Nuremberg - creating the hoax ...

[offlineSevenUp]

Revisionists appear to me to spend a lot of time determining what did or did not happen on the ground in WW II, in order to 'revise' the history to get it right. Well and good.

But that is only half of the equation. Given that the holocaust did not happen, the other half is 'why does everyone believe that it did?'. To the best of my knowledge, most revisionists don't spend much time on this question. The primary exception being Butz's "Hoax of the Twentieth Century", which tackles it head on.

There is also a paper by Weber "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust" which describes how the hoax was created at Nuremberg. This is a great paper, it debunks the nonsense that 'no one denied the hoax at Nurember'. And I learned, for example, that the only defendant at Nuremberg charged with a direct part in the holocaust, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, testified as follows -

Q. Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.

A. Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

Q. Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

A. Entirely impossible.

Weber also describes how at an auxiliary trial the defense lawyer, Warren Magee, obtained damning transcripts of pretrial interrogations and read them into the record. The problem, for me, is that the reference given is obscure. Presumably the trial transcript is available, and should be the reference.

So, I'm wondering, what other good revisionist aricles are there on Nuremberg, and why doesn't someone revisit Weber's paper and strengthen it.

The holohoax predates Nuremberg, but Nuremberg is where the hoax phantasmagoria was transformed into historical fact. It's all right there. It should be the focus of a lot of revisionist study.

[offline Kingfisher]

I liked this book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nuremberg-Ninev ... 095598100X

It used to be available as a download, cost 1 GBP, from www.markturley.com but that site is down at the moment. Most of it can be read on Google books. Turley does not declare himself a Revisionist but he is clearly sympathetic.

[offline Hektor]

Revisionists appear to me to spend a lot of time determining what did or did not happen on the ground in WW II, in order to 'revise' the history to get it right. Well and good.

But that is only half of the equation. Given that the holocaust did not happen, the other half is 'why does everyone believe that it did?'. To the best of my knowledge, most revisionists don't spend much time on this question. The primary exception being Butz's "Hoax of the Twentieth Century", which tackles it head on....The holohoax predates Nuremberg, but Nuremberg is where the hoax phantasmagoria was transformed into historical fact. It's all right there. It should be the focus of a lot of revisionist study.

One can say that the Holocaust is a social construct. The board was set for something like that. The Allies, having to justify the war effort and motivate their troops, made all kinds of atrocity allegation. Finally in Nuremberg they could preside in judging over their enemies (Think of that audacity: First you engage in War against Germany for many years, then you prosecute and judge them via a show trial). In that charged climate many people actually start to believe accusations being made. Add to this further stories from the "liberated camps", pictures of people that starved to death or a visibly malnourished. The Allied psy ops / sykewar units went to some extent to make it look as gruesome as possible and violated even many social norms like exposing nudity and disrespecting the death. http://www.whale.to/b/psyop_h.html
http://mil.sagepub.com/cgi/content/citation/30/3/733
Take to this enough interested parties that people believe somethin like that and you'll get your Holocaust dogma after a while.

[offlineMortimer]

Not Guilty At Nuremberg The German Defense Case by Carlos Porter was published in booklet form in the 1980's. It is available online http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm There is also revisionist info on the trials at the http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com site in particular the Nazi Shrunken Heads episode.

[offline Kingfisher]

Not Guilty At Nuremberg The German Defense Case by Carlos Porter was published in booklet form in the 1980's. It is available online http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm There is also revisionist info on the trials at the http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com site in particular the Nazi Shrunken Heads episode.

I'm familiar with both those and recommend them too. In fact, it was the videos that first convinced me that, even though the entire Revisionist thesis may not be correct, there are huge holes in the conventional narrative, and that the concept of a propaganda that once launched was universally believed, could not be let go of and served a useful purpose made sense as a viable alternative explanation.

I recommend Mark Turley before Carlos Porter, though, as he is not as polemic, is less open to the anti-Semitic charge and is more thorough. Unfortunately his book no longer appears to be downloadable. I have a copy, but cannot post it for copyright reasons.

David Irving's Nuremberg, the Last Battle, is very good, but like most of Irving is long and detailed. It is downloadable free of charge.

[offlineMortimer]

Revisionists appear to me to spend a lot of time determining what did or did not happen on the ground in WW II, in order to 'revise' the history to get it right. Well and good.

But that is only half of the equation. Given that the holocaust did not happen, the other half is 'why does everyone believe that it did?'. To the best of my knowledge, most revisionists don't spend much time on this question. The primary exception being Butz's "Hoax of the Twentieth Century", which tackles it head on.

There is also a paper by Weber "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust" which describes how the hoax was created at Nuremberg. This is a great paper, it debunks the nonsense that 'no one denied the hoax at Nurember'. And I learned, for example, that the only defendant at Nuremberg charged with a direct part in the holocaust, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, testified as follows -

Q. Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.

A. Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

Q. Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

A. Entirely impossible.

Weber also describes how at an auxiliary trial the defense lawyer, Warren Magee, obtained damning transcripts of pretrial interrogations and read them into the record. The problem, for me, is that the reference given is obscure. Presumably the trial transcript is available, and should be the reference.

So, I'm wondering, what other good revisionist aricles are there on Nuremberg, and why doesn't someone revisit Weber's paper and strengthen it.

The holohoax predates Nuremberg, but Nuremberg is where the hoax phantasmagoria was transformed into historical fact. It's all right there. It should be the focus of a lot of revisionist study.

I agree that the article by Mark Weber is very good. It is a well presented and thought out article which can be used to introduce people to the revisionist position on the trials. The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust is located here http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

[offlinenathan]

SevenUp shows a commendable (and rare) concern about sources. He wrote:

Weber also describes how at an auxiliary trial the defense lawyer, Warren Magee, obtained damning transcripts of pre-trial interrogations and read them into the record. The problem, for me, is that the reference given is obscure. Presumably the trial transcript is available, and should be the reference”

There are very few libraries which carry the 15 volume Green series of the twelve NMT trials. As far as I can find only Case 1 has yet been put online. But the printed volumes, apparently, contained only a “condensed” versions of the trial record. So even if Gaus’s pre-trial interrogation was indeed part of that record, it may not have been published. And since Gaus denied the coercion - as of course he would have to - the tribunal would also have had good excuse to strike it out. Anyone who can access the Butz source (Case 11 transcript, 5123-6167) in the Green series might possibly find there only Gaus’s denial and Magee’s reference to pre-trial interrogations which were actually read out. That might explain why Weber’s only primary sources are the memoirs of people who were in court or who read the current reports. Eminent protestant clergy used the Weizsacker trial as an occasion to denounce some Nuremberg procedures..


WEBER WROTE

The testimony of the prosecution's chief witness in the Nuremberg "Wilhelmstrasse" trial was obtained by threat of death. The American defense attorney, Warren Magee, had somehow obtained the transcript of the first pre-trial interrogation of Friedrich Gaus, a former senior official in the German Foreign Office. Despite frantic protests by prosecuting attorney Robert Kempner, the judge decided to permit Magee to read from the document. During the pretrial interrogation session, Kempner told Gaus that he would be turned over to the Soviets for hanging. Tearfully pleading for mercy, Gaus begged Kempner to think of his wife and children. Kempner replied that he could save himself only by testifying in court against his former colleagues. A desperate Gaus, who had already endured four weeks in solitary confinement, agreed. When Magee finished reading from the damning transcript, Gaus sat with both hands to his face, totally devastated.

Weber gives as sources:

Letter by Lutz Schwerin von Krosigk written in Essen, April 15, 1975, shortly before his death. Published in: Die Bauernschaft (Mohrkirch), April 1981, pp. 34-35.; Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Regnery, 1949), p. 172.; T. Bower, Blind Eye to Murder (1983), p. 314.; "US Ankläger Kempner schwer belastet," Deutsche Wochen-Zeitung, Feb. 23, 1973. Cited in: Austin App, No Time for Silence (IHR, 1987), p. 17.

BUTZ in Hoax wrote:

In another extraordinary choice of a person to use as a prosecution witness rather than put on trial, Kempner had used Friedrich Gaus, who had a reputation as "Ribbentrop's evil spirit," as the chief prosecution witness against von Weizsäcker. Magee, evidently by virtue of being an American having access to documents denied the German lawyers, was able to prove in court that Kempner had threatened to hand Gaus over to the Russians if Gaus did not cooperate with the prosecution....

Butz gives as sources:

Utley, 172, 177; (Case 11 transcript, 5123-6167) Gaus denied the coercion but, as Magee commented in court, "we have the questions and answers that the witness gave" in the relevant interrogation. The von Thadden and Häfliger declarations were made in the sessions of March 3 and May 11, 1948, respectively, and the corresponding parts of the trial transcript are quoted by Bardèche, 120ff, who gives other examples of coercion and intimidation of witnesses at Nuremberg.

(The last is no doubt a reference to Nuremberg: the Promised Land, a 1948 book by Maurice Bardeche, the French neo-fascist.)


Tom Bower wrote in Blind eye to Murder:

On May 10 a defense lawyer dramatically read out in the courtroom a transcript of Gaus’ pre-trial interrogation. It had taken place after Gaus had been held for four weeks in solitary confinement , and experience which he admitted [sic] had been extremely unsettling. The interrogator had been Kempner himself

Kempner; Well things are not as simple as that. The Russians are interested in you. Do you know that?
Gaus: The Russians?
Kempner: yes as a professional violator of treaties
Gaus: No that is not correct in the least. My God...

The interrogation ended, according to the transcript:

Kempner: Well, let’s finish to day. I’ ll tell you something.....
Gaus: (interrupting) Don’t extradite me to the Russians....

I copied the above ages ago, somewhere online. Perhaps a reader with Bower’s book on his shelves can give us Bower’s footnoted source. On the face of it Bower has omitted some tearful dialogue, but that dialogue, for reasons offered, may not necessarily be found in the “the transcript” of Case 11.

[offline Kingfisher]

Way back when this thread was current I recommended Mark Turley's From Nuremberg to Nineveh, but at the time I didn't have the link to download it from. (Turley's own site, via which I had found it, is discontinued.)

I now have the link. The download costs 1 GBP and is worth every penny.

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/from-nuremberg-to-nineveh/3534988

[offlinebridgebuilder]

As a matter of interest: does anyone know the actual fate of the unfortunate Gaus? Was he turned over to the tender mercies of Stalin?