'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby Hannover » 3 weeks 2 days ago (Fri Oct 27, 2017 6:59 pm)

This article is classic Zionist spin & misinformation on the outrageous Nuremberg Show Trials.
We read one blatant lie after the other. Breathtaking is an understatement.
excerpt:
Seventy years after the final verdicts at Nuremberg, it is clear that it was one of the most important legal moments in modern history, if not the “greatest trial in history.”

"Important" in that along with the Witchcraft Trials, the Nuremberg Show Trials were the biggest display of orchestrated lying, blatant perjuries, and and utter rejection of rules of jurisprudence known to mankind.
Of course, most people have never taken the time to actually go through them. Instead they are fed Zionist lies like what you'll see in the piece below.

BTW, the publisher, the National Constitution Center, is a left wing, Zionist oriented organization endorsed by the notorious ADL.

Don't forget Nuremberg's 'mass murders' of Jews in steam chambers', and 'German atomic weapons', just to name two quick examples of nonsense that were so common at these phony trials.

recommended:
fact: Torture used to get 'confessions' from Germans
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5552

'The problems with the Nuremberg trials'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9399

Hermann Goering dismisses holocaust claims at Nuremberg Trials
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11203

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053

This article is packed with so much that we know to be wrong, and easily demonstrated as such.
Read on, comments invited as usual.

- Hannover

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the ... ears-later
The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later
by Maggie Baldridge

Image
Judges At Nuremberg

Last month marked the 70th anniversary of the end of the Nuremberg trials. The tribunal, which consisted of judges from the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain, was created to try prominent members of the Nazi Party for war crimes after the conclusion of World War II.

During the trials, which began in November 1945 and concluded in October 1946, 24 German officials and party members were tried, including Hermann Goering and Martin Bormann. Of the 24 officials indicted at Nuremberg, 12 were sentenced to death; seven were sentenced to imprisonment spanning from 10 years to life; three were acquitted; and two trials never proceeded.

After World War II, the most feasible options for the Allies were to release the Nazi officials, an almost unthinkable act which would have essentially affirmed that no crimes took place; to hold the Nazi leadership accountable outside through extra-judicial means; or to create a tribunal and hold trials.

The atrocities committed by the Nazis during the war were unprecedented. For that reason, international law had not addressed a course of action for punishing war crimes on such a grand scale. Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, claimed that the “guilt” of the accused war criminals was “so black that they fell outside … any judicial process.” Indeed, the suggested method of justice for Axis leaders by top British officials, including Winston Churchill, was death by firing squad without trial. However, both the Soviet Union and the United States insisted on some sort of war tribunal to legitimize the punishments. Whether this insistence was for political reasons or moral reasons—or a mix of the two—is a matter of debate.

The trials have been called one of the greatest feats of international law until that time. The scale and scope of the trials was immense. While many believe that the Nuremberg trials were responsible for delivering justice to the most evil force the Earth had ever seen, some have taken a more critical stance on the trials and the precedents they established.

During his trial, Hermann Goering wrote in the margins of his indictment, “The victor will always be the judge and the vanquished the accused.” While acknowledging the horrific atrocities carried out by Goering and other Nazi officials, some historians have had similar qualms, even going so far as to call the trials “Victor’s Justice.”

Criticism stems from what could be called a “retroactive” creation of international law. Because of the unprecedented nature of the Holocaust and the Nazi regime, international law as it existed at the time did not suffice to prosecute those indicted, “so the Allies fudged a new law and applied it ex post facto.” Those laws prohibited what became known as “crimes against humanity.” At the time, some legal experts believed that if the trials were to be considered legitimate, law must be applied as it was written when the crimes took place. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time, Harlan Fiske Stone, claimed that the trials were a “lynching party.”

Despite these criticisms, the Nuremberg trials were momentous, for a number of reasons. They are remembered by many as an important development in how justice is carried out for war crimes on both the international and state levels. The trials acknowledged that the crimes committed by the Nazis were not done by some intangible entity; they were committed by men. Even further, the trials held those men accountable for their actions. By establishing that individuals were responsible for the crimes of a state, the Allied Powers hoped to prevent such crimes from occurring again in the future. As Nuremberg prosecutor Whitney Harris explained, “For the first time in history, absolute rulers were brought to account before the law. There is no longer any state, or any ruler of any state, who can claim total immunity from the law. … The age of empires has passed. At Nuremberg we put tyranny on trial.”

In addition, much of the information that we now know about the Holocaust was disclosed during the trials, including reports regarding the more than six million people systematically killed by the Nazis. Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor and future Supreme Court Justice, declared, “Unless record was made … future generations would not believe how horrible the truth was.”

Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Nuremberg trials was to elevate the rule of law and procedural justice above the urge for retribution and retaliation—even in one of humanity’s darkest moments. As Justice Jackson stated, the existence of the Nuremberg trials was "one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason." This commitment to law and international cooperation defined a principal difference between the Allied Powers and the Axis Powers.

To this day, the trials have influenced how war crimes are tried, not just internationally but also within the jurisdiction of the United States. For example, under the Alien Tort Statute, foreign citizens are able to be convicted or seek justice for human rights violations within the U.S. court system. Indeed, within the last 10 years, numerous “federal district courts have relied on the Nuremberg trials in finding that corporations can be found liable for aiding and abetting human rights violations abroad.” The Obama administration has also used the Nuremberg trials as support for closing the military prison at Guantánamo Bay.

Seventy years after the final verdicts at Nuremberg, it is clear that it was one of the most important legal moments in modern history, if not the “greatest trial in history.”
Maggie Baldridge is an intern at the National Constitution Center. She is also a recent graduate of Dickinson College.


If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
nsv
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:27 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby nsv » 3 weeks 2 days ago (Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:26 am)

At the outset, didn't the people running the trials make some sort of decree that the evidence to presented did not necessarily need to be factual or truthful?
That hearsay and other forms of flakey evidence could be submitted as if they were fact? I am sure I read this somewhere.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby Hektor » 3 weeks 2 days ago (Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:06 am)

nsv wrote:At the outset, didn't the people running the trials make some sort of decree that the evidence to presented did not necessarily need to be factual or truthful?
That hearsay and other forms of flakey evidence could be submitted as if they were fact? I am sure I read this somewhere.


Yes

Article 19.

The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

Article 20.

The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof.

Article 21.

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

Basically they could decide on things to be fact, use releases by Allied governments and other show trials, as well as exclude evidence they didn't find useful. Still, this mock trial did manage prove what they set out to. Despite this convictions were made, which is why people nowadays believe Nuremberg proved Holocaust, War Crimes and War Guilt. It did not.

avatar
nsv
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:27 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby nsv » 3 weeks 1 day ago (Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:15 am)

Thanks Hektor. Yes, this is what I read. I remembered immediately the first underlined part of Article 19 above.
But this:
Perhaps the greatest contribution of the Nuremberg trials was to elevate the rule of law and procedural justice above the urge for retribution and retaliation

A crazy statement given what was inflicted on Germany for years and years after the war (no need for elaboration here).

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby ginger » 2 weeks 4 days ago (Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:22 pm)

The article - The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later - is a fluffy piece and only alludes vaguely to the findings that have fueled interest in the Holocaust for 70 years - that millions were killed in gas chambers. She writes - "In addition, much of the information that we now know about the Holocaust was disclosed during the trials, including reports regarding the more than six million people systematically killed by the Nazis." I have never found the exact words that addressed this "mother of all atrocities" in the trial transcripts. Was this something that was judicially noticed? I know that I.G. Farben was on trial for making Zyklon B and I have read depositions where witnesses claimed that they saw or heard people being gassed - but where during the trial was it specifically addressed? Could someone point it out to me?

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby ginger » 2 weeks 23 hours ago (Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:28 pm)

At the IMT, according to Avalon project, Hoess clearly testified that a program of extermination was taking place at Auschwitz. The number of deaths he stated were high, so he didn't have the facts straight in that regard, and he didn't "have a right to an attorney" to help him during the brutal interrogation by the British.

Were there other witnesses who stated clearly that an extermination program was going on? Was Hoess' testimony the reason the IMT dignified the story with its verdict?

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby Breker » 2 weeks 20 hours ago (Sun Nov 05, 2017 7:33 pm)

Ms. Ginger asks:
Were there other witnesses who stated clearly that an extermination program was going on? Was Hoess' testimony the reason the IMT dignified the story with its verdict?


Perhaps this thread is helpful.

Holocaust HOAX is based almost entirely on TORTURE!
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8603
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby Hektor » 2 weeks 7 hours ago (Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:13 am)

ginger wrote:At the IMT, according to Avalon project, Hoess clearly testified that a program of extermination was taking place at Auschwitz. The number of deaths he stated were high, so he didn't have the facts straight in that regard, and he didn't "have a right to an attorney" to help him during the brutal interrogation by the British.

He, or his interrogator?
If he had an attorney, what difference would that have made? People at show trials also had attorneys. It didn't really make a difference in that kind of setting.

ginger wrote:Were there other witnesses who stated clearly that an extermination program was going on? Was Hoess' testimony the reason the IMT dignified the story with its verdict?

Most accused denied any knowledge of any "extermination program". But in some cases the innuendo with the "liberated camps" footage seem to have persuaded them, they were just left in the dark.


But here is what was said in Nuremberg:
viewtopic.php?t=7469

But seems to be widely ignored by Exterminationists.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby ginger » 2 weeks 1 hour ago (Mon Nov 06, 2017 2:57 pm)

I agree that the photos of Bergen-Belsen and Dachau convinced the public that mass systematic murder had been committed in the camps. When Eisenhower saw the conditions in the camps he knew their propaganda value and made certain the media photographed and broadcast them to the world. Hoess' testimony confirmed what the public had heard. His testimony drowned out other testimony and Red Cross reports. I wondered if, during the IMT trials, there were others who so clearly testified to mass murder, or was Hoess the only one. Was I.G. Farben charged with mass murder because they made Zyklon-B?

Given the desires of certain political forces after the war, I doubt that an attorney could have helped Hoess - but a right to an attorney is one of the safeguards meant to prevent forced confessions and abuse in America. Still, the desires of certain political forces resulted in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by Americans, and, no doubt, Germans were tortured by Americans and the Allies.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby Hannover » 1 week 6 days ago (Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:36 pm)

Ginger, see examples here of "confessions" at Nuremberg:

'The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
Do the 'war crimes' trials prove extermination?'
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
and:
'The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust, pt.2
Torture' '
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Weberb.html

more on Auschwitz Commandant Hoess here:

'How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss'
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html
and:
'The Hoess "Confessions" and Legalities'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=783

related:
'Jan Sehn, Polish Auschwitz trials judge ripped by Bellinger'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2812

Cheers, Hannover

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions—while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable ‘holocaust’ occur—gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 'The Nuremberg trials, 70 years later' / Lies & Spin

Postby ginger » 1 week 5 days ago (Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:43 pm)

Thanks, Hannover, for the links - In Mark Weber's article he says that Hoess's testimony was the high point of the IMT proceedings - others, like Pohl, wouldn't testify despite pressure, and many were forced to sign self-incriminating documents, or else victim testimony was used to incriminate them.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests