicher’s one-note conversations topic; Der Furher would sneak into Nuremberg, where Streicher was Gauleiter, in order to avoid having to have dinner with Streicher. Nonetheless, Hitler was a Streicher supporter and Streicher was a significant supporter of Hitler and the Nazis from an early time when his newspaper, Der Sturmer, was a major source of revenues for the Nazi movement.
Streicher came out of the right wing movement. He seems to have moved gradually into the Volkisch movement as a result of his unpleasant personality and his inability to cooperate with party members in less radical parties. Streicher was from Nuremberg. Nuremberg was a Protestant enclave in Catholic Bavaria, but Streicher was a Catholic citizen of mostly Protestant Nuremberg. Bytwerk does not discuss Streicher’s religious history – for example, Bytwerk does not mention Streicher’s public apostasy in the 1930s, but he does mention, in passing, that a party that Streicher belonged to prior to the Nazis lost Catholic members when Streicher published an article attacking the Jesuits. Bytwerk also notes:
“As a teacher Streicher was expected to attend to the spiritual as well as to the intellectual development of his pupils. Particularly in the small towns in which he taught, the local priest often had supervisory authority over the schoolmaster. Now, Streicher was never to be a man who easily accepted interference in his affairs, and his childhood had not left him a loyal Catholic. In July 1904 he decided to change the time at which the Sunday school (for which the schoolmaster was also responsible) met, against the wishes of the parish priest.”
Streicher was a schoolteacher during the time that he was developing Der Sturmer and becoming a Nazi bigshot. One of the more nauseating outgrowths of Streicher’s career as a school teacher was his interest in poisoning the minds of German children with books that taught antisemitism to children. Likewise, Der Sturmer would run stories of children telling their parents not to shop at Jewish stores, much in the same way that children today might tell their parents to recycle or not smoke because their teachers had told them to.
The biggest impact that this book had on me was providing a sense of how important a role Der Sturmer played in the life of Nazi Germany. Der Sturmer was “social media” long before the concept was invented. Sturmer display cases were set up all over Germany. At this kiosks the pages of the Sturmer newspaper would be displayed so that passer-bys could get their fill of anti-Semitic propaganda. The Sturmer was a slim newspaper, fourteen pages or so, which allowed the complete paper to be read this way. The Sturmer display cases were maintained by fans of the Sturmer. These fans would write into the Sturmer to report on neighbors who were friendly to Jews. The sense I got was that this fan base might represent what we see on the websites of, say, Richard Dawkins or other internet celebrities, for whom the interaction through the comments is a major feature of their social life.
The contents of the Sturmer is described by Bytwerk as constantly changing information based on a constant theme – sounding again like an internet blog maintained by a celebrity. The theme was, of course, how awful Jews are, but Streicher had a gift for gossip and raking up new scandal in order to provide new material for his readers to be scandalized about.
In addition the Sturmer had a regular feature consisting of denunciations of Germans who were friendly to Jews or continued to patronize Jewish business. This resembles what we see today among “social justice warriors” who level secondary boycotts against businesses who support legislation they find rephrehensible, or who, not so long ago, arranged to have a CEO fired from a corporation because he had made a donation in favor of traditional marriage. With that comparison, we may begin to realize the organized social sanction that the ordinary German was under – act like a decent human being and you might get your name featured in the Sturmer, after which you would be the one subject to isolation and retaliation.
Streicher used inventions and fabrications as part of his propagands. For example, he spread blood libel stories that had been discredited centuries before. He also used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a propaganda source. Streicher’s propaganda technique also included hammering the Jews with true stories about misconduct and crimes by Jews. Thus, any time a Jew was accused of being a rapist, this story was put into the Sturmer, which eventually led Germans to believe that there must be something to this “the Jews are rapists” meme. The technique involves conflating “facts” with “representative facts.” We see the same thing today with Catholic priests accused of child abuse. The facts are that Catholic priests are accused of child abuse at no higher rate than any other group, and that the priests accused are not representative of Catholic priests, but given the constant repetition of the theme of “pedophile priest,” most people believe that Catholic priests are somehow a threat in a special and unique way, much like Germans believed that Jews were criminals and/or rapists. Bytwerk explains:
“Moreover, many facts are not necessarily representative facts. A careful selection of information can lead an audience to a quite mistaken conclusion, even though none of the information is false. One can simply omit inconvenient facts, of course, but leaving that aside, it is easy to draw improper conclusions in other ways. For example, people greatly overestimate the incidence of disasters, murders, and diseases like cancer, and underestimate the occurrence of home accidents or diabetes. A plane crash or an earthquake gets front-page coverage and full play on the evening news, and cancer is the great evil of the day. Such vivid happenings are remembered, overshadowing less dramatic facts.
Julius Streicher’s ability to provide a profusion of facts suggesting that Jews were committing crimes on a startling scale was well suited for the modern media. His standards of evidence were, as we have seen, unimpressive, but some of what he accused Jews of doing was true. It did not matter to him and his readers that infractions committed by Jews were certainly not more numerous or even proportionally higher than crimes committed by “Aryans.” During the Weimar era his targets sometimes were convicted. And after 1933 convictions became almost predictable, for reasons perhaps not entirely evident to the average citizen. His material was not representative, but its vividness was farmore persuasive than a mere statistic.
On a lower level, given complete knowledge of the behavior and thoughts of any individual, one could construct a highly unflattering portrait, relying entirely on those facts that suggested the individual’s depravity. The ability to select is the ability to persuade. Streicher could present cases of Jewish evil with reasonable assurance that his readers would make the desired inductive leap from the given case to the general. If a large number of Jews seemed to be criminal, then all Jews probably were. Of course, the well-known human tendency to perceive selectively is also at work. One who expects to see Jews about evil deeds will find just that, overlooking consciously or not the more impressive evidence to the contrary. The anti-Semite who, in reading the Talmud, was struck only by the small number of passages he perceived as supporting his prejudices, was only following to a greater degree a mental and emotional process that everyone commonly practices.”
So, it would appear that a virtue of this book is to get us thinking about modern culture, where we can realize that we are not so special, or, perhaps, that the Germans of the 1930s resemble us in disturbing ways.
Bytwerk weighs into the claim raised by Daniel Goldhagen that the “ordinary German” was characterized by “eliminationist anti-Semitism” that would have led them to kill Jews had they had the opportunity.” Based on the data of the Sturmer, Bytwerk disagrees. Thus, Bytwerk points out that the Sturmer denunciations of Germans who were friendly to Jews increased through 1938, which suggests that many, many ordinary Germans were not anti-Semites, even in the face of great pressure to conform. Bytwerk explains:
“Surprisingly, the Stürmer sometimes carried the responses of such people. Some of the accused claimed that Jews provided better quality at lower prices. A farmer who took Jewish children for a cart ride asserted, “The government does not ask me where the money came from when I pay my taxes.” 7 To Stürmer readers, such comments emphasized stubborn refusal to relinquish contact with Jews. The criticized behavior sometimes displayed clear opposition to Nazi anti-Semitic policies, at other times only the person’s economic self-interest. Those denounced in the Stürmer might still have harbored anti-Semitic attitudes.
Still, the behavior is clearly not what one would expect of those holding eliminationist anti-Semitic views. This was particularly true by 1937, when Hitler had been in power for more than four years. Those who had thought that the Nazis were anti-Semites of the traditional variety had had sufficient time to learn otherwise. To shop at a Jewish store or to trade with a Jewish livestock dealer by 1937 took a conscious decision to ignore the considerable pressures of the state and society.”
And:
“Some correspondents reported being insulted when they attempted to encourage people to avoid Jews. A 1938 letter gave the response of a woman in Silesia who, when reproached for buying in a Jewish shop, replied, “You’re drunk, aren’t you?” 11 A farmer criticized in 1939 for dealing with Jews responded bluntly, “Hang me from the church steeple if you want, but I’m not going to stop dealing with the Jews.” 12 Many letters noted that well-meaning attempts to dissuade citizens from dealing with Jews were simply ignored. Often they wrote, in apparent astonishment, that someone had conversed with a Jew “in broad daylight” or “in the fifth year of National Socialism” or visited a Jewish shop “on November 10, [1938]!”
There was clearly a great deal of anti-Semitism in German society, but there was a great deal of prejudice against every minority group in most countries of the period. Streicher was quite willing to engage in Catholic-baiting when the opportunity arose, but while this low-level bigotry provided the tinder, by itself, without the stoking of men like Streicher, it was not itself “eliminationist.” Bytwerk writes:
“When Goldhagen argues that most Germans were eliminationist anti-Semites, he overstates the case. Some Stürmer readers met his definition, but even most of them disliked Jews without giving evidence of wanting to kill them. Increasing numbers of villages announced themselves “free of Jews,” but readers who reported that fact did not seem concerned that their former Jewish neighbors, though relocated, were still alive. Those very readers provided evidence in their letters that they were not typical of the German population as a whole. In denouncing their decent and compassionate fellow citizens, they felt themselves members of a crusade that lacked universal support and predicted it would take a long time before they could win the struggle to remake all Germans to their anti-Semitic image. Hitler found his willing executioners— a number ample enough to slaughter millions— but he did not have the whole citizenry of Germany from which to choose.”
Streicher was kicked out of Nazi leadership by the mid to late 1930s, due to his own inability to get along with other Nazis and his own corruption. He did continue to publish the Sturmer, although as Jews either emigrated or deported, there was less material for his paper. In addition, during the war, the Sturmer operated under paper restrictions. The Sturmer’s heyday was over by the time the war started and its circulation was in substantial decline. Because of his own incompetence, Streicher was never given the opportunity to directly participate in the Holocaust or in war crimes like the other old Nazis. Nonetheless, Streicher was hanged with them, refusing to apologize for his involvement and braying out his loyalty to Hitler. I will shed no tears for this waste of human life, but I am not certain that Streicher should have been hanged. He was a miserable human being and he poisoned the minds of Germans, and he made the Holocaust possible with his propaganda, but, ultimately, weren’t his crimes a matter of speech and argument? Do we hang people for political ideas? If so, shouldn’t we be throwing Communists and racists in jail before they get political power?
This is a surprising, good book. Because of its focus on someone who turned out to be a minor actor, it was able to get deeper into the background of the period. I recommend it highly to those who are interested in political science or the dark arts of propaganda.
I started this book with low expectations. How interesting could a book about the most “unpleasant” of the Nazis? How much of value could there be in reading the biography of a person who retailed the worst, most banal, most ridiculous of Jew-baiting libels to incite hatred among the gullible and stupid? I knew that Julius Streicher was the most notorious Jew-baiter in Nazi Germany through his newspaper, Der Sturmer, and that he was executed at Nuremberg, which was enough information to make me want to keep a wide berth from reading about him.
The nice thing about low expectations is that it is so easy to be surprised. This book is positively first-rate. It provides a perspective on the society of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s that is invaluable, and it runs counter to a lot of the canards about a hopelessly anti-semitic culture that was, we are told by modern historians, naturally trending toward hateful bigotry. What I took away from this book was the amount of effort it took to create the culture of Nazi antisemitism. It didn’t happen naturally. The preconditions were there, but it took huge amounts of propaganda and social conditioning to teach Germans that they had to stop caring for their Jewish friends and neighbors.
The author is Randall Bytwerk. One of the interesting discoveries I made is that Bytwerk is responsible for the “German Propaganda Archive at calvin dot edu. I’ve used that source on numerous occasions as a resource for German propaganda but I did not make the connection. It makes sense, though, that a professor with an interest in propaganda would also be an expert on this loathsome character who played such a role in propaganda. Bytwerk observes that “the Internet also makes it possible to provide a virtual appendix to this book. In 1996 I established the German Propaganda Archive (www.calvin.edu/ academic/ cas/ gpa/) a large collection of translations of Nazi and East German propaganda. My goal is to make available, in English, the original materials of the two German dictatorships of the twentieth century. The site includes translations from the Stürmer and other products of Streicher’s publishing house.”
Welcome to the 21st century.
Bytwerk has no sympathy for Streicher. He constantly describes Streicher as unpleasant and rather stupid and boring in his obsession. Apparently, even Hitler could tire of Streicher’s one-note conversations topic; Der Furher would sneak into Nuremberg, where Streicher was Gauleiter, in order to avoid having to have dinner with Streicher. Nonetheless, Hitler was a Streicher supporter and Streicher was a significant supporter of Hitler and the Nazis from an early time when his newspaper, Der Sturmer, was a major source of revenues for the Nazi movement.
Streicher came out of the right wing movement. He seems to have moved gradually into the Volkisch movement as a result of his unpleasant personality and his inability to cooperate with party members in less radical parties. Streicher was from Nuremberg. Nuremberg was a Protestant enclave in Catholic Bavaria, but Streicher was a Catholic citizen of mostly Protestant Nuremberg. Bytwerk does not discuss Streicher’s religious history – for example, Bytwerk does not mention Streicher’s public apostasy in the 1930s, but he does mention, in passing, that a party that Streicher belonged to prior to the Nazis lost Catholic members when Streicher published an article attacking the Jesuits. Bytwerk also notes:
“As a teacher Streicher was expected to attend to the spiritual as well as to the intellectual development of his pupils. Particularly in the small towns in which he taught, the local priest often had supervisory authority over the schoolmaster. Now, Streicher was never to be a man who easily accepted interference in his affairs, and his childhood had not left him a loyal Catholic. In July 1904 he decided to change the time at which the Sunday school (for which the schoolmaster was also responsible) met, against the wishes of the parish priest.”
Streicher was a schoolteacher during the time that he was developing Der Sturmer and becoming a Nazi bigshot. One of the more nauseating outgrowths of Streicher’s career as a school teacher was his interest in poisoning the minds of German children with books that taught antisemitism to children. Likewise, Der Sturmer would run stories of children telling their parents not to shop at Jewish stores, much in the same way that children today might tell their parents to recycle or not smoke because their teachers had told them to.
The biggest impact that this book had on me was providing a sense of how important a role Der Sturmer played in the life of Nazi Germany. Der Sturmer was “social media” long before the concept was invented. Sturmer display cases were set up all over Germany. At this kiosks the pages of the Sturmer newspaper would be displayed so that passer-bys could get their fill of anti-Semitic propaganda. The Sturmer was a slim newspaper, fourteen pages or so, which allowed the complete paper to be read this way. The Sturmer display cases were maintained by fans of the Sturmer. These fans would write into the Sturmer to report on neighbors who were friendly to Jews. The sense I got was that this fan base might represent what we see on the websites of, say, Richard Dawkins or other internet celebrities, for whom the interaction through the comments is a major feature of their social life.
The contents of the Sturmer is described by Bytwerk as constantly changing information based on a constant theme – sounding again like an internet blog maintained by a celebrity. The theme was, of course, how awful Jews are, but Streicher had a gift for gossip and raking up new scandal in order to provide new material for his readers to be scandalized about.
In addition the Sturmer had a regular feature consisting of denunciations of Germans who were friendly to Jews or continued to patronize Jewish business. This resembles what we see today among “social justice warriors” who level secondary boycotts against businesses who support legislation they find rephrehensible, or who, not so long ago, arranged to have a CEO fired from a corporation because he had made a donation in favor of traditional marriage. With that comparison, we may begin to realize the organized social sanction that the ordinary German was under – act like a decent human being and you might get your name featured in the Sturmer, after which you would be the one subject to isolation and retaliation.
Streicher used inventions and fabrications as part of his propagands. For example, he spread blood libel stories that had been discredited centuries before. He also used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a propaganda source. Streicher’s propaganda technique also included hammering the Jews with true stories about misconduct and crimes by Jews. Thus, any time a Jew was accused of being a rapist, this story was put into the Sturmer, which eventually led Germans to believe that there must be something to this “the Jews are rapists” meme. The technique involves conflating “facts” with “representative facts.” We see the same thing today with Catholic priests accused of child abuse. The facts are that Catholic priests are accused of child abuse at no higher rate than any other group, and that the priests accused are not representative of Catholic priests, but given the constant repetition of the theme of “pedophile priest,” most people believe that Catholic priests are somehow a threat in a special and unique way, much like Germans believed that Jews were criminals and/or rapists. Bytwerk explains:
“Moreover, many facts are not necessarily representative facts. A careful selection of information can lead an audience to a quite mistaken conclusion, even though none of the information is false. One can simply omit inconvenient facts, of course, but leaving that aside, it is easy to draw improper conclusions in other ways. For example, people greatly overestimate the incidence of disasters, murders, and diseases like cancer, and underestimate the occurrence of home accidents or diabetes. A plane crash or an earthquake gets front-page coverage and full play on the evening news, and cancer is the great evil of the day. Such vivid happenings are remembered, overshadowing less dramatic facts.
Julius Streicher’s ability to provide a profusion of facts suggesting that Jews were committing crimes on a startling scale was well suited for the modern media. His standards of evidence were, as we have seen, unimpressive, but some of what he accused Jews of doing was true. It did not matter to him and his readers that infractions committed by Jews were certainly not more numerous or even proportionally higher than crimes committed by “Aryans.” During the Weimar era his targets sometimes were convicted. And after 1933 convictions became almost predictable, for reasons perhaps not entirely evident to the average citizen. His material was not representative, but its vividness was farmore persuasive than a mere statistic.
On a lower level, given complete knowledge of the behavior and thoughts of any individual, one could construct a highly unflattering portrait, relying entirely on those facts that suggested the individual’s depravity. The ability to select is the ability to persuade. Streicher could present cases of Jewish evil with reasonable assurance that his readers would make the desired inductive leap from the given case to the general. If a large number of Jews seemed to be criminal, then all Jews probably were. Of course, the well-known human tendency to perceive selectively is also at work. One who expects to see Jews about evil deeds will find just that, overlooking consciously or not the more impressive evidence to the contrary. The anti-Semite who, in reading the Talmud, was struck only by the small number of passages he perceived as supporting his prejudices, was only following to a greater degree a mental and emotional process that everyone commonly practices.”
So, it would appear that a virtue of this book is to get us thinking about modern culture, where we can realize that we are not so special, or, perhaps, that the Germans of the 1930s resemble us in disturbing ways.
Bytwerk weighs into the claim raised by Daniel Goldhagen that the “ordinary German” was characterized by “eliminationist anti-Semitism” that would have led them to kill Jews had they had the opportunity.” Based on the data of the Sturmer, Bytwerk disagrees. Thus, Bytwerk points out that the Sturmer denunciations of Germans who were friendly to Jews increased through 1938, which suggests that many, many ordinary Germans were not anti-Semites, even in the face of great pressure to conform. Bytwerk explains:
“Surprisingly, the Stürmer sometimes carried the responses of such people. Some of the accused claimed that Jews provided better quality at lower prices. A farmer who took Jewish children for a cart ride asserted, “The government does not ask me where the money came from when I pay my taxes.” 7 To Stürmer readers, such comments emphasized stubborn refusal to relinquish contact with Jews. The criticized behavior sometimes displayed clear opposition to Nazi anti-Semitic policies, at other times only the person’s economic self-interest. Those denounced in the Stürmer might still have harbored anti-Semitic attitudes.
Still, the behavior is clearly not what one would expect of those holding eliminationist anti-Semitic views. This was particularly true by 1937, when Hitler had been in power for more than four years. Those who had thought that the Nazis were anti-Semites of the traditional variety had had sufficient time to learn otherwise. To shop at a Jewish store or to trade with a Jewish livestock dealer by 1937 took a conscious decision to ignore the considerable pressures of the state and society.”
And:
“Some correspondents reported being insulted when they attempted to encourage people to avoid Jews. A 1938 letter gave the response of a woman in Silesia who, when reproached for buying in a Jewish shop, replied, “You’re drunk, aren’t you?” 11 A farmer criticized in 1939 for dealing with Jews responded bluntly, “Hang me from the church steeple if you want, but I’m not going to stop dealing with the Jews.” 12 Many letters noted that well-meaning attempts to dissuade citizens from dealing with Jews were simply ignored. Often they wrote, in apparent astonishment, that someone had conversed with a Jew “in broad daylight” or “in the fifth year of National Socialism” or visited a Jewish shop “on November 10, [1938]!”
There was clearly a great deal of anti-Semitism in German society, but there was a great deal of prejudice against every minority group in most countries of the period. Streicher was quite willing to engage in Catholic-baiting when the opportunity arose, but while this low-level bigotry provided the tinder, by itself, without the stoking of men like Streicher, it was not itself “eliminationist.” Bytwerk writes:
“When Goldhagen argues that most Germans were eliminationist anti-Semites, he overstates the case. Some Stürmer readers met his definition, but even most of them disliked Jews without giving evidence of wanting to kill them. Increasing numbers of villages announced themselves “free of Jews,” but readers who reported that fact did not seem concerned that their former Jewish neighbors, though relocated, were still alive. Those very readers provided evidence in their letters that they were not typical of the German population as a whole. In denouncing their decent and compassionate fellow citizens, they felt themselves members of a crusade that lacked universal support and predicted it would take a long time before they could win the struggle to remake all Germans to their anti-Semitic image. Hitler found his willing executioners— a number ample enough to slaughter millions— but he did not have the whole citizenry of Germany from which to choose.”
Streicher was kicked out of Nazi leadership by the mid to late 1930s, due to his own inability to get along with other Nazis and his own corruption. He did continue to publish the Sturmer, although as Jews either emigrated or deported, there was less material for his paper. In addition, during the war, the Sturmer operated under paper restrictions. The Sturmer’s heyday was over by the time the war started and its circulation was in substantial decline. Because of his own incompetence, Streicher was never given the opportunity to directly participate in the Holocaust or in war crimes like the other old Nazis. Nonetheless, Streicher was hanged with them, refusing to apologize for his involvement and braying out his loyalty to Hitler. I will shed no tears for this waste of human life, but I am not certain that Streicher should have been hanged. He was a miserable human being and he poisoned the minds of Germans, and he made the Holocaust possible with his propaganda, but, ultimately, weren’t his crimes a matter of speech and argument? Do we hang people for political ideas? If so, shouldn’t we be throwing Communists and racists in jail before they get political power?
This is a surprising, good book. Because of its focus on someone who turned out to be a minor actor, it was able to get deeper into the background of the period. I recommend it highly to those who are interested in political science or the dark arts of propaganda.
June 12, 2012
My edition does not contain the subtitle, so I expected it to be a straight bio. Only the first two chapters consisted of such material, however, so it really should've been entitled Der Stuermer (especially given the extensive photo section of excerpts from its pages). Most of the rest was quite good anyway, including an excellent chapter on "The German Anti-Semitic Tradition." The author managed to present his subject matter without bludgeoning us over the head too badly about what a Big Meanie Streicher was (an all too common fault of writers about Nazism, Shirer being one of the biggest offenders). Unfortunately though the thing nearly derails on the absurd and pointless last chapter, "The Illusion of Immunity," a specious and simplistic hodgepodge on the level of some pop-psych bestseller, all apparently designed to persuade us that the Holocaust wasn't the result of a "German national character defect"...a point which I hadn't realized that anyone seriously considered in the first place. "German vermin" (lol)...apparently somebody hasn't been paying too much attention at all.
July 7, 2021
A bit dated, originally published back in the 1980s, but one of the very few biographies available on Julius Streicher. However, much of the book is not about Streicher but Germany. Still, worth a read if readers are interested in the topic.
November 29, 2020
"guns don't kill people, but hatred certainly does..."
Approaching Julius Streicher through this book is altogether a requirement of people with a good will. It is so important to understand the dynamics of hate, as we've witnessed during the summer festival of hate, know as the summer of 2020. In my view, we've never seen so much hatred on display and that's a good thing, actually a very good thing. I'd rather know that I am hated for who I am rather than buying into someone who pretends that everything is okay. Now, let's turn to Julius Streicher, if you have a moment.
Streicher went under a number of different labels: "The World's Number One Jew-baiter," The biggest bigot in the world," and "the high priest of stupidity." Streicher's views on various topics were all too conventional: women belong in the four domains: the kitchen, the bedroom, the nursery, and the church. As Streicher approached adulthood, he made a living as a substitute teacher. This is a difficult calling by any measure since it tends to belong to that gray zone where one remains undecided about one's commitments.
Streicher had one talent that I, this reviewer here, recognized at an early age: the ability to make a moving and entertaining speech. Writing now as an American, we have very few in this category, properly called "the orator": is Mitch McConnell an orator? Not really. He is able to deliver interesting remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but his eloquence and effectiveness are easily brought into question. Is Jim Jordan an orator? Not really, he speaks too quickly and his emotionally unbalanced remarks show enthusiasm, but often lack substance. Is Doug Collins an orator? Not really. He makes interesting points, but he can't carry through on the lengthy diatribes we require at this critical moment in American history. Is Matt Gaetz an orator? I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide. I know for certain that Maizie Hirono is not an orator.
Probably what is most helpful in this biography, all to brief in fact, is Streicher's response to an oration by one Adolph Hitler:
"Each person felt it. The man obviously had a calling from a higher authority, some unnamed god we were not familiar with. He spoke as a messenger, one sent by heaven to show us the way. Surrounded by hell on every side, we were compelled to consider this man's message..."(page 15)
It was at that moment, in that realization, that Streicher rushed to the stage and bequeathed the movement he had built in Franconia, saying in all honesty: "I can only follow you along the way, for I am the follower, you are the leader. I give you my popular movement with my whole heart. Years of dedication have now be rewarded with the words you have delivered!"
Approaching Julius Streicher through this book is altogether a requirement of people with a good will. It is so important to understand the dynamics of hate, as we've witnessed during the summer festival of hate, know as the summer of 2020. In my view, we've never seen so much hatred on display and that's a good thing, actually a very good thing. I'd rather know that I am hated for who I am rather than buying into someone who pretends that everything is okay. Now, let's turn to Julius Streicher, if you have a moment.
Streicher went under a number of different labels: "The World's Number One Jew-baiter," The biggest bigot in the world," and "the high priest of stupidity." Streicher's views on various topics were all too conventional: women belong in the four domains: the kitchen, the bedroom, the nursery, and the church. As Streicher approached adulthood, he made a living as a substitute teacher. This is a difficult calling by any measure since it tends to belong to that gray zone where one remains undecided about one's commitments.
Streicher had one talent that I, this reviewer here, recognized at an early age: the ability to make a moving and entertaining speech. Writing now as an American, we have very few in this category, properly called "the orator": is Mitch McConnell an orator? Not really. He is able to deliver interesting remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but his eloquence and effectiveness are easily brought into question. Is Jim Jordan an orator? Not really, he speaks too quickly and his emotionally unbalanced remarks show enthusiasm, but often lack substance. Is Doug Collins an orator? Not really. He makes interesting points, but he can't carry through on the lengthy diatribes we require at this critical moment in American history. Is Matt Gaetz an orator? I'll leave it to you, dear reader, to decide. I know for certain that Maizie Hirono is not an orator.
Probably what is most helpful in this biography, all to brief in fact, is Streicher's response to an oration by one Adolph Hitler:
"Each person felt it. The man obviously had a calling from a higher authority, some unnamed god we were not familiar with. He spoke as a messenger, one sent by heaven to show us the way. Surrounded by hell on every side, we were compelled to consider this man's message..."(page 15)
It was at that moment, in that realization, that Streicher rushed to the stage and bequeathed the movement he had built in Franconia, saying in all honesty: "I can only follow you along the way, for I am the follower, you are the leader. I give you my popular movement with my whole heart. Years of dedication have now be rewarded with the words you have delivered!"
August 14, 2021
Julius Streicher was the most notorious “Jew-baiter” of the Nazi regime. As founder and editor of the weekly “Der Stürmer” newspaper, between 1923 and 1945 he published thousands of articles that degraded and dehumanized Jews and by poisoning people’s minds against them, reinforced the overall Nazi campaign to deprive them of their civil liberties as German citizens, ability to make a living, and ultimately their lives. At the Nuremberg trials he was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was hanged on October 14, 1946 along with other top Nazis. Ironically, his ashes were scattered under the name “Alfred Rosenberg.”
“Der Stürmer” is appalling testimony to the power of mass media to sway the minds of men who do not stop to really think about what they are reading or hearing, but who rather allow themselves to be guided by what they perceive to be majority trends in popular culture, whether it be out of fear of ostracism or retribution, or desire for acceptance by others. (Of course, in Germany, continued opposition to the regime could land one in a concentration camp, or worse.) This led to uncritical acceptance of even the most outrageous claims about the Jews and the conviction that they were ultimately responsible for all the world’s evils, and reinforced already-existing tendencies towards anti-Semitism in German society, which Streicher and his ilk exploited to the fullest. Though he did not participate in the actual killing of any Jews, it was something he advocated and responsibility for the Holocaust can be laid at least partially at his feet.
His example should serve as a warning to anyone who tries to demonize or dehumanize any group of people, because of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, country or continent of origin – whatever the reason. It also points out the need for people to familiarize themselves with the warnings which history sets before us in order to avoid making the same mistakes that were made in the past. The current political climate in the United States makes this need critically important right now, as does the alarming revival of anti-Semitism both here and abroad. One can only be thankful that the Internet did not exist in Streicher’s day; but how many are using it now to spread poisonous nonsense all around the world? The ill-advisedness of following demagogues of any political persuasion should also be self-evident, and those who chant “lock her up” or “send her back” or any such, should really think about what they are saying. Have they really thought about it, or are they simply going along with the mindless herd?
**** review by Chuck Graham ****
“Der Stürmer” is appalling testimony to the power of mass media to sway the minds of men who do not stop to really think about what they are reading or hearing, but who rather allow themselves to be guided by what they perceive to be majority trends in popular culture, whether it be out of fear of ostracism or retribution, or desire for acceptance by others. (Of course, in Germany, continued opposition to the regime could land one in a concentration camp, or worse.) This led to uncritical acceptance of even the most outrageous claims about the Jews and the conviction that they were ultimately responsible for all the world’s evils, and reinforced already-existing tendencies towards anti-Semitism in German society, which Streicher and his ilk exploited to the fullest. Though he did not participate in the actual killing of any Jews, it was something he advocated and responsibility for the Holocaust can be laid at least partially at his feet.
His example should serve as a warning to anyone who tries to demonize or dehumanize any group of people, because of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, country or continent of origin – whatever the reason. It also points out the need for people to familiarize themselves with the warnings which history sets before us in order to avoid making the same mistakes that were made in the past. The current political climate in the United States makes this need critically important right now, as does the alarming revival of anti-Semitism both here and abroad. One can only be thankful that the Internet did not exist in Streicher’s day; but how many are using it now to spread poisonous nonsense all around the world? The ill-advisedness of following demagogues of any political persuasion should also be self-evident, and those who chant “lock her up” or “send her back” or any such, should really think about what they are saying. Have they really thought about it, or are they simply going along with the mindless herd?
**** review by Chuck Graham ****
April 15, 2025
It’s good to refresh knowledge from time to time about how propaganda works. Especially now, as it is truly widespread and so different. This book excellently portrays how the propaganda machinery functions—not only how it is created to persuade the public, but also how society itself helps to construct it, becoming co-authors of it and, in this case, accomplices in a massive crime. I read the book with interest and it was easy to read, but I was disappointed by how little attention was given to Julius Streicher’s personality and his relationships with family and friends, which, considering his limited and hateful intellect, I believe would have been intriguing. Although the book includes a rich collection of photographs, in my opinion, the quality could have been better, particularly when it comes to the periodicals.
July 26, 2021
just... okay. I did read it for an essay though.
September 6, 2013
good research, sloppy conclusions.
July 17, 2021
A short biography on one of the Nazis with a lower I.Q. (Streicher's was 102). He had worked as a school teacher before becoming a propaganda publicist.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews