Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust?

Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

In reply to a question on how to respond to Holocaust denial, I answered

At the Nuremberg trials the holocaust was one of the indictments. None of the defendants pretended that the holocaust had not happened, because this was not credible, and they didn't want to concede that the holocaust was wrong.

However, I wonder if I might have mistaken their reasons for not pursuing holocaust denial as a legal argument.

I read the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the foundational text for the Nuremberg trial. In Article 21, it says

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

So, does this mean that the defendants were not allowed to question that millions of people were killed in the holocaust? Was this one of the 'facts of common knowledge'?


Theoretically, yes they were. The first law against Holocaust denial in Germany was passed in 1960, some time after the Nuremberg trials had taken place. As tall an order as it may have been for people to pretend that they hadn't known about something that even many civilians watching the trials knew about, to pretend that it hadn't happened at all would have been absurd.

Even after 1960, it wasn't a piece of legislation that prevented perpetrators from telling this lie. In the famous trials of those who worked in the Operation Reinhard death camps, for example, the amount of evidence that concerned what the camps were for was insuperable. What remained was for them to claim that they were not there at that time, that they actively shirked their responsibilities or that they acted out of fear for their own lives.

These claims were also thrown out of court, but the nature of the West German judicial system was such that the "real perpetrators" were people like Hitler and Goebbels, and Himmler, etc. The most these people could expect to receive was a few years for aiding and abetting. (Josef Oberhauser, for example, was found guilty for the murder of over 100,000 people and received 4.5 years in prison).

The reason for this is that a substantial portion of the German judiciary (and constabulary as well, for that matter) were suspect, and needed to be immune from prosecution. Somebody, after all, had to run the country. It might be one thing to suppose that a defendant could have told such a whopping lie to a journalist, but to tell judges, prosecutors and witnesses something that flies in the face of their own lived experience would have been unheard of. No easier, in other words, than to say that there had never been a war in the first place.

For more information see Michael Bryant, Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966


Edit: Yes, they could have denied it if they'd wanted to - there was no law against it at the time - but none of them did in their defences to the charges. Using a defence that can readily be demolished by the prosecution when you're on trial for your life is not sensible.

Edit: There was plenty of German documentation available, plus testimony from participants. For example, Rudolf Höss testified:

I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943, and estimate that at least 2,500,000 victims were executed and exterminated there by gassing and burning, and at least another half million succumbed to starvation and disease, making a total of about 3,000,000 dead. This figure represents about 70% or 80% of all persons sent to Auschwitz as prisoners, the remainder having been selected and used for slave labor in the concentration camp industries. Included among the executed and burnt were approximately 20,000 Russian prisoners of war (previously screened out of Prisoner of War cages by the Gestapo) who were delivered at Auschwitz in Wehrmacht transports operated by regular Wehrmacht officers and men. The remainder of the total number of victims included about 100,000 German Jews, and great numbers of citizens (mostly Jewish) from Holland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Greece, or other countries. We executed about 400,000 Hungarian Jews alone at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944

Edit: Now, he may have been wrong about exact numbers, but this was the information available at the time. I believe some of the persons tried at Nuremberg tried to deny they had knowledge of the Holocaust, but the documentation undermined several of their cases.


Yes, they were able to deny the Holocaust.

First every party was asked before the trial if they consider themselves guilty or innocent and everyone declared himself innocent.

Julius Streicher, who were responsible for the Stürmer, a propaganda pamphlet, said first that he did not knew that Jews were killed and when the prosecutor was able to prove that he read passages where the killings were clearly stated, he said that he did not believe the passages. He also interrupted the trial several times with diatribes.

The reason why the other accused did not try to deny the Holocaust was that for one time they were aware that there was much evidence left. Another reason was that they were aware that the Nuremberg trials were not very lawful by inventing new laws, applying them "ex post facto", excluding the jury from the laws and redefining evidence as "what I like to believe".


There is a small conflation in the original question, the other important fact to remember is that a great deal of evidence was provided by the US Army in the form of affadavits and film footage. Some of this can be found on YouTube. The originals are held by the National Archives. At the time of the Nuremburg trials a fully informed count of how many people were killed in the camps and mass murder events was impossible to ascertain. The number of work camps where people were worked to death numbered in the hundreds. These were not the major killing centers like Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, they were scattered all over occupied Europe; Poland, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Germany, and France all had work camps. When someone became to sick from starvation to work, they were either shipped to a camp or shot and buried on site. As far as the conflation in the original question. When you ask the question 'were they allowed to deny the Holocaust as part of their legal strategy' there are three components in that question:

  1. Were the defendants allowed to deny the overall Nazi government plan to kill all Jewish people in Europe?
  2. Were the defendants allowed to deny the criminal activity of mass murder which concentrated on murdering people of the Jewish faith?
  3. Were the defendants allowed to deny that it was actually a crime to carry out the mass murders because they were following the laws of their country, and their actions were legal in that context.

Of these, only the last argument was seriously attempted in court, and it was not allowed. It's called the "I was only following orders" defense, and it was thrown out. As mentioned in the previous response, attempting to deny the mass murders that were part of the Holocaust was easily shown to be perjury. As far as the Nuremburg Tribunal being tenuous; Every European society recognized the principle that it was wrong to take a life without some kind of legal finding based on the individuals' actions. So the mass murder of people without legal finding other than classifying them as non-citizens or subhuman was held to be a crime against all nations.


In answer to the question "Were the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials allowed to deny the Holocaust" there is the obvious answer: Yes, the individual plaintiffs could claim anything they wished; but as this was a military tribunal, the conventional protections offered by most modern civilian governments were largely absent. In terms of the rules by which the courts operated, claiming something so profoundly easy to refute by well documented fact was deemed a waste of resources by most judges, and similarly avoided by the defendants and their attorneys for that reason.

However, there is a third reason that has not been touched on to any major degree in the previous arguments, namely that the "Holocaust" (or "Final Solution", or whatever name you prefer) was being broadly encouraged by Hitler and his close confidants in the press and the media of the times.

In particular, there are a number of speeches (whose text still survive) made by Hitler before tens of thousands of German citizens that extolled the virtue of the "Final Solution" (although admittedly the references were sometimes oblique), and these speeches were filmed, copied, and distributed widely throughout the territories in which German citizens might find themselves. These were required viewing; to deliberately evade the various propaganda programs that touted these topics and avoid picking up the free flyers summarizing their contents was to invite close scrutiny by the SS of a kind most people preferred to avoid. Anyone conversant with the German language can view many of the most typical examples on the Web today and see this for themselves. [And yes, translations are available].

For an informed German citizen of the period to pretend subsequently that he (or she) was unaware of the general tenor of the state's widely advertised and endorsed extermination program would thus be contrary to the tenets of being a "Good German"; it would be comparable to claiming that we in the U.S. are/were today unaware of the 9/11 events at the Twin Towers.

Since such an action would be blatantly implausible and contrary to what was publicly enforced by the Nazi Party it was rarely tried -- to have done so would invite being laughed out of court, and repudiated later by one's peers.


To add to the answer by David Lovering, see “Ach die schöne Zeiten” (ISBN: 978-3-10-039304-3), containing letters sent from the staff at the camps to their families. They were proud of themselves and boasted about the amount of humans they'd “gotten rid of”. As servaes points out; they killed 17+ million homosexuals, foreigners, communists, conservatives, jews and gypsies, most of whom had widely been considered a pest.

History has repeatedly repeated itself since, and I shall refrain from mentioning contemporary politicians describing certain ethnicities or groups of people as “a swarm” or “a pest”. In this video Stephen Fry use the Rwandan genocide instead of an example from the western world, but the topic was still considered too harsh for broadcast in his Planet Word-series (2011).

Summary: To deny the events was not even considered at the time. To hammer home Lovering's point: It equates to a person from New Jersey denying, on the 12th of September 2011, the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York that happened the day before.


Judicial Notice means that the court acknowledged certain matters sufficiently proven to be factual, therefore by taking "judicial notice" of the Holocaust the court determined that there was more than ample proof that the Holocaust did, in fact, occur and was therefore not subject to a need for further proof. In other words, it considered that there was ample evidence, documentation and proofs available that the fact of its concurrence was common knowledge with no further need to take evidence to prove its factualness. Take for example, that a certain date in a certain year was a "Tuesday", or that Christmas always occurs on Dec 25th.

The accused could deny their involvement in the Holocaust but not the fact that it occurred.


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:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-11-46.asp

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…

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/supp-b/ftp.cgi?imt/nca/supp-b//nca-sb-02-kaltenbrunner.04

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 ordering the exection of the prisoners at Mauthausen, of course there was no order and the prisoners were not executed - Day 105 - Kaltenbrunner

https://youtu.be/gcApkZx3Ojk

Contrary to introduction to the vid , 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

https://archive.org/stream/NorbertMasurMyMeetingWithHeinrichHimmler/Norbert%20Masur%20My%20Meeting%20with%20Heinrich%20Himmler#page/n5/mode/2up

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.

He died under 'mysterious circumstances' before he could be put on trial.


Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust? - History

Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

Scroll down to see images of the item below the description

Signatures of 12 Nazi defendants tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials,

including eight of the ten who were hanged&mdash

and one who signed on the day he was sentenced to death

Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, 1946.

This is a set of signatures of 12 of the 21 principal defendants tried in person at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials following the surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945. The signatures are on separate pieces of paper, and the set was assembled by a collector who acquired the pieces at different times. All but one of the signatures were signed when the signer was imprisoned at Nuremberg. One, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, signed on the very day that he was sentenced to death, and another, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, signed two days after the tribunal pronounced his death sentence. Some of the items are in plastic protectors mounted to biographical information of the signers, and one is lightly tipped directly to the biographical piece.

Officially, it was forbidden to ask for autographs from the defendants, although American soldiers did it anyway. Our research has found a few similar sets that have sold at auction, and we sold a set of 19 of the Nuremberg defendants a few years ago.

This set includes eight of the ten defendants who were sentenced to death and were hanged on October 16, 1946. The 12 defendants&rsquo signatures present here are those of:

Dr. Hans Michael Frank (1900&ndash1946). Frank, a lawyer who worked for the Nazi Party and served as Hitler&rsquos personal lawyer, was Governor-General of the General Government of Nazi-occupied Poland. He led a reign of terror against the civilian population and was directly involved in the Holocaust. At Nuremberg, he was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Frank has signed this 7¾&rdquo x 5¼&rdquo typed document with a bold signature, Dr. Hans Frank, to certify in both English and German that the signature was his &ldquocorrect&rdquo or &ldquoproper&rdquo signature. He has added the date, 1. Sept. 1945, the date the war crimes tribunal adjourned after hearing all of the evidence, in his own hand. The paper is irregularly trimmed, and there is a small amount of paper loss at the right edge that appears to be from file holes. A pencil note in another hand at the bottom edge identifies Frank, and there are old dealer pencil notes about Frank on the back. Overall the piece is in fine condition.

Hans Georg Fritzsche (1899&ndash1953). Fritzsche was the director of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. He was present with Hitler, holed up in the Führerbunker in Berlin, during Hitler&rsquos final days. He was captured by the Red Army on May 1, 1945, when he offered to surrender the city to the Soviets following Hitler&rsquos suicide. He was acquitted at Nuremberg, although he was later convicted by a West German denazification court. He was released in 1950 and died of cancer in 1953.

This is a pencil signature by Fritzsche, Hans Fritzsche, who has dated it in his hand 1946, thus dating it during the trial. The piece has Fritzsche&rsquos name written in ink in another hand on the back. The piece is irregularly shaped, the paper evidently torn from a large piece only the left edge is relatively straight. Overall the piece is in fine condition.

Walther Funk (1890&ndash1960). An economist, Funk served as the Reich Minister for Economic Affairs, 1938&ndash1945. Although his health was poor, Funk was tried at Nuremberg and convicted on three counts: planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to life in prison and served his sentence in Spandau Prison in Berlin, where other imprisoned senior Nazi officials were held, until he was released because of his health in 1957.

Funk has boldly signed in brown ink with a large signature on a 3&rdquo x 5&rdquo piece of paper and has added Nürnberg 4. September / 1946 beneath his signature. At the lower left corner there is a notation in another hand &ldquoCell 20 &ndash Funk.&rdquo The paper is uniformly toned, with a small foxing spot well removed from the handwriting, and has been laminated in plastic. Overall it is in fine condition.

General Alfred Josef Ferdinand Jodl (1890&ndash1946). Jodl was a Generaloberst in the Wehrmacht, the second highest general officer rank. He served as the chief of the operation staff of OKW, the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. He signed both the Commisar Order of June 6, 1941, under which captured Soviet political officers were to be summarily executed, and the Commando Order of October 28, 1942, under which Allied commandos, including properly uniformed soldiers, were also to be summarily executed if captured behind German lines. Jodl signed the instrument of surrender on May 7, 1945, as Dönitz&rsquos representative. At Nuremberg, Jodl was prosecuted principally for the Commisar and Commando Orders. He was found guilty on four charges, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, and was hanged.

This piece is a 2⅞&rdquo x 4&rdquo card on which Jodl has boldly signed his signature and added his title, Generaloberst a. D., designating himself as &ldquoaußer Dienst,&rdquo or retired. He has dated the piece 20. 6. 1946, or June 20, 1946, which was the day Albert Speer took the stand to testify in his own defense. On the back of the card, the prison guard who obtained the signature has written &ldquoA. Jodl / Cell 6.&rdquo The card is uniformly toned and has been laminated in plastic. It is in fine condition and would be very fine to extra fine if it were not laminated.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903&ndash1946). Kaltenbrunner was the highest-ranking member of the Nazi SS to be tried at Nuremberg. He succeeded Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler as Chief of the Reich Main Security Office, a position he held 1943&ndash1945. A committed anti-Semite, Kaltenbrunner tightened Nazi control within Germany. Under his oversight, Jewish persecution increased as he sought to exterminate Jews in both Germany and the occupied countries as soon as possible. At Nuremberg, Kaltenbrunner was convicted war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he was hanged.

Kaltenbrunner signed this signature on the day that he was sentenced to death&mdashOctober 1, 1946. He has signed boldly in pencil, E Kaltenbrunner, and added the date, 1 X 46, in his hand. Below his signature is careful pencil identification of Kaltenbrunner as the &ldquoGestapo Chief&rdquo and date, &ldquoNuremberg &ndash Oct. 1, 46.&rdquo The piece is 3&rdquo x 4½&rdquo with a carefully torn bottom edge. It has some light toning, particularly on the front above the signature, and some evidence of prior mounting on the back. It is in fine condition.

Konstantin Hermann Karl Freiherr von Neurath (1873&ndash1956). Von Neurath served as Foreign Minister from 1932 to 1938. During the years leading up to World War II, he played a key role in pursuit of Hitler&rsquos agenda, including Germany&rsquos withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933 and its remilitarization of the Rhineland, flouting the Treaty of Versailles, in 1937. Hitler replaced him as Foreign Minister with the pliable Joachim von Ribbentrop in 1938 and made von Neurath the Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia in 1939, a position that he held until 1943, although his authority was nominal after Hitler, believing that von Neurath was too lenient, made the brutal Reinhard Heydrich his deputy. The Nuremberg tribunal concluded that von Neurath did not hold such a prominent position in the Nazi hierarchy that he deserved death. He was sentenced to only 15 years in prison and was released in November 1954 following a heart attack.

This is a dark signature and date, C. von Neurath, / 1946, during the trial, on a 2½&rdquo x 6⅜&rdquo piece of paper. While most sources identify von Neurath as &ldquoKonstantin,&rdquo he seems inevitably to have signed with the first initial &ldquoC,&rdquo and some sources spell his first name as &ldquoConstantin.&rdquo The paper has irregular edges at the top and bottom from where it has been torn from a larger sheet. A single vertical fold through the middle of the document has slightly affected the adherence of the ink to the paper, likely from the signature being folded and unfolded when the collector showed it to others. There is a diagonal fold across the lower right corner, well removed from von Neurath&rsquos handwriting, is also an ink notation, &ldquoNeurath,&rdquo on the back. Overall it is in fine condition.

Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893&ndash1946). A confidant of Hitler, von Ribbentrop served as Germany&rsquos Foreign Minister 1938&ndash1945. He was prominent in negotiating two major agreements in 1939: the Pact of Steel, Germany&rsquos alliance with fascist Italy, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany. He was actively involved in planning the German invasions of Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia and was involved with sending Jews to death camps in the east. Although he argued at Nuremberg that Hitler had been in control and had deceived him by claiming that he wanted peace, the tribunal did not believe that von Ribbentrop could have &ldquoremained unaware of the aggressive nature of Hitler&rsquos actions.&rdquo He was the first of the 10 Nazi defendants to be hanged.

Ribbentrop has signed in pencil with a huge 5&rdquo signature, Joachim v. Ribbentrop, and noted Nürnberg 1946 on a 3¾&rdquo x 6¼&rdquo piece of paper. There are irregular folds at the bottom edge and soiling at the upper right, affecting nothing, and two ½&rdquo tears at the top, one at the top of the vertical fold that runs through the signature and place. An ink note in another hand on the back identifies von Ribbentrop. The piece is in fine condition.

Alfred Ernst Rosenberg (1893&ndash1946). Rosenberg was one of the principal architects of Nazi Party ideology, including its positions on race, territorial expansion, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and persecution of the Jews. Following Germany&rsquos 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler appointed Rosenberg the head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. In November 1941, Rosenberg said that because approximately &ldquosix million Jews still live in the East,&rdquo the Jewish question could &ldquoonly be solved by a biological extermination of the whole Jewry of Europe.&rdquo At Nuremberg, he denied knowledge of the Holocaust, but his representatives had attended the Wannsee Conference. He was convicted of all four counts, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The tribunal found that he was a principal planner of the invasions of Norway and the Soviet Union and that he was responsible for the brutal conditions in Eastern Europe. He was hanged.

This is a 3¼&rdquo x 2¼&rdquo piece of paper on which Rosenberg has boldly signed A Rosenberg. There is an ink note at the bottom edge identifying Rosenberg and dating the signature May 30, 1946, during the trial. The upper left corner is missing, and there is a light diagonal fold line in the upper right corner. The piece also shows a bit of handling. It is in fine condition and comes with a reproduction postcard photograph of Rosenberg.

Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel, known as Fritz Sauckel (1894&ndash1946). As the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Deployment from 1942 until the war in Europe ended in 1945, Sauckel was directly responsible for the forced labor of some five million foreign workers, most of them from the occupied territories in the east. Concentration camp workers worked in harsh labor conditions and were allowed only starvation rations. Sauckel was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Saukel has signed in brown ink, Fritz Sauckel, on a 3&rdquo x 5&rdquo piece of paper. Beneath his signature, there is a notation in another hand identifying him and adding &ldquoCell No. 11.&rdquo The piece is uniformly toned and has been laminated in plastic. Overall it is in fine condition.

Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (1877&ndash1970). Along with Fritzsche and Franz von Papen, Schacht was one three of the major defendants acquitted at Nuremberg. An economist and banker, Schacht served as president of the Reichsbank and, from 1934 to 1937, as the Reich Minister of Economics. His opposition to Germany&rsquos violation of the Treaty of Versailles put him at odds with Hitler and Göring. After he was removed as president of the Reichsbank in 1939, he served as a minister without portfolio until Hitler dismissed him from the government entirely in 1943. At Nuremberg, since he was not a member of the Nazi Party and shared little of its ideology, Schacht convinced the tribunal that he had simply tried to strengthen the German economy.

This piece is a 3½&rdquo x 5½&rdquo postcard on which Schacht has evidently responded to an autograph seeker. He has written &ldquoImmer strebe zum Ganzen,&rdquo or &ldquoalways strive for the whole,&rdquo and has added his title, Reichsbankpräsident, and the date, 16. 4. 1926, or April 4, 1926. The card is self-addressed to a man in Prague and was mailed from Berlin. The card has light toning, especially around the edges, and a pencil note in another hand on the address side identifies Schacht. It is in fine condition.

Arthur Seyss-Inquart (1892&ndash1946). Seyss-Inquart, an Austrian Nazi, served as chancellor of Austria for three days in 1938 before Germany annexed Austria following the Austrian Anschluss. Hitler respected Seyss-Inquart and appointed him to government oversight positions in Poland and in the Netherlands. He served as Reichskommissar in the Netherlands, where he led a brutal regime responsible for the forced labor of Dutch civilians and the internment of some 140,000 Jews in concentration camps, including Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Auschwitz, and Theresienstadt. Seyss-Inquart was convicted of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg and was the last of the 10 executed defendants to be hanged.

Seyss-Inquart has signed his last name, Seyss Inquart, and added the date, 3. 10. 46, or October 3, 1946&mdashtwo days after he was sentenced to death. The signature is in black ink on a 2¼&rdquo x 3½&rdquo piece of paper. A flattened vertical fold affects the signature but misses the handwriting in the date. There is slight brushing to the &ldquon&rdquo in &ldquoInquart,&rdquo likely from Seyss-Inquart&rsquo own hand. There are also a stray ink mark at the lower right margin, where it appears the piece has been separated from handwriting or a signature below, and an old dealer pencil notation on the back. The piece is in fine condition.

Julius Streicher (1885&ndash1946). The crass, obscene Streicher was widely known as Nazi Germany&rsquos &ldquoJew-Baiter Number One.&rdquo In 1923, Streicher founded and published Der Stürmer, a violently anti-Semitic weekly tabloid propaganda newspaper that made little pretense of publishing legitimate news. From at least 1933 forward, Der Stürmer repeatedly urged extermination of the Jews. As the Gauleiter of Franconia, he exercised power to excesses that alienated other Nazis, including Hermann Göring and many of the party leaders. He was removed from his party offices 1940 but nevertheless remained on good terms with Hitler and continued to publish Der Stürmer, which Hitler called his favorite newspaper. At Nuremberg, he railed against the Jews, the Allies, and even the tribunal judges. The tribunal found that Streicher&rsquos long history of &ldquospeaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews&rdquo had &ldquoinfected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution.&rdquo Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Streicher has signed across a lined sheet from a 3&rdquo x 5&rdquo note pad. He has signed a bold 4¼&rdquo black ink signature, Julius Streicher, and has added the place and date, Nürnberg / 1945, in his hand. There is cellophane tape in one place on each edge of the paper from mounting in a black paper mat, which covers a pencil note in another hand below the date identifying Streicher. The piece is in fine condition.

Sets such as these are popular when they appear on the market. This is an excellent opportunity to obtain the autographs of many of the high-level Nazis who survived the war, including eight of the 10 defendants who were hanged for war crimes. Additional Nuremberg defendants could be added to the set over time.

We reject Nazism and all that it represented. Yet the German Third Reich and the Holocaust that it systematically carried out played an undeniable role in 20th Century history. These pieces are relics of the Nuremberg trials, which were held in order to document Nazi atrocities so that no one could later convincingly claim that the Holocaust did not occur or that the Nazi German government was not behind it. Since we believe that to decline to offer Third Reich material, although it is offensive, would aid those who want to sweep the Third Reich under the rug and deny that the Holocaust occurred, we offer this material because the world must never forget what happened, lest it happen again. Click here to read more about these thoughts in our Blog posts of January 8 and February 26, 2010.


Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust? - History

Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz

General Wilhelm Frick

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring

General Wilhelm Keitel

Konstantin von Neurath

Grand Admiral Erich Raeder (front)

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring (back)

Joachim von Ribbentrop

Nuremberg War Crimes Trials

Signatures of 19 major Nazi defendants

tried at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials,

including all of those who were hanged

Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, 1946.

This is an exceptional set of signatures of 19 of the 21 principal defendants tried in person at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials following the surrender of Nazi Germany in 1945. The signatures are on separate 3" x 5" sheets of paper that evidently were removed from a pad or small notebook. The sheets are toned but otherwise range in condition from very fine to extra fine.

These signatures have impeccable provenance. They were obtained by an American soldier who was assigned to work as a guard at Nuremberg to transport the defendants between their cells and the courtroom. His widow kept them after his death until we obtained them from her. The set thus has never been offered on the autograph market before. It comes with a statement of provenance from the soldierʼs son and copies of the soldierʼs military papers showing that he was indeed in the Army during the time that the Nazi defendants signed these signatures. Five of the signatures are dated in September 1946, and the Army records establish that the soldier did not depart for the United States until October 3, 1946, after arriving back in Europe on April 8, 1946, for his second enlistment in the Army.

This set includes all of the 10 defendants who were sentenced to death and were hanged on October 16, 1946, plus Hermann Gӧring, who was sentenced to hang but committed suicide to escape the hangman. This group actually includes two signatures of Gӧring, one on its own sheet of paper and one on the back of the sheet that bears the signature of Admiral Erich Raeder. The only two Nuremberg defendants who were present at the trial but are not in this group are Adolf Hitlerʼs Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, who was mentally unstable and rarely if ever signed, and former German Chancellor Franz von Papen, who was acquitted. Martin Bormann, the other defendant tried at Nuremberg, was tried in abstentia.

The 19 defendantsʼ signatures present here are those of:

Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891�). Under Hitlerʼs last will and testament dated April 29, 1945, Dönitz succeeded Hitler as the German head of state, with the titles of President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, after Hitlerʼs suicide on April 30. He was convicted of planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression and of crimes against the laws of war. He was sentenced to ten years in prison and was released in October 1956.

Dr. Hans Michael Frank (1900�). Frank, a lawyer who worked for the Nazi Party and served as Hitlerʼs personal lawyer, was Governor-General of the General Government of Nazi-occupied Poland. He led a reign of terror against the civilian population and was directly involved in the Holocaust. At Nuremberg, he was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Wilhelm Frick (1877�). A prominent Nazi politician, Frick was Reich Minister of the Interior under Hitler for ten years, 1933�, and then served as Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. He, took was found guilty of war crimes and was hanged.

Hans Georg Fritzsche (1899�). Fritzsche was the director of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. He was present with Hitler, holed up in the Führerbunker in Berlin, during Hitlerʼs final days. He was captured by the Red Army on May 1, 1945, when he offered to surrender the city to the Soviets following Hitlerʼs suicide. He was acquitted at Nuremberg, although he was later convicted by a West German denazification court. He was released in 1950 and died of cancer in 1953.

Walther Funk (1890�). An economist, Funk served as the Reich Minister for Economic Affairs, 1938�. Although his health was poor, Funk was tried at Nuremberg and convicted on three counts: planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to life in prison and served his sentence in Spandau Prison in Berlin, where other imprisoned senior Nazi officials were held, until he was released because of his health in 1957.

Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring (1893 �). Göring was one of Nazi Germanyʼs most important officials. The Nazi Reichmarschall, the highest rank in the German military during World War II, he was commander-in-chief of the Luftwaffe, the German air force. From roughly 1933 to 1945, he also held several other offices simultaneously. In 1941, he became Hitlerʼs Deputy Führer, the vice chancellor of Germany, a post that he held until Hitler deposed him for treason for daring to ask permission to take over leadership of Germany when Hitler was pinned down in the Führerbunker in Berlin . It was Göring who, on Hitlerʼs orders, directed Reinhard Heydrich to convene the 1942 Wannsee Conference, which decided the “final solution to the Jewish question"—forcibly transporting Jews to concentration camps in Germany and Poland, where some six million Jews died of overwork, starvation, disease, experimentation, and outright murder. Göring surrendered to the Americans to avoid capture by the Soviets, and he was perhaps the most outspoken of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg. He was convicted of four counts: conspiracy to accomplish a crime against peace waging a war of aggression war crimes and, the most significant, crimes against humanity, including the disappearance of political opponents, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and murder and enslavement of civilians. He was sentenced to death by hanging. Göring asked to be shot rather than hanged as a common criminal, but the Allies denied his request. The night before the executions were to take place, Göring committed suicide by taking potassium cyanide from an ampoule concealed in his personal belongings.

General Alfred Josef Ferdinand Jodl (1890�). Jodl was a Generaloberst in the Wehrmacht, the second highest general officer rank. He served as the chief of the operation staff of OKW, the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or Supreme Command of the Armed Forces. He signed both the Commisar Order of June 6, 1941, under which captured Soviet political officers were to be summarily executed, and the Commando Order of October 28, 1942, under which Allied commandos, including properly uniformed soldiers, were also to be summarily executed if captured behind German lines. Jodl signed the instrument of surrender on May 7, 1945, as Dönitzʼs representative. At Nuremberg, Jodl was prosecuted principally for the Commisar and Commando Orders. He was found guilty on four charges, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, and was hanged.

Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903�). Kaltenbrunner was the highest-ranking member of the Nazi SS to be tried at Nuremberg. He succeeded Heydrich and Heinrich Himmler as Chief of the Reich Main Security Office, a position he held 1943�. A committed anti-Semite, Kaltenbrunner tightened Nazi control within Germany. Under his oversight, Jewish persecution increased as he sought to exterminate Jews in both Germany and the occupied countries as soon as possible. At Nuremberg, Kaltenbrunner was convicted war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he was hanged.

General Wilhelm Keitel (1882�). Keitel, a field marshal who served as the chief of OKW, was the third-highest ranking German officer to be tried at Nuremberg. He was one of the principal authors of the German military campaigns on both the eastern and western fronts. Although he advised Hitler not to invade the Soviet Union, he deferred to Hitler and tendered his resignation, although Hitler refused to accept it. Keitel signed a number of orders questionable under the laws of war, including the Commissar Order, which Jodl also signed, and the Night and Fog Decree, which called for disappearance of resistance fighters and other political prisoners in the territories that Germany occupied. He was convicted of all four counts of crimes at Nuremberg and was hanged.

Konstantin Hermann Karl Freiherr von Neurath (1873�). Von Neurath served as Foreign Minister from 1932 to 1938. During the years leading up to World War II, he played a key role in pursuit of Hitlerʼs agenda, including Germanyʼs withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933 and its remilitarization of the Rhineland, flouting the Treaty of Versailles, in 1937. Hitler replaced him as Foreign Minister with the pliable Joachim von Ribbentrop in 1938 and made von Neurath the Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia in 1939, a position that he held until 1943, although his authority was nominal after Hitler, believing that von Neurath was too lenient, made the brutal Reinhard Heydrich his deputy. The Nuremberg tribunal concluded that von Neurath did not hold such a prominent position in the Nazi hierarchy that he deserved death. He was sentenced to only 15 years in prison and was released in November 1954 following a heart attack.

Grand Admiral Erich Johann Albert Raeder (1876�). Raeder was commander-in-chief of the German Navy during the first half of World War II. German naval losses, especially at the Battle of the Barents Sea, led to Raederʼs demotion to the ceremonial office of Admiral Inspector. He resigned in 1943 and was replaced by Dönitz. At Nuremberg, He was sentenced to life in prison but was released in 1955 because of his health. As noted above, on the back of the sheet that contains Raederʼs signature is a second signature of Hermann Göring.

Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893�). A confidant of Hitler, von Ribbentrop served as Germanyʼs Foreign Minister 1938�. He was prominent in negotiating two major agreements in 1939: the Pact of Steel, Germanyʼs alliance with fascist Italy, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Germany. He was actively involved in planning the German invasions of Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia and was involved with sending Jews to death camps in the east. Although he argued at Nuremberg that Hitler had been in control and had deceived him by claiming that he wanted peace, the tribunal did not believe that von Ribbentrop could have “remained unaware of the aggressive nature of Hitlerʼs actions." He was the first of the 10 Nazi defendants to be hanged.

Alfred Ernst Rosenberg (1893�). Rosenberg was one of the principal architects of Nazi Party ideology, including its positions on race, territorial expansion, abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles, and persecution of the Jews. Following Germanyʼs 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, Hitler appointed Rosenberg the head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. In November 1941, Rosenberg said that because approximately “six million Jews still live in the East,” the Jewish question could “only be solved by a biological extermination of the whole Jewry of Europe." At Nuremberg, he denied knowledge of the Holocaust, but his representatives had attended the Wannsee Conference. He was convicted of all four counts, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The tribunal found that he was a principal planner of the invasions of Norway and the Soviet Union and that he was responsible for the brutal conditions in Eastern Europe. He was hanged.

Ernst Friedrich Christoph Sauckel, known as Fritz Sauckel (1894�). As the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Deployment from 1942 until the war in Europe ended in 1945, Sauckel was directly responsible for the forced labor of some five million foreign workers, most of them from the occupied territories in the east. Concentration camp workers worked in harsh labor conditions and were allowed only starvation rations. Sauckel was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and was hanged.

Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (1877�). Along with Fritzsche and Franz von Papen, Schacht was one three of the major defendants acquitted at Nuremberg. An economist and banker, Schacht served as president of the Reichsbank and, from 1934 to 1937, as the Reich Minister of Economics. His opposition to Germanyʼs violation of the Treaty of Versailles put him at odds with Hitler and Göring. After he was removed as president of the Reichsbank in 1939, he served as a minister without portfolio until Hitler dismissed him from the government entirely in 1943. At Nuremberg, since he was not a member of the Nazi Party and shared little of its ideology, Schacht convinced the tribunal that he had simply tried to strengthen the German economy.

Baldur Benedikt von Schirach (1907�). The Nazi Partyʼs youth leader and the head of the Hitler Youth from 1931 to 1940, von Schirach served as the Gauleiter of Vienna, the governor of the Vienna territory, from 1940�. In that capacity, he was responsible for sending some 65,000 Jews from Vienna to Nazi death camps in Poland, calling their deportation a “contribution to European culture." At Nuremberg, he denounced Hitler, claimed that he had not known about the extermination camps, and showed that he had complained to Martin Bormann about the inhumane treatment of the Jews. He was convicted at Nuremberg of crimes against humanity but received only a 20-year prison sentence, which he fully served before being released in 1966.

Arthur Seyss-Inquart (1892�). Seyss-Inquart, an Austrian Nazi, served as chancellor of Austria for three days in 1938 before Germany annexed Austria following the Austrian Anschluss. Hitler respected Seyss-Inquart and appointed him to government oversight positions in Poland and in the Netherlands. He served as Reichskommissar in the Netherlands, where he led a brutal regime responsible for the forced labor of Dutch civilians and the internment of some 140,000 Jews in concentration camps, including Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Auschwitz, and Theresienstadt. Seyss-Inquart was convicted of crimes against humanity at Nuremberg and was the last of the 10 executed defendants to be hanged.

Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer (1905�). Speer, Hitlerʼs favorite architect an a member of Hitlerʼs inner circle, designed the Zepplinfeld stadium in Nuremberg, the site of Nazi Party rallies, which Speer ringed with anti-aircraft searchlights to create an icy nighttime effect that Speer described as his most beautiful work. Among other projects, he designed the new Reich Chancellery in Berlin and had plans to rebuild the city on a monumental scale. From February 1942 until the end of the war, he served as the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, dramatically increasing armaments production, primarily through the use of slave labor from the occupied territories. At Nuremberg, he straightforwardly accepted responsibility for the acts of the Nazi regime but insisted that he knew nothing about its plans to exterminate the Jews. After a split vote among the tribunal judges, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, which he served completely before his release in 1966. While in prison, he wrote his memoirs, the basis for Inside the Third Reich, and smuggled out letters to his children that formed the basis for Spandau: The Secret Diaries.

Julius Streicher (1885�). The crass, obscene Streicher was widely known as Nazi Germanyʼs “Jew-Baiter Number One." In 1923, Streicher founded and published Der Stürmer, a violently anti-Semitic weekly tabloid propaganda newspaper that made little pretense of publishing legitimate news. From at least 1933 forward, Der Stürmer repeatedly urged extermination of the Jews. As the Gauleiter of Franconia, he exercised power to excesses that alienated other Nazis, including Hermann Göring and many of the party leaders. He was removed from his party offices 1940 but nevertheless remained on good terms with Hitler and continued to publish Der Stürmer, which Hitler called his favorite newspaper. At Nuremberg, he railed against the Jews, the Allies, and even the tribunal judges. The tribunal found that Streicherʼs long history of “speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews" had “infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution." Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was hanged.

All of these signatures are signed in black ink. One edge of some of the pieces, although not all of them, is a little uneven from where it was removed from the pad or notebook, but the appearance does not detract. Some of the signatures, such as those of Dönitz and von Neurath, are a little shaky and show skips or corrections where the ink did not cover completely, and on some the paper has pen indentations that are somewhat deeper than typical. This suggests that those signatures were signed while the defendants were standing or were unable to lay the paper against something solid when they signed. As noted, however, the conditions of the pieces range from very fine to extra fine.

Officially, it was forbidden to ask for autographs from the defendants, although American soldiers did it anyway. Our research has found three similar sets that have sold at auction, the last one in 2008.

Sets such as these are popular when they appear on the market, and this one is nice. This is an excellent opportunity to obtain the autographs of virtually all of the high-level Nazis who survived the war.

We reject Nazism and all that it represented. We nevertheless offered this set of signatures because of its relevance to the history of World War II and its aftermath and because the Third Reich, and the war that it spawned, were the turning point of the 20th Century and gave rise to the Cold War that followed.


Ink drawing of the German defendants, including Goering, Hess, von Ribbentrop, and Keitel created by 24 year-old Edward Vebell, illustrator and US soldier, from the press gallery during the first months of the 1945 Trial of German Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany. Ed sat in the gallery for three days and used field glasses to capture the details of the defendant's faces. He had no water, so he had to use spit to create the halftones that add detail and nuance. Ed did 90% of his drawing in the courtroom, seeking to bring intimacy to the historical proceedings. The sketches were published in the US Army newspaper Stars and Stripes on December 9, 1945. The Waterman fountain pen he used for the drawings is record 2005.426.1. Ed was drafted into the US Army in 1942, and was the first staff illustrator for Stars and Stripes. His other assignments included combat zones in Italy and France. Soon after the defeat of Nazi Germany on May 7 in western Europe and May 9, 1945, in eastern Europe, the Allies: Great Britain, France, Soviet Union, and the United States convened an International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, Germany. Its purpose was to seek justice for crimes against humanity, evidenced by the Holocaust, perpetrated by Nazi Germany. In October 1945, the IMT formally indicted the Nuremberg defendants on four counts: crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit these crimes. The verdicts were delivered on October 1, 1946. Twelve defendants were sentenced to death three to life imprisonment four to prison terms ranging from 10-20 years three were acquitted.

About This Object

Edward (Ed) Joseph Vebell was born on May 25, 1921, in Chicago, Illinois, to Joseph and Helen Rubeckas Vebell. His father was born in 1888 in Pasvitinys, Lithuania. His mother was born in 1897, also so Lithuania. He had two sisters. Edward’s talent for drawing was recognized at an early age and, as a teenager, he attended the Harrison Art School. By the age of eighteen, he was working as an illustrator. On graduating high school, he won scholarships to 3 art schools in Chicago, and he later studied in Paris, France. In December 1941, when the United States entered World War II, Edward was working as a commercial artist in Chicago, creating illustrations for the catalog companies Sears and Montgomery Ward.

Edward was drafted into the US Army on October 24, 1942. He was deployed to Casablanca in North Africa with the 904 Camouflage Engineers, where he painted desert camouflage on Army equipment. In February 1943, the Army newspaper Stars and Stripes opened an office in Algiers. Edward was transferred there as the first staff illustrator. A few months later, the paper added Stan Meltzoff and Bill Mauldin. Edward worked as a combat artist and correspondent and beginning in late 1943/1944, also did illustrations for Yank, a magazine published by and for enlisted men. Edward learned to capture the battles in ink and pencil on the job: “To be a good combat artist, you have to stand up and face in the enemy's direction. You can't do that for very long, or you'll be dead.” He was influenced by photography, but felt that drawing allowed him to impart a searching personal quality to the image. His assignments included frontline sketching in Italy for six months during the spring 1944 Monte Cassino campaign, with French troops in the Alps, and with French resistance fighters in the Pyrenees. He was sketching Russian forces a few days after the May 2, 1945, fall of Berlin. Germany surrendered on May 7. Edward then was based in Paris where he began doing freelance work for several French publications.

On December 17, 1942, the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union had issued a joint declaration resolving to prosecute those responsible for the mass murder of European Jewry. Six and a half months after the war ended, the Trial of German Major War Criminals before the International Military tribunal opened in Nuremberg on November 20, 1945. Edward was assigned by Stars and Stripes to create courtroom sketches at the trial. For three days, he sat in the press gallery and used binoculars to focus on the faces of the defendants, including Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering. The field glasses reversed the images, which was an annoyance, but bearable for the detail they provided. Edward sketched directly in fountain pen, from right to left, using a moistened thumb to create tonal values. He did 90% of his drawing in the courtroom, seeking to bring intimacy to the historical proceedings. Ten drawing were published in the December 9, 1945, European issue of Stars and Stripes, his last assignment.
After his discharge from the military in late 1945, Edward established a commercial studio in Paris. He returned to the US in 1947 and continued his career as a commercial artist. His illustrations have appeared in books and periodicals, and clients have included Reader’s Digest, Life, Time, and Sports Illustrated. Edward also created murals for the National Park Service and sixteen stamps for the US Postal Service. He was especially sought after for his historical works, with their knowledgeable attention to detail and accuracy. Vebell also had an exceptional competitive fencing career. He was an international champion and member of the 1952 US Olympic team, and was named to the US Fencing Hall of Fame in 2014. He was married for nearly sixty years to Elsa Cerra (1926-2004), with whom he settled in Westport, Ct., and had three daughters.


68 Comments »

“Declared dead in 1945″…which means nothing. Maybe she went to Tel Aviv, or Toronto, or somewhere else.

Comment by Schlageter — August 18, 2016 @ 3:09 am

Maybe she went to Tel Aviv, or Toronto, or somewhere else.

David Irving on the Lies of the Nuremberg Trials — move ahead to approx 1:41:50 — then watch/listen for about 2m, until: ‘We’ve got a bit of a problem here, because according to our records, you’re dead.’

Comment by eah — August 19, 2016 @ 1:11 am

Lies,lies,all lies. Can’t anybody see the horns sticking out of her head? I think that’s Satans Trident that’s propped up in the corner. This shits gettin pathetic. This is a dead issue. I knew a truck driver years back. He hauled timber to the saw mill. He was 95 at the time. His memory was sharp as a blade. He told me about his exploits in WW 1. Now that doesn’t mean this lady has a sharp mind like that. If they put a case on her,how the f–k is she gonna defend herself,if she can’t remember what may,or may not have happened? She’ll have to take the word of the chickenshit prosecutor. They sure do love going after old folks. Now I see why the Jews don’t like Christ. He preaches forgiveness. The Jews have so much hate built up inside them,they’re not capable of love. I remember watching one time on TV . A black lady was on there. She was related to one of the little girls that died,when Dynamite Bob blew up the church in Birmingham. She said she forgave Dynamite Bob for what he did. Dr. Kings oldest son (and some of the other family members),don’t think James Earl murdered Dr. King. Dr. Kings oldest son was working on proving that,when James Earl died. So you got one person who’s forgiven someone for murdering a realative and another person who doesn’t think the convicted murderer of his father,actually did the murder. Why can’t the Jews entertain this kinda shit?

Comment by Tim — August 17, 2016 @ 12:50 pm

Same info on both sides of the Ärmelkanal (English Channel), it seems…

“I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.” – Winston Churchill, House of Commons, August 1, 1946.

Comment by hermie — August 17, 2016 @ 9:03 am

Judicial notice is the reason why she might be going along with the Hoax.
Which was…. the Courts said the HoloHoax happened and 6 million Jews were killed end of story….no deviations of that lie…
Most of the Germans tried at the various war trials, and there were many trial, and thousands of Germans were tried… had to say that the HoloHoax happened but they knew nothing about it. If they told the truth (it’s a lie) they were tortured, threatened with loss of pensions, being sent to Russia, whatever despicable threat the demon Jew led War Crimes trials could muster up.

Some got off with no repercussions but some innocent people still went to jail, and many went to the gallows. She obviously got off scott free, but has to play the HoloHoax card to make everyone happy.
I’m reading all about the Nuremberg Trials and how sinister the trials were to a lot of innocent Germans.
Who would know that losing a war would bring so much heartache and in many cases death to the German people were just minding their own business doing a job that was assigned to them no different than what the Allies and their people were doing.

I urge you to read these accounts of what really happened…..it’s hard to believe such vilification and vengeance came to be brought upon a people for losing a war.
But then again, they had to come down hard on the Germans to take the heat off the Allies for the real War Crimes that they happily brought upon the Germans as payback. The Germans were the real “Holocaust” victims.

Comment by jrizoli — August 17, 2016 @ 8:33 am

Thanks for those links, Jim.

The following extract from the https://archive.org/details/Nuremburg_and_other-trials gives us an idea of the scale of chicanery and deceit that went on at the Nuremburg Tribunals-

Legalistic sleight-of-hand was the order of the day at
Niirnberg. During the opening speech of Chief Prosecutor
Robert Jackson, mention was made of a letter said to have
been written by Baron Werner von Fritsch, the pre-war
Commander-in-Chief of the German Armed Forces.

According to Jackson, the letter revealed that Fritsch
was wholeheartedly in favour of Hitler’s aims:

It is very strange that so many people should regard the future
with growing apprehension, in spite of the Fuhrer’s indisputable
successes in the past . . . Soon after the War (World War I) I came to
the conclusion that we should have to be victorious in three battles,
if Germany was again to be powerful:

1. the battle against the working class Hitler has won this one

2. against the Catholic Church, perhaps better expressed Ultra-
montanism and

We are in the midst of these battles, and the one against the Jews
is the most difficult.

Jackson read out the statement as if he was actually
quoting from the letter, but he was in fact reading from a
“type-written copy” no original letter was ever produced,
either at Niirnberg or later. Lord Justice Lawrence refused
to admit the item as evidence, saying that a document that
could not be produced would be ignored. But the damage
was already done, thanks to Jackson’s deliberate trickery
and fabrication. The “letter” had been read out in open
court, and was fully minuted in the Tribunal record, and
given a document number (1947-PS).

Comment by Talbot — August 18, 2016 @ 8:57 am

I honestly feel that we have to start with the Nuremberg trials to show how bad things were and how things were set up right from the beginning so once we expose that then the holohoax does really have nothing to stand on because their base case is shown to be corrupt right from the beginning. They can say whatever they want they can prove whatever they want with all their false information and lies but they cannot disprove what happened at Nuremberg.
It’s on record for all to see.

Comment by jrizoli — August 18, 2016 @ 9:22 am

Start with defense attorneys. Do really think they had incentive to give their clients proper representation? Truth be known,they were probably told that prosecution was dealing from a fixed deck of cards. Our military don’t give shit about anyone. Typical officer mentality. Lt. Calley,My Lai. Then we got Capt. McVeigh from the Indianapolis. They sunk both of those people on BS charges. Those prosecutors came from the same place,the Nuremberg prosecutors came from.

Comment by tim — August 18, 2016 @ 12:57 pm

They sunk both of those people on BS charges. Not both. Calley should have got life with no parole, along with Medina.

Warrant Officer (WO1) Hugh Thompson, Jr., a helicopter pilot from Company B (Aero-Scouts), 123rd Aviation Battalion, Americal Division, saw dead and wounded civilians as he was flying over the village of Sơn Mỹ providing close-air support for ground forces.[44] The crew made several attempts to radio for help for the wounded. They landed their helicopter by a ditch, which they noted was full of bodies and in which there was movement.[45] Thompson asked a sergeant he encountered there (David Mitchell of the 1st Platoon) if he could help get the people out of the ditch, and the sergeant replied that he would “help them out of their misery”. Thompson, shocked and confused, then spoke with 2LT Calley, who claimed to be “just following orders”. As the helicopter took off, Thompson saw Mitchell firing into the ditch.[46]

Thompson and his crew witnessed an unarmed woman being kicked and shot at point-blank range by Captain Medina, who later claimed that he thought she had a hand grenade.[47] Thompson then saw a group of civilians (again consisting of children, women, and old men) at a bunker being approached by ground personnel. Thompson landed and told his crew that if the soldiers shot at the Vietnamese while he was trying to get them out of the bunker that they were to open fire on these soldiers.[48] Thompson later testified that he spoke with a lieutenant (identified as Stephen Brooks of the 2nd Platoon) and told him there were women and children in the bunker, and asked if the lieutenant would help get them out. According to Thompson, “he [the lieutenant] said the only way to get them out was with a hand grenade”. Thompson testified that he then told Brooks to “just hold your men right where they are, and I’ll get the kids out”. He found 12–16 people in the bunker, coaxed them out and led them to the helicopter, standing with them while they were flown out in two groups.[49]

Returning to Mỹ Lai, Thompson and other air crew members noticed several large groups of bodies.[50] Spotting some survivors in the ditch, Thompson landed again. A crew member, Glenn Andreotta entered the ditch and returned with a bloodied, but apparently unharmed child who was flown to safety.[51] The child was thought to be a boy, but later turned out to be a four-year-old girl. Thompson then reported what he had seen to his company commander, Major (MAJ) Frederic W. Watke, using terms such as “murder” and “needless and unnecessary killings”. Thompson’s statements were confirmed by other helicopter pilots and air crew members

Sources are on the Wikipedia page

The Indianapolis was a tragedy but it was war. What happened to McVay was a miscarriage of justice caused by pedantic idiots (officers).

He repeatedly asked the Navy why it took five days to rescue his men, and he never received an answer. The Navy long claimed that SOS messages were never received because the ship was operating under a policy of radio silence declassified records show that three SOS messages were received separately, but none was acted upon because one commander thought it was a Japanese ruse, another had given orders not to be disturbed, and a third was drunk.

Comment by Anonymouse — August 20, 2016 @ 2:38 pm

They had the Jap sub driver in the court hoping to make him a witness for the prosecution. In so many words that Jap commander told the court,”Capt. McVey could’ve ran any pattern he wanted to. I would’ve still sunk his ass.
It shows the idiots that sat in judgement of the captain,didn’t know dick about submarine warfare. The Capt. of the sub ordered all tubes fired at once in a fan pattern. I don’t give a damn how good a ships Capt. is,that would be impossible to evade that many fish coming at you all at once. Especially if those fish were fired in a fan pattern.
I saw one illegal killing in Nam. She was VC. She got shot when we engaged her and her pals. She was pretty messed up . I guess it involved her spine . She couldn’t move her legs. Sarge didn’t wanna fool with her. So he shot her. There was no way he would’ve gotten called down on that. We had just engaged them about 20 minutes earlier. She got cut down cut down in the fire fight. End of discussion. It still bothered me a little,but I figured her buddies would’ve pulled the same shit if that was me.
I heard Calley was given orders to clear out My Lai. That was probably the case. He definitely seemed over zealous. He just ended up a sacrificial lamb.
Shit being confusing as hell over there,is a true statement . I was full of piss and vinegar before I went. All of us at jungle training thought we were 10 feet tall,and bullet proof. After a awhile in country,I found out,I didn’t know my ass from the proverbial,”hole” in the ground. The shit was confusing as hell.
That’s why Calley to strike me as the type of person to do something like that ,without orders. He was super lifer. The people back home just saw killing women and children. The didn’t realize these were the same mothers that would strap a charge on their 8 year old,and have the kid blow himself up in a crowded market area. Sgt. Wolf told me,”never get close to any of the villagers. You might end up having to kill them.”
Well dad did tell me to keep my dumb ass mouth shut . We weren’t sending that many people over there when I went. Thats why dad took his retirement. He was in WW 2 and Korea,but he said Nam was the biggest goat f–k he ever was involved in.

Comment by Tim — August 20, 2016 @ 4:56 pm

That’s why I’ve always asked. “Did the defense attorneys really give a shit about everything in their clients best interest?” O Js trial lasted 9 months. He only killed Nicole and Ron. Nuremberg lasted a little over 9 months. As much shit that went on there. The time frame it covered,not to mention the amount of defendants. Nuremberg seems a tad short when juxtaposed next to OJ. O J only killed 2 people. Supposedly the Nazis killed millions. How can you go to trial and end it that damn quick,with so much shit floating around? Even the ones who may have knew about this,should’ve only gotten life,or natural life. I don’t see how you can execute someone for just having knowledge of a crime. Another thing. They’ve got such a hardon for wanting to put these nazis on trial,for what they may or may not have done back then. Why wait till now. Why weren’t they trying to track as many down as possible back then? Think about it. If someone goes on trial for murder,and they had help,they track those people down and put a case on them. That’s why all these holo trials,60 to 70 years later,seem like BS

Comment by Tim — August 18, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

Tim so many things is wrong with the HoloHoax picture than you can imagine….For the record the Military trials went on for years as there were the IMT. trials, AMT, Auschwitz Trials then others scattered here and there. And trials are still gping on with the older Germans who they are still coming after 70 yrs later. So it really hasn’t stopped until the vindictive Jews say we’re done.
But then again they will be coming after us who have the balls to speak out today. It’s aint over as they say….
Back to Nuremberg….
The defense lawyers were not able to defend their clients unless you were worth millions like the Krupps people who were put on trial.
I guess it was who you knew with them, and of course money will get people out of any jam then and today.
They Krupps pretty much bought their way out of prison sentences, but then again they needed them to rebuild Germany with their companies later on.
Like I said read the Nuremburg pdf that I put the link to it will blow your mind away to see that a military corrupt court could get away with MURDER and they did plenty of times. Imagine hanging hundreds of people with out an appeal? Only a few had the guts to speak up about it.
Another Book NOt Guilty at Nuremburg is another good read about the Military trials. But reading about all this abuse of power is distressing to say the least.
How the HoloHuxsters can defend the HoloHoax after reading what happened to the Germans at the Nuremberg trials is beyond me.
They have to be the most calloused people on the earth or just plain ignorant of truth, or have been fooled beyond belief.

Comment by jrizoli — August 18, 2016 @ 1:39 pm

Who were the Krupps ? I got a coffee maker made by the Krupps company,but I don’t think that’s who these people are.


The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir

The Nuremberg Trial, which was held in Bavaria, in the picturesque city of Nuremberg that in 1945 laid "ravaged", is considered the father of all modern war crime trials and was the first occasion when a whole group of states (Britain, the USSR, France, and the USA) joined efforts to try war criminals. This fateful trial and the subsequent "Little" Nuremberg trials held in American occupation zones between 1947 and 1949, pioneered the imposition of penalties for "crimes against humanity" (atroci The Nuremberg Trial, which was held in Bavaria, in the picturesque city of Nuremberg that in 1945 laid "ravaged", is considered the father of all modern war crime trials and was the first occasion when a whole group of states (Britain, the USSR, France, and the USA) joined efforts to try war criminals. This fateful trial and the subsequent "Little" Nuremberg trials held in American occupation zones between 1947 and 1949, pioneered the imposition of penalties for "crimes against humanity" (atrocities committed by a government against its own citizens) and "crimes against peace" ("waging wars of aggression and in violation of treaties" and proof that such wars were waged by the defendants). Nuremberg also succeeded in charging the Nazi with participation in criminal conspiracy, formed as early as 1933, to commit atrocious violations of the laws of war. Justice Robert Jackson, a "legal Brahmin" whose "higher” education consisted of one year at Albany Law School, but whose forensic talents were exceptional, managed to outline the willingness of Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Raeder, and Jodl to follow Hitler’s every decision and order for the preparation and waging of wars which they knew to be in fact aggressive. He dealt with the arguments of many of the defendants that they could not have been conspirators because they disagreed even among themselves by reasoning that "of course it is not necessary that men should agree on everything in order to agree on enough things to make them liable for a criminal conspiracy. Unquestionably there were conspiracies within the conspiracy and intrigues and rivalries and battles for power . . . Wherever they differed, their differences were as to method or disputes over jurisdiction, but always within the framework of the common plan."

At Telford Taylor writes, most of those involved in developing the Nuremberg-Trial plan believed that due to the enormous quantity of evidence exposing Nazi atrocities, all that would be necessary to produce a speedy trial was careful planning and tight legal drafting. The opponents of the trial, who either agreed with Goering's cynical claim that "the victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused" (Gilbert, G.M, Nuremberg Diary, p.10), or thought that it was an innovation without an adequate foundation in existing law, also believed the court proceedings would be quick and the sentences draconian. Yet, what actually happened was a prolonged, 12-month trial, full of twists and turns. The subject matter, the notoriety of the defendants, and the caliber of some of the witnesses brought about many sensational and shocking revelations. Telford Taylor remembers the stunned silence of the audience that followed the SS officer Otto Ohlendorf’s cold, impassive statement that, in southern Russia, his troops had rounded up and killed some 90,000 Jews. He also recalls "the sheer panic" of the defendant Walter Funk, formerly President of the Reichsbank (German State Bank), when prosecutor Thomas Dodd, cross-examining, suddenly produced, and put into evidence, documents showing that Funk well knew that the Reichsbank was receiving jewels and other valuables, including gold teeth, which had been taken from the bodies of Jews and other inmates of concentration camps. And in the end, instead of the expected 22 death sentences, three defendants – former Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen, former Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics Hjalmar Schacht, and Radio Propaganda Chief Hans Fritzsche – were acquitted, seven given prison sentences of different lengths, and only twelve hanged.

Telford Taylor is well fitted to provide a good survey of the surprises and complexities of the proceedings. A young lawyer, he joined the Nuremberg prosecution team under Justice Robert H. Jackson in Autumn 1945. He worked as a prosecutor at Nuremberg throughout the main "four-power" trial of 1945-46, and then, after being promoted to Brigadier General, directed the series of "Little" Nuremberg trials held in the American zone of Germany. It is obvious that he had thought long and hard about the events that unfolded at Nuremberg, and had tried to look at himself and his work with maximum detachment.
Interesting is his explanation of the purpose of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), "the most important and . . . successful new entity in the enforcement of the laws of war". What law exactly was the International Military Tribunal enforcing? The IMT was no ordinary court. It was established by the United States and three major European nations, and the laws by which the IMT was bound were not the laws of any of those or of any other nations. That is why for its rules on crime the IMT looked primarily to the international laws of war, which had developed gradually throughout the 19th and 20th century. When the war ended in 1945, except for the treaty provisions relating to poison gas and submarines, the declared and generally accepted laws of war were not fundamentally different from those embodied in the Hague and Geneva conventions. But, underscores Taylor, in 1945, public and social attitudes toward the laws of war had undergone a sea change: the perceived evil of Nazism in action was far deeper and more pervasive than was that of Imperial Germany. In World War I, U-boats, zeppelins, and poison gas had been brutally and ruthlessly used, but they were weapons of war employed to achieve military victory. The ideology of the Third Reich, however, embraced not only German aggrandizement by force of arms, but also the violent suppression of political opposition and reduction of Jews and Slavs to the status of “subhumans” targeted for enslavement at best. Nazism was a proudly avowed repudiation of the libertarian, humanitarian, and internationalist ideals to which most national governments gave "at least lip service."

One of the most engrossing parts of Taylor's memoir is his analysis of the Nazi defendants themselves, with their constant prevarication, self-justification, and appalling lack of remorse. For example, he, mostly drawing upon the almost always accurate descriptions of Justice Jackson, effectively outlines Luftwaffe Chief Herman Goering, whose large and varied role was half militarist and half gangster: "He stuck his pudgy thumb in every pie." He used his SA musclemen to help bring the gang into power, and in order to entrench that power, he contrived to have the Reichstag burned, established the Gestapo, and created the concentration camps. He was "equally adept at massacring opponents and at framing scandals to get rid of stubborn generals". He built up the Luftwaffe and hurled it at his defenseless neighbors. He was, next to Hitler, "the man who tied the activities of all the defendants together in a common effort."
Equally spot-on are the derogatory paragraphs attached to "the duplicitous Ribbentrop", "Streicher, the venomous vulgarian", "the zealot Hess", "Kaltenbrunner, the grand inquisitor", "Keitel, the weak and willing tool", "Rosenberg, the intellectual high priest of the 'master race'", and Sauckel, “the greatest and cruelest slaver since the Pharaohs of Egypt.”

While some of these retorts might be too much for me, the defendants also exasperated me beyond the reach of any compassion. Their constant chorus – "I only heard about these things here for the first time" – not only displays their most abject, cowardly side, but is also annoying and infuriating. Did those men, who were so concerned about their "honor", seriously persisted to deny, dodge, and lie to the very end in the vain hope that they would be able to save their skins? Could they actually believe they would succeed in selling the ridiculous composite picture of Hitler's government that emerged from their statements to the prosecution?
Because from the defense so often pled by the Nazi when confronted with infernal crimes – "Nobody knew about what was going on" – we get, according to Jackson, the following absurd version of the Third Reich: a "Number 2" man who knew nothing of the excesses of the Gestapo which he created, and never suspected the Jewish extermination program although he was the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions of that race a foreign minister who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of foreign policy a field marshal who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no idea of the results they would have in practice a Party philosopher who was interested in historical research and had no idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twentieth century a Gauleiter of Franconia whose occupation was to pour forth filthy writings about Jews, but who had no idea that anybody would read them a Reichsbank president who was totally ignorant of what went in and out of the vaults of his bank a plenipotentiary for the war economy who secretly marshaled the entire economy for armament, but had no idea it had anything to do with war. No comment.
In general, my opinion is that the Tribunal's judgements served those brutal, dishonest, greedy men right.

Throughout his whole account, Telford Taylor is as clear, concise and objective as possible although his highlights the achievements of the prosecution, he doesn't gloss over its mistakes. Once he begins to recount the day-to-day story of the trial, the narrative rolls with the tension of a courtroom drama. His long introduction tackling the nuances and pitfalls inherent in war crime trials is as useful as the rest of this non-fiction story is lively and compelling. In addition, Taylor draws upon an impressive number of British and American archives. The Anatomy of Nuremberg is a powerful book that serves both as a lucid picture of the past and as a cautionary guidance for the future.

Telford Taylor was a member of the American prosecution team at Nuremburg during 1945-46, so this book gives us a very personal view of the court proceedings. There were four prosecuting teams, from the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and France. I list them in that order because the U.S. team had many more members than Britain. Britain had more members than both the U.S.S.R. and France combined. Four judges made up what was called the Tribunal, and were also from the same prosecuting countries. Telford Taylor was a member of the American prosecution team at Nuremburg during 1945-46, so this book gives us a very personal view of the court proceedings. There were four prosecuting teams, from the U.S., Britain, the Soviet Union and France. I list them in that order because the U.S. team had many more members than Britain. Britain had more members than both the U.S.S.R. and France combined. Four judges made up what was called the Tribunal, and were also from the same prosecuting countries. There were also four alternate judges during the entire trial and they participated in the sentencing. The defense lawyers were German, and some were even ex-Nazis.

Of the 21 defendants Goering was the highest ranking in terms of guilt and leadership. He was also the magnet who drew the defendants together – or precipitated rivalries between them.

It was the U.S. that started to push and organize for trials in 1944. As described by the author there was much dissension on the U.S. prosecution team – two of the major prosecutors left shortly after the trial began. Robert Jackson was the leader of the U.S. team and he was both responsible and successful in getting this trial going. From the onset he constructed his team and got the British, Soviet Union and French involved. Unfortunately Jackson could be abrasive and was not the best administrator as the author himself experienced. Jackson was brilliant at prepared presentations, like at the trial opening but he was not so good at witness interrogation. For example he became too emotional with Hermann Goering on the witness stand.

The amount of documents and witnesses was staggering. All documents had to be available in English, German, French and Russian. Simultaneous translations into these languages were done throughout the trial. This was the first time that such a trial had occurred and it was followed world-wide.

Besides being an International Military Tribunal there were many new and innovative aspects of international law introduced by this trial. Many of the defendants were charged with conspiracy to deliberately plan aggressive war, many were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The terms “holocaust” and “genocide” came out after the conclusion of the trial. The trial also made clear that both the SS and the German Army participated in vast massacres of human beings – the round-up and slaughter of Jews across all of Europe, the deliberate starvation and negligence of Soviet prisoners of war that led to the death of millions of them, the utilization of slave labour. It is a horrendous list. The trial also negated “the out” of following orders as an escape route to avoid punishment.

As with any trial the defendants with the less “presentable personalities” tended to suffer grievous consequences. Julius Streicher, who was physically repulsive and published an ugly racist rag constantly portraying Jewish people as subhuman, was sentenced to death. Albert Speer, who looked like a bright office manger, was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment, even though he used hundreds of thousands of slave labourers under atrocious conditions, to produce armaments for the German Army undoubtedly prolonging the war. Speer was intelligent and adaptable to the changing conditions and thus survived.

This book provides many insights into the Nazi regime. We can clearly see how Hitler manoeuvred and used these 21 defendants for his schemes of German racial domination.

Because the author was a lawyer there are passages redolent with legal phrases, more so at the beginning of the book. And I would have wished for an index of characters involved with a short description of their role. There are many introduced throughout. It was an extremely long trial – lasting over a year - something unusual for all the participants. It must have been emotionally draining and costly for all. This is a tremendous book on the major trial of the 20th century.

Additional observations:
All were quite happy that the major participants did not make it to trial namely Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler. Bormann was tried in absentia which the author found unnecessary.

There was an attempt to bring the Krupp family to trial, but this was botched.

Rudenko, on the Soviet team, started off on the prosecution, and was after moved to the position of a judge on the Tribunal.

Soviet war crimes like their invasion of Poland and Finland did surface embarrassingly at times. The Soviets also insisted on prosecuting the Germans for the Katyn massacres, which Gorbachev acknowledged in 1990. This book was published in 1992, so I don’t know why the author did not mention it.

Aerial bombardment was not brought up as a war crime. As the author mentioned, one had only to look out the courtroom windows at Nuremburg to see long that argument would hold.

Page 294 (my book) Francois de Menthon (opening statement of French prosecution team)

I propose today to prove to you that all this organized and vast criminality springs from what I may be allowed to call a crime against the spirit. I mean a doctrine which, denying all spiritual, rational, and moral values. This monstrous doctrine is that of racialism. The expression “blood” which appears so often in the writings of the Nazi theorists denotes this stream of real life. National Socialism ends in the absorption of the personality of the citizen into that of the state and in the denial of any intrinsic value of the human person. .. give way to the primacy of race, its instincts, its needs and interests. The individual, his liberty, his rights, and aspirations, no longer have any real existence of their own. . more

Telford Taylor’s “The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir” is both a memoir/autobiography and a scholarly legal analysis of the International Military Tribunal.

The book begins with some details about Taylor and international law as it existed at the time of WWII. Taylor had served in the American Army intelligence in Europe during WWII before being assigned as assistant to Chief Counsel Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg in 1944. He describes international law as it existed at the tim Telford Taylor’s “The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir” is both a memoir/autobiography and a scholarly legal analysis of the International Military Tribunal.

The book begins with some details about Taylor and international law as it existed at the time of WWII. Taylor had served in the American Army intelligence in Europe during WWII before being assigned as assistant to Chief Counsel Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg in 1944. He describes international law as it existed at the time of the establishment of London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, such as the Lieber Code, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Convention of 1864, the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Pact of Paris) of 1928, etc., and the legal challenges of including crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and the waging of aggressive wars in the Charter’s indictment.

Taylor moves on to describe the difficulties of reaching agreement on the indictment. Firstly, there were differences in what to do with the top ranking Nazis. The British initially supported killing all the major Nazis, while the Americans wanted a trial, which Taylor notes was a reversal of the outcome of WWI, when the British wanted a trial of Kaiser officials and the Americans were indifferent, if not opposed. Secondly, differences between Anglo-American and Continental European law posed major challenges on reaching an agreement between the U.S., Britain, France, and the USSR, which affected everything from what the indictment was and how it should be written, to whether or not the SS and the Gestapo could be charged as entities. Thirdly, the charge of “conspiracy”, the brainchild of Murray C. Bernays, to wage aggressive wars was and remained throughout the trial extremely controversial.

The rest of the book is a mixture of Taylor’s memoirs (what he heard, witnessed, experienced, etc.) and legal analysis (of the defense and prosecutions arguments, the evidence, etc.). This is where the value of the book really comes to light. Taylor offers a penetrating insider’s perspective of the participants (judges, prosecution, defense, and Nazi criminals), both within the courtroom and outside, and the progress of the trial.

Taylor describes Hermann Goering’s stunning victory over Jackson in the courtroom. According to Taylor, “Jackson was ‘unable to follow’ Goering, ‘much less outmaneuver him’” in his cross-examination. Jackson proceeded to have a meltdown in court, bitter at Goering’s victory over him, causing tension between the judges and the American prosecution. Goering was apparently too smart for the Americans the British and Soviets were more effective with him. Throughout the book Taylor frequently describes the mental deterioration of Rudolph Hess throughout he trial. Despite the court psychologist’s evaluation of Hess as fit to stand trial, Taylor repeatedly makes it known that he disagreed. Taylor takes pity on Hess, which I found strongly disagreeable. Hess was a vicious Nazi that should have been hanged with the rest of them, but that is my opinion.

Here is a glimpse of how Taylor describes some of the Nazis. Ribbentrop was “regarded with utter scorn” at Nuremberg. Keitel was “the sort of weak man whom Hitler could count on to follow his orders regardless of law or morals.” Kaltenbrunner was “the most ominous-looking man in the dock and had no friends there.” Rosenberg “was maddeningly verbose and drove both his counsel (Dr. Alfred Thoma) and [President Judge] Lawrence to distraction with his insistence on treating every question as raising theoretical and historical matters. It was much easier to find him irritating than evil, and it was not until the evidence was forced onto the stage that one became aware of the atrocious consequences of this woolly and maundering man’s activities.” Frank “was no more attractive than most of his fellow defendants, but he was among the more interesting.” Frick “was the consummate bureaucrat — stiff, orderly, taciturn, unimaginative — and the least interesting of the defendants” as well as “a very cold fish.” Streicher posed the most difficult legal issues, his sole crime at Nuremberg being incitement since he had never participated or organized any violence against Jews. Schacht “was at the top of Dr. Gilbert’s IQ ladder (though only marginally above Seyss-Inquart, Goering, and Doenitz)” and as well as having superior education and linguistic skills, “he was the most sophisticated in the ways of the world. To those whom he respected, Schacht could be charming, but he did not suffer fools gladly and was arrogant, tough, sarcastic, and domineering. He was invariably convinced that he was both right and in the right…”. Funk was “Pasty, pudgy, in poor health, blubbering when testimony or photographs illuminated the horrors of the Nazi record, and openly scared — a pitiful wreck of a man who had fallen beneath respect, and knew it.” Schirach “ was the weakest of the defendants. If wimps had been spoken of, Schirach would have been so styled.”

Almost 200 pages of the book are devoted to the Nazi criminals, their testimonies, the arguments of their defense lawyers and the prosecution, and Taylor’s personal assessment of the Nazi criminals and the conduct of their trials. The above is a glimpse of the insider’s perspective that Taylor offers.

An element of the book I strongly disliked — and eventually found unbearable — was Taylor’s American righteousness. Throughout the book Taylor repeatedly criticizes all the other powers for their actions during WWII, such as (correctly) British and French appeasement of the Nazis, the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and British unwillingness to provide evidence to the defense counsel of British plans for the occupation of Norway, and (incorrectly) especially the Soviets, such as the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact and the division of Poland, the Soviet-Finnish War, the pre-WWII purges, and the Katyn Massacre. But nowhere does he criticize the U.S., even when evidence of American crimes under the Nuremberg charter are brought out in open court. For example, Doenitz, commander of the German Navy, was accused of sinking British merchant ships in violation of the London Submarine Protocol of 1936. According to Taylor, this agreement prohibited the sinking of merchant ships without the attacking vessel first placing “the passengers, crew, and ship’s paper in a place of safety.” Thus, Taylor writes, “the German practice was a gross violation, causing many deaths at sea, and the charge could well lead to a capital consequence” for both Nazi navy officers at Nuremberg. Yet, when Doenitz’s lawyer offered evidence of the U.S. Navy committing the exact same “gross violation” in the sinking of Japanese merchant ships, all Taylor has to say is that the British prosecutor Fyfe’s objection that “the question whether the United States broke the laws and usages of war is quite irrelevant…it raises the old problem of evidence directed to tu quoque” and that Fyfe was “on sound ground in general criminal law, if a defendant has committed a particular crime, the fact that others have also, even if the others are the accusers, is no defense.” The fact that American crimes during WWII receive a pass from Taylor throughout the book really diminished my respect for Taylor and his legal analyses.

Overall it was a really eye-opening book about a critical period in the establishment of modern international law. . more


We found at least 10 Websites Listing below when search with how many defendants in nuremberg trials on Search Engine

Who were the 24 defendants of the Nuremberg trials

Who were the 24 defendants of the Nuremberg trials? The prosecution entered indictments against 24 major war criminals and seven organizations – the leadership of the Nazi party, the Reich Cabinet, the Schutzstaffel (SS), Sicherheitsdienst (SD), the Gestapo, the Sturmabteilung (SA) and the “General Staff and High Command”, comprising several categories of senior …

Nuremberg Trials Holocaust Encyclopedia

  • In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT
  • Holocaust crimes were included in a few of the trials but were the major focus of only the US trial of Einsatzgruppen leaders.

Nürnberg trials Facts, Definition, & Prominent Defendants

Britannica.com DA: 18 PA: 22 MOZ Rank: 42

  • After 216 court sessions, on October 1, 1946, the verdict on 22 of the original 24 defendants was handed down
  • (Robert Ley committed suicide while in prison, and Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach ’s mental and physical condition prevented his being tried.)

How many were hanged at Nuremberg

Wikilivre.org DA: 13 PA: 43 MOZ Rank: 59

  • In all, 199 defendants were tried at Nuremberg, 161 were convicted and 37 were sentenced to death, including 12 of those tried by the IMT
  • Holocaust crimes were included in a few of the trials but were the major focus of only the US trial of Einsatzgruppen leaders.

How many war criminals in total were indicted during the

Quora.com DA: 13 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 67

  • There were a total of thirteen military tribunals conducted in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice
  • The first was the International Military Tribunal for the Major War Criminals that was conducted between 1945 and 1946 against 24 major war criminals a

Were the defendants at the Nuremberg trials tortured

Quora.com DA: 13 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 68

  • What? No… There were some irksome rules and regulations that irritated some of the defendants
  • Goering had his vast collection of painkillers seized, which

Defendants in the Major War Figures Trial

  • Welcome to Famous Trials, the Web’s largest and most visited collection of original essays, trial transcripts and exhibits, maps, images, and other materials relating to the greatest trials in world history
  • “Famous Trials” first appeared on the Web in 1995, making this site older than about 99.97% of all websites
  • In 2016, the site seemed to be showing its age.

Profiles of the 21 Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg

Upi.com DA: 11 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 68

  • 30, 1946 (UP) - Here are short sketches of the 21 defendants in the war criminal trial:

The Nuremberg Trials The National WWII Museum New Orleans

  • On November 20, the trial began with 21 defendants appearing before the court
  • The United States held 12 additional trials in Nuremberg after the initial International Military Tribunal
  • In all, 199 defendants were tried, 161 were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death.

Which Nazi War Criminals Were Tried, Charged and Convicted

Historyhit.com DA: 18 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 77

  • Twelve defendants were sentenced to death, seven were sentenced to prison, and three were acquitted
  • Between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946 the Allied forces conducted the Nuremberg Trials to prosecute the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany
  • In May 1945 Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler committed suicide, and Adolf Eichmann

1946: Cruel Execution of Nazi Leaders in Nuremberg

History.info DA: 12 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 72

  • On this day the Nazi leaders were sentenced to death at the famous Nuremberg Trials
  • Of the 22 defendants, 12 were sentenced to death
  • However, Martin Bormann (Hitler’s personal secretary) was tried in absentia, while Luftwaffe commander Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering committed suicide before he was executed.Those sentenced to death included:

Lawyers Promise ‘Nuremberg Trials’ Against All Behind

  • Lawyers Promise ‘Nuremberg Trials’ Against All Behind COVID Scam
  • Right now, a second Nuremberg tribunal that is in preparation, with a class action lawsuit being set up under the aegis of thousands of lawyers worldwide behind the American-German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who is prosecuting those responsible for the Covid-19 scandal

Who was executed at the Nuremberg trials

  • How many were convicted in the Nuremberg trials? The United States held 12 additional trials in Nuremberg after the initial International Military Tribunal
  • In all, 199 defendants were tried, 161 were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death.

Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today

  • After 216 court sessions, on October 1, 1946, the verdict was rendered
  • Three of the defendants were acquitted: Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen, and Hans Fritzsche
  • Four were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years: Karl Dönitz, Baldur von Schirach, Albert Speer, and Konstantin von Neurath.

Who were the guards at the Nuremberg trials

  • Which crime was not specifically charged at the Nuremberg trials? The defendants, who included Nazi Party officials and high-ranking military officers along with German industrialists, lawyers and doctors, were indicted on such charges as crimes against peace and crimes against humanity
  • Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) committed suicide

Nuremberg Trial Verdicts — United States Holocaust

Ushmm.org DA: 13 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 78

  • Despite a series of postwar trials, many perpetrators of Nazi-era criminality have never been tried or punished
  • View of the defendants in the dock at the International Military Tribunal trial of war criminals at Nuremberg

The Doctors Trial: The Medical Case of the Subsequent

  • This was Case #1 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings
  • Brigadier General Telford Taylor was Chief of Counsel during the Doctors Trial
  • In Taylor's own words, from the opening statement by the prosecution: "The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science.

Defendants pleading not guilty at beginning of Nuremberg Trial

  • Nuremberg Trials, Nuremberg, Germany, November 21, 1945
  • MS, defense counsel makes plea to the court
  • Profile, Tribunal as Justice Lawrence speaks
  • Sound: Justice Lawrence announces fifteen-minute recess so that defendants may confer with their counsel

Final moments of Nazis executed at Nuremberg Second

Theguardian.com DA: 19 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 87

While Göring was lying in the prison morgue, the 10 other Nazi leaders sentenced to death with him were hanged in the bomb-blasted gymnasium of the prison, its dirty walls lit …

The Nuremberg Trial – The Holocaust Explained: Designed

  • The Subsequent Nuremberg Trials tried major war criminals, but of lower ranks than those tried in the first trial
  • Each of the twelve trials involved defendants from a different strand of the Nazi state, such as the Einsatzgruppen, industrialists, jurists, doctors, and civil servants
  • In total, 183 defendants were tried, resulting in 77 terms

The Nuremberg Judges American Experience Official Site

Pbs.org DA: 11 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 81

  • Each of the four Allied countries that had formed the International Military Tribunal -- the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union -- …

The Sentencing and Execution of Nazi War Criminals, 1946

  • I n November 1945, twenty-one men sat in the dock of a Nuremberg courtroom on trial for their lives
  • The group represented the "cream of the crop" of the Nazi leadership including Herman Goering, Hitler's heir apparent until falling out of favor in the closing days of the war, and

COVID-19 and Crimes Against Humanity: What the Nuremberg

Thewire.in DA: 10 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 82

  • COVID-19 and Crimes Against Humanity: What the Nuremberg-Hague Trials Can Teach Us
  • To let people die for want of food, and air now, is tantamount to the genocides that scarred forever the 20th

Watch The Nuremberg Trials American Experience

Pbs.org DA: 11 PA: 50 MOZ Rank: 84

  • Over the next two and a half years the courtroom in Nuremberg saw twelve more trials of another 184 Nazi officials, including physicians, judges, bankers and industrialists

At the Nuremberg trials several Nazi leaders achieved

Held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, the Tribunal was given the task of trying 24 of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich, though one of the defendants, Martin Bormann, was tried in absentia, while another, Robert Ley, committed suicide within a week of the trial’s commencement.


Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust? - History

Argument from authority. Unless you or Stone can cite examples of the IMT violating legal norms or fabricating evidence to convict the defendants, then this is irrelevant.

Also, Stone was a political opponent of the Cheif US prosecutor Robert Jackson. In other words, he was mudslinging. So? American politicians do that to this day, it doesn't make it true.

The great architect of the holohoax was Rudolf Hoess, who was tried at Nuremberg. No, wait a minute, he wasn't tried, he did 'testify' however, that is he read an affidavit into the record and testified briefly. He testified as a defense witness. Kafka couldn't have imagined anything this absurd. Gogol, maybe. In his affidavit he admitted to gassing 2.5 million Jews at Auschwitz plus killing an additional .5 million by other means. Here is what he wrote in his book written after the trial .

" I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had constantly used it to whip the prisoners."

Visit holohoax101.org for more on Hoess's testimony and other hoax absurdities.

The great architect of the holohoax was Rudolf Hoess, who was tried at Nuremberg. No, wait a minute, he wasn't tried, he did 'testify' however, that is he read an affidavit into the record and testified briefly. He testified as a defense witness. Kafka couldn't have imagined anything this absurd. Gogol, maybe. In his affidavit he admitted to gassing 2.5 million Jews at Auschwitz plus killing an additional .5 million by other means. Here is what he wrote in his book written after the trial .

" I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military barracks from which I had been released eight months before by the British. I do not know what was in the transcript, or what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought that I had constantly used it to whip the prisoners."

Visit holohoax101.org for more on Hoess's testimony and other hoax absurdities.

Please don't lie about Hoess to someone who has actually Read and owns Hoess's memoirs. That was about his initial British captivity. Here's what he says about his experience when he was transferred to the IMT for the trial

While Hoess did get beaten in British captivity (and he completely deserved it), there's really no indication that it was done with the intent to make him give false testimony at the IMT (he was beaten because he was a mass murderer) simply because there's no indication that his testimony was false and intended to serve the IMT's agenda. Most obviously, the IMT indictment prepared by the Soviets mentioned an Auschwitz Death toll of 4 Million (calculated based on exaggerated assumptions of the Crematoria, rather than the actual number of people sent to Auschwitz). If Hoess was coerced, his testimony would've aligned with this indictment and helped validate it, similar to the Moscow show trials and other cases of actual legal coercion. Instead, Hoess testified that "only" 3 Million had died, based on his own memory and knowledge, rather than going with the Allied indictment. Ergo, no coercion. He also placed the date of the planning of the final solution to 1941 rather than 1942, which had the side effect of shifting the responsibility from Kaltenbrunner to his predecessor, Heydrich. Speaking of Kaltenbrunner, Hoess actually did his job and played along with the former's strategy of downplaying his role in the final solution during his IMT testimony. e.g. He stated that he only met Kaltenbrunner a few times (therefore minimizing Kaltenbrunner's complicity in Hoess' role in Auschwitz) and insisted that most of the orders he got came from Mueller (shifting the criminal responsibility from Kaltenbrunner to Mueller). If Hoess was coerced, then he would've implicated Kaltenbrunner at every opportunity, like in the Moscow Show trials and actual cases of legal coercion. Instead, he was openly able to give testimony that helped defend Kaltenbrunner, like any free defense witness in any free and fair trial around the world. No Banana for Saggy.

Said no one ever. And his testimony was not the only piece of evidence reviewed by the IMT regarding the final solution. IIRC the Stroop Report, Hans Frank's diary, documents from the German foreign ministry and statements from various Einsatzgruppen personnel were submitted as well. No one was convicted based solely on Hoess's testimony. Saggy is repeating Ernst Zundel's old strawman that Hoess was the "only" piece of evidence for the Holocaust at the IMT (Not true), which doesn't help his credibility.

Hoess was not tortured, as his testimony at and after the IMT make clear. All Saggy did was prove my point. He lied about the Majdanek Gas chamber having a "window", and now he lies about Rudolf Hoess. No banana for him or Mondial, I'm afraid.

This was actually accepted at the Nuremberg Doctor's trial, showing that it (like most Allied postwar trials) was very fair and defendant friendly. One of the defendants, Kurt Blome, justified his medical experiments by saying that the Anglo Americans did it too, and that his experiments were necessary in wartime. Since Blome was able to give this type of testimony, we can rule out torture or coercion in the Nuremberg Doctor's trial, BTW. He was acquitted, along with several other defendants in that very same trial. Most Deniers talk nonsense about postwar trials without actually reviewing them or what they were about.

Except maybe in Blome and a few others' examples, "You did it too" doesn't really apply. Nothing the Allies did approached the scale of genocide/mass murder perpetrated by the Nazis.

Please don't lie about Hoess to someone who has actually Read and owns Hoess's memoirs. That was about his initial British captivity. Here's what he says about his experience when he was transferred to the IMT for the trial

While Hoess did get beaten in British captivity (and he completely deserved it), there's really no indication that it was done with the intent to make him give false testimony at the IMT (he was beaten because he was a mass murderer) simply because there's no indication that his testimony was false and intended to serve the IMT's agenda. Most obviously, the IMT indictment prepared by the Soviets mentioned an Auschwitz Death toll of 4 Million (calculated based on exaggerated assumptions of the Crematoria, rather than the actual number of people sent to Auschwitz). If Hoess was coerced, his testimony would've aligned with this indictment and helped validate it, similar to the Moscow show trials and other cases of actual legal coercion. Instead, Hoess testified that "only" 3 Million had died, based on his own memory and knowledge, rather than going with the Allied indictment. Ergo, no coercion. He also placed the date of the planning of the final solution to 1941 rather than 1942, which had the side effect of shifting the responsibility from Kaltenbrunner to his predecessor, Heydrich. Speaking of Kaltenbrunner, Hoess actually did his job and played along with the former's strategy of downplaying his role in the final solution during his IMT testimony. e.g. He stated that he only met Kaltenbrunner a few times (therefore minimizing Kaltenbrunner's complicity in Hoess' role in Auschwitz) and insisted that most of the orders he got came from Mueller (shifting the criminal responsibility from Kaltenbrunner to Mueller). If Hoess was coerced, then he would've implicated Kaltenbrunner at every opportunity, like in the Moscow Show trials and actual cases of legal coercion. Instead, he was openly able to give testimony that helped defend Kaltenbrunner, like any free defense witness in any free and fair trial around the world. No Banana for Saggy.

Said no one ever. And his testimony was not the only piece of evidence reviewed by the IMT regarding the final solution. IIRC the Stroop Report, Hans Frank's diary, documents from the German foreign ministry and statements from various Einsatzgruppen personnel were submitted as well. No one was convicted based solely on Hoess's testimony. Saggy is repeating Ernst Zundel's old strawman that Hoess was the "only" piece of evidence for the Holocaust at the IMT (Not true), which doesn't help his credibility.

Hoess was not tortured, as his testimony at and after the IMT make clear. All Saggy did was prove my point. He lied about the Majdanek Gas chamber having a "window", and now he lies about Rudolf Hoess. No banana for him or Mondial, I'm afraid.

I'll just pick one from your pack of idiotic lies .

"Hoess was the architect of the hoax .

Said Hoess himself in his book. I thought you read it. He says he was directed by Himmler personally to direct the killing the Jews, starting with selection of the method of killing, he sent Eichmann out to scour the countryside looking for the best ways of killing . (yes this is just pure idiocy) .. and he and Eichmann experimented at Auschwitz before arriving at the gas chamber solution, using the same commercial insecticide they were using for delousing, in the same form from the same cans. Incidentally, Himmler told Hoess to . 'keep this between the two of us', as Hoess reports.

The holohoax is the biggest, most destructive, most degenerate hoax in history, I don't think Judaism will survive it. I guess the real question is, will any of us survive it?


Hotel Altenburger Hof

Travel Deals

86,00 € statt 172,00 €:

250,00 € statt 438,00 €:

89,00 € statt 181,00 €:

99,00 € statt 194,00 €:

Shopping Deals

444,00 € statt 699,00 €:

179,00 € statt 299,00 €:

39,95 € statt 49,95 €:

18,90 € statt 39,99 €:

Groupon Kundenservice
Der Turbo für Ihr Business
Teile Groupon mit Freunden

Deals in Deiner Stadt

Regionale und überregionale Deals

Deals verschenken und empfehlen

Firma
Groupon-Länder
Hotel Altenburger Hof Altenburg hat nicht nur für Liebhaber des beliebtesten deutschen Kartenspiels einiges zu bieten. Im luxuriösen Hotel Altenburger Hof warten drei bis fünf Tage voll Geschichte, Kultur, Wellness und kulinarischer Schmankerl auf .

B efore the end of WW2, the Allies decided that they would judge the war criminals at the
end of the war. In 1945, they set up in Nuremberg a tribunal to judge the Nazis responsible of
the onset of the war and its atrocities. They put 24 Nazis in the dock and started the trial in
november 1945: it ended in august 1946. The average IQ of the defendants was 128. The
tribunal was presided over by Lord Geoffrey Lawrence (UK) with three other judges :
Francis Biddle (USA), Henri Donnadieu de Vabres (France) and Gal. Iona Nikitchenko
(USSR). For the prosecution, there were Robert H. Jackson for the Government of the USA,
Francois de Menthon and Auguste Champetier de Ribes for the Provisional Government of
France, David Maxwell-Fyfe for the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
Gal. R.A. Rudenko for the Government of the USSR.

T he above picture represents the defense and the defendants in
the dock at the International Military Tribunal (IMT). The four counts
of indictment were : 1- conspiracy to commit 2- crimes against peace
3- war crimes 4- crimes against humanity.

The American chief
prosecuting counsel,
Robert H. Jackson, was a
former Roosevelt
attorney-general. He was
determined that the trial
would take place and
would be a triumph for
American notions of
justice. It is arguable
that this goal was
achieved.
Francis Beverley
Biddle (May 9, 1886 –
October 4, 1968) was
an American lawyer
and judge who is most
famous as the primary
American judge
during the Nuremberg
trials after World War
II.


Colonel Burton C.Andrus
was the commander of the
security detachment at
Ashcan camp and later at
Nuremberg. He imposed
on his charges a tough,
no-nonsense regime. He
thought the detainees
were "nuts". He failed to
prevent the suicides of Ley
and Goering. On his
deathbed, he was still
obsessed with this failure.
  • Joachim von Ribbentrop -18 minutes
  • Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel - 24 minutes
  • SS General Ernst Kaltenbrunner - 13 minutes
  • Alfred Rosenberg -10 minutes
  • Hans Frank -10.5 minutes
  • Wilhelm Frick -12 minutes
  • Julius Streicher - 14 minutes
  • Fritz Sauckel - 14 minutes
  • Arthur von Seyss-Inquart - no time cited

Commanding Officer of the Weddigen U-boat flotilla, Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm,
Vice-Admiral, Admiral, Grossadmiral and Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, Advisor to
Hitler, and Successor to Hitler as head of the German Government. Watchwords like "fanaticism"
and "ruthlessness" were part of his everyday vocabulary. In fact, he was "a bigoted,
narrowed-minded man, a death merchant of the worst sort" (Lothar Gunther Buchheim).


The verdict :
1- count 1 : innocent
2- count 2 : guilty
3- count 3 : guilty
4- count 4 :not charged
The sentence :
10 years in priso
n
Released in 1956

Frick's hanging, like those of Keitel and Streicher, was pretty well
messed up. The US Army executioner Master-Sergeant John C.
Woods used a short rope that prevented instantaneous death from a
broken neck, instead insuring a slow death by strangulation. He
built the trap door too small so that the facial features of hte Nazis
sentenced to death would be mutilated during the fall.

The job of a butcher not of a decent
man. Frick agonized during 12
minutes before to die after hanging

The verdict :
* count 1 : innocent
* count 2 : innocent
* count 3 : innocent
* count 4 : innocent

The verdict :
* count 1 : innocent
* count 2 : guilty
* count 3 : guilty
* count 4 : guilty

Son a district judge later appointed as Reichs Commissar for Southwest Africa, Goering was #7 in a
family of 8 children. Admitted to the Royal Prussian Cadet Corps, he distinguised himself in WWI and
as a pilot was awarded the Pour le Mérite Order. After WWI he became pilot for a Swedish company
and got engaged to a married woman Carin von Kantzow whose father was a member of the Swedish
nobility. He eventually came back to Germany and enrolled with the NSDAP in 1922. He was not
anti-semite and had a lot of jewish friends. He was drawn to the party out of his desire for action and
he was not squeamish when it came to bash in a few heads, especially "red".

He took part in the failed putsch of 1923 in Munich, was severely wounded to the groin and became
morphin addict to alievate the suffering. He was admitted to a Swedish hospital where the psychiatrist
described him as "a brutal hysteric with a very weak character."

Between 1932 and 1945, he was a member of the Nazi Party, Supreme Leader of the SA, General in
the SS, a member and President of the Reichstag, Minister of the Interior of Prussia, Chief of the
Prussian Police and Prussian Secret State Police, Chief of the Prussian State Council, Trustee of the
Four Year Plan, Reich Minister for Air, Commander-in-Chief of the Air-Force, President of the Council
of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council, head of the Hermann
Goering Industrial Combine, and Successor Designate to Hitler.

His wife Carin died in 1931 and he remarried with a second rank actress called Emmy Sonneman who
had played in Faust. In 1933, he signed orders for the Night of the Long Knives and declared that the
SA "were nothing but a mob of gangsters and perverts." On his orders, Homosexuals and Witnesses of
Jehovah were round up into concentration camps.

The verdict
* count 1 : Guilty
* count 2 : Guilty
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty
The sentence :
hanging
(Goering committed
suicide 2 hours before
execution)

The verdict :
* count 1 : Guilty
* count 2 : Guilty
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

Rudolf Hess was the anti-Goering : timid, self-effacing, buck-teethed and almost monacal. Born in
Alexandria Egypt, he was the son of a well-off wholesaler and exporter who wanted to take him in
the family business and sent him to Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Lausanne. The war interrupted
the studies.

After WWI, he went to the University of Munich reading history, politics and economics. In 1919 he
joined the esoteric and anti-communist Thule Society and the Free Corps which were fighting the
communists in post-war Germany. During his time in university, he wrote an essay on the theme
:"What sort of man will lead Germany back to her old heights?". His view of the man was the
following :" He should be a dictator not averse to the use of slogans, street parades and demagoguery.
He must be a man of the people yet having nothing in common with the mass. Like every great man,
he must be all personality, and one who does not shrink from bloodshed. Great questions are always
decided by blood and iron." Prophetic or visonnaire Hess ?

In 1919, he adhered to the "Stab in the back legend" and hoped for the day of revenge against the
Jews, the Social-Democrats and the Communists. He joined the Thule Society and met men like
Eckart, Rosenberg, Frank and Hausofer whose ideas of "lebensraum" (vital space) he conveyed to
Adolf Hitler. He led a spartan existence and in 1920 met his wife Ilse Pöhl. He was the first person to
call Hitler "mein Führer" and the expression caught up within the NSDAP's members. Even Hitler was
sometimes unnerved by his "solemn earnestness."

Between 1921 and 1941, Hess was a member of the Nazi Party, Deputy to the Fuehrer, Reich
Minister without Portfolio, member of the Reichstag, member of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council, Successor Designate to the Fuehrer
after the Defendant Goering, a General in the SS and a General in the SA. In 1941 unknown to Hitler
he flew to England to try to broke a separate peace with Churchill through the Duke of Hamilton.
Winston sent him to jail immediately and he died in August 1987 in Spandau prison aged 93, officially
from suicide, the last survivor of Nuremberg trial. The Allieds have been extremely tough on him
because he was the essence of the fanatical Nazi who made the Holocaust possible even if he did not
personally committed war crimes. Anyway he signed numerous documents that made the genocide
possible and he never had any qualms about their consequences or never showed any remorse. He
saw himself as a radical and defined Nazism as "applied biology." He was a very dangerous and naive
fanatic.

The verdict
* count 1 : Guilty
* count 2 : Guilty
* count 3 : Innocent
* count 4 : Innocent
The sentence : life (Hess
committed suicide in
1987)

Between 1920 and 1945, Rosenberg was member of the Nazi Party, Nazi member of the Reichstag,
Reichsleiter in the Nazi Party for Ideology and Foreign Policy, the editor of the Nazi newspaper
Volkischer Beobachter and of the NS Monatshefte, head of the Foreign Political Office of the Nazi
Party, Special Delegate for the entire Spiritual and Ideological Training of the Nazi Party, Reich
Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, organizer of the "Einsatzstab Rosenberg" which was
responsible for the looting of Europe's art treasures , a General in the SS and a General in the SA.

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : Innocent
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

The sentence : 20 years, released in 1966.

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : not charged
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

The verdict :
* count 1 : Guilty * count 2 : Guilty * count 3 : Guilty * count 4 : Guilty

Although he generally disliked the Nazi party, he strongly supported Adolf Hitler's attempt to rebuild
the Kriegsmarine, while apparently disagreeing equally strongly on most other matters. On 20 April
1936, just a few days before Raeder's sixtieth birthday, Hitler presented him with the rank of
Generaladmiral (General Admiral). In his quest to rebuild the German Navy, Raeder faced constant
challenges from Hermann Göring's ongoing quest to build up the Luftwaffe.

The verdict :
* count 1 : Guilty * count 2 : Guilty * count 3 : Guilty * count 4 : not charged

Taken POW at the end of the war, he tried to slash his wrist and neck and was saved from certain
death by British doctors. Nevertheless, he was found guilty on three counts and hung.

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : Guilty
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

Between 1932 and 1945, Streicher was member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, a
General in the SA, Gauleiter of Franconia, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der Sturmer.
In 1945, he changed his look and tried to hide as an artist but failed and was taken POW.

According to Kingsbury Smith of the International News Service, the death of Streicher was from
strangulation and not broken neck: "The trap opened with a loud bang. Streicher went down kicking.
When the rope snapped with the body swinging wildly, groans could be heard from within the
concealed interior of the scaffold. Finally, the hangman, who had descended from the gallows
platform, lifted the black canvas curtain and went inside. Something happened that put a stop to the
groans and brought the rope to a standstill. After it was over I was not in the mood to ask what he
did, but I assume that he grabbed the swinging b ody of and pulled down on it. We were all of the
opinion that Streicher was strangled."

Ribbentrop lived several years abroad, working from 1910 to 1914 in Canada as an importer of
German wines. Ribbentrop married in July 1920 into a wealthy champagne producing family from
Wiesbaden and travelled Europe selling the family firm's wares
.Between 1932 and 1945, Ribbentrop -a confirmed social climber, persuaded his aunt – whose
husband had been knighted – to adopt him, allowing him to add the aristocratic von to his name -
was member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Nazi Reichstag, Advisor to the Fuehrer on matters
of foreign policy, representative of the Nazi Party for matters of foreign policy, special German
delegate for disarmament questions, Ambassador Extraordinary, Ambassador in London, organizer
and director of Dienststelle Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, member of the Secret
Cabinet Council member of the Fuehrer's political staff at general headquarters, and General in the
SS.
Ribbentrop's time in London was also marked by scandal. It was believed by many members of the
British upper classes that he was having an affair with Wallis Simpson, the wife of British
businessman Edward Simpson and the mistress of King Edward VIII.

During the trial he completely lost his moral and was a nervous wreck, sometimes even unable to
respond to the questions of his interrogator and he always showed he was not understanding what
was at stake, life or death. His IQ was 129 .

In November 1932, Schacht had written to Hitler :"" I have no doubt that the way we are directing
the course of events can only lead to your appointment as Reich Chancellor. We are trying to secure
a large number of signatures among the industrial circles to ensure your appointment to this post." .

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : not charged
* count 3 : not charged
* count 4 : Guilty

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : Guilty
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : Innocent
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

At the end of the war, Bormann was the most powerful man in the Reich after Hitler and was
considered as the Eminence Grise of the Reich without whom nothing could be decided. He was
ruthless, ambitious and fanatically devoted to the Führer.

In 1973 his body was found in Berlin under a sidewalk and after DNA analysis it was identified as
Bormann's. According to different testimonies, he tried to flee Berlin in May 1945 but was killed by
a mortar while trying to escape in a tank.

The verdict :
* count 1 : Innocent
* count 2 : not charged
* count 3 : Guilty
* count 4 : Guilty

In 1934, Robert Ley was given by Hitler the task of forming the German Labour Front (DAF) to
replace the now outlawed trade unions. Ley confiscated union funds and used the money to fund the
Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude or KdF) programme. From 1933 it provided affordable
leisure activities such as concerts, day-trips and holidays as in Prora. Large ships, such as the
Wilhelm Gustloff, were built specially for KdF cruises. Above all, KdF would bridge the class divide
by making middle-class leisure activities available to the masses.

In 1942 Robert Ley, in addressing a group of factory workers, asked : "Why do the German people
love Hitler ?". And he answered: "Because with Hitler they feel safe-it is a feeling of safety, that's it."
He was an alcoholic and nicknamed "Oberster Reichstrunkenbold" (“Reichs Drunkard in Chief”).

Eventually it appeared that his son Alfried had been much more involved with the Nazis. However, at
the request of the English, Alfried got away with it and was not prosecuted at Nuremberg. He was
prosecuted in 1948 but not by the IMT and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years. In 1951 he was
released, and in 1953 he resumed control of the firm with the stipulation that he sell his major
interests in iron, steel, and coal. The condition was not fulfilled, however.


Were defendants at the Nuremberg trial allowed to deny the holocaust? - History

As has been demonstrated, none of this is true. Absolutely none of it. It has been shown that the USA and the other victors were very lenient on Germany. Rather than forcing them to "toe the line" the US loosened the requirements for Denazification, with the result that Ex Nazis played a prominent role in West German politics. Because they US needed West Germany's support in the cold war, they looked the other way with regards to Mondial's heroes' crimes. They commutted the sentences of German SS men who massacred American POWs in Malmedy. They hired former SS men as spies, and they even allowed the German government to blackmail Israel with the threat of witholding foreign currency in the form of Arms sales, when it seemed as if Adolf Eichmann would expose prominent Nazis in Adenauer's government. Rather than Mondial's baseless assertion that the "postwar german constitution followed the official propaganda narrative", the US allowed the Germans to disregard the IMT's statutes and instead make use of a built in loophole in the form of section 211 of the criminal code a holdover from the Nazi era. This loophole and its narrow definition of murder allowed Ex Nazis to get nothing but slaps on the wrist for even the most heinous acts of mass murder, and they were helped along by a German legal system filled to the brim with ex Nazis. All because as mentioned above, "complete denazification was never an option", and in fact eventually removed from the "victors'" agenda.

EtienneSC has avoided tackling these well known facts because they show "Revisionism" for the baseless, dishonest nonsense that it is. Mondial will probably do the same.

As for Mondial and "Official Allied Propaganda", neither he nor his friends have yet to respond to this.

I have asked about this Several times now, and Mondial has yet to answer. Mondial, like most deniers, mis-characterizes the actual, observed post war policies of the victors of WW2 because they are inconsistent and incompatible with their fantasies. Either Mondial knows this and is deliberately spreading crap, or he doesn't, in which case he is lazy and doesn't bother to research a subject before talking crap about it.

__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?

In addition, there's also this.

It wasn't the Western Allies, that's for sure. Their main priority at the time was opposing the USSR, and to this end, they needed a strong and stable Germany to serve as a bulwark against communism. For this purpose, they loosened the requirements for Denazification and allowed several prominent ex Nazis to serve in the West German government, the CIA and NASA (Instead of torturing them to fabricate false evidence to shame Germany). The malmedy trial defendants, Nuremberg Law architect Hans Globke, several German rocket scientists involved in slave labor, and Hitler's former chief of staff (who later served as the secretary General of NATO) were examples of this. The Western Allies spent a lot off effort to protect them (instead of torturing or coercing them), i.e. Churchill personally intervened on behalf of Von Manstein, the US and West Germany blackmailed Israel to prevent them from exposing Hans Globke and other Ex Nazis in the Eichmann Trial. No American, British, or French Hoax there, that's for sure.

And it wasn't the USSR either. They were no "friend" of the Jews, and their post-war policy was "Do not Divide the dead", which was to downplay the fact that Jews were singled out by the Nazis for killing in Soviet territory. In all official reports of massacres on Russian soil, references to "Jewish Victims" were all edited to "Peaceful Soviet Citizens", changing the narrative from being a genocide specifically against Jews to Capitalist Fascists killing Communists. This was why the Soviet Indictment refers to the victims of Auschwitz as "Citizens of Various countries" instead of as Jews. Later on, the Soviets would crack down on Jewish attempts to commemorate the Babi Yar massacre as a massacre against Jews, and even forced local Jews to sign a document formally blaming "Zionism" for the Massacre. No Soviet Hoax either.

I have told Mondial and EtienneSC about these well known policies several times but never got an answer. The truth must be too painful, since the truth is that there was never a hoax to begin with and the Actual, documented policies of the WWII victors rule out any hoax.

Indeed like Mondial shows, they don't care about the truth or honesty. They make up crap in the service of their agenda, which is why people rightfully call them "Nazis".

That said, I think it's always important to point stuff like these out. It shows exactly how far off the mark and distanced from reality the fantasies about the Jews are, and how antisemitism (and racism in general) didn't magically disappear off the face of the earth after people "felt sorry for" Jews after WWII.

Maybe not relevant to the OP but, thanks to some of the input on this thread. I would never had looked up the Katyn massacre - only on Wikipedia so far I must admit.

Anyhow, thanks. The JREF is not quite out of the ISF.

I had the privilege of meeting, more than once, Roman Halter and his stories of the atrocities in Poland at that time never left me.

The Katyn massacre is another new one for me.


ETA: And more pertinent to the original OP. I heard about this when teaching a Russian banker back in London - circa 2008. He went on about the "Russian Offensive Plan" - so far as to add that the Nazis had found Russian to X phrase books including Russian to Spanish. And at the time, I thought and to misquote Churchill "Some plan, some bollocks".

One hardly needs to imagine a Russian Offensive Plan to account for the existence of Russian to Spanish phrasebooks in 1940, even in the libraries of the Red Army.

Had your banker forgotten that many Soviet military personnel served in Spain against Franco in the years 1936-39?

One hardly needs to imagine a Russian Offensive Plan to account for the existence of Russian to Spanish phrasebooks in 1940, even in the libraries of the Red Army.

Had your banker forgotten that many Soviet military personnel served in Spain against Franco in the years 1936-39?

True, but good planning would first start with Russian - Polish then Russian - German etc.. before even thinking of packing Russian - Spanish.

Not the first thing to put in your backpack for your front-line troops unless it was a perhaps an over ambitious attack.

Or really **** troop motivation - even Pavlov's dogs have limits.

True, but good planning would first start with Russian - Polish then Russian - German etc.. before even thinking of packing Russian - Spanish.

Not the first thing to put in your backpack for your front-line troops unless it was a perhaps an over ambitious attack.

Or really **** troop motivation - even Pavlov's dogs have limits.

Therefore if these phrasebooks existed at all they could not have been for the purpose of facilitating a pre-emptive attack on Germany. So maybe old stock from the Spanish Civil War, I hypothesised.

(Pavlov's troops had limits too, by the way.)

Therefore if these phrasebooks existed at all they could not have been for the purpose of facilitating a pre-emptive attack on Germany. So maybe old stock from the Spanish Civil War, I hypothesised.

(Pavlov's troops had limits too, by the way.)

Not being an historian, I simply thought the idea was ludicrous and illogical - why carry books for over 4000 km (roughly the distance Moscow to Madrid)? From the little history I have read the logistics of keeping an army marching is one of the biggest difficulties in a successful invasion.



Comments:

  1. Churchill

    everything can be

  2. Malalkree

    Bad taste what it

  3. Edrik

    Probably there

  4. Christophe

    It seems to me it is excellent idea. Completely with you I will agree.



Write a message