ZGram - 4/7/2003 - "The Nuremberg Trials" - Part II

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

April 7, 2003

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Continued from "Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die" / Conclusion:

[START]

Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution of Nuremberg's most important 
trials, was a man with presidential ambitions who needed a high 
profile carved out of a self-serving stage: The Nuremberg Trials were 
to be the launching pad of his presidential race. The Nuremberg court 
was not selected from, or composed of, judges of the neutral Swiss, 
or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant African, Asian or Latin 
American countries. American civilian judges to a large extent made 
up the core of the Allied judges--not military career officers, who 
might have had some understanding and compassion for what the 
military leaders and the civilian government under extreme war time 
conditions lived through. They could have undoubtedly had a greater 
appreciation of why some of the wartime measures were undertaken by 
Germany in the desperate days of the war. The "liberal country 
club"-experienced set of small town American judges could not.

Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war 
against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had 
stopped--not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely diagnosing 
psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and 
brutal investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, 
whip, starve, suffocate and mutilate their prisoners into giving 
confessions and statements which were as cruelly extracted as were 
the confessions from witches during the disgusting witchcraft trials 
of the Dark Ages.

The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by 
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, but also Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a 
man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser 
alleged Nazi war criminals after the war.

Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview 
given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the 
interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi 
Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge 
on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from 
European living space because they considered them harmful to the war 
effort and to Western European civilization.

Here is how the article described the lot that came to post-war 
Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice 
Wennerstrum's eyes, after he quit in disgust:


"If I had known seven months ago what I know today," (Wennerstrum) 
told friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would never have 
come here. . . The initial war crimes trial here was judged and 
prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of 
the time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and 
placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany.

"What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals," the 
judge continued, "applies to the prosecution. The high ideals 
announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been 
evident.

"The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from 
vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has 
failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to 
avoid future wars.

The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. the 
Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters 
and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent 
years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and 
prejudices. . . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)


In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them 
Jews--as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in 
dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us 
who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity 
of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, 
even in radio broadcasts and newsreels.

Most of the evidence in the trials was "documentary," selected by the 
Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document 
selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to 
those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case 
and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to 
release or to hide and/or destroy any documents which did not fit 
their post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg. The Allies admitted 
elsewhere that their propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services 
had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, 
orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many times because they 
were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists gloat to this 
day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to think what 
these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of 
documents could do now with all the captured genuine German 
document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber 
stamps and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of 
any National Socialist organization you care to mention.

Even setting aside questionable "documentary" evidence, let's look at 
some of the accused's "testimony"--how it was extracted, and what it 
really means.

Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal 
stand certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber." "Six million." These 
words, and the value judgment concepts they connote, were derived 
largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, 
the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness to the 
"Holocaust." His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively 
both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, 
as well as by the press. It was his testimony which laid the 
foundation and validated the claim of the ". . . extermination of 
millions of people by gas at Auschwitz." Hoess's "confession" is 
heavily relied upon by historians like Raul Hilberg and others as a 
primary documentary source to this day.

It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous 
"atrocities," and he also confirmed the "truth" under oath of an 
affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he 
confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of 
victims. The affidavit, by the way, was in English, a language he did 
not speak or understand, according to family members.

We now know from the book "Legions of Death" that Rudolf Hoess was 
beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police 
Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter until he gave this 
very devastating "testimony" and "affidavit" used by the Allies 
propagandists ever since.

You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert Butler, 
published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:


At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six 
intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and 
menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated 
techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.

No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely 
necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's 
tone was deliberately low-key and conversational.

He began mildly: "I understand your husband came to see you as 
recently as last night."

Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since he absconded months ago"

Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: 
"You know that isn't true." Then all at once his manner had changed 
and he was shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn you over to 
the Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will 
go to Siberia."

It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed 
the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now 
called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and 
daughter produced precisely identical information.

When they found Hoess, here is how the capture played out. Clarke, 
one of the participants, recalls it vividly:

"He was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of 
silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill 
most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use 
it because we had rammed a torch (flashlight) into his mouth."

Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms.

Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"

With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the face 
of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and 
admitted who he was.

The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish sergeants 
in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following 
an order signed by Hoess.

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his 
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where 
it seemed to 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."

A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's car, 
where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his 
throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered 
in German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine." . . .

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow 
was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was 
made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It 
took three days to get a coherent statement out of him.


This statement, tortured and terrorized out of him, was the one we 
are all familiar with--the "proof" for the so-called "gassing of the 
Jews."

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is a totally 
unreliable witness--and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration 
camp "Wolzek" which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000 
people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million 
died of disease, for a total dead of three million. The Toronto Sun 
of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington Post, on the 
same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an article by 
Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:


Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the 
Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 
million.

The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, 
despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many 
Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp. . .

The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of 
Hitler's final solution."

Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the 
Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, 
saying: "It sounds shocking and strange." . . .

Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem memorial 
for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were 
correct.

"The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death 
camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated." 
. . .

But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number 
killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the 
Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.


A most convenient excuse!

In 1989 I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet 
Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 
1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months 
afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these 
all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in minute 
detail why people had died in Auschwitz, the cause and time of death, 
their birth, address etc.

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only 
approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of 
Poles and members of other nationalities.

The incredibly shrinking Holocaust! The "millions" that we have heard 
about for half a century and that we hear and read about still today 
all started with the "testimony" beaten out of poor Hoess on that 
horrible night in defeated Germany.

Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent 
Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning 
stated that


". . . Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The 
revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try 
and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust 
Revisionism Source Book, 1994, p. 1)


But does that invalidate the Revisionist claims or their strategy? 
Not at all. On the contrary. After all, Hoess's testimony was used as 
the skeleton on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings 
was constructed in the first place. Revisionists have concentrated on 
Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important source for 
Holocaust historians' conclusions on and exaggerations about the 
Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the "Bible" of the "Holocaust," 
The Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised 
Edition, 1985 ) relies on Hoess's testimony heavily, and Hoess was 
the primary witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their 
judgment regarding the "extermination of the Jews," even though he 
told the court of having been savagely tortured.

What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the total 
unreliability of his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't know how 
many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, 
since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was 
expunged from the record.

(Read this again! Material damaging to the Allies was expunged from 
the Nuremberg trial transcripts!)

An example is Streicher's testimony. Streicher was reported in the 
London Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat 
on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, 
The Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the 
record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution, 
the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer!

Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners, 
however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter 
Sauckel's reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the 
transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified 
that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in 
that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with 
deportation to Russia.

And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the only judicial 
proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was 
no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of 
the proceedings or any verdicts that this so-called international 
military tribunal arrived at. Their judgments over the leadership of 
Europe's most populous state, against whom they had just fought a 
murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly.

Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the 
emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these 
days.

And for what?

The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his 
astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the 
mother-of-all-frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the 
agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German Quisling 
State's first Allied-appointed chancellor,


". . . the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion. . . 
Without the German reparations that started coming through during its 
first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present 
infrastructure: All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are 
German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great 
deal of Israel's industry . . . and that is setting aside the 
individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds 
of millions of dollars in German currency each year . . . In some 
years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as 
much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from 
international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to 
the principle. (emphasis added)


Not anywhere you look!

After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the 
hyperbole and smoke screens which surrounds them, it can be put quite 
bluntly:

The Allies fought a war on foreign shores--in part to establish the 
State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political 
ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the 
Nuremberg trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing 
of Israel. So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel 
became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and 
executioners--all in one! The Allies supplied the "experts" who 
sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in Allied 
control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding exonerating 
evidence. These investigators were told only to "find" incriminating 
documents against the hapless accused, as I was told by the American 
scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these Allied 
researchers, and who testified at my own trials. These researchers 
were told to ignore the documents that might have spared the lives of 
the accused German leaders. When all was said and done, there was not 
even an appeal.

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief 
Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the 
Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746 :


"Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in 
Nuremberg," he remarked. "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."

[END]