Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

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
Dan B
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Dan B » 9 years 11 months ago (Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:27 am)

This thread is dedicated to listing the "converging evidence" that would have existed if the Germans had invaded the United States and Britain, set up kangaroo trials against real and imagined war criminals, and accused their vanquished enemies of trying to "exterminate" the German people.

In another thread, I posted this answer:

Agreed. There should have been a lot more than just testimonies if the orthodox story had been anywhere near the truth. In fact, I made a point of that in another forum the other day (http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=45970&page=2, in case any of you understand Swedish) where I basically said that of course there exists some circumstantial evidence, but the same would have been true if the Germans had invaded the United States and Britain and set up kangaroo trials against real and imagined war criminals.

The Germans could have pointed to the book Germany Must Perish!, to a bunch of documents relating to the more extreme versions of the Morgenthau Plan, and in all likelihood also to a lot of secret documents that we don't even know of, precisely because the Germans did not invade the U.S. and Britain, in which cynicism and callousness against German civilians was displayed just as much as it was against the Jews in secret German documents. Surely the Germans would have had little trouble "convincing" some American/British pilots to "testify" that the mass bombings directed at German civilians had been a part of this supposed "extermination policy". There would have been tons of circumstantial evidence to back up that claim: the special mix of bombs that was calculated towards killing as many civilians as possible, the quote from sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris (not sure if it's genuine, it's from a docu-drama called Bomber Harris, but he did say similar things anyway) that "all the German towns put together aren't worth the bones of a British grenadier". And I'm sure there are other things as well that I can't think of right now.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 11 months ago (Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:45 pm)

Dan B wrote:This thread is dedicated to listing the "converging evidence" that would have existed if the Germans had invaded the United States and Britain, set up kangaroo trials against real and imagined war criminals, and accused their vanquished enemies of trying to "exterminate" the German people.


Well, to begin with, this letter of Churchill to the chief of the Empire General Staff, Lord Ismay, from July 6th, 1944, would have been a perfect piece of evidence for the persecution.

Moreover, it is quite interesting that Churchill publicly declared twice that, if the Germans used chemical warfare against the Soviets, the British immediately would retaliate with massive poison gas attacks by the RAF on German civilians.

When the Soviets suspected the Germans to be planning to use poison gas in 1942 at the Russian front, Churchill declared in a BBC broadcast on May 10th, 1942:

"...The Soviet Government has implied to us that the Germans, due to the failing of their attacks, could be planning to use poison gas against the armies and peoples of Russia. [...] For we know our Huns quite well, we didn't neglect our efforts on this field [...] I want to make clear that in case of an unprovoked attack with poison gas on our Russian allies [...] we shall act as if we had been attacked by gas ourselves. [...] We shall make use of our air superiority in the Western theatre to use gas in the largest scale against towns and villages in Germany."

[Source: Günther W, Gellermann, Der Krieg, der nicht stattfand, Bernard & Graefe, Koblenz 1986, p. 150]

On April 21st, 1943, Churchill released a press declaration which, among others, contained the following:

"...His Majesty's Government renews the warning the Prime Minister has made public last year. [...] that any use of gas by the Nazis or their allies will immediately be responsed..." [PRO/Prem 3/88/3]

[Source:: Gellermann, up.cit., p. 155]

How absurd to believe that the Allies would have watched the Germans exterminating the Jewish population of whole Europe by poison gas without warning publicly the German Government by radio broadcasts or press releases and retaliating this ongoing "extermination program" by massive air attacks including the use of poison gas against German civilians.

I don't need to repeat here that neither Churchill nor de Gaulle nor Eisenhower mentioned those homicidal gas chambers with one single word in their memoirs.

Here is Churchill's letter to General Ismay from July 6th, 1944:
Attachments
Churchills Brief an Ismay 6.7.1944 - S. 1.jpg
Churchills Brief an Ismay 6.7.1944 - S. 2.jpg
Churchills Brief an Ismay 6.7.1944 - S. 3.jpg
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«
Orwell 1984

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Balsamo » 9 years 11 months ago (Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:39 pm)

Hum...I guess our friend Roland Freisler and his "Volksgerichthof", well known for his sens of Justice, would have been in charge dealing with all those werstern criminals...Considering how they dealt with the Soviet commissars, i don't think they would have been any trials...
That is the fun side with dictatorship, they don't bother with rules and vague concepts as "rights"... don't need to bother, really...ask French politicians like George Mandel or Leon Blum...or Austrian Chancellor von Schuschnigg...not to talk of the German generals which were not always (to say the least) proven guilty...or with all kind of political opponents in the 30's...should i mention Sophie Scholl ?

User avatar
Dan B
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Dan B » 9 years 11 months ago (Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:40 am)

Balsamo wrote:Hum...I guess our friend Roland Freisler and his "Volksgerichthof", well known for his sens of Justice, would have been in charge dealing with all those werstern criminals...Considering how they dealt with the Soviet commissars, i don't think they would have been any trials...
That is the fun side with dictatorship, they don't bother with rules and vague concepts as "rights"... don't need to bother, really...ask French politicians like George Mandel or Leon Blum...or Austrian Chancellor von Schuschnigg...not to talk of the German generals which were not always (to say the least) proven guilty...or with all kind of political opponents in the 30's...should i mention Sophie Scholl ?


I fail to see your point. Georges Mandel and Léon Blum were put on trial by the Vichy regime at Riom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riom_Trial They were allowed to defend themselves, to cross-examine witnesses and so on, and they did this so vigorously that German authorities ordered the trial stopped. Mandel was later assassinated by the Vichy french in retaliation for the assassination of the Vichy Minister of Propaganda, Philippe Henriot, while Blum was incarcerated in German concentration camps where he actually married and was liberated in 1945.

Kurt Schuschnigg was taken into custody (on what charges I don't know, but presumably for trying to prevent the Anschluss, which he did using rather underhanded tactics) and spent the war in Dachau and Buchenwald.

Sophie Scholl, the only case with any relevance here, was arrested, tried by Freisler's Volksgerichthof, sentenced and executed for treason after advocating passive resistance in the middle of a war.

Now, the $64,000 question: Is there any historian who seriously argues that we should take the "evidence" presented by the Volksgerichthof at face value?

Back to topic please.

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby David Baker » 9 years 11 months ago (Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:24 pm)

The firebombing of German cities was proof enough of British retaliation. Poison gas was a WWI weapon, and proved to be so terrifying as to warrant special treaties to prevent future attacks with these weapons by each signatory nation. Since nuclear weapons were not invented prior to these agreements, their use was not banned. With the advent of nuclear bombs and missiles, poison gas seems much like a quaint throwback to a time in history when such technology was frightening. That's why I think Jews and their coterie of propagandists specified Zyklon B as the means for Nazis to exterminate their population until nuclear technology was developed. They then added a Nazi "Nuclear Death Ray" to their sizable list of murderous machinery, which was designed to evaporate 20,000 Jews at a pop with no trace of human remains (or means of identification...) Indeed, the propagandists did keep up with advanced weaponry.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 11 months ago (Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:22 am)

David Baker wrote:The firebombing of German cities was proof enough of British retaliation. Poison gas was a WWI weapon, and proved to be so terrifying as to warrant special treaties to prevent future attacks with these weapons by each signatory nation.


No, it wasn't. Why then has Churchill twice publicly threatened to use poison gas against German cities, i.e. civilians, as retaliation, if the Germans were to use it against the Russians at the Eastern Front, if firebombing of German cities would have done it?

The firebombing of civilians was going on anyway, this would have not been suitable to use pressure against the German government to stop its "mass extermination program of the Jewish people by gas".

This fact, together with the non-mentioning of "homicidal gas chambers" in Churchill's, Eisenhower's and de Gaulle's post-war memoirs, is evidence enough that the allies didn't believe in their own atrocity propaganda against Germany.

Why haven't they not bombed the "chemical slaughterhouses" to stop "mass extermination", if they had believed in the rubbish they wanted the world to make believe?
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Orwell 1984

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby David Baker » 9 years 11 months ago (Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:48 pm)

Reinhard,

I don't quite understand your point. The use of poison gas was prohibited by treaty after WWI. I didn't say countries didn't use it, I said it was banned by treaty between several nations. Where the 'aura' of poison gas is (and was...) employed is when a country that needs to be demonized--let's say Germany--will be accused of using poison gas on it's enemies. You possibly remember the ramp up to the first Gulf War, don't you? Yep, poison gas used by the designated despot in Iraq. I was trying to explain how propaganda is maximized with terrifying weapons and mass murders of innocent civilians by a leader or country that is in the crosshairs of our Global crusaders. Please note that, after nuclear weapons were developed, the Holocaust witnesses described a "Nuclear Death Ray".

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby David Baker » 9 years 11 months ago (Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:57 pm)

Reinhard,

We might also discover similarities between current atrocity propaganda and previous war propaganda. In addition to the Hussein gassing claims (actually, they were false) witnesses related tales of premature babies in Kuwaiti maternity wards being thrown out of their incubators onto hospital floors. The WWI version depicted German soldiers throwing babies into the air, then impaling them on their bayonets.The operative term here is "Babies". Nothing enrages mothers and young males more than the spectre of a bunch of muderous military morons slaughtering infant children. As we can tell, this type of propaganda serves to instill in males a protective instinct, which compels them to attack whomever is committing such atrocities. In addition, mothers respond instinctively with demands that such horrible acts will result in retaliation by said males. Hence, a fierce resolve is engendered among those who are apprised of these 'facts' to kill the vermin who perpetrate them. So far, it has worked splendidly.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 11 months ago (Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:20 pm)

David,

the point I was trying to make was the following:

David Baker wrote:The firebombing of German cities was proof enough of British retaliation.


No, the firebombing of German cities was no British retaliation for the alleged use of gas in the alleged "extermination camps". Nobody ever declared that this mass bombing of civilians, women, children and old people, was done as a retaliation for the "extermination of the Jewish people". No one ever said the bombardments would be stopped if the "extermination of the Jews" was stopped by the Germans.

This firebombing was going on anyway, so it could not be used for making pressure on the Germans to stop an allegedly ongoing extermination program.

David Baker wrote:I don't quite understand your point. The use of poison gas was prohibited by treaty after WWI. I didn't say countries didn't use it, I said it was banned by treaty between several nations.


And in spite of that, Churchill planned "to drench Germany with poison gas", although the Germans hadn't used it before and were not planning to use it either.

And not only poison gas, Churchill made preparations to use illegal biological warfare as well and purchased 500,000 anthrax bombs from the USA:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Bwar1.html

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Bwar2.html
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Orwell 1984

David Baker
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:37 am

Re: Kangaroo Trials against the Allies

Postby David Baker » 9 years 11 months ago (Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:11 pm)

Reinhard, NOW I see your point! What I meant about the firebombing of German cities was that the British were retaliating for Germany attacking THEM, not because of the Jewish rumors. One must realize that the propaganda machine during WWI was quite active with reports of German atrocities, including the figure of 6,000,000 Jews being murdered. WWII propaganda was met with much more skepticism, especially when one considered the similarities (the Soap from Corpses rumor, for one.) I don't think much British resolve against Germany involved the Jewish plight. I think they were more interested in retaliation for actual attacks on their real estate.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests