"The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that Civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captives to the judgement of law, is one of the most significant tributes that Power ever paid to reason."
- Justice Robert Jackson, Nov. 21, 1945
[Ron: At best this article evidences the erudite ignorance that epitomises the current plight of our world, although it is hard to believe that a history scholar is unaware of the truth about Nuremberg. Certainly Justice Jackson must have been in possession of facts that falsified his statement.
Justice Jackson peddled Talmudic propaganda AND participated in legitimizing the murder of innocent Germans while deceiving the whole world regarding brutal Allied military's torture of those accused and convicted in the Allies' self justifying Nuremberg Show Trials. He also presided over pseudo-legal proceedings that established the basis for the neo-Pharisees' (ie: global Jewry's) monstrous Holocaust Blood Libel of the German nation.].
It is often forgotten what sort of a battle occurred after WWII to establish the Nuremberg Trials which gave the world a revolutionary code of law which even today offers many of the remedies to the Gordian Knots blocking our way to a peaceful future.By the end of the war, many European leaders of the allied nations wished to simply put leading Nazis against a wall to face a firing squad and return to "business as usual".
I disagree with this statement. I regard Hatonn as the most reliable source on Nuremberg. In PJ #40CHAPTER 9REC #3HATONN WED., NOV. 13, 1991 10:12 A.M. YEAR 5, DAY 089 Hatonn says:
What was done at Nuremberg is the blackest mark against a judicial system and against innocent men that has ever been known since the dark ages. WAR is evil and yet, the incredible persecution was basically the work of the Jews’ own brotherhood and yet,Germans paid with their lives for basically following orders and were accused, and are still accused, convicted and executed without evidence. Were these evil doings right? No, but two wrongs do not make one right, it only compounds the “wrong”. If you work on the same judicial basis--Eisenhower and Churchill both should have been executed!!! Their crimes were far more heinous and deliberate. War and power over people is AGAINST GOD IN ANY SETTING AND ALL ARE LOSERS. THERE ARE NO WINNERS IN WAR!
THE NUREMBERG TRIALS
The story of the Six Million was given judicial authority at the Nuremberg Trials of German leaders between 1945 and 1949, proceedings which proved to be the most disgraceful legal farce in history. For a far more detailed study of the iniquities of these trials which, as Field Marshal Montgomery said, made it a crime to lose a war, the reader isreferred to the works cited below, and particularly to the outstanding hook ADVANCE TO BARBARISM(Nelson, 1953), by the distinguished English jurist, F.J.P. Veale.
From the very outset, the Nuremberg Trials proceeded on the basis of gross statistical errors. In his speech of indictment on November 20th, 1945, Mr. Sidney Alderman declared that there had been 9,600,000 Jews living in German occupied Europe. Our earlier study has shown this figure to be wildly inaccurate. It is arrived at (a) by completely ignoring all Jewish emigration between 1933 and 1945, and (b) by adding all the Jews of Russia, including the two million or more who were never in German occupied territory. The same inflated figure, slightly enlarged to 9,800,000 was produced again at the Eichmann Trial in Israel by Prof. Shalom Baron.
The alleged Six Million victims first appeared as the foundation for the prosecution at Nuremberg, and after some dalliance with ten million or more by the Press at the time, it eventually gained international popularity and acceptance. It is very significant. however, that although this outlandish figure was able to win credence in the reckless atmosphere of recrimination in 1945, it had become no longer tenable by 1961, at the Eichmann Trial. The Jerusalem court studiously avoided mentioning the figure of Six Million, and the charge drawn up by Mr. Gideon Haussner simply said “some” millions.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES IGNORED
Should anyone be misled into believing that the extermination of the Jews was “proved” at Nuremberg by “evidence”, he should consider the nature of the Trials themselves, based as they were on a total disregard of sound legal principles of any kind. The accusers acted as prosecutors, judges and executioners; “guilt” was assumed from the outset. (Among the judges, of course, were the Russians, whose numberless crimes included the massacre of 15,000 Polish officers, a proportion of whose bodies were discovered by the Germans at Katyn Forest, near Smoleask. The Soviet Prosecutor attempted to blame this slaughter on the German defendants.) At Nuremberg, ex post facto legislation was CREATED, whereby men were tried for “crimes” which were only declared crimes after they had been allegedly committed. Hitherto it had been the most basic legal principle that a person could only be convicted for infringing a law that was in force at the time of the infringement. “NULLA POENA SINE LEGE.”
The Rules of Evidence, developed by British jurisprudence over the centuries in order to arrive at the truth of a charge with as much certainty as possible, were entirely disregarded at Nuremberg. It was decreed that “the Tribunal should not be bound by technical rules of evidence” but could admit “any evidence which it deemed to have probative value”, that is, would support a conviction. In practice, this meant the admittance of hearsay evidence and documents, which in a normal judicial trial are always rejected as untrustworthy. That such evidence was allowed is of profound significance, because it was one of the principal methods by which the extermination legend was fabricated through fraudulent “written affidavits”. Although only 240 witnesses were called in the course of the Trials, no less than 300,000 of these “written affidavits” were accepted by the Court as supporting the charges, without this evidence being heard under oath. Under these circumstances, any Jewish deportee or camp inmate could make any revengeful allegation that he pleased. Most incredible of all, perhaps, was the fact that defense lawyers at Nuremberg were not permitted to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. A somewhat similar situation prevailed at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, when it was announced that Eichmann’s defense lawyer could be cancelled at any time “if an intolerable situation should arise”, which presumably meant if his lawyer started to prove his innocence.
The real background of the Nuremberg Trials was exposed by the American Judge, Justice Wenersturm, President of one of the Tribunals. He was so disgusted by the proceedings that he resigned his appointment and flew home to America, leaving behind a statement to the Chicago Tribune which enumerated point by point his objections to the Trials (cf. Mark Lautern, Das Letzie Worth uber Nurnberg, p. 56). Points 3-8 are as follows:
3. The members of the department of the Public Prosecutor, instead of trying to formulate and reach a new guiding legal principle, were moved only by personal ambition and revenge. 4. The prosecution did its utmost in every way possible to prevent the defense preparing its case and to make it impossible for it to furnish evidence. 5. The prosecution, led by General Taylor, did everything in its power to prevent the unanimous decision of Military Court being carried out, i.e., to ask Washington to furnish and make available to the court further documentary evidence in the possession of the American Government. 6. Ninety percent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of biased persons who, either on political or racial grounds, furthered the prosecution’s case. 7. The prosecution obviously knew how to fill all the administrative posts of the Military Court with “Americans” whose naturalization certificates were very new indeed, and who, whether in the administrative service or by their translations, etc., created an atmosphere hostile to the accused persons. 8. The real aim of the Nuremberg Trials was to show the Germans the crimes of their Fuhrer, and this aim was at the same time the pretext on which the trials were ordered.. .Had I known seven months earlier what was happening at Nuremberg, I would never have gone there.
Concerning Point 6, that ninety per cent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of people biased on racial or political grounds, this was a fact confirmed by others present. According to Earl Carrol, an American lawyer, sixty per cent of the staff of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were German Jews who had left Germany after the promulgation of Hitler’s Race Laws. He observed that not even ten per cent of the Americans employed at the Nuremberg courts were actually Americans by birth. The chief of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who worked behind General Taylor, was Robert M. Kempner, a German-Jewish emigrant. He was assisted by Morris Amchan. Mark Lautern, who observed the Trials, writes in his book: “They have all arrived: the Solomons, the Schlossbergers and the Rabinovitches, members of the Public Prosecutor’s staff.. .“(ibid. p. 68). It is obvious from these facts that the fundamental legal principle: that no man can sit in judgment on his own case, was abandoned altogether. Moreover, the majority of witnesses were also Jews. According to Prof. Maurice Bardeche, who was also an observer at the Trials, the only concern of these witnesses was not to show their hatred too openly, and to try and give an impression of objectivity (Nuremberg ou la Terre Promise, Paris, 1948, p. 149).
‘CONFESSIONS’ UNDER TORTURE
Altogether more disturbing, however, were the methods employed to extract statements and “confessions” at Nuremberg, particularly those from S.S. officers which were used to support the extermination charge. The American Senator, Joseph McCarthy, in a statement given to the American Press on May 20th, 1949, (and this, as much as any ‘communist’ investigations was his personal downfall), drew attention to the following cases of torture to secure such confessions. In the prison of the Swabisch Hall, he stated, officers of the S.S. Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler were flogged until they were soaked in blood, after which their sexual organs were trampled on as they lay prostate on the ground. As in the notorious Malmedy Trials of private soldiers, the prisoners were hoisted in the air and beaten until they signed the confessions demanded of them. On the basis of such “confessions” extorted from S.S. Generals Sepp Dietrich and Joachim Paiper, the Leibstandarte was convicted as a “guilty organization”. S.S. General Oswald Pohl, the economic administrator of the concentration camp system, had his face smeared with feces and was subsequently beaten until he supplied his confession. In dealing with these cases, Senator McCarthy told the Press:
“I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived in sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor in order to secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticize us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our moral integrity.”
The methods of intimidation described were repeated during trials at Frankfurt-am-Mein and at Dachau, and large numbers of Germans were convicted for atrocities on the basis of their admissions.. The American Judge Edward L. van Roden, one of the three members of the Simpson Army Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the methods of justice at the Dachau trials, revealed the methods by which these admissions were secured in the Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949. His account also appeared in the British newspaper, the Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949. The methods he described were: “Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoner’s fingernails; knocking out the teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near starvation rations.” Van Roden explained: “The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months.. .The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses.. .All but two Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked inthe testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.” Are you readers STILL UNDER THE DELUSION THAT THE JEWISHISRAELI MOSSAD ARENICE PEOPLE?
The “American” investigators responsible (and who later functioned as the prosecution in the trials) were: Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis (chief of the War Crimes Committee) and his assistants, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, Lt Robert E. Byrne, Lt. William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Ellowitz, Mr. Harry Thon, and Mr. Kirschbaum. The legal adviser of the court was Col. A.H. Rosenfeld. The reader will immediately appreciate from their names that the majority of these people were “biased on racial grounds” in the words of Justice Wenersturm--that is, were Jewish, and therefore should never have been involved in any such investigation.
Despite the fact that “confessions” pertaining to the extermination of the Jews were extracted under these conditions, Nuremberg statements are still regarded as conclusive evidence for the Six Million by writers like Reitlinger and others, and the illusion is maintained that the Trials were both impartial and impeccably fair. When General Taylor, the Chief Public Prosecutor, was asked where he had obtained the figure of the Six Million, he replied that it was based on the confession of S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf. He, too, was tortured and his case is examined below. But as far as such “confessions” in general are concerned, we can do no better than quote the British Sunday Pictorial when reviewing the report of Judge van Roden: “Strong men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by their prosecutors.”
THE WISLICENY STATEMENT
At this point, let us turn to some of the Nuremberg documents themselves. The document quoted most frequently in support of the legend of the Six Million, and which figures largely in Poliakov and WuIf’s Das Dritte Reich and die Juden Dokumente and Aufsatze,is the statement of S.S. Captain Dieter Wisliceny, an assistant in Adolf Eichmann’s office and later the Gestapo chief in Slovakia. It was obtained under conditions even more extreme than those described above, for Wisliceny fell into the hands of Czech Communists (Khazarian Zionists) and was “interrogated” at the Soviet-controlled Bratislava Prison in November, 1946. Subjected to torture, Wisliceny was reduced to a nervous wreck and became addicted to uncontrollable fits of sobbing for hours on end prior to his execution. Although the conditions under which his statement was obtained empty it entirely of all plausibility, Poliakov prefers to ignore this and merely writes: “In prison he wrote several memoirs that contain information of great interest” (HARVEST OF HATE, p. 3). These memoirs include some genuine statements of fact to provide authenticity, such as that Himmler was an enthusiastic advocate of Jewish emigration and that the emigration of Jews from Europe continued throughout the war, but in general they are typical of the Communist-type “confession” produced at Soviet show-trials. Frequent reference is made to exterminating Jews and a flagrant attempt is made to implicate as many S.S. leaders as possible. Factual errors are also common, notably the statement that the war with Poland added more than 3 million Jews to the German-occupied territory, which we have disproved above.
THE CASE OF THE EINSATZGRUPPEN
The Wisliceny statement deals at some length with the activities of the Einsatzgruppen or Action Groups used in the Russian campaign. These must merit a detailed consideradon in the survey of Nuremberg because the picture presented of them at the Trials represents a kind of “Six Million” in miniature, i.e., has been proved since to be the most enormous exaggeration and falsification. The Einsatzgruppen were four special units drawn from the Gestapo and the S.D. (S.S. Security Service) whose task was to wipe out partisans and Communist commissars in the wake of the advancing German armies in Russia. As Early as 1939, there had been 34,000 of these political commissars attached to the Red Army. The activities of the Einsatzgruppen were the particular concern of the Soviet Prosecutor Rudenko at the Nuremberg Trials. The 1947 indictment of the four groups alleged that in the course of their operations they had killed not less than one million Jews in Russia merely because they were Jews.
These allegations have since been elaborated; it is now claimed that the murder of Soviet Jews by the Einsatzgruppen constituted Phase One in the plan to exterminate the Jews. Phase Two being the transportation of European Jews to Poland. Reitlinger admits that the original term “final solution” referred to emigration and had nothing to do with the liquidation of Jews, but he then claims that an extermination policy began at the time of the invasion of Russia in 1941. He considers Hitler’s order of July 1941 for the liquidation of the Communist commissars, and he concludes that this was accompanied by a verbal order from Hitler for the Einsatzgruppen to liquidate all Soviet Jews (Die Endlosung, p. 91). If this assumption is based on anything at all, it is probably the worthless Wisliceny statement, which alleges that the Einsatzgruppen were soon receiving orders to extend their task of crushing communists and partisans to a “general massacre” of Russian Jews.
It is very significant that, once again, it is a “verbal order” for exterminating Jews that is supposed to have accompanied Hitler’s genuine, written order--yet another nebulous and unprovable[- assumption on the part of Reitlinger. An earlier order from Hitler, dated March 1941 and signed by Field Marshal Keitel, makes it quite clear what the real tasks of the future Einsatzgruppen would be. It states that in the Russian campaign, the Reichsfuhrer S.S. (Himmler) is to be entrusted with “tasks for the preparation of the political administration, tasks which result from the struggle which has to be carried out between two opposing political systems” (Manvell & Frankl, ibid. p. 115). This plainly refers to eliminating Communism, especially the political commissars whose specific task was Communist indoctrination.
THE OHLENDORF TRIAL
The most revealing trial in the “Einsatzgruppen Case” at Nuremberg was that of S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf, the chief of the S.D. who commanded Einsatzgruppe D in the Ukraine, attached to Field Marshal von Manstein’s Eleventh Army. During the last phase of the war he was employed as a foreign trade expert in the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf was one of those subjected to torture described earlier, and in his affidavit of November 5th, 1945,he was “persuaded” to confess that 90,000 Jews had been killed under his command alone. Ohlendorf did not come to trial until 1948, long after the main Nuremberg Trial, and by that time he was insisting that his earlier statement had been extracted from him under torture. In his main speech before the Tribunal, Ohlendorf took the opportunity to denounce Phillip Auerbach, the Jewish attorney-general of the Bavarian State Office for Restitution, who at that time was claiming compensation for “eleven million Jews” who had suffered in German concentration camps. Ohlendorf dismissed this ridiculous claim, stating that “not the minutest part” of the people for whom Auerbach was demanding compensation had even seen a concentration camp. Ohlendorf lived long enough to see Auerbach convicted for embezzlement and fraud (forging documents purporting to show huge payments of compensation to non-existent people) before his own execution finally took place in 1951. I believe this speaks better than I can for the wondrous “legal” tactics utilized.
Olendorf explained to the Tribunal that his units often had to prevent massacres of Jews organized by anti-Semitic Ukranians behind the German front, and he denied that the Einsatzgruppen as a whole had inflicted even one quarter of the casualties claimed by the prosecution. He insisted that the illegal partisan warfare in Russia, which he had to combat, had taken a far higher toll of lives from the regular German army--an assertion confirmed by the Soviet Government, which boasted of 500,000 German troops killed by partisans. In fact, Franz Stahlecker, commander of Einsatzgruppe A in the Baltic region and White Russia, was himself killed by partisans in 1942, The English jurist F.J.P. Veale, in dealing with the Action Groups said: “There is no question that their orders were to combat terror by terror,” and he finds it strange that atrocities committed by the partisans in the struggle were regarded as blameless simply because they turned out to be on the winning side (ibid. p. 223). Ohlendorf took the same view, and in a bitter appeal written before his execution, he accused the Allies of hypocrisy in holding the Germans to account by conventional laws of warfare while fighting a savage Soviet enemy who did not respect those laws.
ACTION GROUP EXECUTIONS DISTORTED
The Soviet charge that the Action Groups had wantonly exterminated a million Jews during their operations has been shown subsequently to be a massive falsification. In fact, there had never been the slightest statistical basis for the figure. In this connection, Poliakov and Wulf cite the statement of Wilhelm Hoettl, the dubious American spy, double agent and former assistant of Eichmann. Hoettl, it will be remembered, claimed that Eichmann had “told him’t that six million Jews had been exterminated--and he added that two million of these had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen. This absurd figure went beyond even the wildest estimates of Soviet Prosecutor Rudenko, and it was not given any credence by the American Tribunal which tried and condemned Ohlendorf.
The real number of casualties for which the Action Groups were responsible has since been revealed in the scholarly work MANSTEIN, HIS CAMPAIGNS AND HIS TRIAL (London, 1951), by the able English lawyer R.T. Paget. Ohlendorf had been under Manstein’s nominal command. Paget’s conclusion is that the Nuremberg Court, in accepting the figures of the Soviet prosecution, exaggerated the number of casualties by more than 1000 per cent and that they distorted even more the situations in which these casualties were Inflicted. [These horrific distortions are the subject of six pages of William Shirer’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, pp. 1140-46]. Here, then, is the legendary 6 million in miniature; not one million deaths, but one hundred thousand. Of course, only a small proportion of these could have been Jewish partisans and Communist functionaries. It is worth repeating that these casualties were inflicted during savage partisan warfare on the Eastern front, and that Soviet terrorists claim to have killed five times that number of German troops. It has nevertheless remained a popular myth that the extermination of the Jews began with the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in Russia.
In conclusion, you may briefly survey the Manstein trial itself, typical in so many ways of Nuremberg proceedings. Principally because Action Group D was attached to Manstein’s command (though it was responsible solely to Himmler), the sixty-two year old, invalid Field Marshal, considered by most authorities to be the most brilliant German general of the war, was subjected to the shameful indignity of a “war-crimes” trial. Of the 17 charges, 15 were brought by the Communist Russian Government and two by the Communist Polish Government. Only one witness was called to give evidence at this trial, and he proved so unsatisfactory that the prosecution withdrew his evidence. Reliance was placed instead on 800 hearsay documents which were accepted by the court without any proof of their authenticity or authorship. The prosecution introduced written affidavits by Ohlendorf and other S.S. Leaders, but since these men were still alive, Manstein’s defense lawyer Reginald Paget K.D. demanded their appearance in the witness-box. This was refused by the American authorities, and Paget declared that this refusal was due to fear lest the condemned men revealed what methods had been used to induce them to sign their affidavits. Manstein was eventually acquitted on eight of the charges including the two Polish ones which, as Paget said, “were so flagrantly bogus that one was left wondering why they had been presented at all.”
Let us take a break from the writing. We will continue with a discussion of another trial before we move into the subject of Auschwitz and Polish Jewry. I must not miss reminding you, as we move along, that conclusions and discernment are left into the hands of the readers. We are efforting to bring factual documentation to this matter. I suggest that youalso remember that the term “Jew” has been distorted and you who are from the beloved lineage of the JudeansMUST PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THIS INFORMATION FOR IT IS YOU WHO ARE FIRST IN LINE FOR DESTRUCTION AT THE HANDS OF THESE KHAZARIAN ZIONISTS WHO, THROUGH THE TALMUDIC PROTOCOLS, ARE IN ALLIANCE WITH THE SO-CALLED COMMUNIST SOVIETS. ALL ARE PURE AND SIMPLE DICTATORIAL SOCIALISTS WHO INTEND TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD.THEY ARE THE “ANTICHRIST” DESTROYERS IT IS TIME YOU ONES FACE, SQUARELY, THE FACTS LEST YOU FIND YOURSELVES TOO SUPPRESSED TO HAVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Note that the tactics described herein have not changed one iota and your own American courtrooms are getting to the point of offering no justice better than the atrocities at Nuremberg. Remember that one of the Protocols gives instruction to “take over the courts and judicial system” and “to furnish evidence and witnesses as necessary to WIN the case” whether or not they are actually witnesses. I promise you this, that even in this “small” case revolving around “Dharma’s” property, that is EXACTLY WHAT THE ZIONISTS ADVERSARY HAS DONE--but this time, it has backfired!
You are in serious jeopardy, beloved citizens. You must face the Truth if you would regain your freedom.
Remember also, the full-blown effort in America by the Jewish groups is to cause it to be ILLEGAL TO EVEN QUESTION THE POSSIBILITIES OF INACCURACIES REGARDING THE HOLOCAUST. Such questioning (such as these documents project, fully protected by the present First Constitutional Amendment) is already ILLEGAL in France, Germany, England and probably other European nations, and in Canada and the Soviet Union. But none of those countries have your Bill of Rights and its unique First Amendment placed there by shrewd Founding Fathers who understood tyranny and oppression. Even if you disagree, you must stand for the RIGHTS OF PROTECTION under that Beloved Constitution THAT ALL THINGS MIGHT BE OPENLY QUESTIONED. Is it not evident in itself that there is much to be hidden within the curtain of enforced secrecy? Do not the very ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN ANY WORDS?'
As I've outlined in many recent writings, it was only through the intensive efforts of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and his leading allies in both the USA and Russia that a different course of action was decided upon and an official international tribunal was sanctioned that generated a total legal paradigm shift in international law that has been too easily taken for granted(due largely to the lack of effect these laws have had on post-WWII practice).
[Ron: Arguably this is a biased Anglo-US centric assessment.].
Among those revolutionary reforms included the unprecedented mandate that wars of aggression would henceforth be illegal in the eyes of the law. The tendency for those higher officials carrying out inhuman orders to escape responsibility for their actions or omissions of correct action were deemed insufficient defenses under the highermoral principle of "known or should have known".
The underlying assumption of these Nuremberg laws are: 1) "might does not make right" despite what generations of Hobbesians and Niescheans have chosen to believe and 2) that every individual is responsible for their decisions based not on the arbitrary standards of whatever degenerate society they live in but rather upon the belief in the intrinsic powers of reason and conscience which all humans have access to and are obliged to guide our actions in life.
[Ron: I disagree. The underlying assumption was correctly stated by Field Marshal Montgomery who said Nuremberg made it a crime to lose a war].
It is often forgotten what sort of a battle occurred after WWII to establish the Nuremberg Trials which gave the world a revolutionary code of law which even today offers many of the remedies to the Gordian Knots blocking our way to a peaceful future.By the end of the war, many European leaders of the allied nations wished to simply put leading Nazis against a wall to face a firing squad and return to "business as usual".
Nazi philosophers and crown jurists like Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmidt whose thoughts have penetrated the western zeitgeist over the past 70 years would obviously find such concepts repugnant and deplorable.
The fact that the "free world" has ignored these foundations of international law has not changed the fact that they are still true.
Today, many of those powerful unipolar ideologues who managed the disastrous Cold War and post-Cold War geopolitical environment have attempted to erase the precedents of Nuremburg with such atrocities as Soros' International Criminal Court, and the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine (R2P) in defense of "humanitarian wars" as seen in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria in recent years.The disturbing rise of unipolar R2P advocacy rampant among the British ruling class like Lord Mark Malloch Brown, Tony Blair and all of the Obama-era globalists surrounding Biden make Vladimir Putin and Sergey Lavrov's recent remarks at the 75 Anniversary Moscow conference celebrating the commencement of the Nuremberg Trials that much more important.
Putin and Lavrov Celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Nuremberg Trials
At this event, Putin reminded the attendees of the importance of the historic tribunals which ran from November 21, 1945 to October - 1946, saying:
"We constantly refer to the lessons of the Nuremberg Trials; we understand their importance for defending the truths of historical memory, for making a well-founded and solid case against deliberate distortions and falsifications of World War II events, especially the shameless and deceitful attempts to rehabilitate and even glorify Nazi criminals and their accessories...It is the duty of the entire international community to safeguard the Nuremberg Trials' decisions,because they concern the principles that underlie the values of the post-war world order and the norms of international law."
Putin's remarks were amplified by Sergey Lavrov who elaborated on the new legal paradigm created at Nurembergwhich provides an obvious cure for the rise of WWII revisionism, sanitation of Nazism in Ukraine and beyond as well as the revival of many of the practices that made Nazism a viral threat to mankind.
"The Nuremberg Trials-an example of international criminal justice-proved that justice can be achieved with a professional approach based on broad interstate cooperation, consent and mutual respect. Clearly, the Nuremberg Tribunal's legacy is not limited to law, but has enormous political, moral and educational value. A strong vaccination against the revival of Nazism in all its forms and manifestations was made 75 years ago.Unfortunately, the immunity to the brown plague that was developed in Nuremberg has seriously worn off in some European countries. Russia will continue to vigorously and consistently oppose any attempts to falsify history, to glorify Nazi criminals and their henchmen, and to oppose the revision of the internationally recognized outcomes of World War II, including the Nuremberg rulings."
[Ron: On the basis of Hatonn's assessment of the Nuremberg Trials and other accounts thereof, I disagree with Putin and Lavrov on this issue. I suppose it is understandable that Russians might have a biased and jaundiced view of Germans involved in Operation Barbarossa and the German invasion of Russia, BUT an objective view of the situation facing Germany on the Eastern Front in 1941 gives us a differnet perspective. With a hostile British Commonwealth (and US) on his Western and southern fronts, Hitler had little choice but to beat Stalin's military to "the punch" in June 1941. See eg: Did Adolph Hitler save Western Europe from Communism? http://abundanthope.net/pages/Political_Information_43/Did-Adolf-Hitler-Save-Europe-From-Communism.shtml
Arguably the allegation that the Nuremberg Tribunal's legacy extends to and beyond law,'to provide enormous political, moral and educational value' is risible on an objective assessment of the Nuremberg Show Trials and their aftermath even unto today.The Nuremberg Show Trials cementedJewry's global socio-political control over our world and established the Talmudic narrative underpinning Holocaustianity as the demonic materialist successor to Christianity. Don't believe me?! What is your explanation for the plight of the Euroanglo-US world we live in? Our Western world now accepts and believes the Holocaust fable and punishes and even imprisons so-called 'Holocaust Deniers' labelling them as anti-semites. Also, Western nations have no difficulty accepting Political Correctness, Identity Politics, LGBTQism, gender fluidity mandating that men are women and vice versa; and celebrating sodomy as somehow a boon to communtiy life and continuance of the species.
Perhaps the biggest joke though, is the suggestion that as a result of "Nuremberg" Western policitians and intellectuals appear to believe that "Civilisation" can no longer tolerate Fascist tyranny and subjects its perpetrators to "the judgment of law'. YEAH RIGHTTT!!! Sooo, what is the explanation for the Talmudic corporatist domination and control of Anglo-US and EU nations and their global extortion and despoilation of most of this planet? If THAT isn't Fascism what is it?
And how about the current Fascist imposition of the COVID-19 scamdemic on our world and the stealing of the US election? How do they jell with and enhance the rule of law supposedly enshrined at Nuremberg?].
So What Happened at Nuremberg?
Amidst the ashes of WWII, a major battle was waged between those deep state forces that had funded fascism as a "solution to the woes of the great depression" vs those genuine patriots who understood that the very fabric of empire and its associated financial, cultural and legal paradigm had to be destroyed and replaced with a paradigm more befitting human civilization.
Among the leading representative of the patriotic forces loyal to FDR's anti-colonial vision was a man who has been nearly lost to history named Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954). Jackson would serve as Franklin Roosevelt's most trusted legal advisor who first made a name for himself working closely with Ferdinand Pecora in prosecuting dozens of high level Wall Street financiers and pro-fascist industrialists who orchestrated the depression of 1929 and the later coup and assassination attempts against FDR in 1933-1934. After proving himself in combat, Jackson arose to become U.S. Solicitor General (1938-1940), Attorney General (1940-41) and leading member of the Supreme Court from 1941 until his death in 1954.
Knowing that the deep state coup that ousted Vice-President Henry Wallace and imposed Anglophile tool Harry Truman onto the USA might destroy the hopes for a post-WWII order of peaceful cooperation as outlined by the United Nations Charter,Judge Jackson took the lead and organized the Nuremberg Tribunals delivering the opening speech on November 21, 1945:
One of the prime motives behind the hearings was the intention to give legal meaning and action to the universal ideals conveyed in the United Nations' Charter. This charter encapsulated the principles that FDR and Henry Wallaceoutlined repeatedly in the Four Freedoms. These freedoms asserted that all humankind regardless of race, sex, creed, or nationality would: 1) have the freedom from want, 2) freedom to worship as one's conscience dictated, 3) freedom from fear, and 4) freedom of speech.If international law could tolerate wars of aggression, or if abdication of responsibility for ones' criminal deeds could be tolerated on the basis of "I was just following orders", then the UN Charter could carry little weight indeed.
As Jackson wrote in his Summer 1945 report to the President justifying the creation of the Nuremberg Tribunal:
"We therefore propose to charge that a war of aggression is a crime, and that modern international law has abolished the defense that those who incite or wage it are engaged in legitimate business. Thus, may the forces of law be mobilized on the side of peace."
During the course of the 11 month proceedings, not only were leading cabinet members, generals, lawyers and other high officials put on trial, but the deepest facets of natural law vs Nietschean "law of the strongest" was investigated with Platonic rigor as laid out in the brilliant award-winning film Judgement at Nuremberg (1960).
Due to the leadership of Justice Jackson, the treatment of INTENTION and conspiracy was made the primary focus in the pursuit of justice and cause of criminal guilt. This was not a popular approach then or today for the simple fact that our world is shaped by many top down forces that want their victims' minds to be forever trapped in the material bottom up world of deductive/inductive logic where immaterial causal intentions and ideas can never be found. For anyone wishing to pursue this fruitful line of thinking further, I suggest reading Edgar Allan Poe's Eureka.
When one adopts the view that intentions and conspiracies (i.e.: the effect of intentions + ideas when put into action) ARE NOT a driving force of politics and life, then we forever loose our ability to judge truthfulness in any serious manner. This was the philosophical premise of leading [Ron: Rothschilds' agent and] Nazi financier Hjalmar Schacht, whose moral relativism and cold calculating principles of economics directly justified the cheap labor camps that worked millions to death in the German war production effort.This same philosophy again found fertile soil in the post-1971 consumer society that revived the logic of cheap labor production under the age of "cheapest price is the law" globalization.
Quoting Schacht [Ron: A Rothschilds' agent NOT prosecuted at Nuremberg] who said "Truth is any story that succeeds", Justice Jackson quipped "I think you can score many more successes, when you want to lead someone, if you don't tell them the truth- than if you do tell them the truth".
"The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched....
"The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the brains and authority in back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders....
[Ron: Really? Churchill, Eisenhower and Stalin were by far the greatest war criminals during and after WWII. WHY then, were they not prosecuted at Nuremberg?].
"It is not the purpose in my part of this case to deal with the individual crimes. I am dealing with the common plan or design for crime and will not dwell upon individual offenses.My task is only to show the scale on which these crimes occurred, and to show that these are the men who were in the responsible positions and who conceived the plan and design which renders them answerable, regardless of the fact that the plan was actually executed by others....
"The Charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of state....
"The real complaining party at your bar is Civilization.... The refuge of the defendants can only be their hope that International Law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law. Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance."
Today, the world sits once more on the brink of a new world order,and the emergence of a governing system that is shaped entirely on the same social Darwinistic/Nietschean operating system that gave rise to fascism in WWII. The same denial of universal truth that animated the minds of a Schacht, Goebbels, Heidegger or Schmidt has become hegemonic among western academia as well.
Very few statesmen have had the courage and insight to resist this unipolar anti-nation state system, but among those who have we are fortunate to have found the current leader of Russia and his allies who in many ways are playing the same historic role as the one played 75 years earlier by Justice Robert Jackson, Henry Wallace and President Roosevelt.Whether the rest of the world wakes up in time to recognize the superiority of the multipolar alliance over the regressive order of the unipolarists carrying us ominously towards World War 3 remains to be seen.
[Colour fonts, bolding and comments in square brackets added.].