Major D. V. Clerkin
The juridicial basis for the Holocaust myth of the Six Million was the so-called Nuremberg Trials – the International Military Tribunal (IMT) and the American-sponsored Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT). Between 1945 and 1949 leaders of the defeated German State were subjected to trials and sentences unprecedented in the annals of world history and Western jurisprudence.
There have been many reasons put forward for the holding of such “war crimes” trials, not the least of which is the fact that the victorious allied powers could do anything they wished with a surrendered Germany, but more specifically from a vengeful desire to punish Germany per se via the prosecution of the National Socialist leadership. The Western allies also thought it expedient to appease the Soviet Union, recently on an orgy of murder and rapine during the invasion of eastern Germany, and whose leader, Josef Stalin, had demanded in the presence of Churchill and Roosevelt the execution of 50 thousand German leaders from a wide variety of fields. It is to be noted in this regard that in 1941 a little book by the Jew, Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish!, held forth the idea that a German defeat should mean the destruction of the entire German nation using the method of mass sterilization.
Moreover, such trials, it was hoped, would help to create a climate of sympathy for the displaced Jews of Europe, which would rebound to the benefit of the Zionists, who needed a great propaganda ploy to force Great Britain to carry out the terms of the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917. From an objective viewpoint, the findings of the trials are worthless; for the manner in which they were conducted brings into question their legality, i.e., the jurisdiction of the Tribunals and, consequently, the verdicts which they rendered. Since precedents were wanting, the Tribunal invented law as it proceeded, applying it ex post facto to the defendants in the dock. The IMT and NMT, therefore, were in fact mock trials, propaganda extravaganzas worthy of the very Moscow show trials they so very much resembled. The Russians had in fact sewn the entire sordid business up at the Moscow and Yalta conferences, where it was agreed that the guilty parties were to be “tried” before the inevitable punishments were meted out. Without the trials of major and secondary German leaders, Stalin had sworn that he would order mass slaughters of the defenseless German populace under his control. The Western world, however, refused to admit that Stalin had in fact ordered the terrorization of the eastern Germans as part of his strategy of military advance. The Jewish commissar of propaganda, Ilya Ehrenburg, carried out the anti-German programs with the type of bloodlust typical of the Talmudic/Bolshevist mentality.
The purpose of the Tribunals was to place the stamp of agreement and pseudo-legality upon the agreements made beforehand by the Allies. And no evidence of lack of guilt on the part of the defendants was to be admissible; only that which supported the prearranged convictions of Germany’s leaders was approved. Many facets of war policy were not included at Nuremberg, for the main reason that the Allies were also guilty of such acts as unrestricted bombing of civilian targets, and had carried on terror bombing according to official plans formulated long before anyone talked of “war crimes” and trials. In truth, the accusers belonged in the dock to an extent equal, if not greater, than the accused; but, lest we forget, the victors constituted the prosecution, and thus had a free hand in the matter of choosing defendants and the charges to be brought.
Many famous Americans, amongst whom were the late Senators Robert Taft of Ohio and Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, expressed opposition and even outrage at the drumhead nature of the trials. These two prominent American lawmakers saw in the precedents laid down at Nuremberg the spectre of that which the Constitution of the United States had expressly forbidden in Article I, Section 9; “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Politicians were not the only critics of the Nuremberg Trials; an American state jurist, Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, president of one of the trials of German officers of the SS, resigned his office at Nuremberg and left Germany, stating to Hal Foust of The Chicago Tribune, “If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.” What Wennerstrum said in toto was eventually reproduced in the Tribune, but not before prosecution chief (American) Gen. Telford Taylor attempted to stop Foust’s communiqué, and, that failing, sent a self-serving reply via official channels that reached the United States before the remarks of Justice Wennerstrum.
Gen. Taylor and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson participated in a charade of justice. They helped try German leaders on charges so broad and vague as to be considered ludicrous in a true court of law and justice – “crimes” that had not been previously defined by international law. [That] American lawyers engaged in pure ideological revenge, disregarding any semblance of due process, does not indicate that the veneer of legality in that vaunted profession lies very thick. When America begins to tolerate the type of conduct which took place at the Nuremberg Trials against helpless German defendants, and in the name of justice, then it is evident that Western Jurisprudence is in the hands of the Jewish destroyer of Culture and Civilization.
Could any honest court of appeals, any state supreme court, or the United States Supreme Court, refuse an appellant his plea for a writ of error, certiorari, or quo warranto upon submission of the following list of juridicial horrors? Yet no appeals were allowed, and sentences of execution on eleven major defendants were carried out straightaway.
(1) Sixty per cent of the General Prosecutor’s staff at the Nuremberg Trials were persons of the Jewish race. Less than ten per cent of the American prosecution staff were native born Americans or members of the White-Christian race. Can a fair trial be conducted when those who claim to have been victimized monopolize the prosecution?
(2) The general rule against hear-say evidence was violated by admitting in the trials’ records some 300,000 written affidavits, signed by persons who did not appear in open court to swear to the truth of their respective statements. There was no requirement that proof be given that the signers of such questionable documents ever existed. But only 240 actual witnesses were called during the course of the trials, not one of which was a first-hand witness – an eye witness – to the alleged acts of mass gassing and shooting. Each one stated that he or she “knew” that the acts had taken place, which meant that someone had told them of the gas chambers, proving, of course, absolutely nothing.
(3) Defendants were not allowed to directly cross-examine prosecution witnesses, nor were they allowed to communicate pertinent questions to their defense counsels to be asked of the witnesses. Testimony of former concentration camp inmates, deemed by the prosecution and the Tribunals “friendly” to the defense, was inadmissible; reminding one of the Eichmann “trial” in Jerusalem (1961), which allowed German witnesses for Eichmann to enter Israel, but threatened to prosecute them for alleged “war crimes” as well. There were, obviously, no defense witnesses.
(4) “Confessions” were extorted from defendants who had been solitarily confined for up to five months previous to their appearances in open court (cf. the treatment accorded by the Soviets to Cardinal József Mindszenty). Defendants had hoods placed over their heads. If the answers they gave did not suit their interrogators, the German defendants were beaten with rubber hoses, brass knuckles, and cruelly kicked in the groin until they “admitted their guilt.” In addition to this, burning matches were driven under defendants’ fingernails and teeth were punched out and jaws were broken by Allied interrogators. The Jews took special pleasure in these methods of questioning defendants.
(5) Agents (Jews) of the Tribunals posed as priests to obtain such “evidence” as they might glean from even the sanctity of the confessional.
(6) Defendants who had been members of the Schutzstaffel (S.S.), the Waffen – or combat S.S. – as well as the security services of the Sicherheitsdienst (S.D) and the Geheime Staats Polizei (Gestapo), were especially mistreated, being flogged to bleeding pulps and their testicles kicked and beaten with boots and rods in order to extract “confessions.” General officers of the S.S. organizations were interrogated by scatological Jewish maniacs who rubbed dung on the faces and over the mouths of the subject undergoing questioning. Forcing one to drink his own urine was the order of the day.
(7) “Plea bargaining” was offered to the secondary rank defendants at the IMT, if they would stipulate to the charges against them in the indictments, and give testimony against others under indictment. Those who stipulated, viz., “confessed,” were hung irregardless of the arrangements they thought they had made with the prosecution. In addition, mock trials were held at Spandau Prison at all hours of the night and early morning. At these petty inquisitions defendants were mocked, beaten, threatened with torture, and condemned to death, with such pronouncements of execution to be immediately carried out.
Such was the real business of the Nuremberg Trials. The Holocaust myth was fabricated from such tactics in obtaining “evidence.” That six million Jews did not die in Nazi gas chambers and by firing squads is practically proven ipso facto by the methods which the prosecution used to get such men as S.S. Gen. Otto Ohlendorff and Auschwitz commandant S.S. Gen. Rudolf Hoess to admit to the spurious allegations.
As a final note, let us have a short look at the case of the pathetic S.S. Captain Dieter Wisliceny, who was “questioned” by the Soviets at their prison in Bratislava in 1946. Wisliceny “confessed” under Red methods of torture to have carried out a “verbal (oral) order” of Adolf Hitler, given to him by Eichmann via Heinrich Himmler, dated, at least in poor Wisliceny’s deranged mind, July, 1941, to the effect that all Russian Jews be liquidated. When in fact the order of July, 1941, had been clearly written out, and was in the hands of the Tribunal, stating that all political (Red) commissars serving with the Soviet Army were to be liquidated. The written order did not mention Jews, but directed its thrust against some 38,000 Communist cadre within the Russian army. That many of these cadre were Jews merely indicates the reason why the order as written had to be expanded by the Soviets into a secret oral addition, falsely confessed by Wisliceny to mean the extermination of Russian Jews. With all of Wisliceny’s tortured, perjured testimony, he did not succeed in saving himself from the gallows. The Communists hanged him, as they hung Hoess, because their star witnesses had to be silenced before they came to their senses and denied all the ridiculous charges of planned genocide.
Americans living today would do well to review the Nuremberg Trials, if only to gauge the great danger the Western World is in because of such inquisitions having taken place nearly thirty-five years ago. The Nuremberg Trials, like the Eichmann Trial, and the denaturalization trials of European-Americans charged with “war crimes,” are but a symptom of a greater evil, that being the insidious collapse of Western values.
One day very soon, unless we act, such rotten Tribunals will be set up in America under the Genocide Treaty to “try” White-Christian patriots. May God prevent it. He has given this people the brains and the will to save itself: let us do it!
Reprinted from Euro-American Quarterly, Summer 1980
SOURCE: The Liberty Bell, September 1982