The IMT at Nuremberg

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

The IMT at Nuremberg

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:36 am)

I have been investigating the IMT for a little while now and have read opinions from all sides of the debate on it. Am presently weighing them up to try to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I'd be interested to know from some of the revisionists on here how they explain the following two points.

1) Three defendants (Schacht, Von Papen and Fritzsche) were acquitted altogether. Surely if the trials were simply a sham / witch-hunt / conspiracy to kill off leading Nazis etc, then all the defendants would have been executed? (7 others got prison rather than death - only of 11 of 21 received capital punishment).

2) according to this page, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judgen.htm
"Four hundred and three open sessions of the Tribunal have been held. Thirty-three witnesses gave evidence orally for the Prosecution against the individual defendants, and 61 witnesses, in addition to 19 of the defendants, gave evidence for the Defence.

A further 143 witnesses gave evidence for the Defence by means of written answers to interrogatories.

The Tribunal appointed Commissioners to hear evidence relating to the organisations, and 101 witnesses were heard for the Defence before the Commissioners, and 1,809 affidavits from other witnesses were submitted. Six reports were also submitted, summarising the contents of a great number of further affidavits.

Thirty-eight thousand affidavits, signed by 155,000 people, were submitted on behalf of the Political Leaders, 136,213 on behalf of the SS, 10,000 on behalf of the SA, 7,000 on behalf of the SD, 3,000 on behalf of the General Staff and OKW, and 2,000 on behalf of the Gestapo.

The Tribunal itself heard 22 witnesses for the organisations."

Apparently the defence also took more time in court than the prosecution.
How does all this tally with the notion that the trials were rigged in favour of the prosecutors?

all responses welcome. thanks.

Malle
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Malle » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:51 pm)

Sorry to say, you are wasting your time with this approach. For a starter you should first read the Article 19 of the IMT Charter before you even try to answer your questions (cut & pasted from a post by Sailor):

From Offense Fragen an die Holocaust-Industrie (Open Questions to the Holocaust-Industry) by H. Müller:

Sailor wrote:The Witnesses of the Prosecution could not be cross-examined by the Defense
An absolute necessary element of each criminal trial is the possibility of the defense to cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. This was not the case in the Nuremberg trials. Thus the witnesses of the prosecution could make unchecked the wildest accusations and absurd allegations, which were mostly accepted as proof in accordance with Article 19 of the IMT Charter:

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

There is one known exception. Dr. Otto Zippel, defense attorney of the accused Dr. Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher, succeeded to question a witness about an incriminating testimony. The Rumanian Jew Charles Sigismund Bendel alleged that in Auschwitz four million people were murdered with Zyklon B. And in Krema IV 1,000 people at a time were penned up in a room 10m x 4 m x 1.6m and then gassed. When Dr. Zippel questioned him how it is possible to house 1000 people in a space of 64 cubic meter (about 25 per square meter), Bendel responded: "The four million gassed people in Auschwitz are witnesses."

This then completed the cross-examination of the witness by the defense. Brendel’s testimony was considered proof that Dr. Tesch and Weibacher assisted in the murder of four million people. They were both sentenced to death and hanged.


Note the sentence:

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

Why should we bother to investigate what testimony was for/against? It was staged from the beginning. :wink:
I must be a mushroom - because everyone keeps me in the dark and feeds me with lots of bullshit.

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:43 pm)

'technical rules of evidence' are not commonly used in all courts. Although it is common practice for American Courts to have 'technical rules', European courts generally don't and never have. As two of the three men (Jackson, Nikitchenko and Falco) who wrote the London charter and set up the IMT were European, the abscence of 'technical rules' is neither surprising nor indicative of any intent towards injustuce.

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:02 pm)

also, while i think of it, you quoted this...

"There is one known exception. Dr. Otto Zippel, defense attorney of the accused Dr. Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher..."

But I'm talking about the IMT. Those people weren't 'accused' by the IMT. They may have been defendants at one of the later Nuremberg trials, but I'm not asking about those. I'm asking about 'The Trial of the Major War Criminals' before the IMT at Nuremberg, November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:39 pm)

MarkTurley wrote:How does all this tally with the notion that the trials were rigged in favour of the prosecutors?


I would strongly recommend the following introduction to the meaning of the Nuremberg IMT:

The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust by Mark Weber

Not Guilty at Nuremberg by Carlos Porter

Allied counsel Thomas J. Dodd cross-examines a witness

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:49 pm)

Whoever thinks the Nuremberg trials were fair, in accordance with the principles of justice, and that the accused were treated in a honorable manner is insane - and whoever says they were is lying.

Allow myself to recommend you the following brilliant book by German historian Werner Maser - Nuremberg: A Nation On Trial. This book can be bought for about thirteen bucks at Amazon.com. It contains gnarly facts about just how fair the accused Germans were treated by the "winners" of the terrible war (are there really any winners of war?).

Excerpts:

When the ashes of the hanged were taken to a small river to be dumped, each urn bore a fictitious Jewish name (p l2).

Hans Frank was beaten up by two colored GIs as soon as he was arrested (p47). So was Julius Streicher (p 51). who was whipped and forced to drink negro saliva.

The simultaneous interpretation system at the trial was supplied free of charge by IBM, and was often inaccurate (p 83).

Although the Trial Charter allowed defendants the right to represent themselves, Hess was not allowed to (p 73).

The defense were not allowed to have copies of many prosecution documents of evidence (p 97). Defense documents had to be sifted by the prosecution, before they could be submitted in court (p98). Many of their documents were confiscated or stolen.

Prosecution witnesses, such as Pohl, were beaten until they would give "correct" evidence (p l00). Many defense witnesses were not allowed to appear at all.

Affidavits were allowed on the prosecution side, with no opportunity for the defense to cross-examine the authors. The Tribunal announced that it would "take judicial note" of anything which had "probative value" (p l02).

Agreements to advise the defense of topics to be examined next day in court were dishonored and repudiated (p l06). Agreements to supply adequate copies and translations of documentary evidence were too (p l04).

President Roosevelt himself intervened to prevent the truth coming out about Katyn (pll3).

The hangings of the ten condemned Germans was bungled. Ribbentrop took ten minutes to die (p253). Jodl took 18 minutes, and Keitel 24 (p255). Streicher groaned for a long time after dropping, Frick had severe wounds on his face and neck, through striking the edge of the trap (p255). A journalist who managed to persuade a newspaper to publish photographs of the bloodsmeared faces was arrested. Only touched-up pictures were allowed to be distributed (p 255). But in a note, the author tells how the American hangmen at Landsberg did an even worse job. GIs standing underneath the gallows had to finish off the victims by stuffing cotton wool down their throats (p 255f).

The hangman, John C. Woods burned the ropes and hoods immediately after the executions, even though he had been offered $2500 for them as souvenirs (p 327). He himself narrowly escaped death a few years later while testing an electric chair (p 254).



Read the review of Nuremberg -- A nation on trial.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:51 pm)

Hello Mark, good to see you here. For our readers, see Mark's site at:
http://www.markturley.com

There's a lot at this forum which utterly demolish the notion that the Nuremberg trials and the various other show trials were fair and truthful. A few points:

U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."

- Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49


U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas:
" I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."
-H. K. Thompson and H. Strutz, eds., Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal (IHR, 1983), p. 196.


Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world...I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty...This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein."
-Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168


also see:
'Do we have evidence of torture to extract confessions?'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=974
and:
The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
Chapter on: Torture
http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/Weber167-213.html

And of course, you can't have all these alleged mass murders without human remains, thousands of mass graves, and a murder weapon that is scientifically possible.

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

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Postby jnovitz » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:39 am)

Mark, the remarks of one of judges of NMT trial 7 probably apply equally to the IMT (found in Butz's Hoax, available as an online PDF)

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have
come here.
Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt.
Try as you will, it is impossible to convey to the defense, their counsel, and
their people that the court is trying to represent all mankind rather than the
country which appointed its members.
What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals applies to the
prosecution. The high ideal announced as the motives for creating these tribunals
has not been evident.
The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness,
aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to
lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.
The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed.
The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters
and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years,
whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.
The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders.
They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough
conquerors.
Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large
tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution.
The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution
considered material to the case.
Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced
an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made
available to the defense for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested
vigorously. General Taylor tried out of court to call a meeting of the
presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious
officer of the court seeking full justice.
Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance
upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners
for more than two and a half years, and repeated interrogation without
presence of counsel. Two and one-half years of confinement is a form of duress
in itself.
The lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.
[…] You should go to Nuremberg. You would see there a palace of justice
where 90 per cent of the people are interested in prosecution.
[…] The German people should receive more information about the trials
and the German defendants should receive the right to appeal to the United
Nations.”


Defendents were only given documents that the Prosecution selected for them, the defendent's attorneys were not given access to the document road. In at least one case, Hans Frank, it appears that the prosecution gave him a fraudulent document to submit in his defence (it was supposedly written in April 1943 to Hitler and talks about Maidanek, poor old Adolf wouldnt have had a clue what it was about).

Defence witnesses ran the risk of being selected themselves for later trials and those available were usually kept in custody. Testimony of defence witnesses was usually an ocassion to spring further ambushes on the defence or to introduce more incriminating documents. A classic case would be Karl Wolff or Rudolf Hoess who had just been tortured into admitting gassing 2.5 million Jews.

The fact that some defendents were acquitted is not so significant in as much the trial was a show trial to reeducate the german public as much as anyone really cared what German's ambassador to Turkey or the head of the Reichsbank prewar had been up to.

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:46 am)

I'd like to come back on a few of the points raised here.

I've read the Weber article before and dipped into bits of Porter. Weber is guilty of the same mistake some of you are making in that he tries to treat all the trials as one animal.
The IMT was a separate entity. It was truly international. Precedent-setting international law was written during its creation and it tried those deemed to be the most culpable Nazis left alive. It followed a series of guidelines set up by the representatives of the Allied powers that were developments of international law which had existed since the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907.
The later Nuremberg trials were different in that they had only one nation officiating, who ran the trials according to their own rules. Therefore although we had 'no technical rules of evidence' at the IMT, some of the later trials would have had them if they were American-run tribunals.
You can't therefore take sections of the Nuremberg Charter (written for the IMT) and use it as a blanket criticism of all the trials.
I noticed the old Judge van Roden quotes - unfortunately he's a discredited source. It turns out that shortly after the article featuring van Roden's views was published in The Progressive, a Senate sub-committee disclosed that the article had actually been written by James Finucane, an anti-war activist who obtained the information used in the article from Rudolf Aschenauer, a German attorney for the accused. Finucane presented it to van Roden who agreed to put his name to it. This doesn't mean that its worthless, but its not the objective bit of reporting it would have been had it really been written by an American judge.

Other than that there's lots of interesting suggestions for reading material here, but I can find books and articles myself. I'd like to know what you lot think. Presumably you've read some of these publications you're suggesting that I read?

How come some of the defendants were let off?
How come others got prison rather than death?
How come the defence spent longer in court, called more witnesses and presented more documentary evidence than the prosecution?

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3326
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:30 am)

MarkTurley wrote:I have been investigating the IMT for a little while now and have read opinions from all sides of the debate on it. Am presently weighing them up to try to arrive at some sort of conclusion. I'd be interested to know from some of the revisionists on here how they explain the following two points.

1) Three defendants (Schacht, Von Papen and Fritzsche) were acquitted altogether. Surely if the trials were simply a sham / witch-hunt / conspiracy to kill off leading Nazis etc, then all the defendants would have been executed? (7 others got prison rather than death - only of 11 of 21 received capital punishment).

2) according to this page, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judgen.htm
"Four hundred and three open sessions of the Tribunal have been held. Thirty-three witnesses gave evidence orally for the Prosecution against the individual defendants, and 61 witnesses, in addition to 19 of the defendants, gave evidence for the Defence.

...
Apparently the defence also took more time in court than the prosecution.
How does all this tally with the notion that the trials were rigged in favour of the prosecutors?

1.) That this the IMT wasn't a show-trial does not follow that "defendants" were acquitted. In fact I don't think the primary motive of the initiators of this "trial" was to kill the "defendants". One goal was to justify their own engagement in the war and to smear the Germans altogether, thereby justifying the various atrocities against them. To start with criminalizing the leaders makes perfect sense - That some are acquitted makes the trial more credible as well. I find it rather funny, when people conclude towards the guilt and correctness of a trial, when indeed people are acquitted.

2.) As for the "defendants-could-defend-themselves"-argument I deem this bogus as well. In fact alleged atrocity witnesses made such hillarious claims never questioned that I hardly believe one can speak of any defense at all.

Don't know what I'm talking about? Well have a look onto the following page for example:



THE PRESIDENT: Will you keep her to the part of her testimony which you wish to bring out?
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, can you add anything else to your description of the attitude of the Germans towards the children in the camp? Have you already told us about all of the facts which you know regarding this question?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: I should like to say that the children, as well as the adults, were also subjected to the system of demoralization and degradation through famine. Often starvation caused the children to look for potato peels in garbage heaps.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Tell me, Witness, do you certify in your testimony, that sometimes the number of carriages remaining after the murder of the children amounted to a thousand per day?
SHMAGLEVSKAYA: Yes, sometimes there were such days.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I have no further question to ask of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the chief prosecutors with to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]
Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]

Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR.COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I should like to take up the next section of my presentation which deals with the organization, by German fascism, of secret centers for the extermination of people. These cannot even be considered concentration camps because the human beings in these places rarely survived more than 10 minutes or 2 hours at the most. Out of all these terrible centers, organized by the German fascists, I would submit to the Tribunal evidence on two such places, that is to say, on Kwelmno center (Kwelmno is a village in Poland) and on the Treblinka Camp. In connection with this I would ask the Tribunal to summon one witness, whose testimony is interesting, because he can be considered a person who returned from "the other world," for the road
322
27 Feb. 46 .
[…]
Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived in the Treblinka Camp?
325
27 Feb. 46
RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down to the gas chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the women some 15 minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they had to have their hair shaved off before they went to the gas chambers.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Why was their hair cut off?
RAJZMAN: According to the ideas of the masters, this hair was to be used in the manufacture of mattresses for German women.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that there was only 10 minutes between the time when they were taken out of the trucks and the time when they were put into the gas chambers?
RAJZMAN: As far as men were concerned, I am sure it did not last longer than 10 minutes.
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Including the undressing?
RAJZMAN: Yes, including the undressing.
[….]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I have no further questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other chief prosecutors wish to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]
Do the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
[There was no response.]

Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I should like to submit to the Tribunal a very
[…]
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/02-27-46.htm
I stressed only to hillarious claims made by alleged witnesses - in any decent trial the 'defendants counsel' would have asked a few questions. There is no good reason in the sense of "fair trial", why they wouldn't have done that here. So you see, the IMT at Nuremberg is for sure no good source for proving a claim in the direction of "German atrocities and Genocide against the Jews". To the contrary that such "trials" were set up for smearing the Germans and the fact that most historians uncritically accept the claims without questioning the allegations tells me something about the credibility of the Holocaust altogether.

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:07 pm)

Ah, yes the Rajzman thing. Thanks for that Hektor. I've come accross that before but don't know as much about it as I should, so will look into that.
Obviously, if we're looking at shaky evidence presented and accepted, there's the soap factory thing as well. (Katyn Forest is often mentioned in this context but it was not included in the IMT judgement - it wasn't felt by the judges that it had been proven.)
Does a few bits of shaky evidence discredit the whole thing though?
Should probably point out that although I dislike the 'tag-team' approach to history that goes on around the Holocaust, I am more on the revisionist side than anything else myself, (although I don't like applying labels). I'm not trying to catch anyone out or to prove anything in particular - just interested in a general discussion and to see what people on here think and why they think it.

User avatar
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Postby jnovitz » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 12:30 pm)

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to come back on a few of the points raised here.

I've read the Weber article before and dipped into bits of Porter. Weber is guilty of the same mistake some of you are making in that he tries to treat all the trials as one animal.
The IMT was a separate entity. It was truly international. Precedent-setting international law was written during its creation and it tried those deemed to be the most culpable Nazis left alive. It followed a series of guidelines set up by the representatives of the Allied powers that were developments of international law which had existed since the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907.
The later Nuremberg trials were different in that they had only one nation officiating, who ran the trials according to their own rules. Therefore although we had 'no technical rules of evidence' at the IMT, some of the later trials would have had them if they were American-run tribunals.
You can't therefore take sections of the Nuremberg Charter (written for the IMT) and use it as a blanket criticism of all the trials.
I noticed the old Judge van Roden quotes - unfortunately he's a discredited source. It turns out that shortly after the article featuring van Roden's views was published in The Progressive, a Senate sub-committee disclosed that the article had actually been written by James Finucane, an anti-war activist who obtained the information used in the article from Rudolf Aschenauer, a German attorney for the accused. Finucane presented it to van Roden who agreed to put his name to it. This doesn't mean that its worthless, but its not the objective bit of reporting it would have been had it really been written by an American judge.


That always seemed an utterly implausible claim to me. It was more likely a way of backing away from an issue that was getting too hot. Judges are usually very very careful about what they put their name to. Even if James Finucane wrote part or even all of it, the Judge would not have co-authored it if he didnt agree with its sentiments.

After Telford Taylor didnt write all of his prosecuting opening arguments but allowed others to draft them. Its not uncommon in legal circles, it does mean they havent closely scrutinised the contents.


How come some of the defendants were let off?
How come others got prison rather than death?
How come the defence spent longer in court, called more witnesses and presented more documentary evidence than the prosecution?


You ask the questions, but wont listen to the answers. What does it matter if three got off, perhaps they were selected so they would get off. Hjalmar Schmalt ended up in a concentration camp in 1944, after all. Pappen served the war in the gloriously criminal capacity of Ambassador to Ankara.

As I already said, the only documents the defence were given came from the prosecution. Virtually the only witnesses they could call were held in prosecution prisons.

In order for you to comprehend this point, please read this exchange

DR. PELCKMANN: One can see that the prosecution was able to produce further incriminating evidence only by a thorough investigation of the documentary material in the document offices. In view of this, would it not be fair if the defence, too, were given this opportunity to look for evidence in rebuttal?
MR. DODD: Mr. President, before the Tribunal rules on this application, I would like to make one statement. This is the second time, at least, that Dr. Pelckmann has inferred that, because he has been denied access to the document room, the defence is being unfairly obstructed.

I want the record to be perfectly clear that we know what is in that document room, and we know perfectly well there is no document there that rebuts any evidence that has been offered in this case, and if there were, it would have been made available to this Tribunal and to these defendants. I think it is fair to say that we rather resent this implication from the defence at this stage of these proceedings.

DR. PELCKMANN: May I add something to this? In my document book, if that is what counsel for the prosecution means, there are documents which I have found either in written material which has not yet been seized, or else in documents which I obtained after an exact description through the General Secretary and after decisions by the Court.

However, I must say that I am by no means in a position to indicate the exact documents, as the High Tribunal requires in such cases, if I am not placed in a position in advance, just as the prosecution is, to investigate the material in question. And this is the salient point. We see in this case how the prosecution, in contrast to the defence, especially with respect to the organizations, is able to collect material

THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard you say that, and we fully understand the point.

The Tribunal grants the application that this witness should be produced for cross-examination here. This witness has already given evidence before the Commission, and in the opinion of the Tribunal it is of importance that his evidence should be given fully and should be brought to light fully before the Tribunal. As these documents have only just come into the hands of the prosecution, the Tribunal thinks it right that the documents should be put to the witness. It is the most convenient and the shortest course that they should be put to the witness before the Tribunal.

As to Dr. Pelckmann's objections that the defence are not being treated fairly with reference to the investigation of the documents, the Tribunal thinks there is no foundation for this complaint. It would not be proper to allow the defence to have what is in the nature of a fishing investigation into the thousands of documents which are in the hands of the prosecution. If the defence can specify any document that they want, they will be given a view of that document.

I have already said that in my opinion any document which is helpful to the defence ought to be disclosed to them. That is the practice in the English courts, at any rate, and Mr. Dodd has informed the Tribunal now that if there were any documents which were in any way helpful to the defence in the prosecution's document room, it would be made available to the defence.


So defendents who are about to be hanged are not allowed to let their lawyers go through the document rooms despite the fact the documents were legally the property of the German government.

On the other hand, by point of comparsion, Deborah Lipstadt demanded, and was granted, the right to go on a fishing investigation through everyone of David Irving's diaries.

User avatar
Haldan
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:56 pm
Location: <secret>
Contact:

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:36 pm)

MarkTurley wrote:Does a few bits of shaky evidence discredit the whole thing though?


I think that forcing confessions and "evidence" from a person by torturing him and treating the accused worse than animals, is proof enough that the IMT was nothing but a way to establish the "holocaust" as fact and to take revenge on the defeated Germans - in more ways than one, for example, to "prove" all sorts of idiotic claims against them, thus covering up the Allied's own war crimes.

The ADL describes the Nuremberg trials as a place “where much information about the Holocaust first became public, and where the basic history of the genocide was first established.”

I invite comments from our fellow forum participant Daniel Saez Lorente.

-haldan
<?php if ($Holocaust == false ) {deny_repeatedly(); } else { investigate(); } ?>
Homage to Catalin Haldan

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:36 pm)

I'm listening to all the answers jnovitz, but just hadn't found any very satisfactory until the last couple.
Could you please post a reference for the section of the IMT transcripts you're quoting there? I might use that.

With regard to the rest of what you wrote, I would say you should try to avoid postulations,

"It was more likely a way of backing away..."

"perhaps they were selected so they would get off."

Perhaps...more likely...these are generally codewords for "I'm just guessing."

We need evidence and hard arguments.

as to your question...

"What does it matter if three got off?"

Well, it matters because the standard revisionist view that the trials were a rigged, witch-hunt doesn't sit with it very easily. When faced with uncomfortable questions, historians have to find answers to them based on logic and reasoning, not just try to shrug them off.

I actually liked Hektor's argument...

"In fact I don't think the primary motive of the initiators of this "trial" was to kill the "defendants". One goal was to justify their own engagement in the war and to smear the Germans altogether, thereby justifying the various atrocities against them. To start with criminalizing the leaders makes perfect sense - That some are acquitted makes the trial more credible as well."

Really, it wasn't essential for all the Nazis to be killed, only the ones such as Goerring, Hess, Streicher who might create some sort of Nazi resurgence if left alive. I think the Allies wanted to make sure that Germany was nice and docile in the future - they killed the ones that needed to be killed, to serve that purpose.

"This time, no stab-in-the-back legend will spread among the German people." (Roosevelt)

MarkTurley
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:38 pm)

Haldan, you said...

"the IMT was nothing but a way to establish the "holocaust" as fact "

but from my recent readings of the transcript, it seems that what is now known as the 'Holocaust' was something of a minor issue at the IMT. Persecution of the Jews was only mentioned in two of the individual defendants' indictments.
The main concern seemed to be to charge the Germans with waging aggressive war.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests