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
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3342
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 31, 2007 12:28 pm)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:...
I don't quite agree with this. It was questioned at the time, and later, mostly on the grounds of methodology, ex-post fact law, tu quoque, and so on and so forth, as well as on general grounds, most prominently by Maurice Bardèche, in NUREMBERG LA TERRE PROMISE (the promised land) and NUMERBERG: LES FAUX MONNAYEURS (the counterfeiters, probably taking the title from an André Gide novel. Bardèche is said to have foreseen everything: a single currency in Europe, everything. I haven't read his books myself, although I have LA TERRE PROMISE in photocopies. At the beginning he compares Nuremberg to an African chief beheading the chief warriors of some defeated tribe. One of the best attacks on Nuremberg is ADVANCE BY BARBARISM by "A Jurist", later revealed to be A.P. Veale, which I've read, I think, 3 times. Military men were horrified by the whole idea from the beginning. Even Jackson reportedly went very reluctantly. But I don't know that much about the background to the trial. Not to mention the defendants and defense counsel in these trials themselves. You'd be surprised what they had the nerve and intelligence to say.
My apologies, I may have phrased it unclearly. Of course there were people smelling a rat right from the beginning, but they were more or less a marginalized appearance. I would have expected a far wider outrage and this for the shear fact that it was the enemies of Germany that were prosecutor and judge over its leadership.

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:As for the Bible, of course, you can pick what you want, but you'd be surprised how many don't read it all the way through. As for picking bits and pieces, the bits you pick determine the impression you get and give. To form a correct opinion you have to read all of it. That's what I think. I've met very few people who approach it in this manner. If you want to understand the world, that is the one book to read, in the King James translation, and I'm not even a Christian. Nothing has changed in 3,000 years. Nothing.
Of course you can distort by quoting out of context. But I can think of some quotes from the IMT that show the character of the whole "trial".

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Postby nathan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:32 am)

Mark Turley takes it as a sign of fairness that IMT acquitted three people who had no executive power. The discussion got diverted to the Dachau trials. Perhaps one can make a related point by noting that of the 73 accused at the Malmedy trial no less than 73 were convicted. Joshua M Greene has produced an acclaimed book celebrating William Denson who became famous for his 100 percent conviction rate at the first four proceedings held at Dachau. By parity of reasoning I expect Mark Turley to be suspicious of 100 percent conviction rates.

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

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:08 pm)

Yes and several defendants had their testicles damaged beyond repair.

Others were told by so called bogus Catholic priests to confess so it would go easier on them.

One hung himself in his cell because he could no longer take the pressure of having been forced to lie under interrogation.

Still others were led to believe they were about to be executed.

And who were the interrogators and prosecuters? All of them to the last man were Jews.

Laurentz Dahl
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Europe

Postby Laurentz Dahl » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:35 am)

Mannstein wrote:Yes and several defendants had their testicles damaged beyond repair.

Others were told by so called bogus Catholic priests to confess so it would go easier on them.

One hung himself in his cell because he could no longer take the pressure of having been forced to lie under interrogation.

Still others were led to believe they were about to be executed.

And who were the interrogators and prosecuters? All of them to the last man were Jews.


Is there any good book on this?
So the identities of the interrogators and prosecutors are all known?

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Postby nathan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:43 pm)

Joshua Greene’s Justice at Dachau puts the case for the prosecution in all the Dachau proceedings. James Weingartner’s recent book a Peculiar Crusade is about the Malmedy case defense lawyer Willis Everett, whose conscientious exertions brought matters to public notice. Joseph Halow’s Innocent at Dachau may be regarded as a primary source, since Halow was a court official. The ideal primary sources would be trial transcripts and backstage correspondence but I don’t know if these have been preserved.

Everett’s concerns resulted in a three-man (Simpson, van Roden, Lawrence) commission of enquiry into all the Dachau trials, which reported to the Secretary of Defence around August 1948. As far as I can find this Simpson report was never published. We also need to see what might be called the Raymond Report, an independent review board commissioned by General Clay which apparently reported threats against relatives.

The general outcry also resulted in a separate Senate investigation which the Army chiefs switched from the Judiciary Committee to an Armed Forces sub-committee led by Senator Baldwin. Baldwin was an attorney in the law firm of Pullman and Comely, where one of his associates had at first been in charge of the Malmedy massacre case. Another member of the three-man sub-committee was Estes Kefauver, who had practiced law with the second most important member of the Malmedy prosecution team. Even from the findings of this rather conspicuously interested body, and even from Joshua Greene’s laudatory book, one can deduce that the Dachau proceedings were kangaroo courts. But I have a feeling Mark Turley would not dispute this. The Dachau trials cannot be considered an isolated matter because the War Crimes Branch was involved in other trials, notably Ohlendorf’s, and they symptomize a culture of coercive interrogation also found in British and French investigations.

The Progressive article was published without van Roden’ review and should not be quoted as source on any particular matter, especially the lurid particular of the 137 damaged testicles on death row. Most of the 137 were dead by the time some of the 12 Malmedy death row cases were medically examined for the sub-committee along with 35 other Malmedy cases who alleged physical ill-treatment. Three years after the event, there were still signs of possible injury in “only” ten cases but we are not told which these cases were.

Baldwin’s sub-committee reported:

-------------“ Judge Simpson stated categorically to the subcommittee that in his opinion there had been no physical mis- treatment of the accused in the Malmedy matters, but that the use
of the mock trials and similar matters had influenced him in his
decision[ to advise commutation].

However, Judge Van Roden, in testifying before our subcommittee,
and in speeches and publications after having seen the same evidence
and heard the same witnesses as Judge Simpson, violently attacked
practically all phases of the pretrial examination. While he admitted
in his testimony that he had no direct evidence of physical mistreat-
ment he stated that he was convinced that many of the matters
alleged by the accused, after conviction, were fact, and that he had
made his recommendations accordingly." -----------------------------

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... report.pdf

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

At IMT Goebbels assistant Fritzsche was aquitted, if I recall, because there was no evidence that he knew about actual exterminations in the east. The inflammatory Jew-baiter Julius Streicher was hanged because he was deemed to have known about them. If were shown that IMT offered no solid evidence that Streicher did know about such things, would Mark Turley consider this an unfair and illegal verdict?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:08 am)

nathan said:
At IMT Goebbels assistant Fritzsche was aquitted, if I recall, because there was no evidence that he knew about actual exterminations in the east.

What "exterminations"?

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

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Postby nathan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Aug 21, 2007 2:59 pm)

Streicher claimed that his bloodthirsty but vague wartime calls for extermination did not mean actual extermination. The Court not only held that actual exterminations occurred but judged that Schleicher knew about them. The judgment goes:



"With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda of death. Testifying in this trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he continually received current information on the progress of the "final solution" His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Rumania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November, 1943, Streicher quoted verbatim an article from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt which stated that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented "This is not a Jewish lie." In December, 1942, referring to an article in the London Times about the atrocities, aiming at extermination, Streicher said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead to the destruction of Jewry. In January, 1943, he wrote and published an article which said that Hitler's prophecy was being fulfilled, that world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors."


Fritzsche presumably did not read enemy newspapers. I was curious to know whether Mark Turley (or anyone) will defend the claim that Schleicher, on the data presented, had good evidence to believe in actual exterminations. Otherwise one might conclude that Tribunal was itself not a good judge of what should count as evidence for extermination.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:44 pm)

nathan said:
At IMT Goebbels assistant Fritzsche was aquitted, if I recall, because there was no evidence that he knew about actual exterminations in the east.

and:

Streicher claimed that his bloodthirsty but vague wartime calls for extermination did not mean actual extermination. The Court not only held that actual exterminations occurred but judged that Schleicher knew about them. The judgment goes:

"With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda of death. Testifying in this trial, he vehemently denied any knowledge of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he continually received current information on the progress of the "final solution" His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Rumania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November, 1943, Streicher quoted verbatim an article from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt which stated that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented "This is not a Jewish lie." In December, 1942, referring to an article in the London Times about the atrocities, aiming at extermination, Streicher said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead to the destruction of Jewry. In January, 1943, he wrote and published an article which said that Hitler's prophecy was being fulfilled, that world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors."

But Nathan, do you believe 'exterminations' occurred? If so, please present your proof.

The text of the judgement quote above is a canard that relies on the thoroughly debunked and fraudulent claim of German 'code words'. Hitler neither intended, nor did he, 'destroy' European Jewry.
see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=534
'Schlegelberger letter'
and:
The 'Luther Memo'
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vppgluther.html

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

Patrick Henry
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:46 am
Location: Japan

Postby Patrick Henry » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:33 pm)

MarkTurley wrote: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.


1. Perhaps the most important aspect of the IMT and the Tokyo Trials is their utter hypocrisy. The United States military was flatout the worst war criminal with its massive fire bombings of Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. It could be argued that these bombings were worse than the two against Hiroshima and Nagasaki except that the two atomic bombings served no real military necessity. Please don`t start talking about "saving lives" as that is just a thread bare excuse.

The clearest indication that the whole thing was a farce is that no Americans were sitting in the defendants` box. Robert McNamara and Curtis Lemay were honest enough to admit that they would have been tried as war criminals with the USA lost the war.

2. Truly international? or just victors` justice?

3. But the most terrible legacy of all those ad hoc and self-serving adjustments (destructions?) of international law is found in the way the United States continues to attack nations and then set up show trials of the defeated leaders.

4. I carefully studied Dr. Schaller`s paper in the process of preparing the translated part read at the Teheran Conference. He made reference to 1945 London Documents drafted by British and American Jews that were going to be made the basis of any post-war pseudo-constitutional arrangement in Austria and Germany. So the IMT was a "show trial" in the technical sense that the findings had been pre-determined. Those documents are the basis of the modern inquisition against hoaxocough doubters.

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

Postby MarkTurley » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:57 pm)

well, a lot's been added since my last visit - thanks for all comments. I'm afraid I don't have time to reply in detail to everyone, but will jot a few words, starting with some of the more recent replies. I have little to add from my own perspective at the moment, as I've been on holiday and all research / serious reading has been on hold.

Patrick Henry - I agree that the trials were 'hypocritical', to use your word. I said as much earlier in the thread. The indictable crimes were only applied to the Axis powers, when if they had been applied to all, Allies could have found themselves equally guilty. The Nuremberg charter made this so.

You say,
Please don`t start talking about "saving lives" as that is just a thread bare excuse.


are you looking for an argument, for the sake of it? I wouldn't say anything of the sort, although as always, a measure of balance is needed in analysing anything. If you believe the Allies actions were motivated only by evil intent, you are just as silly as those who believe the Germans' actions were.

"Truly international? or just victors` justice?"

that's kind of like saying, "Bottlenose dolphin or sea dwelling mammal"?

Why couldn't the IMT be international and be an example of victor's justice? I don't see your point.

Nathan - the Streicher case is very interesting (in my view the most interesting of all the cases), not least because he was executed mainly for being a newspaper publisher and journalist. Whatever views anyone may have of 'der Sturmer', is that really a capital offence?
You say,

"I was curious to know whether Mark Turley (or anyone) will defend the claim that Schleicher, on the data presented, had good evidence to believe in actual exterminations."

No I wouldn't, on the basis of what you've written. If his information came only from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which has clear motives for producing propaganda. However, as gauleiter (governor) of Franconia, Streicher would surely have known if exterminations had occurred. The actual position he adopted on the extermination question during his cross-examination makes for fascinating reading but I don't have time to go into it now.

"If were shown that IMT offered no solid evidence that Streicher did know about such things, would Mark Turley consider this an unfair and illegal verdict?"

Yes, I do consider Streicher's verdict to be a gross miscarriage of justice.

"By parity of reasoning I expect Mark Turley to be suspicious of 100 percent conviction rates."

Err...yes, I am.

I'm getting the feeling that one or two people have completely misjudged my own view of the topic. Never mind.
Anyway, I'm afraid that's all I can manage for now. Thanks to others, especially Daniel Saez Lorente, who made some very interesting comments.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests