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!
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 2:13 pm)

Could you please post a reference for the section of the IMT transcripts you're quoting there? I might use that.


I would suggest you use google. But its volume 20.


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.



I would ssy you should avoid patronising advice. I give my opinions based on commonsense application to normal legal behaviour regarding written opinions. ie they are often delegated but that does not mean that the opinions are not those expressed by the person signing off on it.

If you want hard evidence and arguments then I suggest you need to do a little better than cutting and pasting from a believer webpage that is attempting to make a crooked process look respectable.

Here is some of the things you need to do. You need to go and look up the records of the Senate committee and see what the Judge actually had to say. You then need to get permission to consult his papers either in some university holding or from the family to see what the Judge was saying in his private letters and diaries, if any. You might need to consult the papers of the actual trial if he left any indications there as to his thinking.

To me its not especially interesting, I will read a believer website but I know what they are trying to do, trying to justifying a corrupt process by any means possible. I also know that generally judges just dont sign articles by anti-war activists willy-nilly. But I do like the Orwellian description of the journalist as an anti-war activist, can you see the Pavlovian response setting in.....? "Oh anti-war, oh activist.....a radical, unbalanced, shrill, not reliable at all. We can ignore everything that he and the Judge wrote then"

But please, don't let me distract you from your "hard evidence"


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...


Personally I dont find the question uncomfortable, just not especially relevant. I am glad you like Hektor's suggestion. I agree with it too, but its just guesswork. But that is what a lot of history is, reasoned guesswork.
[/quote]

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

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 3:03 pm)

I don't think its just the fact that Finucane wrote it, its also the fact that the info came from a conversation he had with a German defense lawyer. This doesn't make it worthless as a source but even the most subjective person must be able to see that it makes it less valid than if it was a genuine, first hand account written by an American judge, which is what it was originally presented as.
For that reason, I wouldn't use it if I was trying to construct an argument about Nuremberg. Its too easy to criticise.
That's all.
Nothing to get so uptight about.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:33 pm)

I think it's time for Mark Turley to be more specific.

What cases?
Give us exact examples.
Who is on trial?
What are the charges?
What is the claimed evidence?
Who testified?
What did they say?
What was the outcome?

Just claiming that there was merit to the IMT trials, where torture was rampant, without saying who, what, and why is pointless.

Perhaps Mark could start threads for each case that he finds compelling.

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

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

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:19 am)

Hannover,

What you're asking for there is a point by point analysis of each of the 22 defendants' cases at the IMT. I'm working on something like that at the moment - but we're talking about a book-length project - its not something I could post up on a discussion board.
Also - if you've got the impression that I'm a defender of the IMT and its background, indictments, methods and judgements then you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. All I'm trying to get at is that if you're going to criticise it then criticise it for sound, reasonable, logical reasons.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:08 am)

MarkTurley wrote:Hannover,

What you're asking for there is a point by point analysis of each of the 22 defendants' cases at the IMT. I'm working on something like that at the moment - but we're talking about a book-length project - its not something I could post up on a discussion board.
Also - if you've got the impression that I'm a defender of the IMT and its background, indictments, methods and judgements then you've got completely the wrong end of the stick. All I'm trying to get at is that if you're going to criticise it then criticise it for sound, reasonable, logical reasons.

Mark,
Come on, no one expects all 22, but you should at least discuss some of the cases specifically. Remember, this forum is read by many who do not know about the specifics of any of the cases. Certainly you should be able to discuss some of them here. Without that there is nothing but general assumptions. You started this thread, and we rightly expect specifics when asked for.

You then say Revisionists should give you "sound, reasonable, logical reasons". Well, we have.
You have ignored the confirmation of van Rhoden by others that I have quoted.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the fact that there was no forensic evidence presented at Nuremberg for cyanide gassing, but there WAS a detailed claim of 'steam chambers' presented by the communists.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of mass graves for the crimes alleged.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of physical evidence.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the fact that many, many, claimed points of 'evidence' were merely written affidavits, written by who knows who to say whatever the prosecution desired. The alleged authors were rarely seen on the witness stand and/or cross examined.

No verifiable evidence = show trials.

You may have missed:
http://codoh.com/trials/trirecon.html

WAR CRIMES
TRIALS
Reconsidering
the Nuremberg Trials

"It is the victors who write the history."

...Patrick J. Buchanan

1. "[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience."

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148.

2. "Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, 'The winner is always right'."

Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17.

3. "It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority... The most brutal act of the War was the droppingof the Atom Bombs on Japan... I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority...the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration."

Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7.

4. "I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria."

Vice Admiral, Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39.

5. "No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190.

6. "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 occurredin either of the trials I refer to herein."

Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168.

7. "I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; futhermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials."

T.S. Eliot, English poet and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51.


8. "I shall always have doubts about the whole 'War Crimes Trials,' both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria."

George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111.

9. "My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy's leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug."

Major General J.F.C. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43.

10. "This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the 'InternationalMilitary Tribunal.' That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges' seats. One of the judges came from the country which committedthe Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear atNuremberg that the Germans had done it."

Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery
Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII.


11. "I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed among what are commonly describedas civilised nations."

Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H., British historian and author.
Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87.

12. "It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people's sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier's death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me."

Reichsmarschall Herman Göring
David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506.

13. "I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future."

Honorable Justice Learned Hand
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1.

14. "I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since."

The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50.

15. "The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressedin the adage: "Nullum Crimen Sine Lege" - a person cannot be sentencedto punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: "It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations."
In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called "war criminals" by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future.

William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx.

16. "The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? ...The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy."

U.S. President, John F. Kennedy
John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190.

17. "The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors."

Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42.

18. "I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure."

Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3.

19. "About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret."

U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft
Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191.

20. "I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice andthe farce was made even more noisome with Russia partipating as one of thejudges."

Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47.

21. "To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty on justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government.
If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedienceto his government's orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military sevices would fail in the one reason for their existence - the waging of successful war in the interests of their country."

Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N.
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39.

22. "My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority... The fact remains that the victor nations in WorldWar II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral.
One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats."


Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67.

23. "The Tribunal claimed in theory the right -- it certainly had the power --to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committedby the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal."

F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author
Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146.

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

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:20 am)

Harlan Fiske Stone Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court refered to the IMT as a "high-grade lynching party for Germans".

The court refused to recognize the age old principal nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poenesine lege. That is in absence of law there can be neither crime nor punishment.

Nor were the accused able to base its defence on the principle of tu quoque. The prosecuting powers had and were committing the same crimes as they were alleging against the Germans.

Need there be more evidence that the whole thing was a kangaroo court.

Incidentally, this is one of the reasons the Israelis and the US refuses to recognize the International Criminal Court at the Hague. They are well aware how these proceedings are run.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2362
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:05 am)

Hi Mark Turley,

I like the way you think.

First of all I saw the first response from Malle mention that the defendant lawyers couldn't cross-examine prosecution witnesses. Not true. However it is sometimes absolutely amazing that they waive their right to do so.

Why were defendant's acquitted? Some given jail? To make it look like a real trial. Take a fixed soccer (football) game. The score is never 5-0. You have to make it look good and real. Everyone allied person involved was aware of the accusation of "victor's justice."

If you want one thing that discredits Nuremberg. And it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, that I saw, it's that the judgment reflects things that no one believes today.

The judgment puts forth "Intentionalism" whereas that's largely discredited in the holocaust research community, in favor of "Functionalism." A number of the prosecution witnesses state things that no one believes today. If I had time to give examples, I'd look at Blaha's testimony, but I don't have time. Didn't it take until the 1960's before scholars said no killing happened in Germany proper, but that the killing happened in Poland in the "general government" as it was called? Why couldn't they have figured that out at Nuremberg? If you were to ask a knowledgeable holocaust believer about the best prosecution witnesses at Nuremberg, they'd likely mention Hoess. Raul Hilberg, for instance uses Hoess's Nuremberg statement (or rather, affidavit, read in his presence in the court) but Hoess's affidavit mentions, if memory serves, 3 million killed at Auschwitz. Yet holocaust scholars today believe it was 1 million. Why wouldn't the head of the camp know that?

I could offer more, but the judgment were it based on truth, wouldn't be antiquated.

Also, (and I'm not sure) didn't the judgment, with all their information, mention 6 million Jews were killed? Is it just a coincidence that that number was mentioned in Reader's Digest by a Hollywood scriptwriter in Feb. 1943? (See Reader's Digest episode in movie "One Third of the Holocaust.") Or that 6 million was mentioned in a US House of Representatives Hearing in March 1945 by Joseph Thon, and this before Dachau or Bergen Belsen were taken? (See video "Nazi Shrunken Heads) In other words the court tried to bolster a myth already in place.

When you have a giant staff of people in many different departments, nationalities, expertises, all working on something that only happened a year or two before, you should be able to get a pretty good idea of what went on, so the judgment shouldn't be antiquated and it should fit with what historians today believe.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:24 am)

All this points out the need to be specific as what actually occurred at these 'trials'. Here's an exmple of specifics:
excerpts from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.htm :
- After the Nuremberg Tribunal pronounced its sentence, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out some of the obstacles put up in his particular case: (note 41)

"The defense had no fair chance to defend German foreign policy. Our prepared application for the submission of evidence was not allowed ... Without good cause being shown, half of the 300 documents which the defense prepared were not admitted. Witnesses and affidavits were only admitted after the prosecution had been heard; most of them were rejected... Correspondence between Hitler and Chamberlain, reports by ambassadors and diplomatic minutes, etc., were rejected. Only the prosecution, not the defense, had access to German and foreign archives. The prosecution only searched for incriminating documents and their use was biased. It knowingly concealed exonerating documents and withheld them from the defense."

- On the basis of these articles, the Tribunal accepted as valid the most dubious "evidence," including hearsay and unsubstantiated reports of Soviet and American "investigative" commissions. For example, the Tribunal accepted an American congressional report that "proved" gas chamber killings at Dachau, and a Polish government report (submitted by the US) that "proved" killings by steam at reblinka. (note 43) (No reputable historian now accepts either of these stories.)

- In addition, the Tribunal validated Soviet reports about Auschwitz and Majdanek (documents USSR-8 and USSR-29), which explained in detail how the Germans killed four million at Auschwitz and another one-and-a-half million at Majdanek. (These days, no reputable historian accepts either of these fantastic figures.)

- German guilt for the killing of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk was similarly confirmed by Nuremberg document USSR-54. This detailed report by yet another Soviet "investigative" commission was submitted as proof for the charge made in the joint indictment of the four Allied governments. As a Soviet prosecutor explained: "We find, in the Indictment, one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war shot in the Katyn forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders." (note 44) (Interestingly, two of the eight members of the Soviet Katyn Commission were also members of the Soviet Auschwitz commission: Academician N. Burdenko and Metropolitan Nikolai.) It wasn't until 1990 that the Soviet government finally acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by a German unit, as "proven" at Nuremberg, but by the Soviet secret police. (note 45)

- Fritz Sauckel, head of the German wartime labor mobilization program, was sentenced to death at the main Nuremberg trial. An important piece of evidence presented to the Tribunal by the US prosecution was an affidavit signed by the defendant. (Nuremberg document 3057-PS.) It turned out that Sauckel had put his signature to this self-incriminating statement, which had been presented to him by his captors in finished form, only after he was bluntly told that if he hesitated, his wife and children would be turned over to the Soviets. "I did not stop to consider, and thinking of my family, I signed the document," Sauckel later declared. (note 76)

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

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:05 pm)

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

I am not an expert on the IMT, nor am I an attorney of international law, or any other law for that matter.

My opnion about the topic is that of a layman, based on a natural feeling for what appears just and what not.

From Butz "The Hoax"/Hayward "The Fate of the Jews":
The trials were based on preconceived notions of guilt, according to Butz, who quoted a number of statements by leading figures at Nuremberg which appear to support his claim. Judge Iola Nikitchenko, for instance, was the Soviet judge who signed the Agreement and Charter for the Soviet Union. He was also one of the two Soviet members of the International Military Tribunal, and presided over the tribunal's opening session. At a joint planning conference held not long before the Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko declared that "we are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted."


And were the victors free from the very crimes they accused Germany of?

From Hayward "The Fate":
The trials, most based on ex post facto laws, were certainly an unprecedented departure from the principles of Common Law. Even Harlan Fiske Stone, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, saw the trials in this light. Stone, who cannot be considered a crank or Nazi sympathiser, stated in the late 1940s:
Jackson the Chief Prosecutor] is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg... I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.
Even a cursory examination of the Agreement and Charter of August 8, 1945 (the 'London Agreement') reveals that many of the actions designated as "crimes" in Section II, Article 6 of the Charter were also committed before and during the Second World War by the four powers which had concluded the Agreement and Charter. A few of the many possible examples will be given: The Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland on September 17, 1939 and of Finland on November 30, 1939 were both "crimes against peace" as defined in Section II, Article 6a of the Charter. Even the very planning of the British and French expedition to Norway, code-named "Stratford", was a "crime against peace". Although planned as a pre-emptive move against the Germans, the expedition would have flagrantly violated Norway's sovereignty. The fire-bombing of civilian populations of Lübeck, Cologne, Berlin, Hamburg and other German cities by the RAF and USAAF were arguably "war crimes" as defined in Section II, Article 6b. The Soviet massacre of Polish Army officers at the Katyn Forest was certainly a "crime against humanity" as defined in Section II, Article 6c. This is not, of course, an attempt to relativise or diminish the magnitude of the Nazi regime's many substantiated crimes. It is simply an acknowledgement that defendants at Nuremberg might have been justified in employing a tu quoque (you too) argument in defence of their claims that the four main counts on the Nuremberg indictment reflect a double standard.



The trial according to your post does on the surface not appears to be rigged, i.e. arranged for a certain outcome by means of deceit

But:

The title of a book by the German historian Werner Maser – "Nuremberg: A Nation On Trial" suggests, that the trial was really against the German nation, not so much against individual perpetrators.

And that would be my way of looking at it also:

Where was the defence of the German nation during the IMT?

Where was the defence of the German nation, who would attempt to investigate for example the evidence of the homicidal gassings of millions of Jews? There was no such defence. The concept of the alleged homicidal gassings seems to have been considered by the tribunal and the defense as "offensichtlich" (self evident).

And the accused tried with all kinds of gimmicks and confessions to get off the hook (Ohlendorf, Kaltenbrunner/Hoess).

The perpetrators from that generation are long gone, but the German nation is still considered fully responsible.

I wish you luck with your book. Do you have a legal degree? I am glad that I have no ambition to write something like that.

fge
The Holocaust hoaxsters exaggerate and embellish a 60+ year old event in order to abuse the Palestinians and rob them of their land, while claiming a free pass for their barbaric conduct on account of the "holocaust".

Petschau
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:48 am

Postby Petschau » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:00 pm)

MarkTurley wrote: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.


In essence, Haldan is correct.
By taking "judicial notice" of unsubstantiated claims such as USSR-8 regarding Auschwitz, the stage was set for taking the same notice in future trials. Thereafter, no defendent could deny the crime, only their participation.

Jewish influence was so strong with respect to the IMTand post-war Germany that the World Jewish Council (through Rabbi Steven L. Wise) was pushing for their own seated judge on the IMT panel, however too many objections were raised by the other participants to allow it.

The "waging of agressive war" contention was the brainchild of Justice Jackson and was a source of strong contention between the Americans and Europeans, as their was no crime of "waging agressive war" in International Law at the time; it was created "ex post facto" specifically for the IMT.

Whatever Nuremberg was, it layed the groundwork for all future Nazi trials.

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

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:54 am)

Thanks for all responses so far. I'm afraid I'm going to have to try to be brief as I'm jumping on a plane in a few hours to go on a much needed holiday.

Hannover - you've got a lengthy list of anti-Nuremberg quotes there, which is useful. I've found personally that when searching for opinions abouth the IMT, its quite difficult to find informed observers who have anything positive to say about it. I believe that's quite significant.

You say,

"You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of mass graves for the crimes alleged.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of physical evidence.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the fact that many, many, claimed points of 'evidence' were merely written affidavits, written by who knows who to say whatever the prosecution desired. The alleged authors were rarely seen on the witness stand and/or cross examined."


I am aware of these things and haven't ignored them, but what you're really talking about there is the way courts establish findings of fact. In a tribunal (ie a court with no jury) its up to the judges to decide when a 'fact' has been 'proven'. If a document from what they deem to be a reliable source and a witness corroborate each other, the judge may deem that as 'proof'. Physical evidence is not essential. Obvuiously there are conclusions that can be drawn about the judges and which evidence was accepted etc...

Mannstein - yes, those are reasonable criticisms. How could the Allies convict Germnas for crimes they had committed themselves?

CCS - I need to examine Blaha myself. I'm not aware of that one. Do you know which defendant's case he was called for? The judgement does put forward intentionalism, you're right although the deliberation meetings between the judges put forward some very contradictory statements, which showed a lack of concensus among the judges over what had been 'proven'.

Hannover, your second post contains the Von Ribbentrop quote which is well known and certainly worth using, its supported by statments made by several of the defence attorneys. But the author of the piece makes too much of the Katyn Forest thing. Nuremberg document USSR-54 was a document for the prosecution. Although there was something in the charter about Allied documents being given primacy as evidence, nothing about Katyn Forest appeared in the IMT's judgement. The judges didn't feel it had been adequately proven and did not 'convict' Nazis for it.
The points about Auschwitz and Majdanek documents are worthy - in conjunction with Katyn and the Soap Factory they show how the Allies (especially Soviets) could present unreliable evidence and have it accepted.

Sailor - I agree with your general stance on the IMT. Thanks for your good wishes. I'm not a lawyer, either btw, just a writer.

Petschau - Your statements about aggressive war aren't really true. Charges of that nature had existed since the Hague convention of 1907. Jackson et al developed them for Nuremberg, but they certainly didn't invent them. I'm not saying the Holocaust wasn't 'proven' by Nuremberg, just that it was something of a minor issue.

Anyway, thanks all. If the thread's still alive in a couple of weeks when I get back, I'll comment again.

Petschau
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 7:48 am

Postby Petschau » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:38 am)

The trials were on tenuous ground to begin with. The prosecution was constantly trying to resolve the issues of not appearing to be a "show trial".
Supreme Court Chief Justice Stone refused to swear in the American judicial contingent, calling it "Jackson's high grade lynching party" Even more problematic to Jackson and his contingent was that they had to be very cautious in the presentation of their case, so as to avoid claims of ex post facto laws and tu quoque. In the end the prosecution simply disallowed any defense motion on either contention.

Anglo-American procedure where attorneys are adversarial, and the judge is a neutral third party, was a concept totally unfamiliar to the defense attorneys. The concept had to be explained to them and in many cases they were at a loss on how to proceed, or which questions to ask.

The prisoners were stripped of military insignia thus allowing the Allies to forego the Geneva and Hague conventions of proper treatment of prisoners. By "criminalizing" the defendents, the Allies had a free hand in interrogation methods.

If that were truly the case (that German Military Officials were criminals), then the womanising cripple Roosevelt, and the drunkard liar Churchill, were also criminals, in addition to being immoral fiends; not to mention the various members of the Allied military leadership, particularly those that were involved with Dresden, and other high profile actions against German civilians that were made into prisoners of the victors, were just criminals.
Iif a military official is deemed a criminal by their enemy (which they often are), they are still military, and deserve the respect of their adversaries.

Next is the fact that the prisoners had no knowledge as to what they were being charged with until October 18th, at which time the received copies of the indictments. Only after receiving the indictments were they allowed to have counsel present at interrogations.

The upshot of this is that the allies had several months to prepare their case, examining thousands upon thousands of documents, while the defense had thirty days to prepare their case, with most defendants not even having secured legal counsel, and only a copy of the indictment in their hand.

Why did the American's take the forefront in the prosecution at the Tribunal?

The most likely reason is that Roosevelt was succumbing to Jewish pressure both from within his Cabinet, as well as Jewish Groups in America. Roosevelt received 90% of the Jewish vote in both 1940 and 1944. Perhaps there were rumblings that this support would be compromised if decisive action (or revenge if you will), was not quickly forthcoming.

Robert Conot quotes Justice Jackson as follows.

“We are trying to reach by our common plan or enterprise device the planners, the zealots who put this thing across. The reason that this program of extermination of the Jews becomes an international concern is this. It was part of a plan for making an illegal war. Unless we have a war connection, I would think we have no basis for dealing with the atrocities, committed inside Germany, under German law, or even in violation of German law.”

Robert Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, pg. 23
Original source: Jackson Report, Meeting July 24, 1945.

As can be seen by the above quote, the US was attempting to turn the trial into a uniquely Jewish affair. Without the war connection, the murder of the Jews could not be prosecuted.

Let us now take a brief look at the judiciary.

The judges were for the most part highly distinguished. Biddle was appointed as a political favor, but I don't feel it lessened his credibility or attempt at fairness. Nitichenko was elevated from prosecutor to judge by the Soviets, and with the Soviets (and French for that matter) so ill prepared for the trial really did not play that large of a role.

Robert Jackson, while a good orator had little courtroom ability and nearly lost the case for the prosecution. He went into a rage when he was humiliated by Goering in the courtroom. Jackson tried to get the judges to force the defendants to reply to questions with a "yes" or "no"answer.
The judges refused this due to the severity of the charges against the defendents.

Not saying that the Nazi Defense attorneys were incompetent, but only 8 of the attorneys ultimately selected had extensive criminal defense experience-The rest came from all corners of the legal profession such as real estate and tax law.

The defendants were virtually in the position that they had to take any attorney who would take their case. Ex-Party legal professionals were afraid that they too, might be prosecuted if they defended the Nazi leadership. Consequently, the "cream of the legal crop" refused to serve, or just ignored the request.

The defendants could call witnesses, however the defense attorneys had to inform the prosecution on the day before the witness was to be called, and what the witness was to testify to. Jackson claimed this was for "security" and "relevance to the proceedings". Actually, it gave the prosecution a full night to have their enormous legal teams prepare counter arguments.

The defense, on the other hand was not made aware of the prosecution witnesses in advance.

The defendants were entitled to challenge the evidence produced by the prosecution, namely examine documents and cross-examine witnesses, however there were many instances where the defense did not have copies of documents. In many cases, the defense attorney's relied on newspapers for relevent information.

Several thousand documents were tendered by the prosecution. With very few exceptions the authenticity of these documents was not questioned by the defense, however, the problem with the documentary evidence was this. There was so much internal bickering on the prosecution side that of the 10000 or so documents collected by the beginning of the trial, only 4000-5000 had been translated. The Soviets had no translators, and the French only had a few. Both had to rely on the US/Brits for translations.

Initially all four powers had access to the Prosecution Document Center, however the Americans felt that the Soviets and French were spending too much time there, and were using the information for purposes of spying rather than the proceedings. Both were barred from the room.

Back to the documents.

Of the ten thousand documents gathered, 5000 were for the most part hurriedly translated. Of these 5000, Jackson determined that 500 or so were relevant and placed copies of these in the defense document room.
These 500 were what the defense had to choose between for their entire defense. If the defense requested any other document from the prosecution, they had to specify which document they needed. Since their was no index of collected documents, they had no idea what to ask for, or what was even available.

The judges (to their credit) harshly critisized the prosecution for distributing copies of documents to the press, then claiming to the defense "their copiers were broken".

source: Justice at Nuremberg, pg. 147-148
source: IMT, vol.2 pg.215, 251,252,

"Upon the reconvening of the court on Monday, November 26, Lawrence ruled:

"In the future, only such parts of documents as are read in court by the prosecution shall in the first instance be part of the record.
A photostatic copy of the original of all such documents was to be deposited in the Defendants Information Center. 10 copies of the trial briefs and 5 copies of the document books were to be furnished to the defendants council, each of whom was also to receive a copy of the transcript in German."
-----------
The issue surfaced again in the afternoon when Goering's attorney Otto Stahmer, objected that one of the documents referring to Hitler's Obersalzburg meeting of August 12, 1939, ordering the attack on Poland, had been given to the press, although it was not introduced into evidence.

Prosecutor Alderman admitted, "I feel somewhat guilty. It is quite true that , by a mechanical slip, the press got the first documents."

"The Tribunal would like to know how many of these documents are given to the press?" Lawrence asked.

"I think about 250 copies of each one, about 250 mimeographed copies," Storey replied.

pg. 148

"What I am putting to you is this." Lawrence stated.
That if you can afford to give 250 copies of the documents in English to the press, you can afford to give more than 5 copies to the defendants counsel-one each."

Even though the Allies gave the pretense of a fair trial. Fairness and “innocent until proven guilty” were not the order of the day.
The prisoners were held for months without formal charge or indictment. Indictments were drawn up and prisoners were charged, before all the evidence was examined.
Defendants were chosen, not because of guilt, but simply because the allies wanted “someone” to prosecute in each area of the Regime. A good case in point is the Krupp fiasco. The senile 83-year-old Gustav Krupp, was initially indicted for the “Industrialists” case. When it was determined he was too ill to travel to the court, Jackson wanted to try him in “absentia”. When the other members of the Tribunal rejected this idea, Jackson offered that “Maybe his son, Alfried will offer to take his place.”

Jackson felt the Tribunal was establishing a new precedent in punishing those who engage in aggressive warfare, and would serve as the basis for all future conflicts.

Here is a list of conflicts that have occurred after WWII.
Have the Nuremberg Principles been applied to any of them?

Abkhazian Rebellion
Albanian Civil War
Algerian Civil War
Angola war of National Liberation
Bangladeshi Independence War
Bosnian Civil War
Cambodian Civil War
Chechen Uprising
Chinese conflicts in Quemoy and Matsu
Chinese Invasion of Tibet
Congo post independance war
Djibouti Civil War
Enitrea War of Independence
Ethiopia Civil War
Ethiopia Revolution
Ethiopian-Somalia War
Falklands War
Fijian Military Coup
First Indochina War
Greece Civil War
Gulf War
Hmong Guerrilla War: Loas
India-Pakistan War
Intifada
Iran-Iraq War
Israel War of Independence
Jordan Civil War
Khmer Rouge Insurgency
Korean War
Kosovo War
Lebanon's Civil War
Liberia's Civil War
Libya's war with Chad
Libyan-Egyptian War
Moldovan Civil War
Mozambique War of Independence
Nambia's War of National Liberation
Nigeria Civil War
Saharan War
Sierra Leone Civil Conflict
Sinai War
Six Days War
Somalian Civil War
Sudan Civil Wars
Togolese Civil War
Ugandan Civil War
Vietnam: Second Indochina War
Yom Kippur War
Yugoslavian Civil War
Invasion of Iraq
Invasion of Afghanistan

Nuremberg was simply a show trial to give a semblance of fairness while the allies plundered and dismantled Germany.


In summary:

“The German defense was conducted under handicaps of monumental proportions. In theory the German counsel had the same task as the prosecution in dealing with the mass of documentary material assembled, but the German’s had no access to the material, and could not find out what was in it.

The documents were in charge of the allies, and although the court repeatedly ordered the prosecution to make the captured material available to the defense, when the German lawyers tried to get a hold of it, they were told that they first had to say what they wanted. There were no indexes and no ways of knowing the contents of particular documents, so they could scarcely know what to ask for. In addition, Allied files were closed to them. They had no access to English or French plans to invade Norway, nor could they question witnesses on the attempts by the English and French to persuade the Soviets to join the Western Alliance.

The law under which the defendants were to be tried was mainly Anglo-American, with a few Continental inclusions to make the procedures more flexible.

The Allies were able to bring in evidence for which the defense could make no preperation, moreover the prosecution had full advance knowledge of who the defense witnesses were, as well as the power of retaliation over those witnesses whose testimony they judged suspicious or unfriendly.

Any official publication of any member state was automatically admitted by the court as evidence, and few questions that might conceivably be embarrassing or disturbing to the powers sitting on the bench were permitted.

The Soviet prosecutor Rudenko could cross-examine Fritzsche on the German aggression against Poland, but Fritzsche could go into no details that its success was insured by the signing of the Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact.

Any argument based on the Versailles Treaty and its influence on German politics and decisions was impermissable. The Russian treatment of German prisoners of war and use of German forced labor could not be described. The bombing of unarmed cities such as Dresden could play no role in the issues under debate, although the German air attacks of Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam and other cities were brought up time and again.

The millions of Germans uprooted from their centuries old homes in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria could not be mentioned, nor could the atrocities committed against German troops by any Allied nation.

The British handbook of irregular warfare, instruction the Commando’s to act like gangsters and not soldiers, could not be brought into the trial.

In general, the Germans worked wholly dependent on the Allies, in a dimly lit room confronted by thousands of documents of which they had no advance knowledge. On occasion, American guards brought them before the Allied superiors on charges of having behaved with inadequate respect to Allied authority.
One attorney held up the after-lunch proceedings because a guard refused to allow him back into the courtroom.

The defense lawyers were attacked by the German Press, and at the end of the Trial the Bar Association threatened to investigate their backgrounds. The court spoke in different tones to them, than the prosecution. They were told to move on with their cases, to pay attention, to stop talking about irrelevant matters like the Versailles treaty, or Allied misbehavior."


excerpted from
The Trial of the German's
by Eugene Davidson pgs. 30-35

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:14 am)

Turley:
You say,

"You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of mass graves for the crimes alleged.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the lack of physical evidence.
You have ignored, or may not know about, the fact that many, many, claimed points of 'evidence' were merely written affidavits, written by who knows who to say whatever the prosecution desired. The alleged authors were rarely seen on the witness stand and/or cross examined."

I am aware of these things and haven't ignored them, but what you're really talking about there is the way courts establish findings of fact. In a tribunal (ie a court with no jury) its up to the judges to decide when a 'fact' has been 'proven'. If a document from what they deem to be a reliable source and a witness corroborate each other, the judge may deem that as 'proof'. Physical evidence is not essential. Obviously there are conclusions that can be drawn about the judges and which evidence was accepted etc...

Hannover, your second post contains the Von Ribbentrop quote which is well known and certainly worth using, its supported by statments made by several of the defence attorneys. But the author of the piece makes too much of the Katyn Forest thing. Nuremberg document USSR-54 was a document for the prosecution. Although there was something in the charter about Allied documents being given primacy as evidence, nothing about Katyn Forest appeared in the IMT's judgement. The judges didn't feel it had been adequately proven and did not 'convict' Nazis for it.

But you have indeed ignored them, you haven't addressed them.

Imagine, a real court of law where someone is accused of enormous mass murder, but there is no physical evidence of any kind that the murder occurred. Yet we did have a detailed study of laughable 'steam chambers' presented, but we have no study of the 'cyanide gas chambers' that were alleged. There were no excavations of the alleged enormous mass graves, and we know why.

Attempting to spin the outrageous behavior of the Nuremberg prosecution and it's 'judges' as somehow being normal is to simply ignore the actual allegations made. Judicial notice was taken for 'facts' where no credible evidence was ever presented, hence the increasing knowledge that Nuremberg was an absolute travesty of justice.

Mark, your added spin about the enormous Katyn massacre doesn't hold up either. Of course there were no charges brought against the Germans for it at Nuremberg, they had already been falsely charged and executed by the Soviets. The Soviets were part of the 'Allies', remember that. The IMT knew about Katyn and absolutely played along. The Soviets were never charged, or even challenged by the other 'Allies'.

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

Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:18 pm)

You forget that large numbers of people were also acquitted of witchcraft.

At least 75% of the evidence is of Soviet or Polish or otherwise Communist origin (this probably includes most of the French evidence as well), as you can easily verify using any book on the subject. The Soviets were ASSIGNED the task of producing ALL evidence of German atrocities and wrong-doing in Eastern Europe. What kind of evidence do you expect? What kind of trial do you expect? Why don't you mention Katyn while you are at it? (Go on, tell us the charges were "dropped", which isn't even true: the Katyn charges were simply NOT MENTIONED in the judgement. What kind of legal procedure is that?)

If Communist evidence, Communist judges and Communist prosecutors working according to Soviet procedure make something "international", well, so be it. That's your definition. They made up the law as they went along. If they wanted an "international trial, why not hold the trial in Switzerland, which was a neutral, German-speaking country, in according with existing international law? Almost nobody in the court except the defendants could understand German.

People forget that international law already existed in 1945. These trials stood international law on its head in every conceivable way. If you don't believe it, buy a book on international law published at any time before 1945 and read the definitions given of "war crime" or "war criminal". The world is full of law books published before 1945. Read a few.

There was no forensice evidence of any kind, nothing. With the sole exception of one single Soviet report on Katyn signed by the quack Lysenko. Sorry. I'm tired. Thousands of people convicted of millions of murders without one single autopsy, engineering report, nothing, for 60 years. What kind of fair trial is that?

I'm sorry, I'm acting as you were hostile to us; I realize you are just curious. Keep reading.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:49 pm)

I'm sorry, I'm acting as you were hostile to us; I realize you are just curious. Keep reading.

Nice post Daniel Saez Lorente.

I've had personnal communication with Mark Turley, he's a nice guy. He is not hostile towards Revisionism, he's quite open to it, see:
http://www.markturley.com/88108.html
He's beginning to get it.

I do believe that he doesn't quite understand the depth of Revisionist research on the all issues within the 'holocaust' canon and the size & scope of the fraud. I believe that by reading and asking more questions he will see how well informed top-of-the-line Revisionists are.

I welcome his inquiries.

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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests