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!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:23 pm)

Hi Mark Turley,

The thing with Dr. Blaha testifying is he said there was a gas chamber at Dachau and many people were killed in it.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-11-46.htm

and go to bottom of page 171 to 172.

Then on page 177 he tells the Soviet prosecutor that before 1943, Dachau was an extermination camp.

Historians don't believe that anymore, so why did the American prosecution offer his affidavit which they read in court? Surely with loads of researchers in the IMT prosecution staff, in the army etc. they could have offered a witness who had accurate information about Dachau.

It shows that the prosecution is just putting forth a war-atrocity con.
Last edited by Carto's Cutlass Supreme on Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 4:52 pm)

Hannover wrote:
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


Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm very tired. I should have given some sources.
Anyway these are a few:

http://www.cwporter.com/warcrim45.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/resist.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/cc1.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/wctrial2.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/wctrial.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/kadaver.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/pg281.htm
(300,000 defense affidavits)
http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm
http://www.cwporter.com/anatliar.htm

It is simply impossible to defend Nuremberg at any level at all except very superficially. Even people who admired the trials on principle have had to admit that they were more or less a failure (I am thinking of Telford Taylor in particular). As usual, the same people who made up these rules of international law were the first people to break them. I am thinking of the Americans, but of course they are not the only ones guilty in this respect. If a peaceful world was really the intent, they have to be ranked as the most spectacular "idealistic failure" in history. I apologize again.

There are a lot of books on Nuremberg and nearly all are critical in at least certain respects, anything else would be impossible. I agree that Maser's TRIBUNAL DER SIEGER is the best. His 1971 biography of Hitler is also spectacular: HITLER: MYTH, LEGEND, REALITY.

I might also add that, traditionally, heads of state enjoy immunity for acts of state, and that trying and hanging ambassadors for acts of diplomacy performed as ambassadors is a complete novely in world history. So is the introduction of hearsay and "conspiracy theory" into international law.

It is also interesting to compare the Japanese trials since the circumstances involved were exactly opposite: so the law the victors made up was also exactly the opposite. Oh, ye hypocrites!

I refer to the obvious fact that Britain was an island nation imposing an illegal sea blockade against Germany, while Japan was imposing an allegedly illegal sea blockade against China! The list goes on and on.
Plus the evidence introduced is simply ridiculous.

Most of Mr. Turley's information comes from Mr. Dodd's final statement to the court. The best example of Dodd's dishonesty is the reference to the 300,000 affidavits. In fact, the prosecution only called 33 witnesses, many of them testifying about totally irrelevent subjects, such as the alleged German destruction of the library of Louvain in 1914! Even Telford Taylor was amazed by this. This was in 1946!

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 5:04 pm)

Putting this whole discussion in a nutshell, although it does not relate specifically to Nuremberg, the best refutation of all these anti-German atrocity stories is the simple observation that if Germans were capable of such acts in wartime, they would be well-known for such acts in peacetime, like the Thugs of India. This is not the case.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:38 am)

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



It is also interesting to compare the Japanese trials since the circumstances involved were exactly opposite: so the law the victors made up was also exactly the opposite. Oh, ye hypocrites!

I refer to the obvious fact that Britain was an island nation imposing an illegal sea blockade against Germany, while Japan was imposing an allegedly illegal sea blockade against China! !


I'm sorry, I said something that should be explained, since it is quite technical and not at all obvious.

Sea blockade is of course legal and always has been, but it is regulated by very precise conditions, or has been at least since the time of Napoleon. For example, a "paper blockade" is illegal. If you've got 5 ships, you can't declare a "blockade" of the entire Brazilian coastline and then seize Brazilian ships anywhere you find them on the high seas on the grounds that they have "broken the blockade". Similarly, the blockade of neutral ports is quite illegal under all established international law.

A so-called exception is the American doctrine of "continuous voyage", invented and accepted, as usual, by the Americans only, in their so-called "Civil War", in reality a war of secession. Ships bound for the Bahamas were seized at sea on the grounds that the cargo was obviously intended for the Confederate States. This doctrine has never been accepted elsewhere.

In the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 the Japanese attempted to stop and search British ships on the high seas for contraband intended for the Russians (the war was fought mostly in China). The British indignantly claimed that this was highly illegal and this was all written up in some sort of international treaty signed by Lord Lansdowne in 1909. So in 1914-18 and 1939-45 they not only blockaded all neutral ports but didn't even bother to blockade; they simply seized Swedish, Spanish, American etc. etc. ships and cargos anywhere they found them, hundreds of miles from any port, in the middle of the ocean if necessary.

They extended this blockade even after the Versailles Treaty, including food, and only lifted it partially in April of 1919. The British claimed this was all "legal", because they were doing it, and extending it after the Armistice was also "legal", because it wasn't prohibited in the fine print of the Armistice! Plus varie les britanniques que la plume au vent.

In 1932-45, the Japanese were attempting to impose a blockade of China, with whom they were at war, so at the Tokyo Trial of 1946-48, the British and Americans claimed that this was all dreadfully illegal! I can't even recall that any specific grounds were cited that would make their blockade illegal, it was just illegal because the British said so.

You figure it out, it's too much for my tiny brain.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:25 pm)

All these trials are full of absurd and amusing incidents, if you can see the humor in them. For example, at the IMT, in the case against youth leader Baldur von Schirach they produced an "affidivit" by a guy whose name I forget who claimed that a short fat student leader had given an anti-Semitic speech. So the court said, Schirach is short and fat, therefore he's guilty! They didn't even do that during the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages ("the witness saw a short fat woman cavorting with the Devil, the defendant is short and fat, so the defendant is guilty").

Of course they didn't bring the witness to identify him, and say "that's him, that's Schirach, he gave the speech", no, they just said "Schirach is short and fat". So it degenerated into a discussion of whether he was short and fat or not. He wasn't very tall and he was a little bit pudgy, so was he "short and fat" or wasn't he? How would you like your life and freedom to depend on a procedure like that?

In the case against Goering they introduced Hermann Rauschning's famous forgery THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION (one third written in French with a Hungarian Jew in Paris who called himself Emery Reeves), claiming Goering told him he burnt the Reichstag. Rauschning was alive and well, why didn't they bring him to court? Goering laughed in their faces, said, "well, look if I really burnt the Reichstag, presumably I would only tell my closest friends. I certainly wouldn't tell somebody I didn't even know".

It was like this all the time. They tried the same thing on von Schirach and Schirach told them look, Rauschning was Mayor of Danzig, a provincial capital, only met Hitler 4 times and was never alone with him.
Why didn't they bring Rauschning to court if he was such an "important witness"? Same question for most of the other witnesses, they're just names on paper, nobody's ever seen most of them. This is contrary to all Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, to say the least.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:25 pm)

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


I'm sorry, but to the great disgrace of the USA, Jackson was a Supreme Court Justice with Presidential aspirations. He was such an incompetent and unscrupulous lawyer that I don't see how he passed the bar (he did not go to law school).

As for technical rules of evidence, perhaps you are referring to traffic courts, police court minor offenses, small claims courts, civil courts involving minor lawsuits, etc. etc.

For a murder trial they have rules of evidence, reconstructions, forensic reports, appeal procedures, handwriting experts, ballistics tests, etc. etc. even in Europe. For example, the murderer takes court officials to the scene of the crime and shows how he committed the crime, etc. If not, somebody else demonstrates the prosecution theory, on the spot, in the presence of the defendant.


Nikitschenko, well.... if being a Stalin henchman makes you a member of the "Internationale", he certainly qualifies. If I recall correctly, he was also responsible for the disgraceful Moscow show trials of the 1930s, which caused millions of disgusted Communists to resign from the Party all over the world. Their membership has never recovered. Two million people died as a result of these "trials". Perhaps "Asiatic" would be the proper term.

Another Soviet prosecutor, Prokovsky, was "accidentally shot" "while cleaning his pistol", during the trial, and the wonderful democratic British and Americans and French simply decided, well, if that's the way our wonderful democratic Soviet allies wish to settle their disputes, that's their business. This is described by Telford Taylor in one of his more disgraceful books. They were so busy sleeping with their secretaries, screwing each other's wives, female reporters and journalists, and drinking themselves into a stupor, swaggering around among starving people with .45s strapped to their hips, that they simply didn't care about the Soviets shooting a member of their own staff. What's the difference?

I always wondered where Pokrovsky disappeared to, one minute he's there, then, in volume 8, he disappears, never to be seen again.

The French were there more or less for show and were treated as non-entities.

Nothing in international law gives the victor in war the power to legislate in international law. A court which writes its own law, makes up its own rules of evidence, which is totally arbitrary, which permits no appeal, refuses to listen to or even translate defense evidence, is a kangaroo court, a lynch mob, fancy language to the contrary notwithstanding. In ordinary law, no one is allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner of his own accusations.

How do the mass murderers of 7 or 8 million Ukrainians get to judge Germans in a war which the Soviets helped them start? The only thing that transformed the Soviets into "good Western democrats" was the German attack upon them; before that time they were more or less German allies.

I hope you are beginning to see how irrational all this is.

I fear I am getting repetitive here, but all of this is very superficial.

I doubt very much that Falco had anything to do with the so-called London Agreement or the IMT charter. You should read some of the French evidence: it's no better than the Soviet evidence.

For example, at Ouradour-sur-Glâne, the Germans are supposed to have placed an otherwise undescribed "asphyxiation device" on the altar of the church, then stopped a commuter train and machine gunned all the passengers. Nobody at Ouradour-sur-Glâne believes any of this, although they believe all sorts of other lies.

Such as that you can burn a stone church, more or less without fuel, without burning any of the ancient wooden furniture contained in the church, such as a large confessional, or melting very light objects made of flimsy sheet metal. Sorry. You can go to prison for saying these things.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:53 am)

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


Another wonderful "European" involved in the First Nuremberg Trial -- the so-called IMT -- was Vyshinsky. A few notes on him may be consulted here (Wikipedia doesn't always lie, only sometimes):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Vyshinsky

About half a dozen films of Vyshinsky calling for the death by shooting of the defendants in various Moscow "show trials" may be watched on line, here:

http://www.earthstation1.com/Andrei_Vishinsky.html

QUOTE FROM FIRST FILM:

“The rabid State Prosecutor of the Soviet "Show Trials" of 1936: "Our whole country, from child to old man, expects and demands one thing: to shoot traitors and spies who betrayed our Motherland - to shoot them like vile dogs. Our people demand only one thing: to crush this vermin."

The defendants in these trials included foreign nationals, British, American, French, Japanese engineers accused of "sabotage"; Jewish generals "confessing" to spying for the Nazis, and all the rest of it.

One of the Japanese engineers spent so many years in Siberia he forgot how to speak Japanese and was only released recently. They had forgotten he existed.

These are the same wonderful people who brought you the Nuremberg evidence and the Nuremberg rules of procedures, plus most of our "proof of the Holocaust".

As for the acquittals, there was a lot of horse-trading at the end, the Soviets wanted to hang everybody, while the Americans and British realized that wouldn't look quite kosher. So they acquitted a few guys.

So much for the IMT and its wonderful impartiality and "European" rules of evidence. I apologize if I am getting a bit repetitive here. I tend to be a bore when I get started.

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

Postby Haldan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:56 pm)

This information is good, Lorente.

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

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:35 am)



I doubt very much that Falco had anything to do with the so-called London Agreement or the IMT charter. You should read some of the French evidence: it's no better than the Soviet evidence.

For example, at Ouradour-sur-Glâne, the Germans are supposed to have placed an otherwise undescribed "asphyxiation device" on the altar of the church, then stopped a commuter train and machine gunned all the passengers. Nobody at Ouradour-sur-Glâne believes any of this, although they believe all sorts of other lies.

Such as that you can burn a stone church, more or less without fuel, without burning any of the ancient wooden furniture contained in the church, such as a large confessional, or melting very light objects made of flimsy sheet metal. Sorry. You can go to prison for saying these things.


I'm sorry. According to the Internet, Falco is credited with part authorship of the so-called London Agreement by means of which the USA and the Soviet Union, the greatest mass murderers and mass enslavers in history, gave themselves the right to hang Germans under hitherto non-existent international law. Falco was a Jew who spoke no German and little or no English. I forgot something else. At Ouradour-sur-Glane, not only did the Germans burn a stone church without fuel, without burning any of the wooden objects contained therein or melting any of the flimsy sheet metal objects thereunto appertainaining, they also killed 563 women and children by burning, without burning the bodies. The bodies were torn apart, but not burnt. Most of the French so-called evidence of this is in volume V, much of it obviously of Communist origin. You can go to prison in France for asking why the wooden confessional didn't burn.

I'm sorry to make the comparison, but the Nuremberg Trial is very much like the Bible. To understand it, you have to read it all the way through, in context, from the beginning. With Shakespeare or Milton, or many other works of literature, you can take bits and pieces out anywhere, and they more or less make sense. But with Nuremberg and the Bible, you have to read the whole thing. I suspect this is why the transcript it not available in book form for at any reasonable price.

At any rate, I believe that I am correct in asserting that the French were there more or less for show, and that they were treated more or less as non-entities. Donnedieu de Fabre (or Vabre) is supposed to have spoken perfect German, and is far more prominent in the transcript. Why all the emphasis on Falco? I think the answer is obvious.

Americans who wonder why there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats should ask themselves why there was no difference between "Americanism" and Soviet Communism for about 70 years.

For example, there was a direct causal relationship between trade with the Soviet Union and American casualites in Viet Nam. Yet trade with the Soviet Union was increased, not only by Johnson and Nixon, but by every American President since Wooodrow Wilson. Anthony Sutton, after proving all this, says that the reason for it "remains unknown".

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 29, 2007 1:53 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.


I want to say you are quite correct on this point; the Nuremberg trial wasn't what people think at all. It was something completely different in every way. You've got many surprises in store. People distort the past according to what they want to prove now, which is naturally changing all the time. But the real animal is different.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Postby PotPie » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:23 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Hi Mark Turley,

The thing with Dr. Blaha testifying is he said there was a gas chamber at Dachau and many people were killed in it.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-11-46.htm

and go to bottom of page 171 to 172.

Then on page 177 he tells the Soviet prosecutor that before 1943, Dachau was an extermination camp.

Historians don't believe that anymore, so why did the American prosecution offer his affidavit which they read in court? Surely with loads of researchers in the IMT prosecution staff, in the army etc. they could have offered a witness who had accurate information about Dachau.

It shows that the prosecution is just putting forth a war-atrocity con.


Yes Blaha did say that, and more than once. He kept saying it after the war, too.

His testimony was used in other trials such as the ones about medical experimentation.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:48 am)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote: ...The bodies were torn apart, but not burnt. Most of the French so-called evidence of this is in volume V, much of it obviously of Communist origin. You can go to prison in France for asking why the wooden confessional didn't burn.

Oradur is a chapter on its own. But also exemplary for showtrials....

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:I'm sorry to make the comparison, but the Nuremberg Trial is very much like the Bible. To understand it, you have to read it all the way through, in context, from the beginning. With Shakespeare or Milton, or many other works of literature, you can take bits and pieces out anywhere, and they more or less make sense. But with Nuremberg and the Bible, you have to read the whole thing. I suspect this is why the transcript it not available in book form for at any reasonable price.
....
But it is on the internet and one could dowload and connect all the pages together. While reading the whole piece in context has its value, I'd still say that many of the excerpts are quite revealing, too.

Well the odd thing isn't actually the showtrial character of the IMT - The odd thing is rather the fact that it hasn't been questioned for so long. There are indeed people that view that trial and its records as proof for "German Nazi Wickedness", which it actually isn'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 (Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:58 pm)

Hektor wrote:
Daniel Saez Lorente wrote: ...The bodies were torn apart, but not burnt. Most of the French so-called evidence of this is in volume V, much of it obviously of Communist origin. You can go to prison in France for asking why the wooden confessional didn't burn.

Oradur is a chapter on its own. But also exemplary for showtrials....

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:I'm sorry to make the comparison, but the Nuremberg Trial is very much like the Bible. To understand it, you have to read it all the way through, in context, from the beginning. With Shakespeare or Milton, or many other works of literature, you can take bits and pieces out anywhere, and they more or less make sense. But with Nuremberg and the Bible, you have to read the whole thing. I suspect this is why the transcript it not available in book form for at any reasonable price.
....
But it is on the internet and one could dowload and connect all the pages together. While reading the whole piece in context has its value, I'd still say that many of the excerpts are quite revealing, too.

Well the odd thing isn't actually the showtrial character of the IMT - The odd thing is rather the fact that it hasn't been questioned for so long. There are indeed people that view that trial and its records as proof for "German Nazi Wickedness", which it actually isn't.


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.
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.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:05 pm)

Oradur is a chapter on its own.


No, it's an example, it's in there, I think it's volume 5, but it might be in volume 6 or 8. I can find it for you. There's also supposed to have been huge mass graves someplace in France that I've never heard of since. Another example is that the IMT rules allowed any member nation of the UN to submit "government reports" of German atrocities, usually Communist propaganda, but German official reports were not admissible because Germany was not a "member of the United Nations". Yet their stuff is better quality. So all the records of the German War Crimes Bureau and so on were just junked.

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

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:19 pm)

Daniel Saez Lorente wrote:
Oradur is a chapter on its own.


No, it's an example, it's in there, I think it's volume 5, but it might be in volume 6 or 8. I can find it for you. There's also supposed to have been huge mass graves someplace in France that I've never heard of since.


It's volume 6, 47th day, afternoon session, 31 January 1946, starting on p. 438 in German. Read some of their other junk and see why I wonder why we've never heard of this stuff since. It's incredible that one could simply speak of an "asphyxiation device", in a trial, without anybody saying, wait a minute, how did this contraption work? Where's the proof of this? What happened to it? Where are all these mass graves? Also, just like in Russia, the Germans are accused of mass rape. Anybody who knows anything about the Germans knows they didn't commit rape, the Russians and Americans did.

The title LES FAUX MONNAYEURS as the title of a book on Nuremberg probably comes from the Gide novel of the same name, which briefly describes a woman who had a cafe in France after WWI. All her customers keep talking about German atrocities, their beastly rudeness, raping girls, the usual. And the lady bar owner, whose husband has died, and the bar is her only source of livelihood, keeps saying, no, they were very polite, they always treated me correctly. So the customers start staying away from the bar, and start calling her "la boche", "the Kraut". The bar is about to go broke. So with the few customers who still come in once in a while, she drops a few cautious remarks about "les boches", so their ears perk up, a few more people come back, so she starts laying it on thicker and thicker, and pretty soon she's telling atrocity stories and talking about rapes like everybody else. So the bar gets rich.

Another book by the historian Walter Millis describes American newspaper men in Belgium who get overrun by the Germans. The Germans are very polite to them, and invite to go along with their unit for a few weeks. So the Americans accompany the Germans, witness all their actions for about a month, then succeed in reaching Allied lines again, and start reading Allied newspapers, and are astounded to find all kinds of atrocity stories about drunkness and mass rapes commited by those same German soldiers in the same battles and actions they have just witnessed. The Germans were always very correct. They're this way today. In German jails, anywhere, you have to obey all the rules to the letter, but there's no abuse of authority. In other countries prison guards do whatever the hell they like and nobody cares. There's no discipline. The guards are no better than the inmates. Same thing in the army, just look at the American army by comparison.
If the Germans acted that way in wartime, they'd act this way in peacetime, bullying, raping, abusing and humiliating people, etc. Everybody knows they don't. Of course German judges and top officials are robots, but otherwise they wouldn't get to be top officials. A fish rots from the head down.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dresden and 1 guest