Julius Streicher, Hitler Chief Who Organized the Official Boycott, is Leading Pace in His Nuremberg

The spread of pogrom propaganda against the Jews is assuming dangerous character and proportions throughout the length and breadth of the Reich as the entire Nazi press apparently is entering into competition to see which of its members can go to the furthest extremes. No Government action has been taken to check this campaign which, since it is pressed most strongly by papers controlled by s#ch high-ranking Nazis as Julius Streicher, organizer of the one-day open boycott against the Jews last April, must be assumed to have the tacit approval of the Nazi supreme councils.

Seeking to vie with a dozen other publications which have been foremost in anti-Jewish activities, Die Warheit here today came out with a streamer headline on its first page, “A Warning to Jews.”

ENGLISH BISHOP QUOTED

Berlin Jews, the paper insinuates, are secretly spreading rumors regarding the anti-Jewish atrocities. It warns them of the consequences of their alleged action. Quoting from an address in London by the Bishop of Gloucester, in which, according to Die Warheit, the prelate declared that Jews fomented the Russian Revolution and asserted that what Germany really needs is for a French army to occupy Berlin, the paper warns its readers to heed the bishop’s remarks. Under the pretext that these statements set forth the actual situation, the paper calls on the Germans to paralyze the Jews and prevent further activities along these lines.

The article, with the exception of the reference to the British prelate, is strikingly similar to an article in yesterday’s Voclkischer Beobachter, newspaper owned by Hitler and the chief Government organ.

CONTINUE SEIZING HOSTAGES

The future course of the Nazis in combatting the opposition throughout the world to the ruthless policies and program of Hitler is seen in the extension of the system of seizing hostages among the helpless population here and punishing them for acts committed by others, over whom they have no control. A striking example of this was the seizure of five persons supposedly related to Philip Scheidemann, once chancellor of the Second Reich, in retaliation for his anti-Nazi activities. Scheidemann asserted later that he had only four relatives in Germany.

Today’s press reports that Frau Sittenfeld was “taken under police observation” because her husband, proprietor of the large Otag stores, went abroad. The theory is, of course, that Herr Sittenfeld will be unable to do anything abroad to which the Nazis could possibly take exception for fear that his wife would be made to suffer the consequences.

Many similar cases are b### ported from the provinces. In many cases the relationship is a very distant one, and in the case of some Jewish merchants who have fled abroad, there is no blood relation-