Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
National Post; Jun 4, 2005; Page 23
How the Auschwitz Trial failed
RO B E RT F U L F O R D National Post
When Germans began bringing other Germans to trial for Nazi atrocities,
prosecutors found themselves struggling through a thicket of
ambiguities, some created by the laws they had to use and some by the
equivocal emotions of the German public. Exhibit A in this process
remains the trial of 24 Auschwitz guards, held in Frankfurt from 1963 to
1965. Aside from jailing some murderers, this proceeding was intended to
educate the German public on how the Holocaust happened and how Germany
might understand its recent past.
Fritz Bauer, attorney general of the State of Hesse, wanted to expose
the “Auschwitz complex,” including all those who routinely supported the
killing. As he said, “There were hundreds of thousands … who carried out
the Final Solution not only because they had orders, but because it was
their worldview as well, which they willingly admitted.”
The trial was a pivotal event in German history but until this week no
one has described it in detail. Rebecca Wittmann, a young historian at
the University of Toronto, fills the gap with a clear, thorough and
highly intelligent book, Beyond Justice: The Auschwitz Trial (Harvard
As she makes clear, the prosecution had to work within the German legal
code written in the 19th century, which meant that guards could be
charged with murder only as individuals, if they murdered on their own
initiative. Hard as it may be to imagine, these Nazis were convicted for
not following orders.
As Wittmann says, this context made killing millions of Jews in the gas
chambers a lesser crime than the murder of one person committed without
proper direction from superiors. A guard who supervised gassings but
never acted brutally toward a particular prisoner was convicted only of
aiding and abetting murder. An SS lieutenant, Karl Hocker, supervised
the killing of at least 3,000 people. The court emphasized that he was
following orders that were certainly immoral and should not have been
obeyed. But he had never before broken the law and after the war had
gone back to a productive middle-class life. He got seven years.
Because those who broke the Nazi rules were treated more harshly, the
effect was to give implied validity to Nazi rule. Former SS judges, who
had investigated Auschwitz when word of infractions got back to
headquarters, testified at Frankfurt. They helped condemn Wilhelm Boger,
who invented “the Boger swing,” a trestle structure supporting an iron
bar from which prisoners, hands and feet tied, hung upside down as they
were beaten to death. Being directly responsible for at least 114
murders, he was sentenced to life plus five years
In the newspapers the convicted murderers seemed not men but monsters,
maniacs somehow let loose in the concentration camps. Reading about them
created a sense of distance between the public and the crimes. As Martin
Walser wrote in a newspaper article, the more horrible the news from the
trial, “the more pronounced our distance from Auschwitz becomes. We have
nothing to do with these events, with these atrocities.” He argued that
this helped the citizens feel comfortable: “They got some satisfaction
out of condemning the crimes of the SS guards while distancing
themselves and considering the subject closed.”
If Wittmann’s story has a hero he’s Bauer (1903-1968), a lawyer who was
briefly interned by the Nazis, escaped from Germany to Scandinavia in
1936 and returned in 1949 to help rebuild the justice system. From his
perspective, the Auschwitz trial failed. It supported the “wishful
fantasy that there were only a few people with responsibility … and the
rest were merely terrorized, violated hangers-on, compelled to do things
completely contrary to their true nature.”
The trial’s outcome implied that Germany had not been obsessed by
Nazism; it was more like a country occupied by the enemy. “But this,” he
said, “had nothing to do with historical reality. There were virulent
nationalists, imperialists, anti-Semites and Jew-haters. Without them,
Hitler was unthinkable.”
The Fritz Bauer Institute, a Frankfurt centre for Holocaust studies, was
established in his memory in 1995. (Ironically, it occupies space in
what was once the IG Farben corporation, which was implicated in Nazi
crimes; now owned by the State of Hesse, the building is part of the
Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University.)
The Bauer Institute’s statement of purpose currently says: “Remembering
the Holocaust and confronting National Socialist crimes has been and is
today perhaps more than ever before a problem for German society.
Consciousness of the widespread involvement in crimes continues to be
“There were hundreds of thousands … who carried out the Final Solution not only because they had orders, but because it was their worldview as well, which they willingly admitted.”
What orders? Show us.
'Admitted' what Revisionist have shown to be scientifically impossible.
'Admitted' to what there is zero physical evidence for.
'Admitted' to what was taken as 'judicial notice', meaning the court had accepted the phoney gassings claims as 'fact' even though there was no credible evidence for gassings. Anyone with a survival instinct would quickly realize that they could not challenge this judical notice and hope that by playing along they could get leniency. Take note that Hocker only got 7 years for playing along, in spite of the article's attempted spin.
Notice the article never goes into specifics which Revisionists have thoroughly refuted.
Notice the article doesn't mention that verbatim transcripts are not available.
There are no complete records of cross examinations of absurd 'eyewitnesses'.
Notice the article does not mention the lack of examination and technical validation of the alleged murder weapon, the so called 'gas chambers'.
Meaning you must think in a manner which benefits judeo-supremacism/Zionism, or else.
The Fritz Bauer Institute, a Frankfurt centre for Holocaust studies ...
Another profit oriented (let's see a breakout of the budget and salaries) and Thought Policing 'centre'.
The Bauer Institute’s statement of purpose currently says: “Remembering the Holocaust and confronting National Socialist crimes has been and is today perhaps more than ever before a problem for German society. Consciousness of the widespread involvement in crimes continues to be suppressed …”
In other words, another mechanism for continuing the robbery of the German treasury, monitoring dissent, stifling free speech, and keeping the Germans in fear of judeo-supremacism.
I find Fulford to be one of the greatest shills (he's got lots of company there) for Israel in the Canadina media; and recepient of various awards from Jewish supremacist organizations.
The Frankfurt Auschwitz court was what is known a ‘kangaroo’ court.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 13 guests