2 - The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg
"This tribunal represents a continuation of the war efforts of the Allied nations."
Source : Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Attorney-General (26th July 1946 session)
On August 8th 1945, the American, English, French and Russian met in London to organize "the pursuit and the punishment of the great war criminals of the European Axis Powers," by creating a "military international tribunal" (article I,a).
The crimes were defined under Title II, article 6.
The constitution of this jurisdiction already calls for a few remarks :
1 - It was not an international tribunal since it consisted only of the victors and, consequently, only the crimes committed by the vanquished were taken into consideration. As the American Attorney General, Robert H. Jackson, who presided the audience on July 26th 1946, justly acknowledged :
2 - It was therefore an exceptional tribunal constituting the last act of war, and excluding by its very principle any responsibility on the part of the victors - first of all in the unleashing of the war. Any reminder of its primary source was excluded in advance : at Nuremberg, no-one raised the question of the Treaty of Versailles and if it was not to be blamed for the resulting consequences - the bankruptcies and the unemployment especially which allowed the rise of someone like Hitler, with the consent of a majority of the German people. The law of the strongest prevailed when Germany was defeated in 1918, asserting itself as the "right" which made might, when the Germans had to pay 132 billion gold-marks (the equivalent of 165 billion gold francs) as reparation, at a time when their country's national fortune was estimated at 260 billion gold-marks.
The German economy was ruined by such measures, and the German people driven to despair by bankruptcy, by the collapse of the currency and above all by unemployment ; it was all this which made Hitler's rise to power possible, giving him his best arguments to sustain his principal slogan : the cancellation of the Treaty of Versailles, with its sum total of misery and humiliation.
It is easy to compare the unemployment figures and the successes of the "National-Socialist Party" at the different elections :
I - from 1924 to 1930
Dates Votes % Seats Unemployed
05/04/1924 1,918,000 6.6
II - from 1930 to 1933
09/14/1932 6,407,000 18.3
When Hitler and his political allies won the absolute majority in the Reichstag, they obtained aid for rearmament in dollars, pounds and francs. The German bank, Shreider, financed Hitler's department of propaganda, but it was mostly the great American, English and French trusts which financed the rearmament.
This was true in the case of the American chemical consortium, Dupont de Nemours and of the English trust;
Imperial Chemicals Industry, which subsidized I.G. Farbein with whom they had shared the world powder market, and;
Dillon Bank, in New York which subsidized the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the German steel trust. Others were subsidized by Morgan, Rockefeller, et al.. Thus did the pound and the dollar take part in the plot which brought Hitler to power.
In France, a request by Senator Paul Laffont to the Ministry of the national Economy concerning the quantities of iron ore exported towards Germany from 1934 on,received the following answer :
Source : Journal officiel de la Republique francaise,March 26th 1938.
Yet the directors of Dupont de Nemours, Dillon, Morgan, Rockefeller or François de Wendel were not asked to answer for their actions at Nuremberg, in the chapter entitled "plotting against the peace".
The imprecations of Hitler and the principal Nazi leaders against Communists and Jews are often invoked. This is especially true of Chapter XV of the second volume of "Mein Kampf", in which Hitler evokes the past: that of the war of the gasses initiated by the English during the First World War. The chapter is entitled :
In a speech before the Reichstag on January 30th 1939, he also said :
Source: I/M.T. Vol.XXXI, p. 65.
On January 30th 1941, Hitler addressed himself to all the Jews of Europe, telling them they "would have finished playing their role in case of generalized warfare." Then, in a speech made on January 30th 1942, he declared that the war would see "the annihilation of Judaism in Europe."
Hitler's political testament, published by the Nuremberg International Military Court is full of statements to the same effect. For example, we read :
Hitler spoke of destroying an "influence"; Himmler spoke more directly of destroying people.
This, for example, is what Himmler said in a speech addressed to naval commanders at Weimar on December 16th 1943 :
Later, speaking before some generals at Sonthofen on May 5th 1944, he added :
This savagery was not, unfortunately, confined to one side.
On September 4th 1940, Hitler declared at the "Sportpalast":
This is a wild exaggeration of the Lutwaffe's possibilities in terms of strategic bombardments, but it shows the degree of hatred both camps had reached.
In reply, Clifton Fadiman, editor of the "New Yorker" and figurehead of the "Writers' War Board", a semi-official government literary agency, asked writers in 1942 :
These words proving controversial, Fadiman insisted :
In April 1942, praising a book by De Sales, "The making of tomorrow", Fadiman developed his racist concept and wrote:
He approved of Hemingway's suggestion :
He ridiculed Dorothy Thomson, who made a distinction between the Nazis and other Germans.
His was not an isolated opinion. After Hitler's speech at the "Sportpalast", the "Daily Herald" in London published an article by the Reverend C.W. Wipp, declaring:
Fortunately, there were protests against such aberrations in England where the people, not any more than the German people and its high degree of culture, could be confused with bloodthirsty leaders and individuals full of hatred and baying for blood.
As early as the month of January 1934, the Zionist leader, Wladimir Jabotinsky, declared to the Jewish newspaper "Natscha Retsch" :
As for Churchill, he wrote to Paul Reynaud on May 16th 1940 :
Source: Paul Baudouin, "Neuf mois au gouvernement". La Table Ronde, 1948, p.57.
In 1942, the British minister, Lord Vansittart, a true apostle of hatred, declared to justify the terror of British bombardments:
In July 1944, Churchill sent his chief of staff, General Hastings Imay, a four-page memorandum in which he proposed the following project :
Source : "American heritage", August-September 1985.
Note : The United States produced almost 135,000 tons of toxic chemical agents during the war, Germany 70,000 tons, the United Kingdom 40,000 tons and Japan 7,500 tons.
Neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nor Truman had to face trial for war crimes at Nuremberg.
The Nuremberg court did not try some of the most ignoble calls to crime of which we can mention two of the wildest : one was a call to "genocide" (this time in the true meaning of the term) by an American Jew called Theodore Kaufman, who wrote a book entitled : "Germany must perish". In it, he put forward the following case:
This book, which came out in 1942, was a godsend for anti-Semites. Hitler had extracts from it read on all the radio-stations. Another work of the kind was the "Call to the Red Army" by the Soviet writer, Ilya Ehrenburg, published in October 1944 :
Neither of the above-mentioned was tried at Nuremberg, any more than the heads of State which covered them.
Nor were tried the Anglo-American leaders who were responsible for the bombing of Dresden, which killed 200,000 civilians and which served no military purpose since the Soviet Army had already reached the Oder.
Nor was Truman tried, though he was responsible for the atomic apocalypse of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which 300,000 civilians perished, again uselessly since Japan's surrender had already been decided by the emperor.
Nor were Beria and Stalin tried for the massacre of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn, which was blamed on the Germans.
* * *
The methods of the procedure were based on the same principles (or rather absence of principles) as the choice of the accused among the vanquished only.
The status of the tribunal was defined as follows :
* Article 19 : The Court will not be bound by technical rules relating to the administration of proofs. It will adopt and apply as far as possible an expeditive and not a formalist procedure, will admit any means it considers to have conclusive value.
* Article 21 : The Court will not require proof of facts that are of public notoriety, but will take them as established. It also regards as authentic proofs the official documents and reports of the Allied governments.
This was the juridical monstrosity whose decisions were to be canonized and regarded as criteria of an untouchable historical truth, according to the Gayssot-Fabius law of May 2nd 1990.
This text inserts an article 24b in the 1981 law concerning the freedom of the press which says:
* * *
Such a procedure by the Nuremberg Court raised
objections even amongst the top-level American jurists:
those of the Supreme Court.
One of these was Judge Jackson. The English historian, David Irving, who admitted he had misjudged him earlier, was to say the following :
Referring to the book by Alpheus Thomas Mason on Harlan Fiske Stone: "Pillar of the Law" (Harlan Fiske Stone was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) the lawyer Christie quoted page 715 of this book, in which Stone wrote to the editor of "Fortune" magazine that not only did he disown such a procedure, but that he regarded the whole thing as "a high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg." (5.995-996) p.716.
Judge Wennerstrum, of the Supreme Court of the United States, President of one of the courts (23.5915-5916) was so disgusted by the procedure that he refused his nomination and went back to the United States, where he voiced his objections in the "Chicago Tribune" : 60% of the members of the board of the trial were Jewish ; so were the interpreters.
By virtue of the Nuremberg statutes accepting as proofs all declarations by the Allies, the Soviet report on Katyn accusing the Germans of the massacre of 11,000 Polish officers was accepted as an "authentic proof", irrefutable, on August 8th 1945 by the victors.
Source : USSR Document 54, in vol. 39 of the TMI (p.290.32)
The Soviet Prosecuting Attorney, General Rudenko, could have said according to article 21 of the Nuremberg Trial Statute, "...there could be no object of contestation." (XV,p.300)
On April 13 th 1990, the international press announced that the massacre had been ordered by Beria and the Soviet authorities. When Professor Naville, of Geneva University, had examined the bodies, he found 1940 documents in their pockets which proved that the executions had taken place at that date. In 1940, the Smolensk district was occupied by the Soviets.
* * *
To stick to our theme : "The founding myths of the State of Israel", we will examine one of the untruths which continue to wreak the most havoc after over half a century in today's world, and not only in Israel : "the myth of the 6 million Jews exterminated" that has become a dogma justifying, sacralizing (as the very term "Holocaust" implies) all the extortions of the State of Israel in Palestine, in the entire Middle-East, in the United States and, through the United States,in world politics, placing it above all international law.
The Nuremberg Court made this figure official; it has never ceased since then to be used to manipulate public opinion in the written and spoken press, in literature and the cinema, and even in schoolbooks.
In fact, this figure rests only on two accounts: that of Hoettl and that of Wisliceny.
This was what the former declared :
Source : Nuremberg Trial, vol. IV, p.657.
And the second :
Of these two accounts, M. Poliakov himself said :
Source : Revue d'histoire de la seconde guerre mondiale. October 1956.
Let us add that the principal testimony, the most complete and the and most precise, is by Hoett, an Intelligence Service officer.
Source : "Weekend" magazine,January 25th 1961, with on its cover a portrait of Hoett, with the caption :"History of a spy. Stranger than fiction : this friend of Nazi leaders, had a British Secret Service chief as a boss."
Confirming the objections of top jurists of the Supreme Court of the United States, and of many others, on the juridical anomalies of the "Nuremberg Court", we shall give the following examples of the violations of the rules that apply to the procedure of every genuine trial.
* * *
a) The texts
The fundamental texts, which are decisive for establishing what the "final solution" must have been, are first of all the extermination orders attributed to the most highly-placed leaders : Hitler, Goering, Heydrich, Himmler, and the directives given for their execution.
First of all, Hitler's directive on the "extermination".
Despite the efforts of the theoreticians of the "genocide" and the "Holocaust", no trace was ever found of it. As Olga Wurmser-Migot wrote in 1968:
Source : Olga Wurmser-Migot. "Le systrme concentrationnaire nazi." P.U.F 1968, 544 and p. 13.
Doctor Kubovy, from the Tel Aviv "Documentation Center", admitted in 1960 :
Source: Lucy Dawidowicz, "The War against the Jews (1975) p.121.
After a conference held at the Sorbonne in Paris in February 1979 to fight against the critical works of the "revisionists", Raymond Aron and Jacques Furet had to declare during a press conference which had followed the meeting that :
In 1981, Laqueur admitted :
Source : Walter Laqueur : "The terrible secret", Frankfort on the Main.Berlin. Vienna. 1981. p.190.
In spite of all this, there have been other historians who, at the instigation of Vidal Naquet and Leon Poliakov, signed the following declaration :
Three prohibitions, three taboos, three definitive limitations to research.
Such a text does indeed make history in the history of history: the "fact" which must be established is posed before any research as an absolute and untouchable truth forbidden by three prohibitory imperatives, any research and critique of what was once and for all judged by the victors just after the victory.
Yet history must, if it means to respect a scientific status, be a perpetual search, questioning even what one considered as definitively established as the postulate of Euclid or the laws of Newton. The following is a notorious example:
Source : "Le Soir", Brussels, 19-20th October l991, p.16.
In fact, Doctor Goldstein in no way challenged the need to change the old plaques, but he did not want the new plaque to carry a figure, knowing that it would probably be necessary to again reduce the figure now considered within a short while.
The plaque at the entrance of Birkenau therefore bore the following inscription until 1994:
Thanks to the activity of the State Museum of Auschwitz, whose president is the historian Wladislaw Bartoszewski and whose twenty six members are of all nationalities,the text has been modified in a manner more in keeping with the truth:
Source: article by Luc Rosenzveig, in "Le Monde", January 27th 1995
This example shows that history, when it escapes intellectual terrorism by the predicators of hatred, demands a perpetual "revision". It is "revisionist" or else it is a disguised form of propaganda.
Let us go back therefore to history as such, of a critical, "revisionist" sort, in other words one based on the analysis of texts, the checking of accounts and the expertise regarding the crime weapon.
First of all, this is what concerns the Jews in the National Socialist Party program.
The problem of the Jews is considered in Point 4 of the National Socialist Party (NSDAP) Program:
Staatsburger designated the citizen whereas Volkgenosse defined full citizenship as a member of a homogeneous community.
Further on, we come to point 5 :
Then, point 7 raises the question of the prohibition of stay in the Reich, under certain conditions, of those who do not have German nationality; point 8 demands the stopping of all new immigration of non-Germans, as well as the immediate expulsion of non-Germans who have entered the Reich since August 2nd 1914. This last point is obviously directed against the Jews from the East, who had come to the Reich in large numbers during and after the First World War.
Point 23 also deals with this problem: it stipulates that Jews will not have the right to work in the press, while Point 24 asserts that the Party is struggling against the "Jewish materialistic spirit."
|Back to Index||Next Page|