Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?

[Hektor]

Panagiotis Heliotos is the author of the first book in Greek which presents revisionist information on the holocaust. Here he writes about the Nuremberg trials and comes to the conclusion that they were a sham -
https://codoh.com/library/document/5004/

It can actually be seen pretty easily from the charter:

Article 19.
The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.

Article 20.
The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is entered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof.

Article 21.
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

Not bound to rules of evidence, and rumors as well as arbitrary government reports (by hostiles towards the accused) are allowed. That way you can frame almost everybody. However of the statements made during the trial may be of historiographic value, but that's about it. Claims and findings can't be taken on face value.

[Mortimer]

Mickey Marcus was part of the American prosecution team at Nuremberg -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Marcus

Hollywood made a movie about his exploits which included being a general in the Israeli army during the 1948 war. It is called Cast A Giant Shadow with Kirk Douglas in the title role -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cast_a_Giant_Shadow

The cast includes John Wayne as an American officer. Yes, "The Duke" also did his part to promote the holocaust as this movie perpetuates the myth that Jews were turned into bars of soap -
https://diversitymachtfrei.wordpress.co ... oapocaust/

Deborah Lipstadt made the following quote -"The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap".
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/soap.shtml

[ginger]

Thanks flimflam for posting the film of Kaltenbrunner testifying - he was adamant that he did not give orders for, or witness, the gassing of the Jews, although, at 1:50 or thereabouts, he seemed to think someone else did the bidding of Hitler and Himmler and directed the gassing of the Jews.

Clearly Hoess' testimony had a decisive effect with regards to any doubts about the extermination of the Jews. Since he was tortured, the main Nuremberg trial was nothing more than Soviet-style justice, which Western powers would normally reject.

[Hannover]

Hello Ginger,
a must read here:

Malmedy & more / War Crimes Trials
https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/11/ ... /#_ednref5

All kinds of quotes and facts that expose Nuremberg for the farce that it was.

Cheers, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

[David M]

Great comments-
I wanted to add that few people are aware that the Nuremberg Trial was a vast conspiracy trial, a RICO prosecution on steroids. This means that each defendant was liable for any criminal act committed by any other member of the conspiracy. It was specifically declared in the Constitution of the IMT that, "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."
This would be true even if the alleged conspirator did not know of or approve of the crime. The prosecution was helped along by the Tribunal's ability of declaring organizations "criminal" and, therefore, every member of the organization also a member of the Conspiracy.
A rough analogy would be charging a member of the Republican Central Committee with the crime of invading Iraq and murdering civilian women and children. As a practical matter, the German defendants had almost no means of challenging the "evidence" presented by the prosecution, the Nuremberg Trial.

[David M]

Great comments-
I wanted to add that few people are aware that the Nuremberg Trial was a vast conspiracy trial, a RICO prosecution on steroids. .

What is now know as "the Holocaust" was originally part of a much larger propaganda effort by the allied governments. Wartime propaganda was distilled and presented at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg with the intent of convicting German leaders of participation in a string of criminal conspiracies as defined in the Constitution of the IMT.

The Counts, or indictments for the Trial were:
Count One Participation in a conspiracy to commit "Crimes against Peace, "War crimes" and "Crimes against humanity."
Count Two Participation in a conspiracy to initiate and wage wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
Count Three Participation in a conspiracy to commit War crimes; which "involved, among other things, the practice of "total war" including methods of combat and of military occupation in direct conflict with the laws and customs of war, and the commission of crimes perpetrated on the field of battle during encounters with enemy armies, and against prisoners of war, and in occupied territories against the civilian population of such territories.
Count Four Participation in a conspiracy to commit Crimes against humanity which involved, among other things, the murder and persecution of all who were or who were suspected of being hostile to the Nazi Party and all who were or who were suspected of being opposed to the common plan alleged in Count One. The persecution of Jews (now described as the Holocaust) was only mentioned in Count 4 sub B.


The Nuremberg court room became the stage where the case against National Socialism was presented by the various Allied governments. Immense effort and expense went into crafting a narrative favorable to the victors; essentially blaming the Germans for the War and for a series of horrible crimes. Understanding the IMT is important for an understanding of the current status of belief in the Holocaust.

[Mortimer]

The propaganda surrounding the Nuremberg tribunal stated that it was a step forward in international law and that in future all countries would be subjected to justice if they committed any war crimes or atrocities. But such a utopian vision has not come to pass. The United States which sat in judgement at Nuremberg refused to allow its military personnel to be subject to trial by the International Criminal Court -
https://codoh.com/library/document/1475/

[blacksmith]

It was clearly a show trial, as the defense was not allowed to defend the accused. The very fact that they excuted generals who obviously had to function as defenders of their homeland, shows that it was all about revenge. By now the USA military had committed ALL the CRIMES the German generals were accused of, yet nothing has happened to any American.

Further more, the impression that we are given that the whole war started to save the Jews from extermination. There are good men and women in German jails who seriously doubt the whole holocaust story. Our younger generation has been totally brain washed about that story, a story that born in the sick feverish minds of revengful German Jews.

How could Nuremberg be considered fair with Russia sitting in judgement, having killed more people than the Germans ever did.

Thank you.

Blacksmith

[Hektor]

The propaganda surrounding the Nuremberg tribunal stated that it was a step forward in international law and that in future all countries would be subjected to justice if they committed any war crimes or atrocities. But such a utopian vision has not come to pass. The United States which sat in judgement at Nuremberg refused to allow its military personnel to be subject to trial by the International Criminal Court -
https://codoh.com/library/document/1475/

I heard that assertion and it is actually ludicrous:
- Allied leaders or officers weren't prosecuted for atrocities or crimes they committed.
- The message one actually gets is, make sure you win the war decisively, even if that means you have to use nefarious means. Otherwise they will frame you with war crimes and atrocities anyway, whether you are guilty or not.

The Allies are still technically in a state of war with Germany, although the enemy's political and military institutions have collapsed. As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems, nor will its rulings introduce precedents into any country's internal system of civil justice. As an International Military Tribunal, it rises above the provincial and transient and seeks guidance not only from international law but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization and which long have found embodiment in the codes of all nations.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-26-46.asp

There you have it from the horses mouth, tribunal is continuation of Allied war effort. Anyone viewing this trial as something were objective justice has been served must be delusional or even malicious.

It couldn't be more self-serving, since what is insinuated by that statement is that the Allies waged war for "justice", while the Germans/Axis waged war for selfish reasons and malice. Now that's preposterous over the top.

[slob]

No intention of a fair trial whatsoever, planned well in advance, never intended to, a complete mockery of the legal system and a kangoroo court!

[Mortimer]

Hans Frank, who was one of the defendants, made the following quote "A thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased." I have seen this quote used in the media for instance the documentary Trial at Nuremberg an extremely biased and one eyed version of events narrated by the actor Richard Basehart.
But what is not so well known is that Hans Frank issued a retraction after he found out about the ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Germans who were forcibly expelled from eastern Europe - "There is still one statement of must rectify. On the witness stand I said that a thousand years would not suffice to erase the guilt brought upon our people because of Hitler's conduct in this war. Every possible guilt incurred by our nation has already been completely wiped out today not only by the conduct of our war time enemies towards our nation and its soldiers which has been carefully kept out of this trial but also by the tremendous mass crimes of the most frightful sort which as I have now learned have been and still are being committed against Germans by Russians, Poles and Czechs especially in East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania and Sudetenland. Who shall ever judge these crimes against the German people?"
http://www.cwporter.com/thousand.htm

[Mortimer]

The law which is used against holocaust revisionists in France specifically mentions the Nuremberg tribunal. In that country you are not allowed to publicly dispute the findings of the tribunal in regards to "crimes against humanity". This law has been in place since July 13 1990. It's about time this law was abolished.
https://codoh.com/library/document/688/

[PotPie]

One book that really turned me against the postwar trials was Innocent at Dachau, written by an American serviceman who wrote in detail of his disillusionment of what he saw was clearly a political show trial presented as some humane act for rule of law.

Here's a short essay by the book's author: https://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p453_Halow.html

[Mortimer]

The book by David Irving on this subject is called Nuremberg The Last Battle. I haven't read it myself but if any other readers have maybe they can post an opinion yay or nay. The following is a positive review by Daniel Michaels.
https://codoh.com/library/document/2734/

[Mortimer]

There was a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunal and it took place on American soil. It was the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 -
http://chuckmaultsby.net/id144.html
Defendants of various backgrounds who opposed Roosevelt's warmongering and unquestioning support of Stalin were charged. The prosecution tried to claim that all those put on trial were part of a Nazi conspiracy against the United States -
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042800.html
One of the defendants - David Baxter - related his experiences in an address at a revisionist conference -
https://codoh.com/library/document/2113/