Nuremberg

NUREMBERG
[back] Holocaust revisionism

See trials: [1963] Frankfurt Auschwitz [1945] Belsen [1945-48] Dachau Trials [1972] Vienna Auschwitz [1988] Zundel

[They even used the Nazi shrunken head at Nuremberg!]

Books
Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case by Carlos W. Porter.

Quotes
For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the truth about German war crimes, it is a terrible shock to discover that the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, described the Nuremberg court as "a high-grade lynching party" for Germans (Alpheus T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, New York: Viking, 1956, p. 716). THE HOLOCAUST CONTROVERSY The Case For Open Debate An Introduction by Germar Rudolf

At the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal which prosecuted the German war criminals in Novemer 1945, three members of the American prosecution team provided sworn affidavits, testifying to the existence of lethal gas chambers at the Dachau concentration camp, but these affidavits were not introduced into the proceedings of the American Military Tribunal at Dachau, which also began in November 1945.
The affidavits were signed by James B. Donovan, Lt. Col. Calvin A. Behle of the Judge Advocate General's Department and Lt. Hugh C. Daly of the 42nd Rainbow Division of the US Seventh Army which liberated Dachau. The affidavits were included in Nuremberg Document 2430-PS which was read in court, but Donovan, Behle and Daly were not present and the defense had no opportunity to cross-examine them. US vs. Martin Gottfried Weiss, et al

The Nuremberg Trials are arguably the gravest miscarriage of justice since the witch trials of pre-Enlightenment Europe and colonial America. At the close of the Second World War, the Allies arrested the entire hierarchy of the Third Reich and put its members on trial for "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity," the latter an entirely new concept in international law. Actions taken by various governmental officials were declared, ex post facto, to be "crimes." Perfectly legitimate organizations were declared to be "criminal" and all members of these organizations were subject to arrest and incarceration without writ of habeas corpus.
Normal rules of evidence were suspended and affidavits of "witnesses" were not allowed to be cross examined. The prosecution presented as evidence numerous documents which were such absurdly bad forgeries that they were disallowed by their own judges out of sheer embarrassment. Both the American judge, Biddle, and the Russian judge, Nikitchenko, made statements prior to the trial to the effect that the defendants had already been convicted. The press was invited to watch the proceedings and the trial was broadcast over the radio. It lasted nearly a year and for entertainment value it outdid the Circus Maximus and the games of the Roman Colosseum combined. It was the political show trial of the century, making the 1930's purge trials of Stalin seem like the epitome of just law. Porter, Carlos W. Not Guilty at Nuremberg. Reviewed by: Karl Brecht.

Porter reminds readers that at Nuremberg the Soviets introduced reams of so-called evidence purporting to demonstrate that it was the Germans, not Stalins's henchmen in the secret police, who murdered over 4,000 Polish prisoners at Katyn, near Smolensk. As the author points out, an official Soviet stamp sufficed to make false affidavits, phoney confessions, faked forensic reports and the like "evidence" admissible at Nuremberg under Articles 19 and 21 of the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, in which the Allied lawyers devised the rules which would bind judges and defense attorneys at the forthcoming "trial." Americans, Britons, and Frenchmen currently gloating over Soviet discomfiture at the recent insistence of the Polish regime on finally laying the blame for Katyn where it belongs should recall that the Western Allies said not a public word at Nuremberg to challenge the Soviet "evidence" on Katyn (the judges quietly glossed over the Red charges by omitting them from their verdict).
It is the special service of Made in Russia: The Holocaust to remind readers that the same Soviet stamp which converted the fake Katyn reports into admissible evidence at Nuremberg also provided proof of the extermination of millions of Jews at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and elsewhere. As Porter emphasizes, physical and forensic evidence for the Holocaust was never introduced, nor is there any reason whatsoever to imagine it ever existed. All we have is a handful of "testimonies," and "confessions," and the reports of a number of Soviet or Soviet-controlled "investigative" commissions. If there was a Soviet Fred Leuchter, we have yet to hear from him (and probably never will). The same Red prosecutors who framed the victims of Stalin's purges at the Moscow show trials, and sent millions of innocents to their deaths in our gallant Soviet ally's Gulag archipelago, are the chief source for the vaunted Nuremberg evidence of the "Holocaust."
Porter provides numerous examples of prosecution tactics, usually allowed by the judges, which would make hanging judge Roy Bean, or even Neal Sher, blanche. He points out that the prosecution made it difficult, if not impossible, for the defense lawyers to have timely access to the documents introduced into evidence by the prosecution; that "photocopies" and "transcripts" were almost invariably submitted in evidence by the prosecution instead of the original German documents, which in very many cases seem today to have disappeared; that the defendants rarely were able to confront their accusers, since "affidavits" from witnesses who had been deposed months or even weeks before sufficed; etc., etc., etc. Porter, Carlos W. Made in Russia: The Holocaust. Reviewed by Ted O'Keefe

Our survey of official documents from recent German history shows that there is no documentary evidence that proves the existence of "gas chambers" in Birkenau or a plan to "exterminate the Jews," or that would even cause one to suspect there might be something to such charges. It also shows that the statement recently made by one of the vilest members of the Nuremberg lynching party, the Jewish-American prosecutor Robert M.W. Kempner, that the "historical assessments" on the "extermination of the Jews" are based "almost exclusively on official Ger man documents of the Hitler regime that have been preserved by an ex perienced bureaucracy" is totally unfounded.'02 Kempner's statement contradicts facts that must be well known to the man himself. The famous "Wannsee Protocol," which he may have had in mind when he made his remarks, has proved to be -- at least in part -- a crude forgery. We may pass over the recent conjectures that Kempner was responsi ble for that forgery -- it was he who "discovered" the "document." The validity of this charge cannot be established, though Kempner's general conduct as chief of the American prosecution team at Nuremberg might seem enough to warrant it. The Auschwitz Myth by Wilhelm Stäglich