Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
The trials were supposed to herald in a new era of international law where all countries would be judged the same. But the nations who sat in judgment (USA, UK, Soviet Union, France) did not put any of their personnel on trial in the same manner -
It was an atmosphere of vengeance not justice and also a chance to deflect attention away from Allied atrocities and war crimes -
DR. KAUFFMANN: What attitude did you adopt when you heard about it?
KALTENBRUNNER: I had no knowledge of Hitler's order to Heydrich regarding the final solution of the Jewish problem at the time I took up my office. In the summer of 1943 I gathered from the foreign press and through the enemy radio...
That is, he testified that he had no direct part in the holocaust, and only learned of it via the foreign press and enemy radio. See the testimony here http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp
Kaltenbrunner also testified
COL. BROOKHART: Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.
KALTENBRUNNER: Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.
COL. BROOKHART: Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.
KALTENBRUNNER: Entirely impossible.
Part of Kaltenbruner's testimony can be seen/heard on YouTube - in this clip the prosecutor charges Kaltenbrunner with a crime that he, the prosecutor, knows did not happen, a massacre of prisoners at Mauthausen. This is not to be missed ...
Note: above from http://www.holohoax101.org
It's also important to realize that the holohoax narrative was provided by Rudolf Hoess, who by his own confession was the mastermind of the hoax working directly for Himmler. But, Hoess was not on trial ! He testified as a witness for the defense !! His primary role was to read an affidavit into the record in which he confesses to gassing millions of Jews. He wrote after the trial ...
"At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife's luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners."
Nuremberg was a hoax trial, the only comparable trials in history are the Salem witch trials, with one difference. Nuremberg was recorded.
Just to see how degenerate the hoaxers are, check out this current USHMM page ....
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10007163
where it is claimed that the hoax documentary 'Nazi Concentration Camps' shown at Nuremberg, which can be seen YouTube, consists of footage shot by the Nazis themselves.
Recall that at Nuremberg is was stated that 'the court was not bound by technical rules of evidence.'
The official use of torture in extracting "confessions" from Germans has been confirmed repeatedly.
- All but two of the Germans [on trial at Nuremberg], in the 139 cases that we investigated, had their testicles kicked in beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators:" 23.1.49, The Sunday Pictorial (quoted in For Those Who Cannot Speak (ref. 27), p.21.The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses. American judge, van Roden
- Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred. Congressional Record, appendix v. 95, sec.12, 3/10/49
- U.S. Congressional Representative, Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin said:
" The Nuremberg Trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history."
Congressional Record, appendix, v.95, sec.14, 6/15/49
- All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.
by Judge E. L. van Roden, "American Atrocities in Germany", The Progressive. February 1949, p. 21f.
- Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49
- "The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to [Bernard] Clarke the blows and screams were endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: 'Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.'"(12)
12.R. Butler, Legions of Death, Hamlyn, (London, 1983), p.237
- The admission of Bernard Clarke was corroborated by Mr. Ken Jones in 'The Wrexham Leader', October 17, 1986.
Mr. Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid in Schleswig-Holstein.
"They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activites during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Hoess in his cell to help break him down for interrogation."
"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones.
When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.
- There was no legal precedent for this, one official noted, besides which "any court of inquiry into these allegations would be futile".
- In one complaint lodged at the National Archives, a 27-year-old German journalist being held at this camp said he had spent two years as a prisoner of the Gestapo. And not once, he said, did they treat him as badly as the British.
When Hoess was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.
- "The London Cage was used partly as a torture centre, inside which large numbers of German officers and soldiers were subjected to systematic ill-treatment. In total 3,573 men passed through the Cage, and more than 1,000 were persuaded to give statements about war crimes. The brutality did not end with the war, moreover: a number of German civilians joined the servicemen who were interrogated there up to 1948.
As the work of the Cage was wound down, the interrogation of prisoners was switched to a number of internment camps in Germany. And there is evidence that the treatment meted out in these places was, if anything, far worse. While many of the papers relating to these interrogation centres remain sealed at the Foreign Office, it is clear that one camp in the British zone became particularly notorious. At least two German prisoners starved to death there, according to a court of inquiry, while others were shot for minor offenses.
At Nuremberg, perjurer Blaha said about Dachau in a sworn statement:
But we're told now that there were no gassings, and THEN we're told there were "experimental" gassings, all of which contradicts Blaha ... the liars can't keep their stories straight."There were numerous executions by gas, executions by firearms, and by injections, in the camp. The gas chamber was finished in 1944, and I called Dr. Rascher to examine the first victim. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber, three were still alive; the others seemed to be dead. Their eyes were red and their faces bloated. Numerous detainees were subsquently killed in the same manner."
IMT, vol. V, p. 198 (PS-3249).
Search Nuremberg at this forum for tons more, ex:
'The problems with the Nuremberg trials'
Don't forget Nuremberg's 'mass gassings of Jews in steam chambers', and 'German atomic weapons',
On & on laughable, easily refuted nonsense was piled on.
Only liars want censorship
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
The judicial masquerades of victors putting the vanquished on trial
I myself, being, if I may say so, at the extreme centre of opinions concerning politics or history, cannot pronounce condemnation of a given belligerent’s having sought, as in a kind of competition in the matter, to invent still more means of killing than its opponent. I would be content to say that for me, every war is a butchery; the winner is a good butcher and the loser not so good a butcher; on the other hand, at the end of a war, the winner may at most administer to the vanquished lessons in butchery but not lessons in law, justice or virtue. Yet that is what happened at the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946) and in a thousand other trials of the same calibre up to today where we see Jewish organisations demanding that sickly nonagenarians be carried into court on a stretcher for “crimes” generally going back seventy years and for which there is no evidence nor sometimes even the least witness: the defendant had perhaps simply found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time; for instance, he had supposedly been at Treblinka, a camp in which some presume to say, without the least evidence, that, according to certain persons, homicidal “steam chambers” operated (Nuremberg document PS-3311), and according to others, homicidal “gas chambers”: the “testimonies” are vague, contradictory and the trouble has never been taken to verify them, which, as certain revisionists like the Australian Richard Krege have proved, is nonetheless possible and shows that the revisionists are right (« Treblinka Ground Radar Examination Finds No Trace of Mass Graves », in The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 2000 (Vol. 19, No. 3), p. 20: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n3p20_radar.html).
At Nuremberg the victors tried the vanquished; they were thus both judge and party to the case; they had decided beforehand that, if necessary, one would do without real evidence: “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence [...]. The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof [...]” (articles 19 and 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal). Moreover, the victors’ justice violated the usages of normal justice in ignoring the separation of powers (some of those who took part in the drafting of the Charter went on to become judges and prosecutors), instituting collective responsibility (any member of a group declared “criminal” was automatically considered a criminal himself), implementing retroactivity of laws and denying those convicted any possibility of appeal. No representatives of the neutral nations were among the judges and prosecutors. In all seriousness the Soviets, with the concurrence of the American, British and French judges, had the audacity to rebuke the Germans for having carried out deportations and used concentration camps or forced labour camps! Resorting to an additional specification of article 19 of the Charter, the Soviet prosecutor got the judges to refuse any serious investigation of the crime in Katyn forest imputed to the Germans. As for the principal Soviet judge, Major General I.T. Nikitchenko, he had served as prosecutor in 1936 at the previous judicial masquerades called “the Moscow trials”, something that had not kept him from being recruited for Nuremberg.
At bottom, if one keeps in mind the crimes perpetrated against the German people by means of an air war aiming to exterminate civilians, if one recalls the deportations (called displacements) of the German minorities from Central and Eastern Europe, if one adds to that both the serial rapes of German women and girls (as happened, for example, at the age of twelve, to Hannelore Kohl, future wife of the chancellor; see Heribert Schwan, Die Frau an seiner Seite / Leben und Leiden der Hannelore Kohl, Munich, Wilhelm Heyne Verlag, 2011, p. 54-58), if one bears in mind the looting, the official grabbing by the Allies of Germany’s silver, gold, platinum, jewellery, securities, properties, banks, museums, scientific and industrial patents and if, to cap it all, one notes that the Nuremberg trials of German leaders earned the description, by some, of “a farce” or, in the words of Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, a “high-grade lynching party”, one can only find it deplorable that, for 66 years, our schools, universities and media have ceaselessly been telling us that, during the last world war, the victors represented Good and the vanquished, Evil.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/201 ... inued.html
The imposture of the Six Million. Wilhelm Höttl and the Nuremberg tribunal unmasked
In the next few paragraphs I intend to show first how the myth of the Six Million Jews supposedly killed or otherwise deceased during the Second World War was born, then through what lies it came to be endorsed – thanks to its particular lying inventor – by the International Military Tribunal (IMT) of Nuremberg and, finally, how, in 1987, I personally managed, in the presence of a witness, to confound former SS officer Wilhelm Höttl for having given false testimony by stating in writing and under oath that he had got that figure from the mouth of Adolf Eichmann himself.
It was in 2003 that the American Don Heddesheimer, a lawyer by profession, revealed to us that the myth of the Six Million had arisen from the most sordid source imaginable: from 1900 (and perhaps even earlier?) certain Jews in New York had made up and launched a lucrative advertising slogan that allowed them to collect millions of dollars through fund raising campaigns. The slogan they devised was of two short sentences: “At this time millions of our brothers are dying in Europe. Give us money to come to their aid”. In general, those European Jews were supposed to number “five million” or “more than five million” or, especially, “six million”. Depending on the circumstances and periods, the Jews’ killers were presented as being the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Tsars, the Poles, ... (The First Holocaust / Jewish Fund-Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One, Preface by Germar Rudolf, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, October 2003, p. 144). The newspaper contributing most to the dissemination of slogans peculiar to such campaigns was the New York Times. One of the most active personalities involved was Rabbi Stephen Wise (1874-1949), a friend, successively, of Presidents Wilson and, especially, F. D. Roosevelt; founder of the World Jewish Congress, he was a militant Zionist.
With the start of the Second World War the designated killers became Hitler or the Germans, while the European Jews were decreed “dead” or “killed” and no longer merely “dying”. In 1945-1946 the American delegation at the Nuremberg Trial happened, it seems, to be 75% Jewish; the estimate is that of U.S. Executive Trial Counsel Thomas J. Dodd (from the September 20, 1945 letter to his wife, published in a book co-authored by his son, Christopher J. Dodd, and Larry Bloom, Letters [of Thomas J. Dodd] from Nuremberg, Crown Publishers [Random House], p. 136). Presumably at least some of the Jews there, having grown up with the refrain of “millions of European Jews being dead or bound to die” in their ears, ended up believing in good faith what they heard or read on the subject. For them, the main thing was to have that belief endorsed by the Nuremberg judges. To attain their objective they would use a most dubious character, a former SS major and lieutenant-colonel who, in the last months of the war, in Italy, sensing that he risked ejection from the SS for both embezzlement and contact with the enemy, had got in quite close touch with the Allied authorities. At war’s end, having become one of their exemplarily docile prisoners, he was transferred to Nuremberg, where he fully cooperated with the prosecution. It was to him, in particular, that the prosecutors owed the impressive organisation chart of the German Security Police and the Security Service (Document 2346-PS) bearing his signature. On November 26, 1945 he agreed to sign an affidavit (Document PS-2738) in which he claimed that at the end of August 1944, at his apartment in Budapest, he received a visit from his colleague Lieutenant Colonel Adolf Eichmann, who advised him that he had recently submitted a report to Himmler, who had wanted to know the exact number of Jews killed thus far. According to the report, Eichmann put it exactly this way: “Approximately 4,000,000 Jews had been killed (getötet) in the various extermination camps (Vernichtungslagern), while an additional 2,000,000 met their death in other ways, the major part of whom were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia.” And he added that Himmler had not appreciated this report because, for him, the number of Jews killed had to be more than six million. The affidavit was read out in court on December 14, 1945 by the American assistant trial counsel William Walsh, who committed the dishonesty of translating the suspect word Vernichtungslagern by the classic phrase “concentration camps”. A German lawyer spoke up, requesting the appearance of Höttl. He would never obtain it. And the height of it all was reached when, in the final ruling, the Tribunal presumed to conclude, on September 30, 1946: “Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions” (IMT, I, p. 252-253). The truth is that never had Hitler put Eichmann or anyone else in charge of such a programme, and that the estimate was not that of Eichmann but, instead, had been attributed to him by W. Höttl. After the war Höttl continued to work with the Allies in the fear of being handed over to a Hungary governed by communists who would not have failed to execute him. Meanwhile his colleague Eichmann lived in Argentina until the day in 1960 when he was kidnapped by the Mossad and taken by force to Israel to be found guilty at the end of a judicial farce even worse than that of Nuremberg. In the investigatory phase of his case, examining magistrate Avner Less, a captain in the Israeli Army, asked Eichmann whether he had any comments on the statements made about him by Höttl, and the response was: “Yes indeed! Höttl’s allegations are a hotchpotch of muddles that the man has stuffed his head with” (Jawohl! Die Angaben von Höttl, das ist ein von Sammelsurium von Durcheinander, das der Mann seinen Kopf bekommen hat; see Jochen von Lang, Das Eichmann-Protokoll, Berlin, Severin und Siedler, 1982, p. 107). Eichmann then pointed out that the advent, after the war, of millions of survivors belied the possibility that there had existed any programme of physical extermination of the Jews. He stated, for example, on the next page: “Captain, after the war the Allies nonetheless counted – I think – 2.4 million Jews. And hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Jews came out of the concentration camps” (Herr Hauptmann, da sind immerhin – glaube ich – wie gesagt, es sind 2.4 Millionen von den nach Allierten Kriegsschluss gezählt worden. Und Hunderttausende von Juden kamen aus den Konzentrationslagern). When, for his part, he employed the word “Vernichtung” regarding the Jews, he had in mind the annihilation of the Jews’ power (in the framework of the search for a possible “final territorial solution to the Jewish question”) and not the sense that the translators like to give that word, that is, “physical extermination” (p. 110).
In 1987 W. Höttl, beset by his compatriots’ criticism or requests for clarification about the words he had ascribed to his colleague Eichmann, began to retreat. He suddenly claimed that it was under the influence of alcohol that the latter had spoken; he had, apparently, let Eichmann drink profusely of his favourite, apricot-based Hungarian spirits, barack (Welt am Sonntag, March 8, 1987, p. 2). I wrote to him at his home in Altaussee in Austria, where he was a school principal. I got him to promise to see me on two consecutive days in the company of an Austrian called R. M. On February 3, 1989 R. M. and I were received in Höttl’s office. I had not hidden anything about my revisionist beliefs from him. I asked him some questions about his August 1944 interview with Eichmann. I let him talk at length, but suddenly I told him that, for at least two reasons, I did not believe the contents of his affidavit: firstly, six million Jews killed by July or August 1944, when there were still about nine months of war to come, would imply for the whole duration of the war an even higher figure than the already huge and unproved one of six million (the equivalent of the population of a country like Switzerland); then, I noted in the same affidavit a word that seemed an anachronism – and it is well known that in history anachronism is one of the signs of falsehood. The word in question was Vernichtungslagern, that is, “extermination camps”. It is precisely the German translation of an American neologism, “extermination camps”, having first appeared in Washington in November 1944 in the famous “War Refugee Report” or “Auschwitz Protocol[s]”, which the world owes to the mythomaniac “Holocaust” witness Rudolf Vrba (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... proto.html). It is most unlikely that Eichmann should have used such an expression in August 1944 in Budapest. Visibly struck by the argument, our interlocutor, losing all self-assurance, asked us in a plaintive tone: “Why do you lend so much importance to that statement of Eichmann’s?” And he explained that the man was under the influence of alcohol and that he suffered with regard to himself, Wilhelm Höttl, from an inferiority complex, which led him to inflate the facts and figures. In other words, Höttl suddenly called into question the central point of his own affidavit. He even withdrew all value from it. However, it was that ringing declaration that, subsequently, would allow the Tribunal to launch the announcement to the world of Germany’s extermination of six million Jews. Höttl had lied; then, as seen above, to that lie the judges at Nuremberg added their own lie in coldly attributing the statement to Eichmann himself.
On the morning after that interview R. M. and I were preparing to leave our hotel and go, as agreed, to the second meeting with Höttl when the telephone rang: it was Mrs Höttl informing us that her husband was unwell and could not see us.
Today, R. M. is still alive and can attest to what I say here and which, in any case, is recorded in our correspondence. I must say that, thereafter, I maintained correspondence with Höttl. I suggested that he leave to posterity a piece of writing in which he might set the record straight. His response and the ensuing letters show a man decided on rejecting my suggestion but nonetheless troubled. In 1997 he published Einsatz für das Reich (In the Service of the Reich) (Koblenz, Verlag S. Buble). Curiously, in the section on “Eichmann and the six million” he showed himself discreet and evasive on the heart of the matter and even wrote: “The figure of 6 million seems, anyhow, to be magical” (Diese Zahl von 6 Millionen scheint irgendwie magisch zu sein) (p. 83). Some of his remarks were openly revisionist (p. 82-85 and 420-423) but he took the precaution of ending with a profession of holocaustic faith which I would describe as merely verbal. He died two years later at the age of 84. History will record his treachery. But Höttl may be granted consideration of mitigating circumstances: in the first place, on a personal level, had he refused to cooperate with the Americans he would have been consigned to the Hungarians, who would have hanged him; and he would have had to be a hero to defy the victors’ justice, the Jewish thought police and the religion of the “Holocaust”, which, in the 1980s, wrapped in an aura of sacred terror, was, little by little, to invade the entire Western world.
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com.br/ ... inued.html
Injustice of the Nuremberg trial
“International Military Tribunal”: it has been noted that those three words contain three lies. This “tribunal” was not a tribunal in the usual sense of the word but rather an association of conquerors who intended to deal with the conquered according to the principle that might makes right. It was not “military” since, of the eight judges who presided over it (two Americans, two Britons, two Frenchmen and two Soviets), only the two Soviets were military judges, the most important of them being I. T. Nikitchenko, a well-known Stalinist who had presided over the famous Moscow trials of 1936-37. The “tribunal” was not “international” but inter-allied. It was based on the London Agreement, which had defined war crimes, crimes against peace (preparation and launching of aggressive war) and crimes against humanity. The London Agreement was dated 8 August 1945: thus it came only two days after the Allies’ obliteration of Hiroshima and just 24 hours before the destruction of Nagasaki, while on the very date of 8 August the Soviet Union was launching an aggressive war against Japan. The atomic bomb had been developed essentially with a view to its use against the cities of Germany; had that happened, one wonders what sort of moral lesson the Allies could claim to teach the Germans, as one may wonder what right another “International Military Tribunal” had to judge the Japanese in Tokyo.
This “tribunal” had recourse to retrospective laws and the principle of collective guilt. It judged without the possibility of appeal, which meant that it could act arbitrarily, without any fear of being overruled. It was a criminal trial, but there was no jury. The prosecution had formidable resources at its disposal, especially in its control of the enemy’s captured war archives. The defence had only laughable resources; it was severely limited in what it could do and was under close surveillance. For example, the defence lawyers had no right to bring up the Treaty of Versailles in order to show that National Socialism had developed in part as a reaction to the effects thereof. Articles 19 and 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal stated:
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... [and] shall not require proof of facts
of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof.
Perhaps worst of all, the same Article 21 in a way gave force of law to the reports of war crimes committees set up by the Allies.
The Nuremberg trial suggests to me the following comparison: after a prize fight ending in a knockout, there remain in the ring a giant, still on his feet – the winner – and, lying on the canvas, his bloodied victim: the loser. The giant pulls the victim to his feet and tells him: “Don’t you dare think the fight is over! First, I’m going to the changing room. When I come back, I’ll be in a judge’s gown, to put you on trial under my law. You’ll have to explain every punch you threw at me, but never mind the punches I landed on you: you’ll have no right to mention them (unless I happen to be in a good enough mood and decide to tolerate such talk)”.
By acting thus, the Allies set off on the wrong foot in 1945. They treated the vanquished with arrogance and cynicism. They gave themselves complete freedom to invent and to lie. They were lacking in caution. They should have attempted to prove their accusations in accordance with sound judicial procedures. There are established methods for doing so. For example, if the Germans had in fact ordered and planned the murder of all Jews, it was appropriate to establish the existence of an order and a plan; in other words, a specific criminal intent had to be proved. If they had in fact perfected formidable death-works called gas chambers, it was appropriate to establish the existence of those gas slaughterhouses; in other words, the reality of the crime weapon had to be proved: expert examinations were needed. If the Germans had actually used that weapon, it was appropriate to prove that detainees had indeed been killed by poison gas: therefore post-mortem reports were needed.
However, neither during the Nuremberg trial nor during any of the numerous other such trials did the victors produce either a single proof of criminal intent, any forensic report on the crime weapon or any post-mortem for a victim of the crime. Here we are, then, in the presence of an alleged crime of gigantic proportions, but there seems to have been found neither criminal intent, nor a weapon, nor a body. Those in charge of proceedings were content with unverified confessions and testimonies, and dispensed with cross examination as concerned the very physical nature of purported facts.
From My Life as a Revisionist (September 1983 to September 1987) by Robert Faurisson
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/199 ... -1983.html
Seeing how the Allied nations conducted their war effort in general, i.e. without any refinements whatsoever to say the least, this statement was not a good news for the defeated to be lynched...
The Nuremberg trial, just like Raider's of the Lost Ark, is about the "winners" using their power to create self-serving dumb portrayals of evil.
I just saved more Jew's than Oskar Schindler allegedly ever did!
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08 ... nuremberg/
Mortimer wrote:Paul Craig Roberts comments on the trial after reading David Irving's book on the subject. Roberts states that he was shocked to find that US prosecutor Robert Jackson went back on his own principles which he had clearly espoused before the proceedings.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08 ... nuremberg/
I think Craig Roberts may be a bit to well-meaning in his treatment of Robert Jackson there.
I don't really believe that justice and "preventing future wars" were Jackson's motivations, but simple ambition and looking to become famous were. It of course sounds better that one seeks to "let justice prevail" and one wants to "prevent wars" in the future, then stating directly that one would like to become famous and a celebrity by taking up some role in something resembling a trial that would get vast media intention. Some statement just sit better with the public than others.
Jackson was however honest enough to state:"As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems".
This is however no problem for those that wish to use the Nuremberg trial as proof for "Nazi and German viciousness". In fact they would perhaps use it of proof on how honest that trial was.
A learned friend of Jackson, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone remarked:"Jackson 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."
Apparently there were some intelligent, well informed people in the Allied countries that didn't share the Black and White idea about the war and its outcomes. They may have had some rather bad feelings about what was actually happening at that time.
The trial records are nevertheless a useful source on statements being made. Reading them lets one be surprised about how the actually came to the verdicts at the end of the trial. Of what has substance in it, there is really nothing extraordinary establish of what the leaders of NS-Germany had done. Western Allied politicians, generals and bureaucrats would probably not have acted significantly different given they would have been in the same situation as their German counterparts. And to some extent they also did, but were more hypocritical about it. The Eastern Allied leaders did far worse and I think one of the trial participants did actually confirm that in a later interview.
Proponents of the Holocaust commonly play act as if the trial had proven the key tenets of Holocaust lore, but except dubious testimony and innuendo there isn't much found in the trial records. To the contrary thinking about the statements, reasonable doubt about the Holocaust narrative does come up, in fact some statements outright contradict it.
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/08/ ... week-0814/
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/08/ ... week-0824/
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/08/ ... week-0828/
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/ ... he-week-4/
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/ ... he-week-5/
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/09/ ... he-week-6/
These are good pieces of info to introduce newcomers to the basic unfairness of the trials.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 5 guests