I have been looking at some posts on the Internet (from people who are not Nazi fans), and I have read quite a few people saying that the Nazi gauleiter Streicher's execution was morally wrong, even though Streicher himself would hardly have been missed in the process. From what I remember, he had little or no political power and most of his influence came from his newspaper Der Stuermer, which apparently did advocate violence at times. However, I do recall one person saying that Streicher had political power as gauleiter of Franconia(?) and that his execution was justified on these grounds. What was the true reason Streicher was executed?
Streicher had indeed been Gauleiter of Franconia, but he lost all of his political power in 1940 when he was removed from office for his embezzlement - to put it crudely, he forgot to share with the right people. An early and ardent supporter of the Nazis, his newspaper Der Stuermer (The Stormer) was infamous at home and abroad for its extreme antisemitism. It published conspiracy theories such as blood libels and the 'Elders of Zion' calumny and borderline pornographic racist caricatures of Jews. Even though its official circulation was not particularly high compared to other Nazi newspapers, it was often displayed where everyone could see. During the 1936 Olympics, an order had to be given to take down the newspaper from public display so that it didn't shock tourists.
After his removal from power, Streicher retired to his house and continued to publish his newspaper from there. The circulation continued to decline. Despite that, Streicher had already made his name as Germany's most infamous Jew-baiter. In June 1945, the British drew up a list of ten defendants for the planned international war crimes trial that would become the IMT, and Streicher was on it together with Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Ley, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick. All ten were eventually indicted, together with fourteen others (twenty-one actually stood trial due to one suicide, one being tried in absentia, and one being terminally ill). Looking back at this preliminary list, Streicher does appear a bit out of place.
Streicher was not the only misfit in the dock - Hans Fritzsche was another propagandist, Goebbels' deputy's deputy, and completely unknown to most people. Fritzsche, however, did not appear to be an ardent Nazi (he joined the party when it was already in power), he claimed that his propaganda had not been too different from the propaganda of any other country, he was polite, and his protestations of ignorance of atrocities sounded at least somewhat convincing (even if they were later proven to be false). In the end, he was acquitted. Streicher, by comparison, continued to be openly antisemitic, saying, for example, the following:
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You may call them [Jewish people] a race or a nation, whichever you like, now; but you were saying, on 1 April 1933, that they were a "nation of blood-suckers and extortioners." Do you call that preaching hatred?
STREICHER: That is a statement, the expression of a conviction which can be proved on the basis of historical facts.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Understand me. I did not ask you whether it was a fact or not. I am asking whether you called it preaching hatred. Your answer is "yes" or "no."
STREICHER: No, it is not preaching hatred; it is just a statement of facts. [IMT vol. 12 p. 348]
That got him on the bad side of everyone including the judges. The fact that there seemed to be a clear path from Streicher's words to the horrible atrocities the courtroom was shown footage of didn't help. The judges agreed quite quickly to convict him, though they dropped Count One - conspiracy - because he was simply too unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and kept only Count Four - crimes against humanity. However, not everyone agreed. One of the aides to the US judge was worried about if that was right - "Streicher might be a beastly man, but he never killed anyone himself." (Tusa 457)
The issue was if Streicher's words could be linked decisively to other people's deeds. From the US perspective and its standards of freedom of speech, Streicher's conviction was unjust. Another US aide, however, compared him to a cheerleader of sorts, who encourages the crowd to cheer louder and supports the team that way. The Tusas write that Streicher was judged for how repulsive he was; Bradley Smith remarks that the judges sentenced him to death like stepping on a worm. Nobody particularly cared about Streicher's fate, but historians generally express uncertainty over whether executing him for basically incitement was just.
Works cited:
Reaching Judgement at Nuremberg by Bradley Smith
The Nuremberg Trial by Ann and John Tusa
The IMT transcript, which is available here