Rosenberg at Nuremberg, An Assessment

(a fragment of a work in progress)

Guillermo Coletti

AR at Neremberg

“You should seek your enemy, you should wage your war, a war for your opinions. And if your opinion is defeated, your honesty should still cry triumph over that!”

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Friedrich Nietzsche

The Defeat of Europe

At the end of the Second Great War, the Old World, the land of our ancestors, found itself devastated by years of war, hunger, diseases and the violent deaths of tens of millions of Aryans, whose fates so ungratefully go ignored today, outweighed by sentiments arisen from the Zionist myth of the six million. The saying “one man’s loss is another man’s gain” could not have had a better opportunity to prove itself true. As millions of Europeans swallowed the bitter taste of defeat and destruction, in cities across the Atlantic jubilant people celebrated what synthesized the triumph of the modern over the eternal; the struggle of our forefathers had just been smashed by the brute force of soulless materialism. And in New York city, on its famous Wall Street, Jewish financiers planned the future state of affairs that was to rule the world up until our days.

Jewish War-Mongering

The war that Judea had declared against Germany in 1933, pompously announced on the front page of London’s Daily Express on March 24, 1933, had come to an end. “We knew that the Jewish high finance had declared war against Germany with all its subject powers, for today’s Germany had first of all, and for all peoples, visibly broken the dictatorship of the Jewish Stock Exchange lords wrote Alfred Rosenberg in his article “Europe’s Revolution”, published in Völkischer Beobachter in its May 12, 1940, edition. By 1945 victory had been delivered to the temples of the Stock Exchange, ironically, by Aryans.

As if a forecaster of terrible times to come, Feodor Dostoyevski had said, before the First World War, that “now comes the age of great wars and revolutions. From them will emerge as victor the international Jewish banker”.

On his article “Jewish world politics”, published in June 2nd, 1924, Rosenberg wrote: “On 10 June, 1895, the founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote in his diary that “the next European war cannot harm us, but only promote us because all Jews will carry their property and possessions over in security; moreover we will already therein speak at the conclusion of peace as moneylenders and aim at advantages of recognition by the ways of diplomacy. ‘Carried over in security’ is today some two thirds of the entire gold of the world. In the treasures of Wall Street Jews lies the blood of twelve million white men traded into metal! That is the result of the most enormous world war, which has actually not harmed the Jews but ‘only promoted’ them. Entire villages, entire cities, (…) entire provinces are destroyed and buried by poisonous grenades. The most beautiful monuments of ancient European culture have fallen there beyond recovery. Millions endure unspeakable misery. But no nation has become free!”. The Jew who Rosenberg referred to, Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, is today studied with utmost reverence in educational establishments in Western countries.

After the debacle of the Axis, Europe witnessed an unprecedented event: it was the judicial procedure popularly known as the Nuremberg Trial, conducted by an International Military Tribunal that brought together Americans, Russians, Frenchmen and Englishmen, to sit simultaneously as judges and prosecutors. Bolshevism and Capitalism, which up until the beginning of World War II had maintained an appearance of disparity, were now embraced, enjoying the glory of military victory over a defeated German people. Their vanquished enemies, in sharp contrast to the principles of Universalism and Egalitarianism adopted by the governments of Bolshevik Russia and the America of the New Deal, epitomized the concept of the nationstate and the preservation of ethnic traditions, before a rapidly globalizing new economic and industrial order.

Opinion of an Early Revisionist

When addressing the question of the Nuremberg Trial and the last days of the War, proper credit must be given to a very courageous early revisionist mind: Mr. Maurice Bardeche. This Frenchman who fought the German occupation of his homeland, a former member of the Resistance, released in 1947 his book Nuremberg or The Promised Land. This particular book, unfortunately, at least to my knowledge, not yet available in English, has been one of the greatest admitted influence for historians such as Paul Rassinier and Robert Faurisson. From this book the following words may help us understand the devastation and misinformation, all too common in those days.

“(…) I stupidly believe in the truth. I also believe that she always ends up triumphant on top of everything, even in spite of the image that of us has been created. (..) The forgery invented by the Resistance has already given us that proof.”

“If the propaganda of the democracies had lied during three years, on matters concerning ourselves, if it has masqueraded-everything that we have done; should we believe it when it talks about Germany? Hasn’t the history of the occupation been falsified as well as it has presented a false image of the French government? (..) Shouldn’t we ask ourselves, if the same revision doesn’t need to be made over the condemnation that was pronounced by the same judges at Nuremberg? Isn’t it honest at least, isn’t it necessary to propose this question? If the judicial action that has hit thousands of Frenchmen is an imposture, what proof do we have that the sentences given to thousands of Germans isn’t also the same? Do we have the right to disengage ourselves? Will we tolerate that, in this time, thousands of men suffer and revolt when seeing us avoid their testimonies, in front of our cowardice? (..) They reject the straight jacket with which we have attempted to silence their voice and their past; they know that our newspapers lie, they know that our films lie, that our writers lie, they know and they will never forget it. Should we let fall upon us those looks of contempt that they so justifiably throw us? The whole history of this war has to be redone, we know that. Will we deny our contribution to the truth?” “We have seen these men [the Germans] installed in our homes and in our cities; they have been our enemies and, what’s even more cruel, that have been masters in our own homes. This doesn’t take from them the right that all men have to truth and justice, the right to the honesty of other men. They have fought with courage, they have suffered the fate of a war that they have accepted; today their cities are destroyed, they live in caves among ruins, they own nothing. Like beggars they live of what the victor gives them, their sons die and their daughters are the bounty of the foreigner; their misery surpasses anything that could have been imagined. Will we deny them bread and salt? And if those beggars we outlaw were men like us? If our hands were not cleaner than their hands?; if our conscience were not lighter than their conscience?; if we had been mistaken? And what if we had been lied to?

“It is upon this sentence without appeal that the victors command us to found our dialogue with Germany and, more likely, to reject it.”

Rosenberg, a Dedicated Patriot

Of all the men accused in the first Nuremberg Trial, one, Alfred Rosenberg, embodied the philosophy of National Socialism more deeply than any of the other defendants. During his years of service to Germany and to National Socialism, Rosenberg had served as Minister to the Occupied Eastern Territories and as chief National Socialist theoretician (the latter has caused Rosenberg to acquire philosophical recognition). That condition, his responsibility on the ideological field, could not have been overseen by the victors in the politically charged trial. Even the choice of venue, Nuremberg, appears today as an act of confrontation to the German Reich, since this was the city regularly used for the party rallies of the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei).

Alfred Rosenberg was perhaps the most misunderstood of all the people who had a position of relevance in the process of decisionmaking in Germany, during the years of the III Reich. Frequently criticized by party comrades, as well as political outsiders, and the target of adverse comments in Germany and abroad, the work of Rosenberg stands today defiant to the passing of time. Upon its release in December 1936, half a million copies of Rosenberg’s magnum opus, The Myth of the 20th Century, acquired distribution in Germany almost immediately. This volume, described by its author as “an evaluation of the spiritual-intellectual confrontations of our age”, was so rich in historical and philosophical background, it moved many intellectuals to wonder whether there actually were as many readers as there were books sold. By covering a wide range of topics and events, from Ancient to Contemporary History and from Hinduism and Buddhism to Western philosophy, The Myth remains a complex book, doubtfully suitable for the uninitiated. His book The Myth …, many of his articles and written transcriptions of many of his speeches, are currently available in most European languages, while compilations of some of his most remarkable speeches and essays have been translated and published even into Arabic, for distribution in Middle Eastern countries. For the young National Socialist minds of today, the philosophy that he embraced has survived and grown, in spite of the censorship that surrounds it and the political ostracism that endures. And along with the survival and growth of the National Socialist outlook on life, Rosenberg is today one of its guiding lights.

Nordicism, Pan-Europeism and Christianity

When the topic of Rosenberg and his most controversial opinions are discussed, directly two items become material: Rosenberg’s clear and determined Nordicism and his firm anti-Christian views. Although many National Socialist scholars have chosen to refer to his views as simply non-Christian, it wouldn’t be accurate to continue that opinion, since many of his writings are strong indictments of Christianity as a whole, of a Nietzchean caliber. Rosenberg’s uncompromising Nordicism might have put him in a peculiar position with many of his countrymen and comrades; it must be remembered that the population of Germany is not composed solely of Norsemen and that Germans of Alpine background are not only numerous but have also been a crucial element in the development of German Culture. In a broader spectrum, this was a partial manifestation of a very well marked division among National Socialists of that time, those who supported Pan-Germanism and the advocates of Pan-Europeism. It is, however, a mystery whether Rosenberg’s outlook on the subdivisions of Aryans remained unchanged all the way until after the end of the war. It is very clear that the SS and the Waffen-SS have arrived to the conclusion that all Caucasian men have a common fate: “The European peoples have only one choice if they want to save their existence: to see what they have in common and to stand up for it.” (from an issue of the SS Leitheft, official Waffen-SS periodical). Perhaps Rosenberg’s attitudes towards non-Nordics were modified by the end of the War, after witnessing that the last defense of Berlin was provided by volunteers of French origin from the Charlemagne division of the Waffen-SS.

Justice by the Victors

At the aftermath of World War II, the life of Alfred Rosenberg was no longer depending on the outcome of military hostilities, but on the proceedings of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. The so-called Nuremberg Trial stands today alone in history as a visible separation of might and right, a trial in which the victorious forces were simultaneously prosecution and judges. This was the first time in recorded history that entire governmental organizations were tried in a criminal proceeding, by enemy foreign occupational forces. By using collective indictments, and eventual convictions, against groups and organizations of the III German Reich, the Allies aspired to have in their hands the power to punish, ultimately even with death, any member of these groups, solely because of membership, The groups and organizations in question were the government of the Reich, the SS (Die Schutzstaffel), the SD (Der Sicherheitsdienst), the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Gestapo and the High Command of the German Armed Forces. The ones which were eventually declared criminal were the Gestapo, the SS and the SD. The charges that led to the criminalizing of these entities and all the individual defendants were:

a) crimes against the peace;

b) war crimes;

c) crimes against humanity.

Additional charges were added, varying from defendant to defendant. In the case of Rosenberg, those charges were “looting”, “plundering” and “slavery”. The time frame adjudicated for these alleged offenses was established as: “The first acts of aggression referred to in the indictment are the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and the first war of aggression charged in the indictment is the war against Poland, beginning on September 1, 1939” [Official Transcript of the Int. Mil. Trib., August 31, 1946, p. 16920]. The first of the Nuremberg Trials lasted from October 1945 to October 1946 and, although International Law at that time mandated for international trials to be conducted by representatives of nations neutral to causes in question, in this case the judges were supplied by England, France, Russia and the US, the same nations staffing the prosecution teams.

Attorneys for the Defense Speak

The conditions under which the attorneys for the defendants had to prepare their cases were less than ideal and, by all means, inferior in resources to those used by the prosecution. Years after the culmination of the trial, many of these attorneys wrote articles and essays on the subject. What follows are some of their opinions.

Dr. Carl Haensel, chief Counsel for the SS: “Suspicion could arise insofar as the proceedings could be looked upon as a retaliation of the victors, because the Tribunal consisted of neither a representative of the defeated Germany nor a representative of a neutral nation.” [The Nuremberg Trial Revisited, by Carl Haensel, De Paul Law Review, Spring/Summer 1965, p. 258]. Similar feelings of discontent on procedural matters have been expressed by other defense counsels.

Dr. Herbert Kraus: “If judgments based only on law in force bad followed, the guilty parties could not have complained … it is particularly unfortunate that only representatives of the four great world powers sat on the bench,” (Dr. Herbert Kraus, Chief Counsel for Hjalmar Schacht, The Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals; Reflections After Seventeen Years, De Paul Law Review, Spring/Summer 1965, p. 247). In the same article there is another very interesting passage: “I have in my possession a poem of one of the defendants, which expresses these sentiments clearly. Translated (from German to English) it reads as follows:

Legal Ascertainment

They administered law quite strangely
And held a queer trial too:
Because we broke a law,
Which they invented new;

But for those who break it now
It’s in force and real;
Us: they could found ‘guilty’ only
postfactum law…”

Dr. Otto Kranzbuhler: “Since the French Revolution it has been considered a basic requirement of true administration of justice that the separation of powers is strictly observed in legal proceedings. In Nuremberg, in the International Military Tribunal, it appeared that two of the legislators of the London Charter, that is the American, Jackson, and a Britisher, Sir David Maxwell Fyffe, acted as chief prosecutors, this as part of the executive power, while two other legislators of the London Charter, a Frenchman, Falco, and a Russian, Nikichankow {i.e. Nikitchenko}, reappeared at Nuremberg in the capacity of Judges. By this personal overlapping, the doctrine of separation of powers was grossly neglected and thus the authority of the administration of justice greatly impaired from the very outset.” “The conservative definition of a war crime certainly would not provide a sufficient basis for the prosecution of statesmen or public officers … or … members of the legal profession … or, even less, the prosecution of industrialists … (an) enormous step was taken in Nuremberg … The supposition underlying this step was the recognition of a completely new doctrine; the doctrine that international law is binding upon the individual citizen. One can read in any textbook on international law that the law of nations is the law regulating the relations between sovereign states.” [Chief Counsel for Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, “Nuremberg Eighteen Years Afterwards”, De Paul Law Review, p. 338].

Otto Pannenbecker, Chief Counsel for Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior of Germany, wrote in his ‘The Nuremberg War-Crimes Trial’, published in Volume XIV, Number 2, 1965, issue of De Paul Law Review. “A much more serious objection, however, is raised by the indictment of planning, preparing and waging a war of aggression which was lodged against the defendants. Such an indictment constitutes a violation of laws existing in constitutional civilized states. These laws ensure that nobody shall be charged with a crime not already subject to legal punishment at the time of perpetration. This axiom, existing in all civilized countries, says that penal laws are not permitted to be applied retroactively.”

This first trial was followed by a total of twelve processes against more than 170 defendants. The irregularities, peculiarities and arbitrariness of these processes are frequent topic of review by History and Law scholars worldwide.

Observations on Legal Procedure

When Alfred Rosenberg took the witness stand on April 1946 as a defendant, he must have known that the possibilities of this trial ending with an impartial judgement were narrowing. The owner of a sharp and analytical mind, the basis of this first Nuremberg Trial, in other words, the absolute control of the victors over Prosecutors and Judges and the lack of any neutral representation, other than witnesses without much authority to speak, object to or even expose wrongs, could not have passed inadvertently in front of him. The nature of the procedures at the Nuremberg Trial still today appalls the minds of jurists, even among some of leftwing extractions. The basis of the execution of International Law that had been articulated by the same War-winning Allied countries, was now being flagrantly ignored by them, just a few years later. The legal principle that there is no crime without the previous existence of a law detailing with precision the criminalization of the alleged violation, a principle to which all countries presenting charges against the defendants fully subscribed had been grossly violated (see Otto Pannenbecker’s comment, above). The Allies exempted themselves from complying with other legal rules that are substantial part of the legal systems of their own countries, as indicated in articles 19 and 21 of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, which held that the Nuremberg Tribunal “shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence” and “shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof”.

Some of the violations of contemporary International Law ignored the following principles applicable and valid during the 1945-1946 period:

it was mandated that war crimes charges be presented in front of a tribunal where no representative of either warring faction was to be represented, thus guaranteeing neutrality and fairness;

it was instructed that the same country could not participate as both Prosecution and Judge;

International Law prescribed that allegations of war crimes, or allegations of crimes committed during the exercise of a military mission (‘while wearing the uniform of a country’s army’), were to be reviewed by military law and personnel, in Nuremberg the Defendants were all prosecuted and judged by civilian authorities;

international treaties signed by different countries can apply only to the participating countries, consequently treaties signed only by Russia, England, the United States and France must have at no time applied to Germany, Japan or Italy;

it was, and still is, instructed that Defense counsels must have access to evidence presented by the Prosecution, which in the case of this trial did not happen.

Attorneys for the defendants found themselves denied access to United States and Russia were the Prosecution kept large amounts of evidence until hours before being presented at the Tribunal.

The US Chief Prosecutor declared during the hearing of 26 July 1946 at the Nuremberg Trial, that the IMT was simply a “continuation of the war effort of the Allied Nations” against Germany, with which they were “technically still at war”, even though the enemy’s political and military institutions had been crushed.

Rosenberg The Accused

On April 15, 1946, Alfred Rosenberg took the witness stand as a Defendant in Nuremberg. He was first cross-examined by Dr. Thoma, his own attorney, who stated that Mr. Rosenberg “did not participate in a conspiracy against peace” and that he had indeed “advocated respect for all races … advocated freedom of conscience and a sensible solution of the Jewish problem, even giving certain advantages to Jews” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 444]. Contrary to popular believe, no tangible evidence was ever presented, before, during or after the Nuremberg trials, linking Rosenberg or any other German Defendant to cases of alleged War Crimes.

After taking the procedural oath to tell the truth, Mr. Rosenberg was cited. Part of the evidence to be reviewed, was a portion of Rosenberg’s writings, as follows: ‘Tradition and our Present Age’, ‘Writings and Speeches’, ‘Formation of the Idea’ and The Myth of the 20th Century [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p, 444], The bashing of National Socialism as an ideology, however, was present on a permanent basis during the months of the trial, but it was with Rosenberg, himself a theoretician, that this practice acquired larger inquisitorial proportions.

In the early part of his testimony Rosenberg recalled his joining of the NSDAP in late 1919, shortly after meeting with Anton Drexler and Hitler, recalled his membership number, 625 [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 447]. This initial portion of the Defendant’s testimony attempts to become an account of the early days of the NSDAP, the NSDAP view of the European crisis and the solutions considered to that effect, as well as the philosophical influences and foundations of Mr. Rosenberg outlook of the world, but the President of the Court did not allow the Defendant to express more than a few phrases before ordering to the attorney for the Defense, Dr. Thoma, to “confine his witness to the charges against him” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 449]. It is quite obvious that what was on trial in Nuremberg were not merely actions, but also the philosophy of nationalism in general and National Socialism in particular. Dr. Thoma replied that devoting “some time to Rosenberg’s train of thought” was necessary to “determine the motives for his actions”. Dr. Thoma also argued that “since the Prosecution maintains that National Socialism was a fight against democracy, a one sided stress on nationalism and militarism, he (Rosenberg) ought now to have the opportunity to say why National Socialism supported militarism, and whether that was actually the case”.

The trial continues with Dr. Thoma asking the Defendant about the charges that National Socialism preached a ‘Master Race’ (‘Herrenrasse’). What follows is Mr. Rosenberg’s full answer:

“I know that this problem is the main point of the Indictment, and I realize that at present, in view of the number of terrible incidents, conclusions are automatically drawn about the past and the reason for the origin of the so-called racial science. I believe, however, that it is of decisive importance in judging this problem to know exactly what we were concerned with.”

“I have never heard the word “master race” as often as in this court room. To my knowledge, I did not mention or use it at all in my writings, I leafed through my “Writings and Speeches” again and did not find this word. I spoke only once of super humans as mentioned by Homer, and I found a quotation from a British author, who in writing about the life of Lord Kitchener said the Englishman who had conquered the world had proven himself as a creative superman (“Herrenmensch”). Then I found the word “master race” in a writing of the American ethnologist, Madison Grant, and of the French ethnologist, Lapouge.”

“I would like to admit, however – and not only to admit, but to emphasize – that the word “superman” came to my attention particularly during my activity as a Minister in the East – and very unpleasantly – when used by a number of leaders of the administration in the East. Perhaps when we come to the question of the East, I may return to this subject in detail and state what position I took in regard to these utterances which came to my attention. In principle, however, I was convinced that ethnology was, after all, not an invention of the National Socialist movement, but a biological discovery, which was the conclusion of 400 years of European research. The laws of heredity discovered in the 1860’s, and rediscovered several decades later, enable us to gain a deeper insight into history than many other earlier theories. Accordingly, race …” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 450-451].

At this point Rosenberg was interrupted by the President of the court. It is impossible to imagine what Rosenberg would have said, had he been allowed to speak further on this issue of race, but there is an indication, by referring to heredity laws and ethnology, that at least he was attempting to approach the racial question within the criminal context the Prosecution aspired to see.

Certainly the Jewish question was not absent from the testimony of Rosenberg, whether when presenting his outlook on things or when addressing the policies that the III Reich had adopted on this matter. Rosenberg observed that in the 19th century a movement of national emancipation was to be found among many Jewish leaders who were finally starting to realize that they should seek their way in their roots, namely Asia. On the same matter, Rosenberg described his attitude in the political sphere as “more radical”, citing his observations and experiences in Russia and Germany as crucial and opinionshaping. Referring to post World War I days, Rosenberg stated that he “could not conceive how, at the time when the German soldiers returned, they were greeted by a Jewish university professor who explained that the German soldiers had died on the field of dishonor. I could not understand that lack of reverence could go so far.” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 452].

Rosenberg also took advantage of some questions to further the historical background on the topic of mass deportations. He mentioned the little publicized fact that “leading papers of the so-called democratic parties recognized the increase of unemployment in Germany and suggested that Germans should emigrate to the French colonies, to the Argentine, and to China” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 452], in clear reference to the period between World War I and the III Reich. Rosenberg went on to add that “prominent Jewish people and the chairman of the Democratic Party suggested three times quite openly that, in view of the increase of unemployment, Germans should be deported to Africa and Asia.” It is precisely at moments like this when Rosenberg’s presence acquires larger stature. Under the pressure of being tried and prosecuted by the enemies of the German Reich, Rosenberg assumed responsibility for his ideals, rather than seeking refuge in administrative or procedural excuses. The principle of individual responsibility, which was stressed from the NSDAP leadership, manifested itself, through Rosenberg when discussing the Jewish question. A rare commodity among individuals who at one point held political office, was not absent from the life-experience of Rosenberg, from theoretician to defendant at Nuremberg: coherence in integrity.

The charges against Rosenberg partially arose from his duties as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, the position that was proposed to him in person by Adolf Hitler on April 2, 1941. Rosenberg recalled the meeting as follows: “the Führer summoned me in the morning and explained to me that he regarded a military clash with the Soviet Union as inevitable. As reasons he quoted two points: first, the military occupation of Rumanian territory…; second, the continual reenforcing for a long time and on a gigantic scale of the Red Army along the line of demarcation and in Soviet Russian territory generally. These facts were so striking that he had already given the relevant military and other orders and had decided to assign me as a political adviser in a decisive capacity … On 20 April (1941) I received a preliminary task, which was to form a central department for dealing with Eastern questions and to get in touch with the highest Reich authorities concerned with these matters.” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 476-477]. Although the position of Rosenberg concerning the Eastern territories had a powerful-sounding name, the truth is that the SS, crucial on the management of Eastern affairs, was at no point under his supervision. To that effect, the Führer decreed on July 17, 1941, that “Police security in the newly occupied Eastern Territories is a matter for the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 483]. Nevertheless, the extent of Rosenberg’s responsibilities was quite complex, since it involved the administration of areas known for their hundreds-years-old conflicts and populated by ethnic groups diverse in language, religions and culture.

Special attention was given during the proceedings at Nuremberg at the issue of German policies towards Jews. He mentioned that, although he had never visited no real concentration camp, he had “heard from the foreign press all sort of derogatory atrocity reports” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 513] and that he conveyed this to Himmler. Rosenberg recalled Himmler’s response: “Why don’t you come to Dachau and take a look at things for yourself? We have a swimming pool there, we have sanitary installations – irreproachable; no objections can be raised.” Rosenberg gave two reasons for his refraining from visiting Dachau or other camp; he thought that if indeed something improper had been going on at Dachau it would have probably not been shown to him and, “for reasons of good taste” he “simply did not want to look at people who had been deprived of their liberty”. Nevertheless, just making this comment to Himmler, Rosenberg reasoned, might have brought awareness of the nature of the rumors which were being spread.

Rosenberg made on several occasions, during his statement, parallels between some of the actions and attitudes of the Reich, and similarities with the victors. The official story of the Holocaust claims that Jews as well as Gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses and homosexuals were targeted for removal. Indeed, Jehovah’s Witnesses have been prosecuted in the United States for the same reason they have been prosecuted in the III Reich, namely, their conscientious objections to military duty. To this regard Rosenberg added; “An American chaplain has very kindly given me in my cell a church paper from Columbus [Ohio]. I gather from that that the United States, too, arrested Jehovah’s Witnesses during the war and that until December 1945, 11,000 of them were still detained in camps.” [IMT, Blue Series, Vol. XI, p. 513].

At the end, all efforts by Rosenberg to provide truthful background information for his thoughts and actions, proved fruitless, for he was one of the convicted Defendants. It was instructed by the Tribunal that the sentences be implemented during the night hours of October 15 and 16. The condemned spent their last hours of life under strict scrutiny; the Allies had not to allow one more Nazi escape the noose by committing suicide, as had just happened with Hermann Goring. The guards received orders to keep the prisoners in sight at all time. Eyewitnesses accounts mention that, while The Bible became the favorite last reading among the prisoners awaiting execution, Rosenberg read Die Geige, a novel by Binding. In the early morning hours of October 16 1946, at 01-30, Alfred Rosenberg was removed from his cell by American Military Police personnel, who led him to his final destination. A prayer for him was offered, which he decisively rejected. Finally, this “sentence without appeal” was carried out by a John C. Woods, an American executioner from Wisconsin. Rosenberg’s life came to an end by hanging.

SOURCE: Liberty Bell, May 1997

Blog Contents

This entry was posted in History, Jewish Question, National Socialism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s