The German Defense Case
Download the
book in PDF format:
By Carlos Whitlock Porter
Dedicated to Barbara Kulaszka
and Dan Gannon
Introduction
The re-writing of history is as old as history itself.
The Annals of Tacitus, for example, (xv 38), mentions a
"rumour" that Nero burned Rome; this "rumour" was repeated
by later Roman historians as "fact" (Suetonius, Nero, 38; Dio
Cassius, Epistulae, lxii 16; Pliny, Naturalis Historia xvii 5).
Later writers called this
"fact" into question, and demoted the "fact" to mere
"rumour".
In 1946, it was a "proven
fact" that Nazis made human soap (Judgement, Nuremberg Trial, IMT I 252
[283]; VII 597-600 [656-659]; XIX 506 [566-567]; XXII 496 [564]).
This "fact" has
since become, apparently, merely "rumour" (Hilberg, "revised
definitive" Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes and Meier, NY,
page 966: "To this day, the origin of the soap making rumour has not been
traced").
The forensically untested
"rumour" of Soviet origin (Exhibit USSR 393) is in the Peace Palace
of The Hague. Peace Palace officials show it to eager visitors and tell them it
is authentic; but do not, apparently, answer letters from persons asking to
have it tested.
In 1943, it was a
"rumour" that Nazis were steaming, frying, parboiling, electrocuting,
vacuuming and gassing Jews (see, for example, The Black Book: The Nazi Crime
Against the Jewish People, pp. 270, 274, 280, 313, introduced as
"evidence" before the Nuremberg Commission); by 1946, the
"gassings" had become "fact", while the steamings, fryings,
parboilings, electrocutions and vacuumings remained mere "rumour".
(Note: the "steamings" were "proven" in the Pohl Trial,
Fourth Nuremberg Trial, NMT IV, 1119-1152).
The "evidence" that
Nazis "gassed" Jews is qualitatively no better than the
"evidence" that they steamed, fried, parboiled, electrocuted, or
vacuumed them; it appears legitimate to call this "evidence" into question.
This book contains, not a
re-writing of history, but a simple guide to historical material which has been
forgotten. The 312,022 notarized defense affidavits presented at the First
Nuremberg Trial have been forgotten, while the 8 or 9 prosecution affidavits
which "rebutted" them are remembered ((XXI 437 [483])).
This book contains a great
many references to page numbers. They are not there to confuse, impress, or
intimidate the reader, or to prove the truth of the matter stated, but to help
interested people find things.
Whether the statements of the
defense are more credible than the human soap (Document 397), human hair socks
(Document USSR-511), and cannibal hamburgers (Exhibit 1873, Tokyo Trial) of the
war crimes prosecutors, is for the reader to decide.
Martin Bormann
Bormann was accused of
"persecution of religion" and many other crimes. Bormann's attorney,
Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many modern countries (meaning the Soviet Union)
are avowedly atheist, and that orders forbidding priests from holding high
Party offices (that is, offices in the Nazi Party) could not be called
"persecution". In Dr. Bergold's words:
"The party is described
as criminal – as a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from
membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime?" (V 312
[353]).
Documents were produced in
which Bormann prohibited persecution of religion and expressly allowed religion
to be taught (XXI 462-465 [512-515]). A condition of this order was that the
full Bibilical text had to be used; deletions, manipulations or distortions of
the text were forbidden. Churches received government subsidies until the end
of the war. Due to wartime paper shortages, restrictions were placed upon the
printing of all newspapers, not just religious ones (XIX 111-124 [125-139]; XXI
262-263; 346; 534; 539; [292-293; 383; 589; 595]; XXII 40-41 [52-53]).
Bormann's attorney had little
difficulty in showing that Bormann could not be convicted of a criminal offense
under the laws of any country, since it is clear that stenographers are not
criminally responsible for every document they sign. It was not clear to what
extent Bormann acted merely as stenographer or secretary. To the prosecution,
however, law was irrelevant, and Bormann was sentenced to be hanged. Sentence
was to be carried out immediately, ignoring extensive testimony that he had
been killed by the explosion of a tank and was unlikely to be in one piece,
presenting certain problems of a practical nature (XVII 261-271 [287-297]).
Criminal Organizations
The defense evidence for the
"criminal organizations" consists of the testimony of 102 witnesses
and 312,022 notarized affidavits (XXII 176 [200]).
The term "criminal"
was never defined (XXII 310 [354]; see also XXII 129-135 [148-155]).
Nor was it defined when these
organizations became "criminal" (XXII 240 [272-273]). The Nazi Party
itself was criminal dating back to 1920 (XXII 251 [285]) or then again maybe
only 1938 (XXII 113 [130]) or maybe even not at all (II 105 [123]).
The 312,022 notarized
affidavits were presented to a "commission", and evidence before this
"commission" does not appear in the transcript of the Nuremberg
Trial. The National Archives in Washington do not possess a copy of the
commission transcript, had never heard of it, and do not know what it is.
Of the 312,022 affidavits,
only a few dozen were ever translated into English, so the Tribunal could not
read them (XXI 287, 397-398 [319, 439]).
The President of the Tribunal,
Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, understood no German; neither did Robert Jackson.
Due to a last-minute rule
change (XXI 437-438, 441, 586-587 [483-485, 488, 645-646]) many more affidavits
were rejected on technical grounds (XX 446-448 [487-489]).
The "commission"
prepared "summaries" which were presented to the Tribunal (x-thousand
affidavits alleging humane treatment of prisoners, etc). These summaries were
not considered to be in evidence. The Tribunal promised to read the 312,022
affidavits before arriving at their verdict (XXI 175 [198]); 14 days later it
was announced that the 312,022 affidavits were not true (XXII 176-178
[200-203]).
Then a single affidavit from
the prosecution (Document D-973) was deemed to have "rebutted"
136,000 affidavits from the defense (XXI 588; 437, 366 [647, 483-484, 404]).
The 102 witnesses were forced
to appear and testify before the "commission" before appearing before
the Tribunal. Then, 29 of these witnesses (XXI 586 [645]), or 22 of these
witnesses (XXII 413 [468]) were allowed to appear before the Tribunal, but their
testimony was not permitted to be 'cumulative', that is, repetitive of their
testimony before the 'commission' (XXI 298, 318, 361 [331, 352, 398-399]).
Then, six affidavits from the
prosecution were deemed to have "rebutted" the testimony of the 102
witnesses (XXI 153 [175], XXII 221 [251]).
One of these affidavits was in
Polish, so the defense could not read it (XX 408 [446]). Another was signed by
a Jew named Szloma Gol who claimed to have dug up and cremated 80,000 bodies,
including that of his own brother (XXI 157 [179], XXII 220 [250]).
(In the British transcript he
has only dug up 67,000 bodies).
The prosecution had already
rested its case when this occurred (XX 389-393, 464 [426-430, 506]; XXI 586-592
[645-651]).
The prosecution then claimed in
its final summation that 300,000 affidavits had been presented to the Tribunal
and had been considered during the trial, giving the impression that these are
prosecution documents (XXII 239 [272]).
In fact, the prosecution got
through the entire trial with no more than a few really important affidavits of
their own. (See, for example, XXI 437 [483], where eight or nine affidavits
were presented for the prosecution against three hundred thousand for the
defense; see also XXI 200 [225]; 477-478 [528-529]; 585-586 [643-645]; 615
[686-687]).
In the various concentration
camp trials, such as the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, a simpler expedient
was agreed upon: mere employment in the camp, even if only for a few weeks, was
deemed to constitute "constructive knowledge" of the "Common
Plan". "Common Plan", of course, was not defined. It was not
necessary to allege specific acts of mistreatment, or to show that anyone had
died as a result of mistreatment. (36 of the 40 defendants were sentenced to
death.)
The transcript of the
Nuremberg commission is in The Hague, and fills half of one fire-proof
floor-to-ceiling vault. The testimony of each witness was typed with a
pagination beginning with page 1, then re-typed, with consecutive pagination
running to many thousands of pages. The first drafts and clean copy are in
folders, together, stapled, on very brittle paper, with rusty staples. It is
absolutely certain that, at least at The Hague, no one has ever read this
material.
Summation relating to the
testimony of the 102 witnesses appears mostly in fine print in volumes XXI and
XXII in the Nuremberg Trial transcript. The fine print means that the passages
were deleted from the final defense summation (otherwise the trial would have
been much too long). This material runs to several hundred pages. In the
transcript published in the United Kingdom, every word of this material is
gone. In English, 11 pages in fine print are missing between paragraphs 1 and 2
on page 594 from volume XXI. These appear in the German volumes (XXI 654-664).
Most of the rest of it appears to be there.
· The material covers, for
example:
· Total War XIX 25 [32]
· Reparations XIX 224-232
[249-259]
· German trade unions XXI 462
[512]
· Gestapo and concentration
camps XXI 494-530 [546-584]
· Röhm Putsch XXI 576-592
[635-651]
· Crystal Night XXI 590-592
[649-651]
· Resettlement XXI 467-469,
599-603 [517-519, 669-674]
· SD XXII XXII 19-35 [27-47]
· Armaments XXII 62-64 [75-78]
The 312,022 affidavits are probably on deposit with a German archive.
The judgment of the Nuremberg
trial is printed twice, in Volumes I and XXII.
It is important to obtain the
German volumes and read the judgment in volume XXII in German. Bad German,
mistranslations, etc, written by the Americans have been corrected, with
footnotes. Mistakes of this kind in documents may be taken as proof of
forgeries.
Generally, the German IMT
volumes are preferable to the American ones. Frequent footnotes throughout
these volumes alert the reader to mistranslations, missing documents, and
falsified copies (for example, XX 205 of the German volumes: "This phrase
does not appear in the original document.").
The German volumes are
available in paperback from Delphin Verlag, Munich (ISBN 3.7735.2509.5).
(Transcript only; transcript and document volumes in English are available from
Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry NY. on microfilm).
Documents
The standard version of events
is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were
introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited
in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.
The documents used in evidence
at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of
"copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on
plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons.
Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less
unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are
German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or
'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.
Volume XXXIII, a document
volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies,
5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed
material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed
by somebody else and 1 unspecified.
The Hague has few, if any,
original documents. The Hague has many original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn
statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense
material. They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the
'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but
apparently no original wartime German documents. The Hague has negative
photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been
stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are
re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been
photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say it is very unusual for
anyone to ask to see them.
The National Archives in
Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents,
A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The
Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.
The Stadtarchiv Nurnberg and
the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the
original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases,
'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.
Robert Jackson got the trial
off to a start by quoting the following forged or otherwise worthless
documents: 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others (II
120-142 [141-168]).
1947-PS is a 'copy' of a
'translation' of a letter from General Fritsch to the Baroness von
Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later signed an affidavit stating that she
never received the letter in question (XXI 381 [420-421]).
The falsified 'letter' from
General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such
during the trial and is not included in the document volumes, where it should
appear at XXVIII 44. Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal (XXI
380 [420]).
The enthusiastic Americans
apparently forged 15 of these 'translations', after which the original
documents all disappeared (See Taylor, Captured Documents).
1721-PS is a forgery in which
an SA man writes a report to himself about how he is carrying out an order
which is quoted verbatim in the report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI
137-141 [157-161]; 195-198 [219-224]; 425 [470]; XXII 147-150 [169-172]. See
also Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May
1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and The
Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy (XXVII 485).
1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler
Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the
heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech
on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries:
1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII 406-408 [445-447];
XVIII 390-402 [426-439].
The third forgery, Document
L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence
(II 286 [320-321]), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic
(II 286-293 [320-328]).
This document is quoted by
A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of the Second World War
(Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to his Critics) giving his source
as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii, No 192 and 193.
L-3 is the source of many
statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the
fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them
at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he
will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the
photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same
typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions
of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the
Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.
81-PS is a 'certified true
copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If
authentic, it is the first draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably
spoken of as a letter written by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511
[560-561]). The document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a
bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person to whom
it was addressed (XVII 612 [664]). 81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit
number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).
212-PS was also prepared by an
unknown person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings,
date, address, or stamp (III 540 [602], XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of
negative photostats from The Hague).
This is, unfortunately, only
typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of
5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed
'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true
copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach,
of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst
document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The
text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).
Thus 'trial by document' works
as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by
B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral
statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who
made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although
there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements.
It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E
knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries.
Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.
The forgery of original
documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg, because the documents were not
brought to court. The "original document" – that is, the original
unsigned "copy" – was kept in a safe in the Document Centre (II 195
[224], 256-258 [289-292]).
Then, 2
"photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21 [29]) or 6 photocopies (II
251-253 [284-286]) were prepared and brought to court. All other copies were
re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504 [558-559]).
In the transcript, the word
"original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II 249-250
[283-284]; XIII 200 [223], 508 [560], 519 [573], XV 43 [53], 169 [189] 171
[191] 327 [359]), to distinguish the photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV
245-246 [273-274]).
"Translations" of
all documents were available from the beginning of the trial (II 159-160
[187-189], 191 [219-220], 195 [224], 215 [245], 249-250 [282-283], 277 [312],
415 [458], 437 [482-483]), but the "original" German texts were not
available until at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial
briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS. The defense received no
documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26 [31-35]).
Documents which appear to have
been prepared on the same typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from
Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor
sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 [381-385]). This
letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416 [458]).
Karl Dönitz
Dönitz was imprisoned for
waging "illegal submarine warfare" against the British. In
international law, everything is a matter of reciprocity and international
agreements, which can only be enforced through reciprocity. In warfare, the
best defense against a weapon is a vigorous counterattack with the same weapon.
The British, due to their mastery of the seas, fought both world wars through
blockade, and the so-called Navicert system. Neutral ships were stopped at sea,
and forced to pull into British ports where they were searched according to
complicated formulae: if a neutral country imported more food, fertlizer, wool,
leather, rubber, cotton, etc. than the quantities believed necessary for its
own consumption (in the opinion of the British), the difference was assumed to
be intended for reshipment to the Germans. Result: the ship (and entire cargo)
was confiscated and sold at auction, which also violated the clauses of all
British marine insurance contracts.
In 1918-19, the blockade was
maintained for 8 months after the Armistice to force the Germans to ratify the
Versailles Treaty. Hundreds of thousands of Germans died of starvation after
the war while the diplomats delayed, an obvious violation of the conditions of
the Armistice and all international law. This is what Hitler correctly termed
"the greatest breach of faith of all time". The British point of view
appears to be that the blockade was legal but was carried out in a totally
illegal manner (see 1911 Encyplopaedia Brittannica, "Neutrality",
1922 Encyclopaedia Brittannica, "Blockade", "Peace
Conference". In the war against Japan, the Americans "sank everything
that moved since the first day of the war".
Neutrals, including the United
States, complained that this violated their neutrality, but complied, again, in
violation of their own neutrality. A nation which allows its neutrality to be
violated may be treated as a belligerent.
The British never ratified the
Fifth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 on the Rights of Neutrals, but
considered its terms binding on the Germans and Japanese, despite an
all-participation clause (i.e., the convention ceases to apply if a
non-signatory participates in the conflict).
In 1939, the Germans possessed
only 26 Atlantic-going submarines, one fifth of the French total alone.
Moreover, German submarines were much smaller than those of other nations. A
counterblockade against the British could only be enforced by warning neutrals
not to sail in waters surrounding the British Isles. To the British, this was a
"crime".
Of these 26 submarines, many
were, at any one time, under repair; so that during some months only 2 or 3
were seaworthy. It is obvious that submarines cannot carry out search and
seizure in the same manner as a surface navy; a submarine, once it has surfaced,
is almost defenseless against the smallest gun mounted on a merchant vessel,
not to mention radio, radar, and aircraft.
It was demanded by the British
at Nuremberg that German submarines should have surfaced, notified the surface
vessel of their intention to search; waited for the surface vessel to commence
hostilities; then sink the vessel, presumably with the submarine's deck guns;
then take the dozens of hundreds of survivors on board the submarine (where
they would be in far greater danger than in any lifeboat), and take them to the
nearest land.
When British aircraft appeared
and sank the submarine, killing the survivors, they had, of course, been
"murdered" by the Germans. No international convention requires this,
and no nation fought in this manner. Since rescuing survivors rendered the
submarine unfit for duty and frequently resulted in the loss of submarine and
crew, Dönitz prohibited any act of rescue. This was called an order to
"exterminate survivors". This was not upheld in the judgment, however.
Dönitz was also accused of
encouraging the German people to hopeless resistance, a crime also committed by
Winston Churchill, Dönitz replied.
"It was very painful that
our cities were still being bombed to pieces and that through these bombing attacks
and the continued fight more lives were lost. The number of these people is
about 300,000 to 400,000, the largest number of whom perished in the bombing of
Dresden, which cannot be justified from a military point of view, and which
could not have been predicted.
"Nevertheless, this
figure is relatively small compared with the millions of German people we would
have lost in the East, soldiers and civilians, if we had capitulated in the
winter." (XIII 247-406 [276-449]; XVIII 312-372 [342-406]).
Hans Frank
Frank was accused of making
hundreds of anti-Semitic statements in a 12,000 page document called his
"diary". The "diary" contains only one page signed by
Frank, and hundreds of humane statements, which were ignored (XII 115-156 [129-173]).
The anti-Semitic statements were selected by the Russians and typeset in a
short document which was introduced into evidence as Document 2233-PS,
invariably called "Frank's Diary".
The actual "diary"
of 12,000 pages consists of summaries (not verbatim transcripts or stenographic
notes) of conferences in which 5 or 6 people often spoke at once in
circumstances of great confusion; it was not clear to whom which statements
should be attributed (XII 86 [97-98]).
Frank gave his
"diary" to the Americans in the belief that it would exonerate him;
he had protested Hitler's illegality in public speeches at great personal risk,
and tried to resign 14 times (XII 2-114 [8-128]; XVIII 129-163 [144-181]).
Frank became convinced that
atrocities had occured after reading about the Soviet Maidenak Trial in the
foreign press (XII 35 [43]). Auschwitz was not in territory controlled by
Frank.
Frank saw his task as the
creation of an independent judiciary in a National Socialist State, a task
which he found impossible. In a speech on November 19, 1941, Frank said,
"Law cannot be degraded
to a position where it becomes an object of bargaining. Law cannot be sold. It
is either there, or it is not there. Law cannot be marketed on the stock
exchange. If the law finds no support, then the State too loses its moral stay
and sinks into the depths of night and horror."
Hitler's illegalities never
included the passing of an ex post facto law; in 3 cases, punishment was
increased retroactively (XVII 504 [547]).
Frank's alleged looting of art
treasures will be discussed together with that of Rosenberg.
Wilhelm Frick
Frick was hanged for
"Germanizing" the inhabitants of Posen, Danzig, West Prussia, Eupen,
Malmedy, the Sudetenland, the Memelland, and Austria. With the exception of
Austria, these were fomer parts of the Prussian Reich, separated from Germany
by the Versailles Treaty. Malmedy is French-speaking – the other areas are all
German speaking. Austria was unable to subsist as an economic unit after 1919,
and had demanded to be united with Germany by vote. The Allied victors
responded by threatening to cut off all food supplies (XVIII 55 [66], XIX 360
[397]).
Another crime committed by
Frick was killing 275,000 feeble-minded persons, according to the
"report" of a Czech "War Crimes Commission".
Frick, like Göring, was
accused of responsibility for the existence of the concentration camps. In
Frick's defense it was pointed out that "protective custody"
pre-dated the National Socialist accession to power in both Germany and
Austria. In Austria, it was called Anhaltehaft, and was used to imprison
thousands of National Socialists (XXI 518-521 [572-576]). "Protective
custody" exists in West Germany today and is called U-haft\. [Ed. note:
U-Haft is investigative custody during an ongoing criminal investigation
against a suspect, imposed in case of a danger that the defendant might flee or
obstruct justice. This is not protective custody, which was imposed in spite of
no investigation going on.]
In the final judgment of one
of the most important Dachau Trials (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and
Thirty-Nine Others, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, volume XI,
p. 15, published by the United Nations), the following sentence appears:
"In the Mathausen
Concentration Camp case . . . the facts were basically the same – though the
casualty figures were much higher as mass extermination by means of a gas
chamber was practised ---"
Is this an admission that no
gas chamber existed at Dachau? According to Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, no Dachau trial ever "proved" the existence of a gas
chamber at Dachau.
At Nuremberg, a
"certified true copy" of the judgment of the Trial of Martin
Gottfried Weiss and Thirty Nine Others was introduced into evidence with that
sentence deleted as Document 3590-PS (V 199 [228]) along with 3 other documents
alleging mass extermination by gassing at Dachau (Document 3249-PS, V 172-173
[198>, XXXII 60; Document 2430-PS, XXX 470; and 159-L, XXXVII 621).
Frick was accused by the
deponent of the "mass gassings at Dachau" affidavit, Document
3249-PS, (written by Lt. Daniel L. Margolies, also involved in the forgery of 3
Hitler speeches, XIV 65 [77], and signed by Dr. Franz Blaha) of having visited
Dachau. Frick denied this, and demanded to take the stand to be confronted with
Blaha and to testify in his own defense.
This request was denied, and
Frick apparently gave up. He never testified. His defense summation appears at
XVIII 164-189 [182-211].
The deponent, Dr. Franz Blaha,
a Communist, was President of the International Dachau Association in 1961,
still claiming to have witnessed mass gassings and to have made trousers and
other leather goods out of human skin.
The trial of Martin Gottfried
Weiss is available on 6 reels of microfilm (MII 74, National Archives). The
pre-trial gas chamber exhibits (report, diagrams, shower nozzle, reel 1) were
never introduced into evidence and are missing from the trial exhibits (reel
4). The transcripts (reels 2 & 3) contain no mention of any gas chamber at
Dachau except for a few sentences in the testimony of Dr Blaha (Volume 1 pp.
166-169). The human skin came from moles (Volume 4, pp. 450, 462, 464).
Hans Fritzche
Fritzsche became convinced
from a letter that mass killings were being carried out in Russia and attempted
to verify this. He was, however, unable to find any evidence of it (XVII
172-175 [191-195]).
Fritzsche is an important
defendant because it was admitted in his case that foreign newspapers printed
much false news about Germany (XVII 175-176 [194-196]; see also XVII 22-24
[30-33]). Yet, these same newspaper stories and radio reports constituted the
"facts of common knowledge" which the Tribunal alleged needed no
proof (Article 21 of rules of evidence, I 15 [16], II 246 [279]).
It was pointed out in
Fritzsche's defense that no international convention exists regulating
propaganda or atrocity stories, true or false, and that only one national law
of one state (Switzerland) made it unlawful to insult foreign Heads of State.
That Fritzsche could be guilty of no crime, was, at Nuremberg, simply
irrelevant. It was deemed undesirable to have a "trial" in which all
defendants were convicted. In the horse-trading which preceeded the final
verdict, it was agreed that Fritzsche should be released (XVII 135-261
[152-286]; XIX 312-352 [345-388]).
Walter Funk
Funk was a classical pianist
from a highly respected artistic family, married for 25 years at the time of
the trial, and former financial editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk was
accused of performing "immoral acts" such as accepting birthday gifts
from Hitler, proving "willing participation in the Common Plan".
(Obviously, such acts are not illegal.)
Funk claimed that the British
and the Poles had conspired to provoke Germany into war in the belief that the
generals would overthrow Hitler (XIII 111-112 [125-126]).
Funk was accused of conspiring
with the SS to murder concentration camp inmates in order to finance the war
effort by pulling their teeth out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at the
Reichsbank, along with shaving kits, fountain pens, large alarm clocks, and
other more or less useless junk. Forgotten was Rudolf Hoess's testimony that
the teeth were melted at Auschwitz (XI 417 [460]).
Funk testified that the
amounts and kinds of loot were "absurd" and pointed out that the SS
acted as customs police and enforced exchange control regulations, including a
prohibition against the ownership of gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency.
It was quite natural that the SS should confiscate large amounts of valuables,
and that the SS, as a government agency, should have financial accounts, and
that these accounts would contain valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same
vaults as well, to which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were private
safety deposit accounts.
With the increased bombing
raids, more and more valuables were deposited in the vaults by ordinary German
citizens. Finally, after a particularly damaging raid on the bank, the
valuables were removed to a potassium mine in Thuringen. The Americans found
the valuables there, and falsified a film of it.
Funk and his attorney showed
the falsity of the film using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest
testimony and cross examination in the entire trial (XIII 169 [189-190],
203-204 [227-228], 562-576 [619-636]; XXI 233-245 [262-275]).
Also given short shrift was
the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit, Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was
accused of discussing the use of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war
at a dinner party attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII
220-263 [245-291]). This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert
Kempner. Pohl was later convicted of "steaming" people to death in 10
"steam chambers" at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their hair
(NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal, Nuremberg).
Funk believed, like other
defendants, that crimes had occurred, but maintained that he knew nothing about
it. His belief that crimes had occurred does not, in itself, prove that that
belief was true.
Kurt Gerstein
Kurt Gerstein is often
referred to as a Holocaust "witness"; however, this is not correct.
By "witness", one normally understands a person who has seen something
and who appears to testify as to his personal knowledge; Gerstein did not do
that. Gerstein was an unworn affiant or deponent, which means that he is simply
a name appearing at the end of a "statement" typewritten in French,
which he may or may not have written. (Document 1553-PS rejected at Nuremberg)
(VI 333-334 [371-372], 362-363 [398-399]).
One of the stories current
about Gerstein is that he wrote the statement in Cherche-Midi prison, in
France, and committed suicide, after which his body disappeared.
It is far more probable that
the statement was written in French by a German Jewish
interrogator-"interpreter", and that some of the inconsistencies
(such as winter occuring in August, or being in a car in one sentence, and a
train in the next) resulted from imperfect transcription of the notes of
interrogation into affidavit form. In minor war crimes trials and Japanese war
crimes trials, unsworn "statements" of this kind are fairly common,
on the theory that they possess "probative value" but less
"weight" than sworn statements. It is also possible that Gerstein
died of injuries sustained during "interrogation"; or perhaps he
hanged himself with the typewriter ribbon.
This document was later
extensively quoted in the Pohl Trial, where it was "proven" that
Treblinka had 10 'gas chambers' (1553-PS) and 10 'steam chambers' (3311-PS) in
the same camp at the same time.
G.M. Gilbert
One of the most famous
accounts of the behavior and psychology of the Nuremberg Trial defendants is
that of the German-born psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, in his book Nuremberg
Diary. Much of the material consists of conversations which the defendants
and other persons, such as Rudolf Hoess, allegedly had with Gilbert or each
other(!) and which Gilbert allegedly wrote down from memory afterwards.
A comparison of texts with the
Nuremberg trial transcript will show that the defendants did not speak in the
style attributed to them by Gilbert. Gilbert took no notes. No witnesses were
present.
Persons who believe that
Documents 1014-PS, 798-PS, and L-3 are "Hitler speeches", at least in
comparison with Document Ra-27, may continue believing that Gilbert's book
contains "statements of the Nuremberg Trial defendants". This does
not rule out, of course, that they may have made statements similar to those
allegedly "remembered" by Gilbert.
Gilbert believed that the
defendants gassed millions of Jews. If they felt no guilt for their actions,
this proved that they were "schizoid".
It is obvious that such a
belief on Gilbert's part would influence his perception and memory to some
extent, even if he is telling the truth as he remembers it. If he lied, he was
not the only "American" at Nuremberg who did so. Telford Taylor, for
example, was incapable of repeating the simplest statement truthfully. (See XX
626 [681-682]), the statements of General Manstein, compared with Taylor's
"quotation" from Manstein, XXII 276 [315]).
Gilbert's dishonesty is best
proven by the entry for December 14, 1945:
"Major Walsh continued
reading documentary evidence of the extermination of the Jews at Treblinka and
Auschwitz. A Polish document stated: 'All victims had to strip off their
clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims,
women and children first, were driven into the death chambers . . . small
children were simply thrown inside" (p.69, 1st edition).
The "documentary
evidence" is, of course, a Communist "War Crimes Report" and the
"death chambers", of course, are "steam chambers" (III
567-568 [632-633]).
Hermann Göring
Göring was accused of creating
the concentration camp system and plotting "aggressive war" against
Poland. Göring's defense was that Germany was a sovereign state, recognized by
every government in the world (XXI 580-581 [638-639]); that Hitler was legally
elected; that every nation has the right to legislate and to organize its
affairs as it sees fit; that General von Schleicher had attempted to rule
illegally and unconstitutionally without the support of the National
Socialists; that Germany was on the verge of civil war in 1933; that
concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War, and that
internment of aliens and political opponents was practiced by both Britain and
the United States during WWII.
The order to create the camps
was unquestionably legal under an emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution,
and was signed by Hindenberg (Reich President's Decree of 28 February 1933),
under the authority of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Weimar Constitution
(XVII 535 [581], XIX 357 [394]).
According to a prosecution
document, Document R-129 (III 506 [565-566])) there were 21,400 inmates in all
German concentration camps put together in 1939. 300,000 persons were confined
in ordinary prisons (XVII 535-536 [581-582], XX 159 [178]).
One year after the war,
300,000 Germans were held in Allied prison camps under "automatic
arrest" clauses in Allied agreements (such as Point B-5 of the Joint
Declaration of Potsdam) (XVIII 52 [62]).
The majority of prisoners in
German concentration camps were Communists and common criminals (XVII 535-536
[581-582], XXI 516-521 [570-576], 607-614 [677-685]).
During the war, due to the
Allied blockade, the camp system was expanded to utilize the labour of enemy
aliens, criminals, Jehova's Witnesses and Communists. It was pointed out that
America imprisoned 11,000 Jehova's Witnesses (XI 513 [563]).
Britain fought both world wars
in defiance of international law by reducing Germany and any occupied
territories to literal starvation through blockade (XIII 445-450 [492-497];
XVIII 334-335 [365-367]). It was this which necessitated requisitions and
labour conscription in occupied territories, legal under Article 52 of The
Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare 18 October 1907. It was this which made
people happy to work in Germany and remit wages to their families (between two
and three billion Reichsmarks during the war).
The "slaves" paid
German taxes on their wages, and were disciplined through fines, which could
not exceed a week's wages (V 509 [571]). For gross indiscipline, they could be
sent to a work camp (not a concentration camp) for a period not exceeding 56
days (XXI 521 [575-576]). It was strictly forbidden to beat or mistreat them.
Prisoners of war could
volunteer to be released from prisoner of war camps and work in industry, in
which case they were treated like any other industrial workers (XVIII 496-498
[542-544]), but lost protection under the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention.
They could not be forced to do so.
The Vichy Regime in France
obtained the release and immediate return home of 1 prisoner of war for every 3
workers sent to Germany under contract for a period of 6 months (XVIII 497
[543]). It was not possible to violate the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by
forcing French, Belgian or Dutch prisoners to participate in hostilities
against their own countries, because their own countires were no longer
fighting (XVIII 472-473 [516].
As for the attack on Poland,
the Polish crisis existed for over a year prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
and the German and Soviet attack. During this entire time, the Poles never
called for an impartial international Court of Arbitration; never called on the
League of Nations; because they did not wish an equitable solution. They were
content to continue to violate their international agreements by expelling
Polish citizens of German descent, as well as many hundreds of thousands of
Jews (XVI 275 [304]).
The influx of Polish Jews into
Germany was the principal immediate cause of German anti-Semitism, according to
many defendants and defense witnesses (XXI 134-135 [155]; XXII 148 [169]).
Polish Jews were involved in many financial scandals and swindling schemes,
such as the Barnat-Kutitsky affair (XXI 569 [627]).
As for "conspiracy to
wage war in defiance of the laws of war", of course it was the British who
did that, with mass aerial bombings. German soldiers went into battle with
detailed written instructions that property was to be respected; prisoners must
be humanely treated; women must be respected; and so on (IX 57-58 [68-69], 86
[100-101], XVII 516 [560]).
Frequent trials resulting in
many death penalties against Germans were carried out by the German armed
forces against members of their own armed forces for rape or looting, even if
the value of the property involved was slight (XVIII 368 [401-402], XXI 390
[431], XXII 78 [92]).
Requisition of government
property was legal under the Hague Convention. The Soviet Union was not a
signatory to this convention. In any case, in Communist countries there was no
private property. Göring said he had been to Russia, and the people there had
nothing to steal (IX 349-351 [390-393]).
Furthermore, the Allies were
presently engaged in everything they accused the Germans of doing (XXI 526
[581]; XXII 366-367 [418-420]).
Göring demolished the
"pressure chamber medical experiment" accusation by saying that every
airman had to test his physical reactions to high altitude; there was nothing
sinister about a so-called "pressure chamber" (XXI 304-310 [337-344]).
Americans carried out medical experiments resulting in death while the
Nuremberg trial was still going on (XIX 90-92 [102-104]; see also XXI 356, 370
[393, 409]).
Ironically, it was alleged
that "defensive war" included preventive attack (XXII 448 [508]) or
to protect citizens of a foreign country from their own government (XIX 472
[527]; XXII 37 [49]), except when Germans did it (X 456 [513]). Protests that
Germans did just that were ignored.
The Soviets had 10,000 tanks
and 150 divisions massed along the border of eastern Poland, and had increased
the number of airports in their section of the country from 20 to 100. Detailed
maps were later found which would not have been necessary for defensive
purposes. It was believed that to await an attack upon the oil fields of
Roumania or the coal fields of Silesia would be suicidal (XIX 13-16 [20-23], XX
578 [630-631]; XXII 71 [85]).
It seems unlikely that nations
with vast colonial empires (Britain, France) or claims upon entire hemispheres
(the United States) could agree upon a workable definition of "aggressive
war". Indeed it was admitted in the judgment of Nuremberg that
"defense", "aggression", and "conspiracy" were
never defined (XXII 464, 467 [527, 531]). No doubt "defensive war" is
the medieval "bellum justum" dressed up in liberal jargon (IX 236-691
[268-782]; XVII 516-550 [560-597]; XXI 302-317 [335-351]).
Rudolf Hess
According to the report of
Robert H. Jackson, (quoted by Judge Bert A. Röling of the Tokyo Tribunal,
writing in A Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol. 1., pp.
590-608, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni and Ved. F. Nanda, Chas Thomas
Publisher), the British, French, and Soviets at Nuremberg did not wish to
charge the Germans with "aggressive war" at all, for obvious reasons.
This accusation was invented by the Americans for the sole, express, and
admitted purpose of justifying American violations of international law.
These violations of
international law would include the Lend Lease Program; convoying and
repairing British wartime ships for two years prior to Pearl Harbor; allowing
British ships to disguise themselves as American while the U.S. was officially
neutral; the illegal declaration of a 300 mile limit; the occupation of
Iceland; reporting the movements of German and Italian submarines; bombing and
ramming attacks against German and Italian submarines beginning as early as
July of 1941, and other actions obviously indicative of "aggressive
war".
Thus Hess was imprisoned for
47 years not only for actions which were not illegal (attempting to stop the
war, save millions of lives and prevent the destruction of Europe and the
British Empire), but for "crimes" which were invented to cover the
crimes of his accusers.
It was not alleged at
Nuremberg that Germany had committed "aggression" against Britain or
France; the question of whether Britain and France had, therefore, committed
"aggression" against Germany was left unanswered (IX 473 [525]; XVII
580 [629]).
Hess was accused of plotting
with Hitler to take Britain out of the war so that Hitler could attack Russia.
His defense was that his action was dictated by sincerity; that he knew nothing
of any attack on Russia.
Hess's defense summation
appears at XIX 353-396 [390-437]. >From his final (and only) statement (XXII
368-373 [420-425]) Hess appears to have been a man who could be totally insane
one moment, and brilliantly lucid, sane and logical a moment later. It is
possible that this condition was acquired in Britain.
[Photograph captioned,
"The wreckage of the plane that Rudolf Hess flew to Britain in an attempt
to stop the war, leading to his conviction for crimes against peace."]
Rudolf Höss
Rudolf Höss was the Auschwitz
commandant whose "confessions" have "proven" that Hitler
gassed six million Jews (or five million, the figure usually used at
Nuremberg). His best-known "confession" is the one quoted by William
L. Shirer on pages 968-969 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
This document, Document
3868-PS, should be seen in its context. The ex parte written
"statement" or affidavit (i.e., prepared in the presence of only one
of the parties) was a principal prosecutor's tool in the witchcraft trials of
the Middle Ages, only to disappear for several centuries, then reappear in
Communist show trials and war crimes trials.
These documents violate many
standard rules of legal procedure, such as the rule against asking leading
questions, the rule against prior consistent statements (i.e., the
multiplication of evidence by repetition; normally, such statements are only
admissible when they contradict other statements made later), the right to
confront and cross-examine one's accuser, and the privilege against
self-incrimination. Nor would the "evidence" in war crime trials be
admissable in a court martial. Even in 1946, the introduction of depositions by
the prosecution in capital cases before a court martial was forbidden by
Article 25 of the US Articles of War. Article 38 required the use of standard
Federal rules of evidence.
At Nuremberg, there was never
the slightest pretense that Höss wrote this document. If that had been the
case, it would not state, "I understand English as it is written
above", but rather, "I have written this statement myself". In
the minor trials (Hadamar, Natzweiler, etc.) it is common to find confessions
written entirely in the handwriting of the interrogator, in English, with a
final statement in the prisoners handwriting, in German, stating that these are
his statements and that he is satisfied with the translation into English!
Another formula occurs on page
57 of the Hadamar volume of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's book, War Crimes Trials,
"I certify that the above has been read to me in German, my native
tongue" (in English).
The pretense was that the
prisoner was interrogated through an interpreter in question and answer form,
after which the questions were deleted, and the answers were run together in
the form of an affidavit, usually written by a different person from the
interrogator who conducted the questioning.
At Belsen, for example, every
affidavit was written by one officer, Major Smallwood. In this trial, a
combination Auschwitz-Belsen trial, the court-appointed British and free Polish
defense team demolished the prosecution case – including the "selections
for mass gassings" – but were overruled on the grounds that involuntary
statements and oral and written hearsay were admissable, "not to convict
the innocent, but to convict the guilty" (Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, Vol. II. (This thin volume must be read in its entirety.))
After the affidavit was
prepared by the officer who did nothing but write affidavits, it was presented
in its finished form to the prisoner for signature. If it was not signed, it
was introduced into evidence anyway. Objections went to "weight", in
the jargon of war crimes proceedings, rather than to "admissibility".
An example of an unsigned
affidavit by Rudolf Höss is Document NO-4498-B. The B means that this document
is a "translation" with typewritten signature of an
"original" document, Document NO-4498-A, written in Polish, and
allegedly signed by Höss. There is also a Document NO-4498-C, in English.
Affidavits A and C are not
attached to Affidavit B, the "true copy".
Document 3868-PS, quoted by
Shirer, was signed in English, 3 times, but not in the "translation"
into German. The document contains a minor change initialled by Höss, with a
small "h", and an entire sentence written entirely in the
interrogator's handwriting (compare capital "W"s) not initialled by
Höss. The initial, of course, is there to "prove" that he has
"read and corrected" the document. The content of this handwritten
sentence is refuted elsewhere (XXI 529 [584]).
When the affidavit was
presented to the prisoner, it was sometimes corrected extensively, leading to
two or more versions of the same document. In these cases, the longer ones are
"quoted", and the shorter ones are "lost". An example of
this practice is Document 948-949, the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jäger (See Albert
Speer.)
Jäger testified that he signed
3 or 4 copies of the same document, a much shorter one. The shorter one was
originally presented against the elder Krupp, before charges against him were
dropped. In this document, the longer one, the translation into English is
dated prior to the signature date on the "original". Jäger's court
appearance was an unmitigated disaster, but that is forgotten (XV 264-283
[291-312]).
If the affiant appeared to
testify, he invariably contradicted the affidavit, but contradictions are
ignored. Other affidavit signers whose court appearances were catastrophic
include General Westhoff, who contradicted his unsworn "statement" 27
times (XI 155-189 [176-212]); and a "germ warfare witness", Schreiber
(XXI 547-562 [603-620]); Paul Schmidt's affidavit (Schmidt was Hitler's
interpreter), Document 3308-PS – presented to him for signature when he was too
sick to read it carefully – was partially repudiated by him (X 222 [252]), but
used in evidence against Von Neurath, despite Schmidt's repudiation (XVI 381
[420-421] XVII 40-41 [49-50]). Ernst Sauckel signed an affidavit written prior
to his arrival at Nuremberg (XV 64-68 [76-80]) and signed under duress (his
wife and 10 children were to be handed over to the Poles or Russians).
Since the affiants almost
never (if ever) wrote their own "statements", it is common to find
identical or nearly identical phrases or even entire paragraphs occurring in
different documents, even when they have been prepared on different days by
supposedly different people; for example, affidavits 3 and 5 of Blaskovitz and
Halder (Exhibits 536-US and 537-US); Documents USSR-471 and USSR-472 and 473;
and Documents USSR-264 and 272 (human soap affidavits).
Other affidavits signed by
Höss include Document NO-1210, in which the English was written first, with
extensive interpolations, additions and corrections, including 2 different
first drafts of page 4, and 2 different first drafts of page 5, then translated
into German and signed by Höss. That is, the "translation" is the
"original", and the "original" is the
"translation".
Document 749(b)D was
"translated orally" into German from English for Höss prior to
signature. The signature is faint to the point of illegibility, indicating
possible ill health, fatigue or torture. The torture has been described by
Rupert Butler in Legions of Death (Hamlyn Paperbacks)
The "confession"
quoted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe on April Fool's Day, April 1, 1946, in which
Höss "confessed" to killing 4 million Jews (X 389 [439-440]), instead
of the usual 2.5 million of April 5, 1946, has either never existed or has
gotten "lost".
It is not true that Höss's
court appearance at Nuremberg consisted chiefly of assenting to his affidavit;
this is true only of his cross-examination by Col. John Amen of the U.S. Army.
Instead, Höss appeared to
testify, and, as usual, contradicted his affidavit and himself as much as
possible (XI 396-422 [438-466]).
For example, where the
affidavit states (XI 416 [460]) "we knew when the people were dead because
their screaming stopped", (a crudely obvious toxicological impossibility),
his oral testimony claims (XI 401 [443], in response to grossly improper
leading questions posed by Kaltenbrunner's "defense attorney"), that
the people became unconscious; leaving unsolved the problem of just how he knew
when they were, in fact, dead. He forgot to mention that killing insects with Zyklon
took two days, a fact he mentioned elsewhere (Document NO-036, p. 3, German
text, answer to Question 25, and Kommandant in Auschwitz, p. 155).
With such a slow-acting
poison, the people would suffocate first.
Höss claimed that the order to
kill the Jews of Europe was given orally (XI 398 [440]), but that orders to
keep the killings secret were given in writing (XI 400 [442]. He claimed that
persons were cremated in pits at Auschwitz, a notorious swamp (XI 420 [464]),
and that gold teeth were melted down on the spot (XI 417 [460]), but an
evacuation of the concentration camps to avoid capture would have led to
unnecessary deaths (XI 407 [449-450]), and, almost, that there was no killing
program at all! This is worth quoting:
"Until the outbreak of war
in 1939, the situation in the camps regarding feeding, accomodation, and
treatment of detainees, was the same as in any other prison or penitentiary in
the Reich. The detainees were treated strictly, yes, but methodical beatings or
ill-treatment were out of the question. The Reichsführer gave frequent warnings
that every SS man who laid violent hands on a detainee would be punished; and
quite often SS men who did ill-treat detainees were punished. Feeding and
accomodation at that time were in every respect put on the same basis as that
of other prioners under legal administration. The accomodation in the camps
during those years was still normal because the mass influxes at the outbreak
of and during the war had as yet not taken place. When the war started and when
mass deliveries of political detainees arrived, and, later on, when detainees,
who were members of resistence movements, arrived from the occupied
territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of the camps
could no longer keep up with the number of detainees who arrived. During the
first years of the war this problem could still be overcome by improvising
measures; but, later, due to the exigencies of the war, this was no longer
possible, since there were practically no building materials any longer at our
disposal [Note: the bodies are supposed to have been burnt using wood for
fuel…] This led to a situation where detainees in the camps no longer had
sufficient powers of resistence against the ensuing plagues and epidemics […]
the aim wasn't to have as many dead as possible or to destroy as many detainees
as possible. The Reichsführer was constantly concerned with the problems of
engaging all forces possible in the armament industry […] These so-called
ill-treatments and torturing in concentration camps, stories of which were
spread everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by detainees who were
liberated by the occupying armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted
methodically, but by individual leaders, sub-leaders, and men who laid violent
hands on them […] If in any way such a matter was brought to my notice, the
perpetrator was, of course, immediately relieved of his post or transferred
somewhere else. So that, even if he wasn't punished because there wasn't
evidence to prove his guilt, he was taken away and given another position […].
"The catastrophic
situation at the end of the war was due to the fact that as a result of the
destruction of railways and of the continuous bombings of the industrial works,
it was no longer possible to properly care for these masses, for example, at
Auschwitz, with its 140,000 detainees. Improvised measures, truck columns, and
everything else tried by the commandants to improve the situation, were of
little or no avail. The number of sick became immense. There were next to no
medical supplies; plagues raged everywhere. Detainees who were capable of work
were used continuously by order of the Reichsführer, even half-sick people had
to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result, every bit of space in
the concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was filled
with sick and dying detainees […]
"At the end of the war,
there were still thirteen concentration camps. All the other points which are
marked here on the map means so-called labour camps attached to the armament
factories situated there […]
"If any ill-treatment of
detainees by guards occurred – I myself have never observed any – then this was
possible only to a very small degree, since all officers in charge of the camps
took care that as few SS men as possible had immediate contact with the
inmates, because in the course of the years the guard personnel had
deteriorated to such an extent that the former standards could no longer be
maintained […]
"We had thousands of guards
who could hardly speak German, who came from all leading countries of the world
as volunteers and joined these units; or we had elder men, between 50 and 60,
who lacked all interest in their work, so that a camp commandant had to take
care continuously that these men fulfilled even the lowest requirements of
their duties. Furthermore, it is obvious that there were elements among them
who would ill-treat detainees, but this ill-treatment was never tolerated.
Furthermore, it was impossible to have these masses of people working or when
in the camp directed by SS men, so that everywhere detainees had to be engaged
to give instructions to the detainees and set them to work, and who almost
exclusively had the administration of the inner camp in their hands. Of course,
a great deal of ill-treatment occured which couldn't be avoided, because at
night there was hardly any member of the SS in the camps. Only in specific
cases were the SS men allowed to enter the camp, so that the detainees were
more or less exposed to the detainee supervisors."
Question (by defense attorney
for the SS, Dr. Babel):
"You have already
mentioned regulations which existed for the guards, but there was also a
standing order in all the camps. In this camp order there were laid down the
punishments for detainees who violated the camp rules. What punishments were
these?"
Answer:
"First of all, transfer
to a "penal company" (Strafkompanie), that is to say, harder work,
and their accomodation restricted; next, detention in the cell block, detention
in a dark cell; and in very serious cases, chaining or strapping. Punishment by
'strapping' (Anbinden) was prohibited in the year 1942 or 1943, I can't say
exactly when, by the Reichsführer. Then there was the punishment of standing to
attention during a long period at the entrance to the camp (Strafstehen), and
finally punishment by beating.
"However, this punishment
of beating could not be decreed by any commandant independently. He could apply
for it."
Oral testimony of Rudolf Höss, 15 April 1946 (XI 403-411 [445-454]).
Höss's motivation appears to
have been to protect his wife and 3 children, and to save the lives of others
by testifying that only 60 people knew of the mass killings. Höss attempted to
save Kaltenbrunner by implicating Eichmann and Pohl, who had not yet been
apprehended. (For a similar case, see Heisig's affidavit implicating Raeder,
XIII 460-461 [509-510]).
Höss appeared as a
"defense witness", and his cross-examination by the prosecution was
cut short by the prosecution itself (XI 418-419 [461-462]). Perhaps they were
afraid he would spill the beans.
Höss's famous
"autobiography" Kommandant in Auschwitz, probably prepared in
question and answer from through interrogation like a gigantic
"affidavit", then written up to be copied in his handwriting, is not
much better. In this book, German text, cremation fires were visible for miles
(p. 159). Everyone in the area knew of the exterminations (p. 159) the victims
knew they were going to be gassed (pp. 110, 111, 125), but it was possible to
fool them (pp. 123-124; Document 3868-PS), and his family never knew a thing
(pp. 129-130). Höss was a chronic drunkard who "confessed" these
things when he had been drinking (p. 95) or was being tortured (p. 145).
It is not true that, according
to p. 126 of this text, bodies were removed from gas chambers by Kapos eating
and smoking and/or not wearing gas masks; the text does not say that. Robert
Faurisson has proven that Höss did make this assertion, but elsewhere, during
an "interrogation".
The Polish
"translation" of this book, published prior to the publication of the
German "original text", seems to agree with the German text, except
that place names and dates are missing, indicating that the Polish was probably
written first, these details being inserted later in the German translation.
The uncut, unexpurgated
complete writings of Rudolf Höss(?) (in Polish) are available through
international library loan (Wspomnienia Rudolfa Hössa, Komendanta Obozu
Oswiecimskiego).
Japanese War Crimes Trials
While Germans were being
convicted of making human "soap" (taken seriously in the seventh
edition of Oppenheim and Lauterpacht's prestigious International Law,
vol. II, p. 450) Japanese defendants were being convicted of making human
"soup" in repeated trials.
This is not a misprint; it was
considered a "proven fact" in 1948 – a "fact" proven in
numerous "trials" – that the Japanese are a race of habitual
cannibals who were forbidden upon pain of death from devouring the corpses of
their own dead, but who were officially encouraged to eat Americans. Americans
were served fried, or as soup; people were eaten when other food was available.
Thus, the Japanese engage in cannibalism out of choice rather than necessity.
Favourite human body parts for culinary purposes are liver, pancreas and gall
bladder; Chinese are swallowed in pill form!
Among the "trials"
in which this was "proven" are U.S. Tachibana Yochio and 13 others,
Mariana Islands, 2nd-15th August, 1946; Commonwealth of Australia vs. Tazaki
Takehiko, Wewak, 30th November 1945; Commonwealth of Australia v. Tomiyasu
Tisato, Rabaul, 2nd April 1946; and the most complex war crimes trial in
history, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE)
personally supervised by Douglas McArthur, which lasted from May 1946 until
December 1948 (see The Tokyo Judgment, vol. 1, pp. 409-410, University
of Amsterdam Press 1977, pp. 49,674-5 of mimeographed transcript.
The 25 defendants who survived
trial were all convicted; 7 were hanged.
Their crimes included:
Planning, initiation and
waging "war of aggression" against the Soviet Union (the Soviet Union
attacked Japan two days after Hiroshima in violation of a Non-Agression Pact;
on this same day the London Agreement was signed, pursuant to which the
Nuremberg Trial was held); planning, initiation, and waging "aggressive
war" against France (France is in Europe); illegal sea blockade and
indiscriminate population bombing (case against Shimada), that is, the actions
of the British in Europe would have been illegal if committed by the Japanese;
trial of war criminals before a military tribunal (case against Hata and Tojo;
see also U.S. vs. Sawada, probably the most disgusting and hypocritical
accusation of all; the victims were 7 Americans guilty of participating in the
fire-bombing of Tokyo in which 80,000 women and children were burned to death)
and cannibalism. It was not alleged that the defendants ate anyone personally.
The evidence included:
· Soviet War Crimes Reports
· Chinese War Crimes Reports
· Soviet reports based on
Japanese documents not attached to the reports
· Summaries of Japanese military
aggression in China (written by the Chinese)
· 317 Judge Advocate General War
Crimes Reports (total length: 14,618 pages) "quoting"
"captured" Japanese documents, diaries, cannibalism confessions, mass
murder orders, orders to gas P.O.W.s on remote South Sea islands, etc. ("captured
documents" not attached to reports; proof of authenticity not required)
· affidavits of Japanese
soldiers imprisoned in Siberia
· affidavits of Japanese
referring to Japs as the 'enemy'
· affidavits of Red Army
Officers
· newspaper clippings
(admissable evidence for the prosecution, but not usually for the defense;
i.e., events in China were proven by quoting the Chicago Daily Tribune,
the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Sacrimento Herald, Oakland
Tribune, New York Herald, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc.
· the "affidavit" of
Marquis Takugawa (written in English and not read to him in Japanese)
· the statements of Okawa (Okawa
was declared insane and confined to a lunatic asylum, but his statements were
used in evidence)
· the testimony of Tanaka (a
professional witness paid by the Americans; Okawa, when drunk, has confessed
everything to Tanaka; Tanaka 'The Monster' Ryukichi was supposedly responsible
for millions of atrocities but was not tried, instead he moved freely about
Japan)
· Kido's diary (titbits of gossip
about everybody Kido didn't like)
· Harada's Memoirs (Harada had
suffered a stroke, so his dictation was incomprehensible; how well he could
remember and what he meant to say were anybody's guess; the translations were a
guess; many different "copies" had been "corrected" by a
variety of people other than the person to whom he had dictated; added to which
he had a reputation for telling lies).
· The Prosecution's answer to
Defense arguments at the end of the trial refutes all defensive evidence,
stating that documents (translations of excerpts, "copies" without
proof of issuance or signature) are the best witnesses. If prosecution and
defense both quote a document, defense have quoted out of context, but never
the prosecution. Hearsay has probative value; testimony of defense witnesses
has no probative value; cross-examination is a waste of time.
Five of the 11 judges –
William Webb of Australia, Delfin Jaranilla of the Philippines, and Bert. A.
Röling of the Netherlands, Henri Bernhard of France, and R.B. Pal of India –
dissented. Pal wrote a famous 700 page dissentient opinion in which he called
the prosecution atrocity evidence "mostly worthless", remarking
sarcastically that he hoped one of the documents was in Japanese.
A peculiarity of war crimes
trials is that far from "proving" anything, they all contradict each
other. It was held at Tokyo that the Chinese had a "right" to violate
"unfair" treaties, and that Japanese efforts to enforce such treaties
– because they were "unfair" – constituted "aggression".
When the atomic bombs were
dropped, Shigemitsu had been attempting to negotiate a surrender for nearly 11
months, beginning on September 14, 1944. This of course became another
"crime" – "prolonging the war through negotiation".
"Proof" of Japanese
cannibal activity may be found in JAG Report 317, pp. 12,467-8 of mimeographed
transcript; Exhibits 1446 and 1447, pp. 12,576-7; Exhibit 1873, pp. 14, 129-30,
and Exhibits 2056 and 2056A and B, pp. 15,032-42.
Alfred Jodl
Jodl was hanged for complicity
in the Commando Order, an order to shoot British soldiers who fought in
civilian clothes and strangled their own prisoners of war (XV 316-329
[347-362]).
Jodl's defense was that
international law is intended to protect men who fight as soldiers. Soldiers
are required to bear arms openly, wear clearly recognizable emblems or
uniforms, and to treat prisoners in a humane manner. Partisan warfare and the
activities of British commando units were prohibited. Trial and execution of
such people is legal if carried out under the terms of Article 63 of the Geneva
Prisoner of War Convention of 1929. (See also dissentient opinion of Judge
Rutledge, U.S. v. Yamashita; Habeas Corpus action of Field Marshall Milch.) In
fact, almost no one was shot as a result of the Commando Order. (55 in Western
Europe, according to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, XXII 284 [325]. The intention was
to deter men from fighting in this manner, thinking they could simply surrender
afterwards.
Another "crime" was
notifying the Commander in Chief of the Army that Hitler had repeated an
already previously issued order that an offer of surrender from Leningrad was
not to be accepted.
Like so many German crimes,
this remained an idea without effect, since no offer of surrender ever came.
The intention was to force the population to withdraw to the rear, since it
would be impossible to feed millions of people or to prevent epidemics. Gaps
were left in German lines to the East in order to enable the population to do
this. Kiev, Odessa, and Kharkov had capitulated but were mined, killing
thousands of German soldiers with delayed-action detonator devices. The docks
were required for military purposes; Russian railroads were on a different
guage from German ones, and supplies could not be brought forward to feed millions
of half-starved prisoners or Jews. The Soviet propaganda lie that Germans
killed millions of Russian prisoners has been taken seriously by many people
who do not know the causes of the mortality. The order concerning Leningrad,
Document C-123, is not signed.
The case against Jodl
illustrates the absurdity of the entire trial. In the words of his defense
attorney, Dr. Exner:
"Murder and revolution –
in peacetime this would have meant civil war; in wartime, the immediate
collapse of the front and the end of the Reich. Should he then have cried,
'Fiat justia, pereat patria?
"It really appears that
the prosecution holds the view that such conduct could be demanded of the
defendants. An astonishing idea! Whether murder and treason can ever be
justified ethically had better be left to moralists and theologians. At all
events, jurists cannot even discuss such an idea. To be obliged on pain of
punishment to murder the head of state? A soldier should do that? And in
wartime? Those who have committed such deeds have always been punished, but to
punish them for not doing so would indeed be something new." (XIX 45 [54];
XXII 86-90 [100-105]).
At Tokyo, the generals were
hanged for interfering in politics.
At another point, Dr. Exner
exclaimed:
"On one single page of
the Anglo-American trial brief the phrase 'Jodl was present at' occurs six
times. What does this mean legally?" (XIX 37 [44]).
Jodl was asked by one of the
Soviet prosecutors, Col. Pokrovsky:
"Do you know that the
German troops […] quartered, hanged upside down, and roasted Soviet captives
over the fire? Did you know that?"
To which Jodl replied:
"Not only did I not know
it, but I do not even believe it" (XV 545 [595]).
This is the entire vast
subject of war crimes trials boiled down into 3 sentences (XV 284-561
[313-612]; XVIII 506-510 [554-558]; XIX 1-46 [7-55]).
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
During Kaltenbrunner's cross
examination, he was indignantly asked how he had the nerve to pretend he was
telling the truth and that 20 or 30 witnesses were lying (XI 349 [385]).
The "eyewitnesses",
of course, did not appear in court; they were merely names on pieces of paper.
One of these names is that of Franz Ziereis, commandant of Mauthausen
concentration camp.
Ziereis "confessed"
to gassing 65,000 people; making lampshades out of human skin; manufacturing
counterfeit money; and supplied a complicated table of statistical information
containing the exact number of inmates in 31 different camps. He then accused
Kaltenbrunner of ordering the entire camp (Mauthausen) to be killed upon the
approach of the Americans.
Ziereis had been dead for 10
and a half months when he made this "confession". Fortunately, the
"confession" has been "remembered" by someone else: a
concentration camp inmate named Hans Marsalek, who never appeared in court, but
whose signature appears on the document (Document 3870-PS, XXXIII 279-286).
Pages 1 through 6 of this
document are in quotation marks(!), including the statistical table, which
states, for example, that there were 12,000 inmates at Ebensee; 12,000 at
Mauthausen; 24,000 at Gusen I and II; 20 inmates at Schloss-Lindt, 70 inmates
at Klagenfurt-Junkerschule, etc, for all of 31 camps in the table.
The document is not signed by
anyone else alleged to have been present at Ziereis's "confession",
and no notes alleged to have been taken at the time are appended to the
document. The document bears two signatures only: that of Hans Marsalek, the
inmate; and that of Smith W. Brookhart Jr. U.S. Army. The document bears the date
8 April 1946. Ziereis died 23 May 1945.
The pretense was that Ziereis
was too seriously injured (he died of multiple gunshot wounds through the
stomach) to sign anything at the time, but he was healthy enough to dictate
this lengthy and complex document, which was then "remembered"
exactly and verbatim by Marsalek for 10 and a half months. Marsalek would, of
course, have had no motivation to lie. The document is in German. Brookhart was
a confession ghostwriter who also wrote the "confessions" of Rudolf
Höss (in English, Document 3868-PS) and Otto Ohlendorf (in German, Document
2620-PS).
(Brookhart was the son of a
Senator from Washington Iowa. Address in 1992: 18 Hillside Drive, Denver
Colorado, USA. Brookhart never answered my letter as to whether he had any papers
or memoirs.)
Ziereis's
"confession" continues to be taken seriously by Reitlinger, Shirer,
Hilberg, and other itinerant peddlars of Holo-Schlock.
Kaltenbrunner claimed that
there were 13 central concentration camps or "Stammlager" during the
war (XI 268-269 [298-299]). The prosecution total of 300 concentration camps
was achieved by including perfectly normal work camps. The 13th camp, Matzgau,
near Danzig, was a special camp whose prisoners were SS guards and police who
had been sentenced to imprisonment for offenses against prisoners in their
charge: physical mistreatment, embezzlement, theft of personal property, etc.
This camp with its inmate SS men fell into the hands of the Russians at the end
of the war (XI 312, 316 [345, 350]).
Kaltenbrunner claimed that
sentences passed by SS and police courts were far more severe than sentences
passed by other courts for the same offenses. The SS carried out frequent
trials of their own men for offenses against inmates and violations of
discipline (XXI 264-291, 369-370 [294-323, 408-409]).
Third degree methods of
interrogation were permitted by law for the sole purpose of obtaining
information relating to future resistence activity; it was forbidden for the
purpose of obtaining confessions. These interrogators required the presence of
a doctor, and allowed a total of 20 blows with a stick once only, on the bare
buttocks, a process which could not be repeated later. Other forms of legal
"Nazi torture" included confinement in a dark cell, or standing
during lengthy interrogations (XX 164, 180-181 [184, 202-203]; XXI 502-510;
528-530 [556-565, 583-584]).
Kaltenbrunner and many other
defense witnesses claimed that similar methods were used by police all over the
world (XI 312 [346]) and that respected police officials visited Germany to
study German procedures (XXI 373 [412]).
Defense evidence on this and
related topics amounts to many thousands of pages divided between the Tribunal
and "commission", and 136,000 affidavits (XXI 346-373 [382-412]; 415
[458], 444 [492]).
Kaltenbrunner was convicted of
conspiring to "lynch" Allied airmen who committed mass bombings of
civilians. The lynchings would have been illegal, but did not occur. Many
airmen were saved from mobs by German officials. The Germans refused to contemplate
such a matter, fearing it would lead to a general slaughter of parchuted
fliers. Like so many other German crimes, this remained an idea without effect
(XXI 406-407 [449-450], 472-476 [522-527]).
Another crime committed by
Kaltenbrunner was responsibility for the so-called "Bullet Order".
This is supposed to have been an order to shoot prisoners of war using a
measuring contraption (probably inspired by the Paul Waldmann pedal-driven
brain bashing machine, Document USSR-52, VII 377 [416-417]).
The "Bullet Order",
Document 1650-PS, if it is an authentic document, which it probably is not
(XVIII 35-36 [43-44]) is a mistranslation: the sense of the order is that
prisoners who attempt to escape should be chained to an iron ball (Kugel),
and not that they should be shot with a "bullet" (also Kugel). The
word "chained" appears in the document, but the word "shot"
does not (III 506 [565]; XXI 514 [568]); Gestapo affidavit 75; XXI 299 [332]).
The document is a "teletype" thus, without a signature (XXVII 424-428).
"Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) is an
example of the ugly jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best
translated as "treatment on a case by case basis". Kaltenbrunner was
able to show that it meant, in the context of one document, the right to drink
champagne and take French lessons. The prosecution got a winter resort mixed up
with a concentration camp (XI 338-339 [374-375]); (XI 232-386 [259-427]; XVIII
40-68 [49-80]). (The winter resort document is Document 3839-PS, XXXIII 197-199,
an "affidavit").
Wilhelm Keitel
Keitel was hanged for alleged
responsibility in atrocities said to have been committed in Russia, and for the
Commissar and Night and Fog Decrees. The evidence against Keitel consists
largely of the "reports" of Soviet War Crimes Commissions (XVII
611-612 [663-664], XXII 76-83 [90-98]). These are summaries containing final
judgments, conclusions, and generalizations without any underlying evidence or
documents. In these reports, military agencies are wrongly named and confused.
Among the Soviet documents
used to convict Keitel are Documents USSR-4; 9; 10; 35; 38; 40; 90; 364; 366;
407; and 470.
USSR-4 is a "report"
which alleges intentional spreading of typhus epidemics to exterminate the
Russian population. Responsibility for this crime is attributed to the
"Hitler Government and the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces"; see
also "Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea", Peking (1952) (American
Germ Warfare).
Documents USSR-9, 35, and 38
are also Soviet War Crimes Reports.
Document USSR-90 is the
judgment of a Soviet military court, and states that "German fascist
intruders committed bestial crimes", and attributes these crimes to the
"German Armed Forces Command".
Original documents are not
appended, and specific orders are not mentioned. Keitel's name is not
mentioned. The other documents are "certified true copies" (XVIII
9-12 [16-19]) of documents supposedly possessed by the Russians.
The "Night and Fog
Decree" (XVIII 19-22 [27-30]) was intended as an alternative to shooting
resistence members. It was conceded by the prosecution that such people could
be legally shot (V 405 [456]) but the Germans considered it undesirable to
sentence everyone to death. Prison sentences were felt to have little deterrent
value, since everyone expected the war to end in a few years (XXI 524
[578-579]). The Commissar Order had little if any practical effect, partly due
to the difficulty of determining who was a Commissar (XXI 404-405 [446-447]);
XXII 77 [91]).
Keitel is accused to this day
of blocking access to Hitler, that is, shielding Hitler from certain
information. This accusation, absurd in the extreme, is refuted on pages
645-661 [710-717] of volume XVII.
Also used against Keitel was
Document 81-PS, quoted in Jackson's opening speech, and Document USSR-470, a
"true copy" (meaning the document has been re-typed to make the copy)
of an "original document" written entirely in Serbo Croat, and
supposedly located in Yugoslavia, with a typewritten signature by Keitel. It
was not alleged that Keitel understood Serbo-Croat, rather that this was a
"translation" of a document written in German which the Yugoslavians
did not find (XV 530-536 [578-585]).
Keitel's case appears at X
468-658 [527-724]; XI 1-28 [7-37]; XVII 603-661 [654-717]; XVIII 1-40 [7-48].
Constantin von Neurath
Von Neurath was the victim of
a major forgery, Document 3859-PS. The Czechs re-typed an authentic document,
making extensive alterations and additions, and presented a
"photocopy" of their "copy" (with typewritten signatures)
to the Tribunal. The original document was in Czechoslovakia.
On this document, nearly
everything is wrong: German bureaucracy was extremely complex, and many
prosecution documents bear wrong addresses, false references, and incorrect
procedural markings which are not immediately obvious. In relation to this
document, Von Neurath said:
"I regret to say that you
are lying" (XVII 67 [79]; 373-377 [409-413]).
Von Neurath was convicted of
closing Czech universities (not a crime under international law when performed
by an occupation government) and shooting 9 Czech student leaders after a
demonstration. These crimes were "proven" with various documents:
USSR-489, a "certified true copy", certified by the Czechs; USSR-60,
a "report" of a "War Crimes Commission", quoting the
"statements" of Karl Hermann Frank, which were not appended to the report;
and USSR-494, an "affidavit" signed by Karl Hermann Frank 33 days
before his execution. The statements attributed to Frank in the War Crimes
Report were, of course, not signed or dated, and the original documents were in
Czechoslovakia (XVII 85-90 [98-104]).
Much of the
"evidence" concocted against Von Neurath, Schacht, Von Papen, Raeder,
and others came from the affidavits of an elderly American diplomat living in
Mexico (Documents 1760-PS; 2385-PS; 2386-PS; EC-451).
The diplomat, Messersmith, was
claimed to be too old to come to court (II 350 [387]); it was denied, however,
that he was senile (II 352 [389]). The "evidence" consists of
Messersmith's personal opinions as to the motivations and character of other
people.
Von Neurath's case appears at
XVI 593-673 [649-737]; XVII 2-107 [9-121]; XIX 216-311 [242-345]).
Franz von Papen
Von Papen was accused of
conspiring with Hitler to induce Hindenburg to take Hilter into government as
Reichschancellor. According to this view, Hindenburg was deceived by Von Papen
into believing that civil war would ensue if this was not done.
The Reichschancellor at that
time, General Von Schleicher, had attempted to rule illegally and
unconstitutionally for some time without the support of the National
Socialists, who enjoyed the largest majority in the history of the Reichstag.
Many of Hitler's illegalities actually date back to the period of Von
Schleicher's rule (XXII 102-103 [118-119]). This was the only alternative to
the chaos of 41 political parties, each representing some private financial
interest.
The democratic victors
demanded of Von Papen, in 1946, that he should have foreseen Hitler's intent to
wage "aggresive war" in 1933, and conspired with Von Schleicher to
rule through military dictatorship.
Von Schleicher was later shot
following the Rohm Putsch. These shootings were considered legal by Hindenburg,
as was evidenced by a telegram congratulating Hitler (XX 291 [319]; XXI 350
[386]; 577-578 [636-637]; XXII 117 [134-135]). Von Papen also considered the
shooting of Rohm and his followers to have been justified by emergency (XVI 364
[401]), but considered that many other murders took place which were not
justified, and that it was Hitler's duty to conduct an investigation and punish
these acts. This was not done.
It was conceded by the
prosecution at Nuremberg that the Nazi Party Program contained nothing illegal,
and was indeed almost laudable (II 105 [123]). The National Socialists were
declared legal by the occupation authorities in the Rheinland in 1925 (XXI 455 [505])
and by the German Supreme Court in 1932 (XXI 568 [626]) and by the League of
Nations and Polish Resident General in Danzig in 1930 (XVIII 169 [187-188]).
It was not clear in 1933 that
the Army would unanimously support Von Schleicher against the National
Socialists, who had a legal right to govern. Hindenburg's refusal to violate
the Constitution at the risk of civil war brought Hitler into government in an
entirely legal manner (see also XXII 111-112 [128-129]).
Von Papen was accused of
"immoral acts in furtherance of the Common Plan", such as the use of
the intimate "du" form in conversation with the Austrian Foreign
Minister, Guido Schmidt: Von Papen remarked, "Sir David, if you had ever
been in Austria in your life, you would know that in Austria almost everyone
says 'du' to everyone else" (XVI 394 [435]).
Acts of Von Papen's which
could not be called "criminal" were used to prove the defendant's
"duplicity" (no pun intended). A mental construction was placed on
Von Papen's acts with the benefit of hindsight.
It is sometimes alleged that
since Von Papen, Fritzsche and Schacht were acquitted, Nuremberg was a
"fair trial". The contrary does not apply to the International
Military Tribunal of the Far East, or other trials in which there were no
acquittals; it is forgotten that the witchcraft trials of the XVIIth Century
averaged 5-10% in acquittals.
Von Papen's case appears at
XVI 236-422 [261-466]; XIX 124-177 [139-199].
Erich Raeder
Raeder was accused of
"conspiring" with the Japanese to attack the United States. Other
crimes committed by Raeder included listening to speeches, being present at
conferences, having knowledge of contingency plans, and accepting birthday
gifts.
Raeder proved that the
Americans knew of the impending Pearl Harbour attack 10 days before it occured,
while the Germans knew nothing (XIV 122 [137-138]).
Raeder's discussion of German
military preparedness and Hitler speeches will be discussed together with Von
Ribbentrop's (XIII 595-599 [656-660]; 617-631 [680-696]; XIV 1-246 [7-275];
XVIII 372-430 [406-470]).
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Von Ribbentrop was hanged for
signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which preceeded and made possible the
attack on Poland.
Ribbentrop defended his
actions on the grounds that one million Germans had been expelled from Polish
territory over a 20-year period, accompanied by numerous atrocities, and that
complaints to the World Court in The Hague and the League of Nations in Geneva
had been ignored for just as long. These were ethnic Germans with Polish
citizenship living in lands given to the new Polish state under the Versailles
Treaty.
On October 23, 1938,
Ribbentrop made an offer to the Poles which the British ambassador, Sir Neville
Henderson, admitted was reasonable, calling it a "pure League of Nations
proposal": Ribbentrop asked for a plebiscite in the Polish corridor; the
return of Danzig (a 100% German city) to the Reich, and the construction of an
extra-territorial double-track railway and highway across the Corridor to East
Prussia, which had previously been separated from the rest of Germany and could
only be reached by sea, in defiance of all common sense, that is, a land bridge
to East Prussia (X 260-269 [295-304]; 280-281 [317-318]; 367-369 [416-417]).
In return, the Poles were to
receive an advantageous financial settlement: a guarantee of port facilities
and outlet for Polish goods through the port of Danzig. The future of the
Corridor was to be decided according to the principle of self-determination,
the Poles would receive an outlet to the sea, and the German-Polish Friendship
Pact (signed by Hitler in 1934 in the face of bitter German opposition), would
be renewed for an additional period (XIX 362-368 [399-406]. For the prosecution
version of these same events, see III 209-229 [237-260)).
This was the "Nazi Plan
to conquer the world" which served as a pretext for the entire war,
including, eventually, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Yalta.
In reply, the Poles maintained
that any change in the status of Danzig would mean war with Poland. A general
mobilization was ordered. The expulsions continued, filling refugee camps along
the Polish border.
The Polish ambassador, Lipski,
reportedly stated on August 31, 1939, that he was well aware of conditions in
Germany, having served there for many years. He was not interested in any note
or proposal from Germany. In the event of war, revolution would break out in
Germany, and the Polish Army would march in triumph to Berlin (XVII 520-521
[565-566]; 564-566 [611-614]; XX 607 [661]).
Ribbentrop claimed that the
attitude of the Poles made war inevitable; that the problem of the Corridor and
the expulsions had to be solved; that for both Hitler and Stalin the
territories involved had been lost to both countries after a disastrous war
followed by equally disastrous treaties (X 224-444 [254-500]; XVII 555-603 [602-655]).
To the Germans at Nuremberg,
there appeared only one explanation: the Poles and the British were in contact
with the so-called German underground, which had grossly exaggerated its own
importance (XVII 645-661 [699-717]; XIII 111-112 [125-126]).
Hitler's interpreter appeared
as a witness, and testified that the Germans could not believe that the British
would go to war over something which their ambassador admitted was reasonable.
According to the interpreter, Paul Schmidt, there was a full minute of silence
when the message of the British declaration of war was delivered, after which
Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and said "What shall we do now?" (X 200
[227]).
Schmidt's testimony shed light
on a famous remark attributed to Von Ribbentrop, that Jews should be killed or
confined to concentration camps. What happened, according to Schmidt (X 203-204
[231]) was that Hitler was putting pressure on Horthy to take stronger measures
against Jews. Horthy said, "What am I supposed to do? I can't kill them."
Ribbentrop was very irritable and said, "There are two alternatives:
either you can do just that, or they can be interned." This appeared in
the minutes of the conference as "The Reichs Foreign Minister said that
Jews should be killed or confined to concentration camps". The statement
was used against Ribbentrop and all other defendants during the trial, despite
Schmidt's testimony that the minutes were inaccurate (X 410-411 [462-463]).
According to Ribbentrop,
Raeder, Göring, and nearly all defendants except Schacht, the Germans were not
prepared for war and did not plan "aggression" (XVII 522 [566-567]),
XXII 62, 90 [76, 105]).
The invasion of Belgium,
Holland, and France were not "aggression", because France had
declared war on Germany. Belgium and Holland allowed British planes to fly over
their countries every night to bomb the Ruhr. The Germans protested in writing
127 times (XVII 581 [630], XIX 10 [16]).
Göring, Raeder, Milch and many
others testified that Germany had only 26 Atlantic submarines with insufficient
torpedoes, as opposed to 315 submarines in 1919 (XIV 26 [34]), and a
"ridiculous" bomb supply (XIX 4-5 [11-12]).
Hitler told Field Marshall
Milch in May 1939 that there was no need for full bomb production, as there
would be no war. Milch replied that full bomb production would take several
months to bring to capacity. The order to begin full production of bombs was
not given until October 12 or 20, 1939 (IX 50 [60-61]; XVII 522 [566-567]).
The German Air Force was
designed for defensive, pin-point bombing; the Germans cooperated with both the
Russians and the British in exchange of technical information of military value
until 1938 (IX 45-133 [54-153]; XIV 298-351 [332-389]).
The Germans never built
anywhere near the number of ships and especially submarines (XIV 24 [31])
allowed to them under the terms of the Anglo-German Naval Accord of 1935 (XVIII
379-389 [412-425]). This agreement represented a recognition by the British
that the Versailles Treaty was out of date. It was also a voluntarily
undertaken limitation by Hitler of German naval armament (XIX 224-232
[250-259]).
When war broke out, many large
German battleships were still under construction and had to be scrapped,
because they would have taken years to finish (XIII 249-250 [279-280]; 620-624
[683-687]). According to an affidavit signed by her captain, one of Germany's
largest battleships, the Gneisenau, was on a training cruise near the Canary
Islands when war broke out, without any ammunition suplies (XXI 385 [425]).
Hitler was a bluffer who loved
to terrify politicians with grossly illogical, self-contradictory speeches (XIV
34-48 [43-59]; 329-330 [366]), which all contradicted each other (XXII 66-68
[80-81]). For this reason, exact stenographic notes were never taken until 1941
(XIV 314-315 [349-350]).
Many "Hitler
speeches" are semi-falsifications or forgeries (XVII 406-408 [445-447],
XVIII 390-402 [426-439]; XXII 65 [78-79]).
The Germans believed they were
no longer bound by the Versailles Treaty because its terms – the preamble to
Part V – had been violated by the British, and especially the French. German
disarmament was to be followed by general disarmament (IX 4-7 [12-14]; XIX 242
[269], 356 [392]).
Hitler had offered to disarm
to the last machine gun, provided other nations did likewise; but Germany could
not remain in a weakened position forever, to be invaded and crushed at any
moment. The reoccupation of the Rhineland gave Germany a natural frontier
protecting the Ruhr, and would have been a matter of course for any government.
Eastern Europe seethed with conflict between heavily armed states; East Prussia
was not defensible; the Poles were openly demanding parts of Upper Silesia (XII
476-479 [520-524]; XIX 224-232 [249-259], XX 570-571 [623-624]).
The French-Soviet Accord of 5
December 1934 violated the Locarno Pact, which the Germans were convicted of
violating (XIX 254, 269, 277 [283, 299, 308]).
It was not clear that the
occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia violated the Munich Accord (X 259
[293-294]). This was done because the Russians were building airports there, in
cooperation with the Czechs. The Czechs hoped to turn the remainder of
Czechoslovakia into a "aircraft carrier" from which Germany could be
attacked (X 348 [394-395]; 427-430 [480-484]). Roosevelt had declared that
American interest extended to all of the Western Hemisphere, and Britain
claimed dominion over half the world; surely German interest could extend as
far as Czechoslovakia. From Prague to Berlin by plane is half an hour; Czech actions
were plainly threatening to German security.
There is no such thing as a
treaty which lasts forever. Generally, they are superceded by subsequent
treaties, and become obsolete. This is usually covered in the language of the
treaty itself by the words "rebus sic stantibus". By 1935,
Versailles and Lucarno had become obsolete.
Alfred Rosenberg and Ernst Sauckel
Like Frank, Rosenberg was
accused of "looting" and "plundering" works of art.
Rosenberg and Frank both pointed out that Germany was required to protect works
of art under the terms of The Hague Convention, and that doing so required
removing them from the scene of hostilities. The artworks were carefully
packed, appraised and repaired. Had it been the German intention to
"loot" or to "steal", it would not have been necessary to
catalogue these artworks with an exact notation of the name and address of the
owner, if that was known.
Several works of art were
appropriated by Göring, not for Göring's personal use, but for a museum which
Hitler intended to create in Linz. Rosenberg protested against this
appropriation on the grounds that it was his duty to maintain the collections
intact until the end of the war in the hope that a peace settlement could be
made regarding these objects.
Rosenberg was also accused of
stealing thousands of railroad car loads of furniture. The furniture had
belonged to Jews who had abandoned their homes upon German arrival in Paris.
The Jewish apartments were sealed for 90 days, then the property in them was
confiscated as abandoned, since its safekeeping could not be assured.
Eventually it was used for the benefit of Germans who had been rendered
homeless by bombing raids. Again, it was hoped to make a settlement at the end
of the war.
Rosenberg's ministry received
a large number of complaints, which were investigated. many were found to have
no basis in fact. At Nuremberg, it was simply assumed that every complaint was
"true". Letters to Rosenberg were used against him in evidence,
though his answers to those letters had been lost. The complaints and letters
were held to prove "willing membership in the Common Plan".
Rosenberg was accused of
conspiring with Sauckel to obtain "slaves" for the war effort from
the occupied territories. Rosenberg, Sauckel, Speer, Göring, and Seyss-Inquart
all protested that had it not been for the Allied blockade such
"plundering" and "slavery" would not have been necessary;
that the sea blockade was illegal, and caused mass unemployment in the occupied
territories; and that occupation governments are allowed to demand payment in
services under the Hague Convention. The "slaves" were paid the same
wages as German workers, who were also subject to compulsory labour. Funk
claimed the "slaves" remitted 2 billion Reichsmarks in wages to their
families (XIII 136 [153]). Seyss-Inquart claimed there were 500,000 unemployed
in Holland as a result of the blockade, and if they were not provided with
employment, voluntary or otherwise, they would join the resistence movement,
illegal under international law. They were quite happy to work on German
fortifications in Holland, because this made it less likely that the Allied
invasion would take place in Holland. (The likelihood of Allied invasion was
also the reason for the deportation of Dutch Jews) (XV 662-668 [719-726]; XIX
99-102 [113-115]).
Fritzsche and others testified
that the "slaves" could be seen moving about freely in all German
cities (XVII 163-164 [183-184]), had plenty of money, and controlled the black
market (XIV 590 [649]). Moreover, hundreds of thousands of these
"slaves" refused to leave the country after the war, even though
their own countries had been "liberated" and Germany was devastated
(XVIII 155 [172-173]). Nor did the "slaves" revolt at the end of the
war (XVIII 129-163 [144-181]; 466-506 [509-554]; XIX 177-216 [199-242]; XXI
471-472 [521-522]).
Sauckel testified that the
"slave labour" recruitment in France was carried out by the French
government and by French collaborationist organizations. Many persons wished to
be "compelled" in order to avoid reprisals by the resistance (XV
1-263 [7-290]) but all were paid the same wages as German workers and enjoyed
the same health benefits and terms of contract. Far from "looting"
the occupied territories, it was necessary to import much valuable equipment.
In Russia, everything had been destroyed during the retreat by the Russians.
When Germans imported equipment and withdrew it during their own retreat, this
was called "looting" (IX 171-172 [195-196]).
An example of a
"complaint" which became a "crime" was the case in which
theatre goers were reportedly rounded up into "slavery". Sauckel
investigated for some months, and found this to have been a case in which a
labour contractor interrupted a party of his own workers in order to move them to
another workplace (XV 17-18 [25-26]).
As conditions worsened, more
compulsion became necessary. If the Allies had the right to confiscate property
of neutrals at sea, the Germans had the right to utilize the resources of
occupied territories on land.
Another accusation against
Rosenberg was the so-called "Hay Action", in which 50,000 children
were "kidnapped" into "slave labour". Rosenberg and Von
Schirach both testified that this was an apprenticeship program designed to
remove orphans from the war zone (XI 489-490 [538-539] XIV 501-505 [552-556]).
If Rosenberg's ministry did not remove the orphans from the area, the Army
would do it.
A related accusation is the
"Lebensborn" organization, supposedly a plot to kidnap babies after
measuring the size of their penises (according to mentally ill Jewish
"historians"). The purpose of this organization was to remove the
stigma of illegitimacy and to aid families with numerous children (XXI 654-664,
German volumes. These pages have disappeared from the American transcript. See
also XXI 352 [389].
Rosenberg's case appears at XI
444-599 [490-656]; XVIII 69-128 [81-143]).
Hjarmar Schacht
Schacht is an anomaly as a
defendant because the accusations against him contradict those made against the
other defendants. While the others were accused of "acts of moral
turpitude" such as accepting birthday gifts; making birthday speeches;
being photographed; signing laws legally passed by the Head of State; being in
political agreement with the Head of State; or if not, failing in their moral
duty to overthrow and murder the Head of State (obviously not a duty that can
be imposed by law); Schacht was accused of all these things, and, for good
measure, violating his oath of loyalty to Hitler and deceiving Hitler! This was
considered proof of particular wickedness (XII 597 [652-653]).
Schacht's remark on the
necessity of lying has been widely quoted to prove Nazi duplicity; it is
forgotten that the person being lied to was Hitler.
Schacht ridiculed these
accusations with one wisecrack after another, and was even more sarcastic than
Göring. Jackson, however, lacked the perspicacity to realize that Schacht was
making a fool of him (XII 416-493 [454-539]; 507-602 [554-658]; XIII 1-48
[7-58]; XVIII 270-312 [299-342].
Jackson's lie that he forced
Schacht to "admit that he lied" has been taken seriously by many
people who should know better. Jackson habitually lied (for example, II 438
[483]; IX 500-504 [555-559]).
Baldur von Schirach
Von Schirach was accused of
conspiring with millions of children to conquer the world in imitation Boy
Scout uniforms. It was pointed out in his defense that a conspiracy involving
millions of members is a logical absurdity (XIV 360-537 [399-592], XVIII
430-466 [470-509].
To further this aim, the conspirators
engaged in target practice with .22 calibre rifles (XIV 381 [420-421]) and sang
songs which were sometimes 300 years old (XIV 474 [521]).
At Nuremberg, crimes could be
found anywhere. In the case against the SA, an article on foot care was quoted
to prove "intent to engage in aggressive war" (XXI 221-223
[248-250]).
Schirach was accused of
knowledge of atrocities by Hans Marsalek, whose "recollection" of
Ziereis's "confession" (in quotation marks) one year after Ziereis
died, was used against Kaltenbrunner (XI 330-333 [365-369]; XIV 436-440
[480-485]).
Another crime committed by
Schirach was being short and fat (affidavit of Georg Ziemer, 244-PS, XIV
400-401 [440-441]). Schirach denied this charge. (A "short, fat student
leader" had delivered an anti-Semitic speech.)
Schirach was supposed to have
received Einsatzgruppen reports at his office as Gauleiter of Vienna. These
documents are photocopies of "true copies" on plain paper without
headings or signature, prepared by unknown persons, and found buried in a salt
mine (II 157 [185]) by the Russians (IV 245 [273], VIII 293-301 [324-332]).
Katyn is listed as a German crime (NMT IX 96-117, Trial of Otto Ohlendorf).
The Germans are supposed to
have killed 22,000,000 people (XXII 238 [270]), or 12,000,000 (XXII 312 [356]),
after which the bodies were burned and the documents were buried. Documents are
combustible and bodies are not.
Schirach and Streicher were
both taken in by a "photocopy" of a Hitler document in which he
"confessed" to mass killings (XIV 432 [476]; XII 321 [349]). Since
Hitler was a genius (X 600 [671-672], and since geniuses do not kill millions
of people with Diesel exhaust and insecticides which take 24 hours to kill
moths (Document NI-9912), it appears that the significance of this document has
been overrated. In fact, it is typical Hitler: full of violent language, but
short of factual content. Nor is it certain that Hitler was of sound mind in
1945 (IX 92 [107]). The Hitler 'confession' is a "certified"
photocopy (Striecher Defense Document 9, XLI 547).
Arthur Seyss-Inquart
Seyss-Inquart is an example of
the manner in which perfectly legal actions were charged as "crimes"
when undertaken by Germans, while identical actions, or actions criminal under
the Tribunal's own Statute (such as the Dresden bombings, illegal under Article
6(b), XXII 471, 475 [535, 540]), were treated as the minor inconveniences of a
great crusade to eradicate evil.
Under international law,
occupation governments are allowed to legislate as they see fit (a right
claimed by the Tribunal itself, XXII 461 [523], but contradicted at XXII 497
[565-565] and obedience to their authority is required. They are allowed to
conscript labour within certian limits, to confiscate government property, levy
taxes to cover the costs of occupation, and are not required to tolerate armed
resistence, striking, publication of hostile newspapers, or to employ local
officials who will not follow orders. Initialling documents or passing on
orders are not crimes under international law. Seyss-Inquart prevented much
unnecessary destruction at the end of the war which would have been illegal (XV
610-668 [664-726]; XVI 1-113 [7-128]; XIX 46-111 [55-125]).
As Reichskommissar for
Holland, Seyss-Inquart passed on orders to execute resistence members after
conviction for acts of sabotage or armed resistence, illegal under The Hague
Convention. The executions were carried out after renewed acts of sabotage
occurred. This was called "execution of hostages". The word
"hostage", however, is incorrect (XII 95-96 [108], XVIII 17-19
[25-27], XXI 526 [581], 535 [590]).
For a discussion of
international law from the prosecution point of view, conceding the legality of
these actions, see V 537 [603-604]. It was conceded by the prosecution that
resistence members may be shot (V 405 [455-456]).
The Fourth Hague Convention on
Land Warfare of 18 October 1907 contains an all-participation clause (Art. 2);
belligerants violating the convention may be required to pay compensation (Art.
3); prohibits bombardments "by whatever means" of undefended cities,
cultural monuments (Art. 23). Not ratified by Bulgaria, Greece, Italy,
Yugoslavia. Ratified by Czarist Russia.
Albert Speer
Albert Speer was convicted of
conspiring to enslave millions of people for work in German armaments
industries, where they were forced to sleep in urinals (Document D-288,
Affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jager) and were tortured in mass-produced torture
boxes disguised as clothes lockers (Documents USA-894), the bizarre
"disguise" being intended to permit the introduction of perfectly
ordinary objects as proof of "atrocities".
Regarding this charge, Speer
said:
"I consider this
affidavit a lie […] it is not possible to drag the German people in the dirt in
such a way" (XVI 543 [594]).
Speer was the kind of man who
is successful under any system. He always claimed he knew nothing about
"exterminations", but said he would have heard about it if prisoners
had been cremated using atomic bombs (a Robert Jackson hallucination, XVI
529-530 [580]).
Speer claimed to have plotted
to assassinate Hitler using a highly sophisticated nerve gas (XVI 494-495 [542-544]).
The plot failed because the gas could only be produced at high temperatures
(XVI 529 [579]).
Actually, Zyklon presents a
similar problem, in that the liquid must evaporate, and does so slowly unless
heated. German technical wizardry and industrial advancement in general renders
ridiculous any notion of a "Holocaust" using insecticide or Diesel
exhaust. It would be more difficult to "drag the German people in the
dirt" if it were not for people like Albert Speer. (XVI 430-588
[475-645]); XIX 177-216 [199-242]).
Julius Streicher
Streicher was hanged for
'incitement to race hatred', a crime which is becoming more popular. The
Streicher case is remarkable in that nations which preach separation of church
and state and freedom of speech and press should conspire with Jews and
Communists to hang a man for expressing opinions which were not alleged to have
been untrue.
One of Streicher's crimes was
the publication of a 'ritual murder' supplement in his anti-Semitic newspaper, Der
Stürmer. It was expressly admitted by the prosecution that his
illustrations were authentic (V 103 [119]) and that the article was referenced
correctly. Among Streicher's references was at least one recognised scholar,
Dr. Erich Bischof of Leipzig, and modern legal proceedings (IX 696-700
[767-771]). It was felt that to investigate the validity of these references
would have unduly prolonged the trial, so the article was not alleged to have
been untrue. Rather, an act of mental telepathy was performed, and Streicher
was hanged for his alleged mental processes and motivation.
Another Streicher crime was
calling the Old Testament "a horrible criminal romance . . . this 'holy
book' abounds in murder, incest, fraud, theft and indecency". No evidence
was introduced to rebut this view (V 96 [112]).
Streicher is famous as a
'pornographer', 'sex pervert' and 'swindler'. The 'pornography collection',
upon further examination, turned out to be the Sturmer archive of Judaica (XII
409 [445]). The 'sex pervert' charge, heavily emphasized by the Russians, had
as its origin the so-called Göring Report, a Party disciplinary proceeding
brought by one of Streicher's many enemies. This charge was dropped at
Nuremberg and stricken from the record; Streicher was told he need not answer
any questions related to this accusation (XII 330, 339 [359, 369]).
The 'property swindle' was
also drawn from the Göring Report, and related to a single case, involving the
Mars Works. The man responsible for the accusations contained in the report
was, by some coincidence, the man responsible for the purchase (V 106 [123]).
The report states that the shares were returned, and that the money that
Streicher had paid for them, 5000 Reichsmarks, was returned to Streicher after
the investigation.
Streicher gave his business
managers full power of attorney to do as they liked, saying "Do not worry
me with business matters There are other things more important than
money". Streicher claimed his newspaper was published in a rented house
until the end of the war. It was not a Party newspaper, and Streicher had
nothing to do with the war.
One of Streicher's employees
appeared as a witness and stated, "Whoever knows Herr Streicher as I do,
knows that Herr Streicher has never taken anything from a Jew" (XII
385-386 [420]).
Streicher's second wife, Adele
Streicher, appeared and stated, "I consider it quite impossible that
Julius Streicher acquired shares that way. I believe that he does not even know
what a share looks like" (XII 391 [426]).
It was not alleged at
Nuremberg that Streicher wrote all his own articles and publications. "Trau
keinem Fuchs auf gruner Heid, und keinem Jud' bei seinem Eid",
translated by the prosecution as "Don't Trust a Fox Whatever You Do, Nor
Yet the Oath of any Jew" (XXXVIII 129) took its title from Martin Luther. 'Der
Giftpilz', (The Poisonous Fungus) was written by one of Streicher's
editors, inspired by a famous child molester case, that of the Jewish
industrialist, Louis Schloss (XII 335 [364-365]).
Schloss was later murdered in
Dachau, which became another 'Nazi atrocity'. In the prosecution discussion of
the Schloss murder, it is never mentioned that he was a sexual attacker of
children; instead it was implied that Schloss was killed for being Jewish, and
for no other reason (Document 664-PS, XXVI 174-187).
No causal nexus was ever shown
between Streicher, Frank or Rosenberg's anti-Semitic beliefs and the commission
of any crime; nor was it proven that the crime involved (i.e., the so-called
"Holocaust") was ever even committed. This was assumed, and
Streicher's writings were assumed to have helped 'cause' it.
Streicher made several 'highly
improper' remarks which were stricken from the record, and for which he was
admonished, with the consent of his attorney, Dr Marx. One of these remarks has
been deleted after the fifth paragraph of page 310 of volume XII of the typeset
transcript [page 337, line 30 of the German], but may be found on pages 8494-5
of the mimeographed transcript. Streicher said:
"If I might finish now
with a description of my own life, it will be with the description of an
experience which will show you, gentlemen, of the Tribunal, that without the
government's wanting it, things may happen which are not human, not according
to the principles of humanity.
"Gentlemen, I was
arrested, and during my internment I experienced things such as we, the
Gestapo, have been accused of. For four days I was without clothes in a cell. I
was burned; I was thrown on the floor; and an iron chain was put upon me. I had
to kiss the feet of Negroes who spit in my face. Two coloured men and a white
officer spit in my mouth, and when I didn't open it any more, they opened it
with a wooden stick, and when I asked for water I was led to the latrine and I
was ordered to drink from there.
"In Wiesbaden, gentlemen,
a doctor took pity, and I state here a Jewish director of the hospital acted
correctly. I state here, in order not to be misunderstood, the Jewish officers
who are guarding us here in prison have acted correctly, and doctors who also
treat me have even been considerate. And you may see from this statement the
contrast from that prison until this moment."
Another 'improper remark' has
been deleted after the first paragraph on page 349 of volume XII [page 379 in
German], and appears in the mimeographed transcript on page 8549:
"So as to avoid a
misunderstanding, I have to say that I was beaten in Freising so much and for
days without clothes that I have lost forty per cent of my hearing capacity and
people are laughing when I ask. I can't help it that I was treated like that.
Therefore, I ask to hear the question again."
To which Lt. Col.
Griffith-Jones replied:
"I can show it to you and
we'll repeat the question as loud as you want it."
Since this was a matter within
Streicher's personal knowledge, and not hearsay, it is difficult to see why the
remarks were stricken, while hearsay favourable to the prosecution was retained
(indeed, the prosecution case consists of little else beside oral and written
hearsay). If the prosecution did not believe Streicher's testimony that he had
been tortured, they were free to cross-examine him for inconsistencies and to
show that he was lying; instead, he was simply admonished, and the passages
stricken. So much for truth, justice, and a fair trial.
Streicher claimed that his
demands for the 'extermination' of Jewry were mostly brought about by the
bombing raids and calls for extermination of the German people from the other
side;
If in America an author called
Erich Kauffman can publicly demand that all men in Germany capable of fathering
children should be sterilised, for the purpose of exterminating the German
people, then I say, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. This is a theoretical
literary matter." (XII 366 [398-399]). (V 91-119 [106-137]; XII 305-416
[332-453]; XVIII 190-220 [211-245]).
A note from the author
This version of Not Guilty
at Nuremberg contains the American page numbers followed by the German page
numbers in [brackets]. I feel that this is essential because only the German
text of the Nuremberg Trial transcript is available to the public in book form.
Some of these page numbers are almost impossible to find, even if you know what
you are looking for. All references have been checked in English and German.
Certain minor errors have been corrected.
All page numbers are
absolutely uniform: I have used the "copy" function to transfer them
from one text to another, to ensure that there is not a dash in one text, and a
comma in another. There are no differences in the pagination of the document
volumes (XXII – LXII).
· The German translation will be
printed by Books Unlimited [now available from Historical Review Press, 30 Bell
Lane, Uckfield TN22 1QL,; or online at www.vho.org; ed.], England for mass
distribution in Germany.
· The Spanish may or may not be
printed by Ediciones Ojeda, Apartado 9169, E-08006 Barcelona, Spain. The
Spanish text MAY be freely reproduced WITH PRIOR NOTICE to Ediciones Ojeda, to
save them the printing costs.
· The French translation may or
may not be printed by Russel Granata [now defunct; ed.].
· The Portuguese may or may not
be printed by S.E. Castan of Rua Volta Pires 300 Conj. 4 Porto Alegre RS
Brasil.
· Personally, I oppose any
copyright on this material, but I understand that some people may wish to cover
their printing costs. I have never taken out a copyright on this material, or
accepted a penny for it.
The text initially began as a
series of corrections to Nuremberg and Other War Crimes Trials by
Richard Harwood (David McCalden), and follows approximately the same format.
All texts are dedicated to
Reinhold Elstner in addition to the persons mentioned.
Carlos W. Porter, 6 March 1996
By the same author Made in Russia: The Holocaust, edited by Carlos W. Porter.
Photocopy reproductions from the Nuremberg Trial transcripts: human soap, human
hair socks, executions with steam and electricity, cremation with atomic bomb,
pedal-driven brain bashing machines, trees as murder weapons, Katyn, etc. Note:
This lengthy work will soon be made available at this website thanks to the
hard work and determination of many individuals.
No comments:
Post a Comment