Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

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
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Lamprecht » 7 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:30 pm)

Great article that hasn't been posted yet


American Jurists and Attorneys Opposing Injustice at Nuremberg
By John Wear
Published: 2018-11-27
https://codoh.com/library/document/6276/?lang=en
The Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. This article will discuss the efforts of three American attorneys to expose and correct the injustice of these trials.



Some quotes from the article:

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum wrote:The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions...The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.



Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum wrote:The entire atmosphere is unwholesome…Lawyers, clerks, interpreters, and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices…If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here…The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident.” The lack of appeal in the Nuremberg cases left Wennerstrum “with a feeling that justice has been denied.



Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden wrote:Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators, wearing U.S. Army uniforms, were seated around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each side. “You will now have your American trial,” the defendant was told.

The sham court passed a sentence of death. Then the accused was told, “You will hang in a few days, as soon as the general approves this sentence: but in the meantime sign this confession and we can get you acquitted.” Some still wouldn’t sign.

We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mockingly.


Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden wrote:This solitary confinement proved sufficient in itself in some cases to persuade the Germans to sign prepared statements. These statements not only involved the signer, but often would involve other defendants.

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.

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.



Pennsylvania judge Edward L. Van Roden wrote:Unless these crimes committed by Americans are exposed by us at home, the prestige of America and American justice will suffer permanent and irreparable damage.


American attorney Willis N. Everett, Jr. wrote:Several defendants today said they thought they had had a trial…a Col. sat on the Court and his defense counsel rushed the proceedings through and he was to be hanged the next day so he might as well write up a confession and clear some of his fellows seeing he would be hanged…another kind of court had black curtains…The Lt. Col. sat as judge at a black-draped table which had a white cross on it and the only light was two candles on either end. He was tried and witnesses brought in and he was sentenced to death, but he would have to write down in his own handwriting a complete confession. Then the beatings and hang-man’s rope, black hood, eye gougers which they claimed would be used on them unless they confessed. Not a one yet wrote out his statement but each stated that the prosecution dictated their statements and they said it made no difference anyway as they would die the next day. So on and on it goes with each one of the defendants. The story of each must have some truth because they have each been in solitary confinement.



Waffen-SS Officer Jochen Peiper, the lead defendant in the Malmédy trial wrote:On the last day of my stay in Schwäbisch Hall I was called for interrogation and received, as usual, a black hood over my head. And I had to wait down there in the hall of the prison for about five minutes, since the American sergeant who came for me went to get some other comrades of mine from their cell. During this occasion when I was standing there quietly waiting, I was struck in the face by a person unknown to me, and several times in my sexual parts with a stick.


All the citations are in the article above
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Lamprecht » 7 months 3 days ago (Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:08 pm)

A good article translated from French, written a few years after the NMT, discusses the use of atrocity propaganda to incriminate NS Germany, and the allies covering up & justifying their own atrocities.

The following excerpt from Maurice Bardèche’s Nuremberg ou la Terre promise (Nuremberg or The Promised Land) (Paris: Les Sept Couleurs, 1948) argues that the true motive of the Nuremberg Tribunal was to provide retroactive justification for massive Allied atrocities against Germany and its allies. The title is editorial.

The True Foundations of the Nuremberg Tribunal

Let us note initially, as a starting point, that this legal action against Germany, or more exactly against National Socialism, has a solid basis, a basis much more solid than one generally believes. Only, it is not the one proclaimed. And things, in truth, are much more dramatic than they are said to be: the basis for the charge, the motive behind the charge, is actually much more distressing for the victors.

Public opinion and the prosecutors for the victorious powers affirm that they have set themselves up as judges because they represent civilization. That is the official explanation. But that is also the official sophism, for that is to take as a first principle and a certainty what is precisely under discussion. It is at the end of an open trial between Germany and the Allies that one would be able to say which camp represented civilization. It is not at the beginning that one can say that, and above all it is not one of the parties on trial who can say it. The United States, England, and the U.S.S.R. brought in their most erudite lawyers to support this childish argument. For four years our radios have repeated: “you are barbarians, you were overcome, and therefore you are barbarians.” For it is clear that Mr. Shawcross, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Rudenko speak no differently at their desks at Nuremberg when they proclaim the unanimous indignation of the civilized world, the indignation that their own propaganda caused, supported, guided, and which can be directed by them at will, like a swarm of locusts, against any form of political life which may displease them. However, let us make no mistake about it, this prefabricated indignation has long been and, all in all, still is the principal basis for the charge against the German regime. It is the indignation of the civilized world which requires the trial, it is that too which supports its conduct, it is in the end everything: the judges at Nuremberg are only the secretaries, the scribes of this unanimity. One puts on us by force some red glasses and then invites us to declare that things are red. Now there is a program with a future for which we have not finished counting the philosophical merits!

But the truth is very different. The true basis for the Nuremberg Trial, the one which no one has ever dared to point out, is, I suspect, not fear: it is the spectacle of the ruins, it is the panic of the victors. It is necessary that the others be in the wrong. It is necessary, for if, by chance, they had not been monsters, how would the victors bear the weight of all those destroyed cities, and those thousands of phosphorus bombs? It is the horror, it is the despair of the victors which is the true motive for the trial. They have veiled their faces before what they were forced to do and, to give themselves courage, they transformed their massacres into a crusade. They invented a posteriori a right to massacre in the name of respect for humanity. Being killers, they promoted themselves to policemen. After a certain number of deaths, we know that any war becomes obligatorily a war of the Right (Droit).[1] The victory is thus complete only if, after having taken over the citadel by force, one also takes over the consciences by force. From this point of view, the Nuremberg Trial is an apparatus of modern war which deserves to be described like a bomber.

We had already tried to do the same thing in 1918, but then, the war having been only a costly military operation, one had been satisfied with palming off on the Germans the aggression card. Nobody wanted to be responsible for so many deaths. We made the vanquished do this by obliging their negotiators to sign a statement that their country had been responsible for the war. This time around, the war having become on both sides a massacre of innocents, it was not enough to obtain that the vanquished recognize themselves as the aggressors. To excuse the crimes committed in conducting the war, it was absolutely necessary to discover some even more serious ones on the other side. It was absolutely necessary that the English and American bombers seem the sword of the Lord. The Allies did not have a choice. If they did not solemnly affirm, if they did not prove by any means whatever that they had been the saviors of humanity, they were nothing more than murderers. If, one day, men ceased believing in the German monstrosity, would they not demand an accounting for the devastated cities?

There is thus an obvious interest on the part of British and American propaganda and, to a lesser degree, of Soviet propaganda, to support the thesis of German crimes. This will become even more obvious if one keeps in mind that, in spite of its publicity value, this thesis obtained its definitive form only rather late.

In the beginning, nobody believed it. Radio broadcasts endeavored to justify entry into the war. Public opinion indeed feared a German hegemony, but it did not believe in a German monstrosity. During the first months of the occupation the officers said: “They are not going to hit us again with that stuff about German atrocities.” The bombardments of Coventry and London, the first air raids on civilian populations, spoiled this bit of wisdom. And so too, a little later, the submarine war. Then the occupation, hostages, and reprisals. And then with the help of radio broadcasts public opinion managed to reach the first degree of intoxication. The Germans were monsters because they were unfair adversaries and because they believed only in the law of the strongest. Opposite them: the correct nations which were always beaten because they conducted themselves in everything with honesty. But people did not really believe that the Germans were monsters; they saw in all this only the same themes of propaganda which had circulated at the time of the Kaiser and Big Bertha.[2]

The occupation of the territories in the East and, at the same time, the fight undertaken in all Europe against terrorism and sabotage provided other arguments. The Germans were monsters because they were everywhere followed by their killers; the myth of the Gestapo was put on its pedestal: in all Europe, the German armies installed the reign of terror, the nights were haunted by the sounds of boots, the prisons were full, and at each dawn shots rang out. The purpose of this war became clear: millions of men, from one end of the continent to the other, fought for the liberation of the new slaves; bombers were given the name “Liberator.” This was the time when America entered the war. People did not yet believe that the Germans were monsters, but they did already view the war as a crusade for freedom. That was the second stage of intoxication.

But these images did not yet correspond to the voltage of our current propaganda. The retreat of the German armies in the East finally made it possible to give the word. It was the moment that they were waiting for: for the German reflux left wrecks. There was talk of war crimes, and a declaration on October 30, 1943 permitted the public, to everyone’s general satisfaction, to learn of these crimes and to foresee their punishment. This time, the Germans were certainly monsters, they cut off the hands of little children, just as had always been said. It was no longer just force, it was cruelty. From this moment, the civilized world had rights (droits) against them: for in the end there are some delicate consciences who do not admit that one should punish treachery by air raids or that one should regard an authoritative regime as a crime against common law (droit), whereas everyone is ready to punish executioners of children and to place them outside the laws (droits) of war. They were caught in the act red-handed. This idea was diffused and exploited. People started to think that the Germans could very well be monsters, and so they reached the third stage of intoxication, which consists of forgetting what was being done each night in the air-raids by thinking angrily about what was happening each day in the prisons.

This was the military situation which they had desired since the start, in order to be able to manipulate people’s minds. And for this same reason this situation needed to be maintained. It became all the more necessary when, shortly after this date, in December 1943, the methods of bombardment changed: instead of having military targets, the Allied aviators received the order to adopt the tactic of carpet bombing which destroyed whole cities. These apocalyptic destructions required, obviously, a corresponding monstrosity. One felt so strongly the need for this that they set up, as of this date, a powerful organization for the detection of German crimes, whose mission it was to move in on the heels of the first waves of the occupation, just as the formations of police followed the advance of the armored troops into Russia. This analogy is suggestive: the Germans ethnically cleansed, the Americans accused, each went about their business with great urgency. The Allies’ investigations, as one knows, were crowned with success. They had the good fortune in January 1945 to discover the concentration camps of which no one had heard until then, and which became precisely the proof that one needed, an obvious offence in a pure form, the crime against humanity which justified all. They were photographed, they were filmed, they appeared in many publications, they were made known by a gigantic publicity campaign, like a brand of pen. The moral war was won. The German monstrosity was proven to be a fact by these invaluable documents. The people who had invented the camps did not have the right to complain about anything. And the silence was such, the curtain had been so abruptly, so skilfully pulled away, that not a voice dared to say that all this was too good to be perfectly true.

It was thus that German culpability was affirmed at different times by different reasons; and it should be noted that this culpability increased as the bombardments of civilians multiplied. This synchronism is in itself rather suspect, and it is all too clear that we should not approve without scrutiny the charges of governments which have so obvious a need for a currency of exchange.

It is perhaps useful to point out that in technical terms the trial was an admirable production. After having presented our most sincere compliments to the technicians, Jewish for the most part, who orchestrated this program, we would like to be able to see clearly and to find our way around in this pièce à tiroirs,[3] where the accusations arrive just in the nick of time like dramatic reversals in a melodrama. Thus it is to this task that we will stick. And, of course, this small book can only be a first stone. It will contain more questions than assertions, more analyses than documents. But is that not at least something: to put a little order in a matter which they have willfully presented in a confused manner? They have done their work so well that today no one dares any more to call things by their proper names. Everything altogether is called monstrous: the acts, the men, the ideas. People’s minds now are stupefied, they are benumbed, inert, they grope about in a wadding of lies. And sometimes, when they meet truths, they back away with horror, for these truths are proscribed. The first object of our concern will thus be a kind of restoration of the evidence. But this work of correction should not be limited to the mere facts of the case. The Nuremberg Court judged in the name of a certain number of principles, in the name of a certain political ethics. There is a reverse side to all these accusations. One is proposing a future to us, one does so by condemning the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already foresee that these new ethics refer to a strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recognize things: but a universe which is that of others, precisely that of which Bernanos[4] had a presentiment when he feared that one day the dreams, locked up in the sly brain of a small Negro shoeshiner in a New York ghetto, would come true. We are there. Our minds are doped. We have been struck by Circe. We have all become Jewish.

Notes

[1] The word “droit” occurs 154 times in this text; it usually means “law” or “right” (in the sense of “a legal or moral right to do something”). Le droit also sometimes, as here, seems to mean “the right” in the sense of “what is right,” i.e., what is both legally and morally right (a sense not exactly recognized in the dictionaries). It is not always easy to determine which of these three senses of droit is appropriate. For that reason I have sometimes indicated in the translation, as here, where droit occurs: the reader can then decide for himself which is the appropriate meaning. (Il diritto in Italian and das Recht in German carry the same meanings as le droit and have greatly factilitated the work of Bardèche’s Italian and German translators.) The word loi, which also means “law,” occurs 49 times in the text. For the sake of clarity, I have sometimes also indicated in the translation where it occurs.

[2] Big Bertha the biggest German artillery gun in World War I, with a caliber of 420 mm. (16.5 in.).

[3] pièce à tiroirs an “episodic play,” usually with a light theme.

[4] Bernanos Georges Bernanos, French right-wing Catholic writer, best known for his novel, Diary of a Country Priest (1936).
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/0 ... -tribunal/
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Jim Russel
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 5:25 pm
Location: New Mexico

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Jim Russel » 6 months 3 weeks ago (Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:37 pm)

Harry Truman's 1946 State of the Union Address was given January 14 and as far as I can tell, as several revisionists have stated, he didn't mention anything about "it" or the upcoming trials in Germany.
https://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/tap/11446.htm

atomMan
Member
Member
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:31 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby atomMan » 6 months 1 week ago (Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:30 am)

i'm in the process of reading Irving's book at the moment - 'Nuremberg - The Last Battle' - i knew for a long time that both the Nuremberg and Dachau "trials" were a joke, but i did not realize just how incredibly rigged the former was! the entire thing was a farce from conception to execution

the crippling limitations forced upon the defense, the barbaric treatment of the accused, the bias and hipocracy of the prosecution - incredible - and the Americans looked upon Soviet justice as harsh???

Although no partisan of Churchill, Bevin was flatly opposed to al-
lowing such documents to be produced. Like the Russians, he feared
that the Nuremberg trial might open up a can of worms. ‘If we once
begin,’ he argued, ‘it might be very difficult to know where we could
call a halt as one telegram refers to another and we might bring up
embarrassing references to the Finnish phase of our war plans.’ (In
1940 both Churchill and his predecessor Neville Chamberlain had
planned to join the Finnish war against the Soviet Union.) Sir Nor-
man Brooke advised the prime minister candidly, ‘It would be very
much better not to be drawn at all into the business of establishing
arguments by the production of documents – especially when we do
not know precisely what captured documents the other side may
have.’
help inform others by sharing the Jewish Holocaust Quiz

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Lamprecht » 4 months 3 weeks ago (Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:16 am)

Iona Nikitchenko, one of the three main drafters of the London Charter and the Soviet Union's judge at the Nuremberg trials, stated before the Tribunal convened:
"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime."

and
"If... the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays."


US prosecutor Robert Jackson stated on July 26th 1946:
"The Allies are still, technically-speaking, at war with Germany... As a military tribunal, this tribunal represents a continuation of the war efforts of the Allied nations."

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote:
"Chief US prosecutor 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."


Also see: https://archive.is/tEOFe
Making Justice at Nuremberg, 1945 - 1946
By Professor Richard Overy

[T]hat the war crimes trials... were expressions of a legally dubious 'victors' justice' was [a point raised by]... senior [Allied] legal experts who doubted the legality of the whole process... There was no precedent. No other civilian government had ever been put on trial by the authorities of other states ... What the Allied powers had in mind was a tribunal that would make the waging of aggressive war, the violation of sovereignty and the perpetration of what came to be known in 1945 as 'crimes against humanity' internationally recognized offences. Unfortunately, these had not previously been defined as crimes in international law, which left the Allies in the legally dubious position of having to execute retrospective justice – to punish actions that were not regarded as crimes at the time they were committed.



Recent thread:

“The Legally-Flawed Nuremberg ‘War Crimes Trials’ Did Not ‘Prove’ the Holocaust”: Peter Winter
viewtopic.php?t=12378
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Hase
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 1:47 am

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Hase » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Thu May 30, 2019 2:03 am)

Some or all of the arguments in my image, below, have already been made here; but still wanted to share.
Attachments
Nuremberg.jpg

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Hannover » 3 months 3 weeks ago (Fri May 31, 2019 12:47 am)

Hase wrote:Some or all of the arguments in my image, below, have already been made here; but still wanted to share.

Thanks & welcome.

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions in allegedly known locations to see, no 'holocaust'.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
BroncoBuff
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 7:49 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby BroncoBuff » 3 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:07 pm)

Brand new to this Board - briefly my perspective: I think the Holocaust happened mostly the way popular history has recorded it, though I do understand the truism "the victors write the history books," and how that dynamic very likely resulted in exaggeration and overstatement. I believe the Jews have not been shy about playing the issue for all it's worth, and Israel (and especially Netanyahu) have played that victim card as justification for extraneous criminal treatment and bullying of neighbors.

______________

That said, my input: I've been a criminal defense attorney for most of the past 25 years, and I have a thorough if not comprehensive appreciation for the motivations and impulses of defendants on trial for crimes.

In my cursory research of the Nuremberg Trials, at least of the most serious tier of 24 defendants, I found those defendants had either 1) pleaded for mercy, 2) claimed un-involvement, or most often, 3) claimed they were merely "following orders," and that their superiors, from Heydrich on down, would have executed them had they refused.


This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened. I recall two or three mentions that certain of the Jews (those the particular defendant was in charge of), were treated "well" (comparatively) because they were useful for manufacturing.

In my fairly extensive experience, I promise you people will say damn near anything to avoid even 30 days in jail, much less death.

Moreover, none of those who were convicted, served sentences and were later released, have gone on record that the Holocaust was a hoax. Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


I cannot believe this line of reasoning has never been broached, please tell me how it's countered. I am not opposed to the idea it was a hoax, or did not occur as widely believed.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Hannover » 3 months 1 week ago (Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:27 pm)

You obviously know little about the subject you believe in.
You're novice points have been handled repeatedly.
But nonetheless, let's go.

- There are countless examples of Nazis" rejecting the ridiculous tales.
see:
quora.com / Tim O'Neill: Nazis never denied 'holocaust' / WRONG:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165

- You have also ignored the contents of this thread where it's proven that torture was used routinely. As admitted by those doing the torturing.
What legit court would ever allow "evidence" that was the result of torture?
Nuremberg did.

- Nuremberg also accepted that Germans used steam chambers at Treblinka.

- Nuremberg also accepted that Germans used A-Bombs to kill thousands of Jews.

- Documents from the U.S. National Archives reveal that the U.S. government helped cover up the Soviet 1940 massacre on some 20,000 Poles at Katyn and other places — not just during the war, but even afterwards. The Katyn Massacre by the Soviets was accepted by the Allies at Nuremberg as a German crime.

- At Nuremberg no forensic studies of the later alleged Zyklon-B / cyanide gas chambers, and the laughably alleged diesel gas chambers were ever submitted. Only a stages Show Trial could get away with such malfeasance.

- The fact is that the alleged gas chambers are scientifically impossible. I challenge you to show us how they worked.

- And why would a convicted German ever come out and say the truth knowing he would go back to jail? You can't be serious.
BTW, free speech on the "holocaust" is illegal in Europe.

Albert Speer?
Speer was one of Hitler's favorites and was responsible for allocation and oversight of all materials during the war. No one could have constructed the alleged 'extermination centers' without Speer's knowledge and approval.
Speer spent 20 years in Spandau prison for using "slave labor", which of course was common practice by the Allies, Speer never admitted the existence of homicidal 'gas chambers'. After his release he was bound by Orwellian German law which prevented him from saying anything that went against any part of the impossible yet mandated 'holocaust' storyline.


- I remind you, as obviously you have no idea, the narrative claims that '6,000,000 Jews & 5,000,000 others' were killed in the same ways.
I remind you that it's claimed that the remains of those 11,000,000 people , equal to the population of London, were buried in truly immense mass graves and that the locations of these alleged massive human remains are supposedly known today. So please show them to us.

Some other facts:
- The typical Nuremberg 'documents' were no more than English translations of Russian translations of Polish copies of an alleged German original which cannot be found.

- How the Film Evidence at Nuremberg was faked, from the files of Justice Robert H Jackson, US chief prosecutor at Nuremberg.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Nb ... 61145.html

- "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 this and much, much more is contained in this thread. Why have you ignored this information?
Regards, Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 1 week ago (Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:06 am)

BroncoBuff wrote:This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened. I recall two or three mentions that certain of the Jews (those the particular defendant was in charge of), were treated "well" (comparatively) because they were useful for manufacturing.
...
Moreover, none of those who were convicted, served sentences and were later released, have gone on record that the Holocaust was a hoax. Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


That is incorrect. Please review the following thread:

"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
viewtopic.php?t=12287

Individuals were charged with certain crimes. If someone was at, say, Auschwitz, and said "I was an Auschwitz and nobody was gassed, I didn't see anything like that, it's impossible" they don't need to say (nor, really, were they given an opportunity to say) that the other so-called "Extermination camps" did not have gassings either. Your argument is silly. These people were on trial for crimes they allegedly committed.

From the above link:

- Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 97% of the SS men who mentioned "The Jewish Problem" denied that it was to be solved by extermination. On 21 August 1946 (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368): "On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called "final solution," and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders."

- On July 1945, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that: "A report from the place where major German war criminals are now confined discloses that all of them have denied that the Nazis had any plans to exterminate the Jews of Europe." https://archive.is/NJgOn

- SS Obergruppenführer Ernst Kaltenbrunner called orders for homicidal gassings "impossible"

- Chief of the Reich Chancellery Hans Lammers: "The [Final] solution was to lie in the evacuation of full-blooded Jews, and secondly, a regulation of some sort concerning the privileged Jews and the half-Jews."

- Julius Streicher: "To this day I do not believe that 5 million were killed. I consider it technically impossible that that could have happened. I do not believe it. I have not received proof of that up until now."

- Alfred Rosenberg: "The thought of a physical annihilation of Slavs and Jews, that is to say, the actual murder of entire peoples, has never entered my mind and I most certainly did not advocate it in any way. I was of the opinion that the existing Jewish question would have to be solved by the creation of a minority right, by emigration, or by settling the Jews in a national territory over a ten-year period of time" also: "I think that such orders for inhuman conduct in concentration camps could not ever have been given, [...] My personal opinion is that such inhuman things ought not and could not have been ordered."

- The infamous Dr Mengele: "I don’t have anything to hide. Terrible things happened at Auschwitz, and I did my best to help. One could not do everything. There were terrible disasters there. I could only save so many. I never killed anyone or hurt anyone. I can prove I am innocent of what they could say against me. I am building the facts for my defense. I want to turn myself in and be cleared at a trial."

- S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau: "This [extermination of Jews] cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it."

- SS Captain Alois Brunner said he first learned about gas chambers after the war and that the Nazis were "victims of a great Allied propaganda lie"

- Kurt Bolender left behind a suicide note stating his innocence, he was posted at Sobibor, an allegedy extermination camp, and initially denied the gassings

- Alexander Laak declared the Soviet allegations against him "99% lies and Communist propaganda"

- Hans Aumeier, deputy commandant of Auschwitz, said in a statement on 29 June 1945: "In the main camp was one crematorium with two ovens... During my time tie two or three crematoria were built at Berkenau. I know nothing about gas chambers, and no prisoner was gassed in my time."

- Generaloberst Paul Hausser at Nuremberg also repeatedly denied atrocities attributed to the Waffen-SS, and stated: "the extermination of Jewry or of the Eastern peoples was never taught and was never demanded."

- Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production: "That millions of Jews could have been transported across Europe and killed at a wartime industrial center as important as Auschwitz, and elsewhere, without Speer's knowledge simply defies belief."

- Auschwitz Commandant Richard Baer in a Paris newspaper (Rivarol) had recorded his insistence that "during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed"

- SS commander Erich Priebke: "claims the gassing of millions Jews is false and that existence of gas chambers was cooked up at the Nuremberg trials of Hitler's top Nazi henchmen."

- Karl Wolff, Himmlers adjutant, denied knowledge of an extermination of Jews. An article in German says he admitted to first having learned "about the systematic extermination of millions of Jews in Poland in mid-March 1945 in Switzerland"

- SS-Obersturmführer Robert Mulka, who was adjutant to Rudolf Hoess, denied he even knew about the gassings

- Karl Höcker, Mulka's successor as adjutant of the camp commandant, believed "that inmates in Auschwitz were basically not killed."

- Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein, in his trial verdict: "the defendant denied strongly to have participated in any gas van operations. He stated that he has never seen a gas van in his life and that he had not even heard of the existence of such vehicles at that time"

- Hans Laternser, defense lawyer of the Generals on trial, denied the gas vans at the IMT

- Erich Ehrlinger, head of Einsatzkommando 1b in summer 1941, “persistently” denied having ordered or participated in wanton mass murder

- Josef Bühler the deputy governor of the General Government and attendee of the Wannsee Conference, claimed to be one of the main perpetrators of one half of the entire "Holocaust" denied the exterminations and only spoke of a resettlement plan

- Fritz Gaar claimed: "Although I was working for longer then 4 years in Auschwitz I did not notice anything about prisoners being gassed there"

Many more examples in the link above. The whole "I was there but knew nothing about extermination of Jews" is further in agreement with the documentary evidence:

- Every document on the "Final Solution" referred to deportation/resettlement, not extermination. See: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12296
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Lamprecht » 3 months 1 week ago (Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:13 pm)

BroncoBuff:
In my fairly extensive experience, I promise you people will say damn near anything to avoid even 30 days in jail, much less death.
As shown above, and in the following link, once again:


"Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny" and the scope of the "conspiracy"
viewtopic.php?t=12287

The most common defense was "Well, I didn't know anything about an extermination of Jews, or homicidal gas chambers"

Isn't that the best defense in such a case? You're ignoring that the Neremberg Tribunal took judicial notice of the alleged extermination, and was not "bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value."

From the link above:
As we can see, "Why Didn't Any Nazi Deny the Holocaust?" is a textbook example of the "loaded question" fallacy - a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption. Some Nazis did, in fact, deny the Holocaust. A large number of Nazis who [publicly] accepted it as true claimed that they had only become aware of it after the war had already ended. Furthermore, the claim that hundreds of thousands of people would have had to be kept from spilling the beans is simply absurd, and is contradicted by the "Holocaust" story as defined in the Nuremberg Trials by the prosecution. Lastly, the trials took "judicial notice" of the "Holocaust -- meaning it was accepted as undeniable fact, one that could not be contested or deliberated by the defense.



BroncoBuff claimed:
Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


On Speer:
Until his death in 1981, Speer steadfastly insisted that he did not know of any extermination program or gassings during the war. His position was remarkable because, if a wartime policy to exterminate the Jews had actually existed, almost no one would have been in a better position to have known about it. As Reich Armaments Minister, Speer was responsible for the continental mobilization of all available resources, including critically needed Jewish workers. That millions of Jews could have been transported across Europe and killed at a wartime industrial center as important as Auschwitz, and elsewhere, without Speer's knowledge simply defies belief.[103]
...
103. Matthias Schmidt, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (New York: 1985), pp. 194-195. See also: M. Weber, "Albert Speer and the Holocaust," Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1984, p. 439.; M. Weber, "Legal Declaration," Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1982, pp. 42-43.; A. Butz, Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 179-180.; Henry A. Turner, Jr., "The Nazi Who Made a Comeback," The New York Times Book Review, March 3, 1985, pp. 9-10.
From: The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
https://codoh.com/library/document/2369/

Further, in his Spandau diaries (18 March 1948), Albert Speer wrote: " Doenitz; abruptly and aggressively says to me that the Nuremberg verdict made a mockery of all justice... I cannot deny that Doenitz; is partially right in his rejection of the Nuremberg verdicts."

From:
Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz: Last President of a United Germany
https://codoh.com/library/document/2056/


Albert Speer's book:
Spandau: The Secret Diaries
https://archive.is/quFKX

So, it does not seem that Doenitz accepted the Nuremberg trial verdicts. And Speer believes he is partially right. Curious you would use those two as examples


More on Speer:
Human Furniture and Broken Treaties
viewtopic.php?t=12429
Lamprecht wrote:I think he said what he had to say to survive. He was spared the death penalty. Interestingly, he denied any knowledge of a Jew extermination program, even though if true, he would have been in a position to know about it. He also pioneered a defense strategy that was adopted by many other Nazis after the NMT in various post-war trials:

"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Hase
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 1:47 am

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby Hase » 3 months 1 week ago (Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:13 pm)

BroncoBuff mentions "my cursory research" and I imagine he has not researched with any resolve; nor did he check whom were the authors of the material he was consuming. BroncoBuff, let me tell you from experience; you should not take a 'low hanging fruit' approach when it comes to research.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:23 pm)

BroncoBuff wrote:Brand new to this Board - briefly my perspective: I think the Holocaust happened mostly the way popular history has recorded it, though I do understand the truism "the victors write the history books," and how that dynamic very likely resulted in exaggeration and overstatement. I believe the Jews have not been shy about playing the issue for all it's worth, and Israel (and especially Netanyahu) have played that victim card as justification for extraneous criminal treatment and bullying of neighbors.

______________

That said, my input: I've been a criminal defense attorney for most of the past 25 years, and I have a thorough if not comprehensive appreciation for the motivations and impulses of defendants on trial for crimes.

In my cursory research of the Nuremberg Trials, at least of the most serious tier of 24 defendants, I found those defendants had either 1) pleaded for mercy, 2) claimed un-involvement, or most often, 3) claimed they were merely "following orders," and that their superiors, from Heydrich on down, would have executed them had they refused.


This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened. I recall two or three mentions that certain of the Jews (those the particular defendant was in charge of), were treated "well" (comparatively) because they were useful for manufacturing.

In my fairly extensive experience, I promise you people will say damn near anything to avoid even 30 days in jail, much less death.

Moreover, none of those who were convicted, served sentences and were later released, have gone on record that the Holocaust was a hoax. Albert Speer and Karl Donitz have written books on the Reich and the War, but neither made a claim of hoax, even decades later when such claims would no longer have put their lives in peril.


I cannot believe this line of reasoning has never been broached, please tell me how it's countered. I am not opposed to the idea it was a hoax, or did not occur as widely believed.


You're so wrong it's not even funny.

Prisoners would also say damn near anything when tortured. Rudolf Hoess is the prime example of this (see my post on the torture https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9066&p=92512#p92512).

If any National Socialists were to outright deny instead of play dumb then it might've lead to brutalities against them. Seeing their fellow comrades admit to things that were untrue and brought forth by brutal means when not in a position to know themselves would not lead them to definitive answers one way or the other. If you're suggesting those who were in a position to know, knew but denied their knowledge then it is simply on you to prove that this is the case. More than that, it is you who must prove what the Holocaust is, how it was done and by what means. Simply declaring it's reality through a lack of statements by the defendants isn't going to make your horror stories of Holocoasters, Electric conveyor belts, Lampshades, burning baby pits, Jewish soap, poisoned dog teeth, electric wank machines of imminent death real. Nor will Simon Rozenkier's stories of hunchback tortue and sterilising X-Rays become legitimate. Moshe Peer who claimed to have been gassed six times and survived will not be real, William Lowenbergs magic third quenching pebble, Yankel Wiernik's tales of women leaping 10 feat into the air, giant outdoor hibachis, or Morris Hubert's claim of surviving bear cage torture every day at Buchenwald. It's all rubbish and nobody with any sense would take the Holocaust as it is based on eyewitness testimony seriously https://web.archive.org/web/20190101011316/http://balder.org/judea/The-Most-Fantastic-Holocaust-Survivor-Stories-Jewish-Soap-Lampshades-Fertilizer-Mengele-Miracles.php

041f576d589adb599bd207ad024dbebe.jpg


Ribbentrop's memoirs are also quite interesting. He was a man doomed to execution, no chance of escape and yet he denied the slightest possibility that Hitler, the man himself, knew anything about any kind of killing. Granted Ribbentrop seems to have bought the idea that killing was done, but to what degree and how is left unanswered.

For the sections I'm quoting see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/ and for the full memoirs see https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.183521

From the moment I joined the N.S.D.A.P. I tried to bring about a revision of its anti-Semitic principles, or, at least, to have the Jewish problem solved by way of evolution through a 'numerus clausus'. I also though there was a possibility that my hope for more tolerance would come true.

Germany undoubtedly had a Jewish problem even before 1933. Jews had gained considerable influence in many sectors of the life of the nation. They were almost predominant in German cultural life, the Press, the cinema, the stage and especially business and finance. A well-known Frankfurt Jew and family friend of ours of long standing frequently spoke to me about this at the time full of anxiety. He was worried lest the conduct of certain German and immigrant Jews should lead to serious conflict sooner or later.

After the promulgation of the Nuremberg Laws in September, 1935, I had a long detailed talk with the Führer about the Jewish question. It was soon after the conclusion of the Naval Agreement with Britain; the Führer had great confidence in me, and I therefore pointed out the repercussions these Laws would have abroad. His reply seemed to me to indicate that the new legislation was intended to be the concluding measure, and that the Jews, while very much restricted in their scope, would retain an altogether fair chance of Hitler and of Party headquarters up to 1936, when I left for London, appeared to be not unfavourable to the emergence of quite toleration.

When in 1938 I returned to Berlin as Foreign Minister I found an entirely new situation. The reaction of world Jewry, especially in the U.S.A., to the Nuremberg Laws had been strong, and the result had been the sharpest attacks on National Socialist Germany, especially in the foreign Press. This in turn had made the Führer much harder. The vicious circle had begun.

Following the murder by the Jew Grunspan of Legation Counsellor vom Rath in our Paris Embassy, the well-known excesses against Jews occurred in November, 1938. As soon as I heard of them I went to the Obersalzberg and told Hitler of the serious effect such illegal anti-Semitic measures were bound to have on our own German people, and the inevitable political consequences. Hitler replied in deadly earnest that it was not always possible to determine the course of events as one liked, and that everything would return to its normal course. I had the impression that Hitler himself was surprised by the extent of the reaction.
During the winter of 1938 to 1939 I repeatedly made vain representations to the Führer in favour of a complete return to the situation as it existed before the excesses. I submitted to him a plan which provided for the voluntary emigration of Jews with permission to take with them part of their property. In fact many Jews did emigrate at that time, although other countries, including the U.S.A., made the immigration of German Jews very difficult.

After the outbreak of hostilities the propaganda war between National Socialist Germany and international Jewry became increasingly bitter; this made Hitler even more inflexible and it became more and more difficult to talk to him about the Jewish question. In spite of this I indicated to him the great disadvantages from the point of view of foreign policy of the anti-Jewish policy on several occasions. American propaganda, and even that of some neutral governments, made great play with the Jewish question and made things very difficult for us. Most of this propaganda originated in the Anglo-American world. I always told Hitler that the enmity of world Jewry appeared unnecessary, and that it was tantamount to having an additional great power as an enemy.

However, Hitler's conviction that world Jewry had systematically prepared the war against Germany and was in the end responsible for its outbreak became more and more deeply rooted. In his view, the desired comprehensive settlement with Britain had been foiled by the Jews alone, in that country and in America. Moreover, before and after the outbreak of the Russian war, Hitler believed that international Jewry was also responsible for the communist threat in the East, and that it had compelled Stalin to decide first to defeat Germany by an attack from East and West and then to bolshevize her.

I repeatedly advanced my contrary opinion: I was convinced that the war had been caused by Britain's hostility to German aspirations. While Jewish influence may have contributed, it had not been the primary cause. On the contrary this lay in the anxiety of British imperialists to preserve the balance of power in Europe. When discussing these questions with Hitler I recalled that in the era of Napoleon, when the Jews exerted no appreciable influence in England (the Rothschilds only rose to eminence after Waterloo), the English nevertheless fought an embittered war against the French Emperor; and later, Britain had proclaimed the Emperor Wilhelm II as her enemy, although he was a friend of the German Jews.

Hitler was immovable and always replied that I did not understand this issue. He remained convinced that the war had been brought about by the Jews of England and France, and especially of the U.S.A. American Jews, who exercised almost complete domination over the American Press, had systematically prepared for war and driven Roosevelt into his anti-German attitude. My proposal for a change in our Jewish policy were rejected.

After the victory over Poland and France Hitler gave Himmler jurisdiction over the Jews in occupied Europe. I was only informed late and incompletely about his actions for the resettlement in the East, first of German Jews, and then of the Jews in the occupied territories. As late as 1944, the Terezein (Theresienstadt) camp, for instance, was still open to inspection by representatives of the International Red Cross. Since the Foreign Office acted as the intermediary, I received a report which described conditions as satisfactory. I heard no details, and certainly not about other camps, because the Führer had given authority over these exclusively to the Reichsführer S.S. (Himmler.) The Foreign Office was told that these matters of domestic administration, and it was thereby expressly excluded from concerning itself with Jewish questions.

When in 1943 I submitted to the Führer a memorandum with proposals for a change in our ecclesiastical and Jewish policies, Hitler replied that he thoroughly disagreed with me on all matters. Nor did a subsequent talk, which was conducted in a comparatively calm atmosphere, yield any positive result. Hitler said: 'You understand foreign policy; the Jewish question you do not understand. This question is best understood by Goebbels. The Foreign Office can do nothing; it is not its business.' I nevertheless advanced every possible argument to prove how our situation, which had become so much more difficult through the worsening of the war, could be eased by an ideological peace. Hitler replied: 'That is naïve. This is an ideological war between the Jewish-bolshevist world and the world of nations, and it cannot be won in the field of diplomacy; arms must decide.'

The Foreign Office could only try to oppose the adoption of extreme anti-Jewish measures, and it was often able to exert a calming influence. Hitler, personally, gave few instructions to the Foreign Office on the Jewish question, and those which he did send were generally concerned with representations to friendly governments, asking that more attention should be paid to the Jewish question, and that Jews should be removed form important posts. But this, too, always led to unpleasantness without allies. Thus the Führer once sent me a message to the effect that a big Jewish espionage and sabotage organization had been discovered in Italian-occupied France, and instructed me to make serious representations to Mussolini. In our diplomatic work in neutral states it became increasingly apparent that the Jews were working against us there.

In 1944, Hitler spoke even more of his conflict with Jewry and he became fanatically obstinate. But never, down to 22nd April, 1945 when I last saw him in the Reich Chancellery, did he ever mention the killing of Jews. That is why even to-day I cannot believe that the Führer ordered these killings; I believe that Himmler presented him with accomplished facts.


Goering also backs up what Ribbentrop had written in his memoirs.

With icy composure Goering cast doubts upon ail the documents and all the testimony connected with the subject. He would not venture, he said. to describe them as wholly false, but he did take into account the possibility that they might well be inconclusive or incomplete; in any case they were far too much at variance with everything he knew to be accepted. And cven if the events described by the Prosecution had taken place, he did not believe Hitler had given the order; it was more likely to have been Himmler. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.145


Goering is notorious for believing that the alleged extermination of the Jews was an allied myth. He even said that in Nuremberg it was the first time he was ever hearing of it (again see https://web.archive.org/web/20181101142651/https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t837409/

In Chapter 7 of Fritzche's book, he talks about documents and the claims against the 21 defendants. It's quite clear that rather than believing it to be true they had no clue as to what was going on. They wanted to look through documents, but weren't granted a great deal. They weren't allowed to have meetings among themselves to discuss or cover documents for a defense,

Each of us engaged in a feverish survey of documentary evidence which was itself often anything but easy to obtain. Sauckel wanted the text of the instructions he had issued concerning the treatment of foreign workers; a year ago these instructions were to be found all over Germany, now they seemed to have vanished from the face of the earth. Streicher enquired for documents relating to a certain hostile threat to destroy, not the German Government, but the German people; they had been published in America by a Dr. Kaufmann-but how to lay hands on them in the present nruddle ? In pracl.ice there were only three sources of information at our disposal: the documents belonging to the Prosecution, which were naturally biassed; a complete set of the south German edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, which contained comprehensive references to much important evidence; and the library of Erlangen University, which would certainly not have been of great use for our purpose - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.136-137


they simply thought it was utterly useless to try and defend their own innocence because to them the mind of the public and prosecutors had been made up.

For the Prosecution at this time it seemed sufficient that the atrocities had been committed. Who was specifically responsible for the orders or for the actual deeds either came second in their estimation or simply did not interest them. No matter how slight the connection between such an occurrence and any of the prisoners the shadow of disgrace invariably fell on all twenty-one of us; and under its cover various false assertions--such as for instance that there had been a generally prevailing and virulent anti-semitism in Germany found an all too ready acceptance. No one ventured to dispute such charges; we were too conscious of the horror of that monstrous campaign of extermination. To all outward seeming the matter was closed.

Among ourselves, however, the questions persisted:
Who was involved? How was it carried out? Were such atrocious actions the outcome of strong anti-semitic feeling? What had we overlooked? Where did we arrive at wrong conclusions? What were our sins of omission? Some, for example Frick, based their defence on the plea that they knew nothing about the whole business. They were not indifferent to the immeasurable human suffering revealed at each state of the evidence; but, first and foremost they wanted to keep out of it--it was not their affair.. Others, like Seyss-Inquart, had more imagination and endured the ghastly statements of the witnesses with new and agonising life. They bowed their heads in shame and declared that it was useless to protest their own ignorance and innocence; that could be left to future historians . The present generation would never believe that any leader of the Third Reich could be unaware of the Birkenau gas chambers and the activities of the "special squads".

Others again persisted for a considerable time in doubting the authenticity of the evidence, even when this was no longer rationally possible. And a few, such as Dr. Frank, accused themselves of having through sheer indifference been content to know only half the truth, without attempting to draw the obvious conclusions from the information at their disposal.[/u][/b] Kaltenbrunner became unusually talkative at this time and assured us that he could confirm the statements about the mass murders because he himself had put a stop to them. When I asked him why, knowing these things, he had described the general accusation as absurd his answer was that the actual perpetrators were now dead. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.137-139


Reading this far you really feel how utterly confused these men were. And it's abundantly clear that they knew nothing, and to them anyone who did was already dead. They themselves seem to have the demeanor of discovering these facts for the first time with varying degrees of skepticism and not simply outright denying it because in actuality none of these men are in positions to know anything. They're bewildered by it all.

For the first time an atmosphere of profound mutual mistrust grew up among the prisoners, and though it did not have much chance to develop in the artificial little community, each of us wondered in his own mind whether, after all, his neighbour knew more than he cared to admit. Some of us, nevertheless, got together and collected every scrap of available material and then, item by item,
checked the hideous account. Five million persons were stated to have been murdered. Was such a thing technically possible ? The capacity of the corpse-factories described by Hciss did not seem sufficient. Where were these five million-mostly Jews Supposed to have come from? Not from Germany, where in 1939 they numbered scarcely half a million. But when we got hold of information about the Jewish population of the occupied eastern territories, we saw that the numbers might tally if none had emigrated and none survived. But how had it been possible to conceal this monstrous crime from the public ? At this point every attempt at explanation failed' The majority of the twenty-one prisoners were faced with the task of explaining to the court-or rather, to the world how it was feasible that in a modern state hundreds of thousands of people could be killed without its corning to the ears of the man in the street, or to the knowledge of all members of the government and others in high places. Those who had the best right to say that such a thing was possible, and had induced happened, were the least able to prove it.--Thus for the first time we saw the road leading from the Germany that we knew to the Germany which had been hidden from many of us. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.139,142


Whatever the nature of the 'massacres' as Fritsche describes them, he makes plain on pages 140-143 that the defendants including himself took the statements of the SS Judges Reinicke and Morgen seriously. On these pages he describes the statements made, and trots out the now defunct idea that Gas came out of shower heads. And in-fact it was the National Socialists themselves who looked into and stopped the supposed massacres.

It is open to doubt whether the Prosecution took much account of Morgen's statements; but for most of us they were conclusive. It was only after he appeared on the scene that I personally felt that in protesting my ignorance of these massacres, I was not offending against all the laws of human reason - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.142-143


This shows us that rather than having foreknowledge, the defendants were themselves convinced of the lie.

It was certainly proved beyond dispute that the butchery came to an end in the autumn of 1944 and that-however unlikely it may appear-the Jews were from that moment under the special protection of the Chancellor's S.S. - Hans Fritzsche, The Sword in the Scales, London, 1953, pp.143


Interesting that Hitler's SS would put protection over the Jews isn't it? You see, Hitler also got word of these supposed brutalities. Hans Frank himself took his concerns to Hitler.

The rumor, however, that the Jews were being killed in the manner which is now known to the entire world would not be silenced. When I expressed the wish to visit the SS workshop near Lublin, in order to get some idea of the value of the work that was being done, I was told that special permission from Heinrich Himmler was required.

I asked Heinrich Himmler for this special permission. He said that he would urge me not to go to the camp. Again some time passed. On 7 February 1944 I succeeded in being received by Adolf Hitler personally-I might add that throughout the war he received me three times only. In the presence of Bormann I put the question to him: "My Fuehrer, rumors about the extermination of the Jews will not be silenced. They are heard everywhere. No one is allowed in anywhere. Once I paid a surprise visit to Auschwitz in order to see the camp, but I was told that there was an epidemic in the camp and my car was diverted before I got there. Tell me, My Fuehrer, is there anything in it? "The Fuehrer said, "You can very well imagine that there are executions going on-of insurgents. Apart from that I do not know anything. Why don't you speak to Heinrich Himmler about it?" And I said. "Well, Himmler made a speech to us in Krakow and declared in front of all the people whom I had officially called to the meeting that these rumors about the systematic extermination of the Jews were false; the Jews were merely being brought to the East." Thereupon the Fuehrer said, "Then you must believe that." https://web.archive.org/web/20170428180020/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-18-46.asp


There is no more eloquent testimony to the tragedy and tyranny of Nuremberg than the pathetic astonishment or outraged disbelief of the accused persons themselves at the grotesque charges made against them. Such is reflected in the affidavit of S.S. Major-General Heinz Fanslau, who visited most of the German concentration camps during the last years of the war. Although a front line soldier of the Waffen S.S., Fanslau had taken a great interest in concentration camp conditions, and he was selected as a prime target by the Allies for the charge of conspiracy to annihilate the Jews. It was argued, on the basis of his many contacts, that he must have been fully involved. When it was first rumoured that he would be tried and convicted, hundreds of affidavits were produced on his behalf by camp inmates he had visited. When he read the full scope of the indictment against the concentration camp personnel in supplementary Nuremberg Trial No. 4 on May 6th, 1947, Fanslau declared in disbelief: "This cannot be possible, because I, too, would have had to know something about it."


Source: https://www.ihr.org/books/harwood/dsmrd04.html

Have you noticed the theme? Hitler has no idea, even when broached about it at the time of it's supposed occurrence. After the war the men closest to Hitler all say that without a doubt it's more likely to be Himmler and not Hitler. These men at nuremberg know nothing and have been finding out what charges lay against them as they happen. There's no proof here that i've seen which makes the holocaust legitimate. Nothing at all.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

flimflam
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby flimflam » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:50 pm)

BroncoBuff wrote:This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened.


Only one defendant at Nuremberg was charged with having a direct or operational role in the holohoax, that was Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who was 2nd in command under Himmler in the SS, and the SS was responsible for running the camps. So, none of the other defendants were charged with carrying out the holohoax and it is reasonable to assume that they had no direct knowledge of whether or not the holohoax occurred as it was outside of their purview.

Only one defendant at Nuremberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, 2nd in command of the SS, was charged with having an operational role in the killing of Jews. He testified as follows:

R. 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...

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked …

and

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.


You can see part of Kaltenbrunner’s testimony here, where he is accused of ordereing the exection of the prisoners at Mauthausen at the end of the war, of course there was no order and the prisoners were not executed.



The head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, was also captured at the end of the war. He was interviewed, Norbert Masur My Meeting With Heinrich Himmler, and said

In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck.


For a critique of the Nuremberg trial see https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Nuremberg-trials-mere-victors-justice/answer/Allan-Davis-36

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

Postby HMSendeavour » 2 months 3 weeks ago (Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:40 am)

flimflam wrote:
BroncoBuff wrote:This is a real problem for Holocaust deniers or Third Reich revisionists: When faced with criminal charges that could well result in a sentence of death and summary execution, none of them claimed "it was all a hoax." No defendants went on record claiming it was all a fiction concocted by the allies, and none of it happened.


Only one defendant at Nuremberg was charged with having a direct or operational role in the holohoax, that was Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who was 2nd in command under Himmler in the SS, and the SS was responsible for running the camps. So, none of the other defendants were charged with carrying out the holohoax and it is reasonable to assume that they had no direct knowledge of whether or not the holohoax occurred as it was outside of their purview.

Only one defendant at Nuremberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, 2nd in command of the SS, was charged with having an operational role in the killing of Jews. He testified as follows:

R. 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...

THE PRESIDENT: This is not an answer to your question. You asked …

and

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.


You can see part of Kaltenbrunner’s testimony here, where he is accused of ordereing the exection of the prisoners at Mauthausen at the end of the war, of course there was no order and the prisoners were not executed.



The head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, was also captured at the end of the war. He was interviewed, Norbert Masur My Meeting With Heinrich Himmler, and said

In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck.


For a critique of the Nuremberg trial see https://www.quora.com/Were-the-Nuremberg-trials-mere-victors-justice/answer/Allan-Davis-36


What is the source of the Himmler quote and do you have the nuremberg page for the Kaltenbrunner transcript in which he says this?

Sounds like he's outright denying it to me.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests