The Website of Carlos Whitlock
Porter

To purchase in book form
(American references only), see http://www.vho.org/store/UK/bresult.php

NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG:

The German Defense Case

INTRODUCTION

THE RE-WRITING OF HISTORY is as old as history
itself.

The Annals of Tacitus, for example, (xv 38), mentions a
"rumour" that Nero burned Rome; this "rumour" was repeated by later Roman
historians as "fact" (Suetonius, Nero, 38; Dio Cassius, Epistulae, lxii 16;
Pliny, Naturalis Historia xvii 5).

Later writers called this "fact" into question, and
demoted the "fact" to mere "rumour".

In 1946, it was a "proven fact" that Nazis made human
soap (Judgement, Nuremberg Trial, IMT I 252 [283]; VII 597-600 [656-659]; XIX
506 [566-567]; XXII 496 [564]).

This "fact" has since become, apparently, merely
"rumour" (Hilberg, "revised definitive" Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes
and Meier, NY, page 966: "To this day, the origin of the soap making rumour has
not been traced").

The forensically untested "rumour" of Soviet origin (a
jar of mysterious stinking material, Exhibit USSR 393) is in the Peace Palace of
The Hague. Peace Palace officials show it to eager visitors and tell them it is
authentic; but do not, apparently, answer letters from persons asking to have it
tested.

In 1943, it was a "rumour" that Nazis were steaming,
frying, parboiling, electrocuting, vacuuming and gassing Jews (see, for example,
The Black Book:
The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People, pp. 270, 274, 280, 313, introduced as
"evidence" before the Nuremberg Commission); by 1946, the "gassings" had become
"fact", while the steamings, fryings, parboilings,
electrocutions and vacuumings remained mere "rumour". (Note: the "steamings"
were "proven" in the Pohl Trial, Fourth Nuremberg Trial, NMT IV,
1119-1152).

The "evidence" that Nazis "gassed" Jews is qualitatively
no better than the "evidence" that they steamed, fried, parboiled, electrocuted, or
vacuumed them; it appears legitimate to call this "evidence" into
question.

This article contains, not a re-writing of history, but
a simple guide to historical material which has been forgotten. The 312,022
notarized defense affidavits presented at the First Nuremberg Trial have been
forgotten, while the 8 or 9 prosecution affidavits which "rebutted" them are
remembered ((XXI 437[483])).

This article contains a great many references to page
numbers. They are not there to confuse, impress, or intimidate the reader, or to
prove the truth of the matter stated, but to help interested people find things.

Whether the statements of the defense are more credible
than the human soap (Document 397), human hair socks (Document USSR-511),
and cannibal hamburgers (Exhibit 1873, Tokyo Trial) of the war crimes
prosecutors, is for the reader to decide.

NOTE: IMT = 1st Nuremberg Trial, in 4 languages.

NMT = 12 later Nuremberg Trials, in English. In the
absence of any indication to the contrary, all page numbers refer to the
American edition, with the German page numbers in [brackets].

MARTIN BORMANN

Bormann was accused of "persecution of religion" and
many other crimes. Bormann's attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many modern
countries (meaning the Soviet Union) are avowedly atheist, and that orders
forbidding priests from holding high Party offices (that is, offices in the Nazi
Party) could not be called "persecution". In Dr. Bergold's words:

"The party is described as criminal - as a conspiracy.
Is it a crime to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal
conspiracy? Is that considered a crime?" (V 312 [353]).

Documents were produced in which Bormann prohibited
persecution of religion and expressly allowed religion to be taught (XXI
462-465[512-515]). A condition of this order was that the full Bibilical text
had to be used;deletions, manipulations or distortions of the text were
forbidden. Churches received government subsidies until the end of the war. Due
to wartime paper shortages, restrictions were placed upon the printing of all
newspapers, not just religious ones (XIX 111-124 [125-139]; XXI 262-263; 346;
534; 539; [292-293; 383; 589;595]; XXII 40-41 [52-53]).

Bormann's attorney had little difficulty in showing that
Bormann could not be convicted of a criminal offense under the laws of any
country, since it is clear that stenographers are not criminally responsible for
every document they sign. It was not clear to what extent Bormann acted merely
as stenographer or secretary. To the prosecution, however, law was irrelevant,
and Bormann was sentenced to be hanged. Sentence was to be carried out
immediately, ignoring extensive testimony that he had been killed by the
explosion of a tank and was unlikely to be in one piece, presenting certain
problems of a practical nature (XVII 261-271 [287-297]).

CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS

The defense evidence for the "criminal organizations"
consists of the testimony of 102 witnesses and 312,022 notarized affidavits
(XXII 176 [200]).

The term "criminal" was never defined (XXII 310 [354];
see also XXII 129-135[148-155]).

Nor was it defined when these organizations became
"criminal" (XXII 240 [272-273]).
The Nazi Party itself was criminal dating
back to 1920 (XXII 251 [285]) or then again maybe only1938 (XXII 113 [130]) or
maybe even not at all (II 105 [123]).

The 312,022 notarized affidavits were presented to a
"commission", and evidence before this "commission" does not appear in the
transcript of the Nuremberg Trial. The National Archives in Washington do not
possess a copy of the commission transcript, had never heard of it, and do not
know what it is.

Of the 312,022 affidavits, only a few dozen were ever
translated into English, so the Tribunal could not read them (XXI 287, 397-398
[319, 439]). The President of the Tribunal, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, understood no
German; neither did Robert Jackson.

Due to a last-minute rule change (XXI 437-438, 441,
586-587 [483-485, 488,645-646]) many more affidavits were rejected on technical
grounds (XX 446-448 [487-489]).

The "commission" prepared "summaries" which were
presented to the Tribunal (x-thousand affidavits alleging humane treatment of
prisoners, etc). These summaries were not considered to be in evidence. The
Tribunal promised to read the 312,022 affidavits before arriving at their
verdict (XXI 175 [198]); 14 days later it was announced that the 312,022
affidavits were not true (XXII 176-178 [200-203]).

Then a single affidavit from the prosecution (Document
D-973) was deemed to have "rebutted" 136,000 affidavits from the defense (XXI
588;437, 366 [647, 483-484, 404]).

The 102 witnesses were forced to appear and testify
before the "commission" before appearing before the Tribunal. Then, 29 of these
witnesses (XXI 586 [645]), or 22 of these witnesses (XXII 413 [468]) were
allowed to appear before the Tribunal, but their testimony was not permitted to
be 'cumulative', that is, repetitive of their testimony before the 'commission'
(XXI 298, 318, 361 [331, 352, 398-399]).

Then, six affidavits from the prosecution were deemed to
have "rebutted" the testimony of the 102 witnesses (XXI 153 [175], XXII
221[251]).

One of these affidavits was in Polish, so the defense
could not read it (XX 408 [446]). Another was signed by a Jew named Szloma Gol
who claimed to have dug up and cremated 80,000 bodies, including that of his own
brother (XXI 157 [179], XXII 220 [250]).

(In the British transcript he has only dug up 67,000
bodies). The prosecution had already rested its case when this occurred (XX
389-393, 464 [426-430, 506]; XXI 586-592 [645-651]). The prosecution then
claimed in its final summation that 300,000 affidavits had been presented to the
Tribunal and had been considered during the trial, giving the impression that
these are prosecution documents (XXII 239 [272]).

In fact, the prosecution got through the entire trial
with no more than a few really important affidavits of their own. (See, for
example, XXI 437 [483], where eight or nine affidavits were presented for the
prosecution against three hundred thousand for the defense; see also XXI 200
[225]; 477-478 [528-529]; 585-586 [643-645]; 615 [686-687]).

In the various concentration camp trials, such as the
Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, a simpler expedient was agreed upon: mere
employment in the camp, even if only for a few weeks, was deemed to constitute
"constructive knowledge" of the "Common Plan". "Common Plan", of course, was not
defined. It was not necessary to allege specific acts of mistreatment, or to
show that anyone had died as a result of mistreatment. (36 of the 40 defendants
were sentenced to death.)

The transcript of the Nuremberg commission is in The
Hague, and fills half of one fire-proof floor-to-ceiling vault. The testimony of
each witness was typed with a pagination beginning with page 1, then re-typed,
with consecutive pagination running to many thousands of pages.
The first
drafts and clean copy are in folders, together, stapled, on very brittle paper,
with rusty staples. It is absolutely certain that, at least at The Hague, no one
has ever read this material.

Summation relating to the testimony of the 102 witnesses
appears mostly in fine print in volumes XXI and XXII in the Nuremberg Trial
transcript. The fine print means that the passages were deleted from the final
defense summation (otherwise the trial would have been much too long). This
material runs to several hundred pages. In the transcript published in the
United Kingdom, every word of this material is gone. In English, 11 pages in
fine print are missing between paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 594 from volume XXI.
These appear in the German volumes (XXI 654-664). Most of the rest of it appears
to be there.

* The material covers, for example:

* Total War XIX 25 [32]

* Reparations XIX 224-232 [249-259]

* German trade unions XXI 462 [512]

* Gestapo and concentration camps XXI 494-530
[546-584]

* Röhm Putsch XXI 576-592 [635-651]

* Crystal Night XXI 590-592 [649-651]

* Resettlement XXI 467-469, 599-603 [517-519,
669-674]

* SD XXII XXII 19-35 [27-47]

* Armaments XXII 62-64 [75-78]

The 312,022 affidavits are probably on deposit with a
German archive.

The judgment of the Nuremberg trial is printed twice, in
Volumes I and XXII. It is important to obtain the German volumes and read the
judgment in volume XXII in German.
Bad German, mistranslations, etc, written
by the Americans have been corrected, with footnotes.
Mistakes of this kind
in documents may be taken as proof of forgeries.
Generally, the German IMT
volumes are preferable to the American ones. Frequent footnotes throughout these
volumes alert the reader to mistranslations, missing documents, and falsified
copies (for example, XX 205 of the German volumes: "This phrase does not appear
in the original document.").

The German volumes are available in paperback from
Delphin Verlag, Munich (ISBN 3.7735.2509.5).
(Transcript only; transcript
and document volumes in English are available from Oceana Publications, Dobbs
Ferry NY. on microfilm).

DOCUMENTS

Alleged repository of the
alleged "original documents" from the Nuremberg Trials

The standard version of events is that the Allies
examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence,
and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The
Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted
largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were
written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by
unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a
more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true
copy'.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been
'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes
Commissions.

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random,
contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5
original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed
copies, 3 teletypes, 1microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1
unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague
has many original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal
Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material.
They have the
'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human soap recipe'
(Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime
German documents.
The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on
extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the
staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these
documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at the Hague say
it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford
Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive
Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims
the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz
also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in
Washington.
Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often
no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting
the following forged or otherwise worthless documents: 1947-PS; 1721-PS;
1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others (II 120-142
[141-168]).

1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from
General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later
signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in question (XXI
381 [420-421]).

The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the
Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is
not included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44.
Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal (XXI
380[420]).

The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these
'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared (See Taylor,
Captured Documents).

1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report
to himself about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the
report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI 137-141[157-161]; 195-198 [219-224];
425 [470];XXII 147-150 [169-172]. See also Testimony Before the Commission,
Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May 1946). The National Archives have a positive
photostat of 1721-PS, and The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is
a photocopy (XXVII 485).

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain
paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech'
although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are
four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an
authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII 406-408[445-447]; XVIII 390-402
[426-439].

The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory
stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286 [320-321]), but 250
copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286-293
[320-328]).

This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of
The Origins of the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with
Answer to his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii,
No 192 and 193.

L-3
is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who
today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I
saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he
will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the
photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter
as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same
speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke,
Nuremberg.

81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter
on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first
draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written
by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511 [560-561]). The document lacks
signature, initial, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and was not
found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed (XVII 612 [664]).
81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).

212-PS was also prepared by an unknown
person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings, date,
address, or stamp (III 540 [602], XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative
photostats from The Hague).

This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS,
the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a
certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy'
prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a
German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler,
written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the
best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been
'edited' (XLII 228-230).

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown
person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or
prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document
is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against
B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them
with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that
'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules
of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by
witnesses.

The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to
at Nuremberg, because the documents were not brought to court. The "original
document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe in the
Document Centre (II 195 [224], 256-258 [289-292]).

Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21[29]) or 6
photocopies (II 251-253 [284-286]) were prepared and brought to court. All other
copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504 [558-559]).

In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean
"photocopy" (II 249-250 [283-284]; XIII 200 [223], 508 [560], 519 [573], XV 43
[53], 169 [189] 171 [191] 327 [359]), to distinguish the photocopies from the
mimeograph copies (IV 245-246 [273-274]).

"Translations" of all documents were available from the
beginning of the trial (II 159-160[187-189], 191 [219-220], 195 [224], 215
[245], 249-250 [282-283], 277 [312], 415 [458], 437 [482-483]), but the
"original" German texts were not available until at least two months later. This
applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS.

The defense received no documents in German until after
January 9, 1946 (V 22-26 [31-35]).

Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same
typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from
Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor
sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 [381-385]). This
letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416
[458]).

KARL DÖNITZ

Dönitz was imprisoned for waging "illegal submarine
warfare" against the British. In international law, everything is a matter of
reciprocity and international agreements, which can only be enforced through
reciprocity. In warfare, the best defense against a weapon is a vigorous
counterattack with the same weapon. The British, due to their mastery of the
seas, fought both world wars through blockade, and the so-called Navicert
system. Neutral ships were stopped at sea, and forced to pull into British ports
where they were searched according to complicated formulae: if a neutral country
imported more food, fertlizer, wool, leather, rubber, cotton, etc. than the
quantities believed necessary for its own consumption (in the opinion of the
British), the difference was assumed to be intended for reshipment to the
Germans.
Result: the ship (and entire cargo) was confiscated and sold at
auction, which also violated the clauses of all British marine insurance
contracts.

In 1918-19, the blockade was maintained for 8 months
after the Armistice to force the Germans to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
Hundreds of thousands of Germans died of starvation after the war while the
diplomats delayed, an obvious violation of the conditions of the Armistice and
all international law. This is what Hitler correctly termed "the greatest breach
of faith of all time". The British point of view appears to be that the blockade
was legal but was carried out in a totally illegal manner (see 1911
Encyplopaedia Brittannica, "Neutrality", 1922 Encyclopaedia Brittannica,
"Blockade", "Peace Conference". In the war against Japan, the Americans "sank
everything that moved since the first day of the war".

Neutrals, including the United States, complained that
this violated their neutrality, but complied, again, in violation of their own
neutrality. A nation which allows its neutrality to be violated may be treated
as a belligerent.

The British never ratified the Fifth Hague Convention of
18 October 1907 on the Rights of Neutrals, but considered its terms binding on
the Germans and Japanese, despite an all-participation clause (i.e., the
convention ceases to apply if a non-signatory participates in the
conflict).

In 1939, the Germans possessed only 26 Atlantic-going
submarines, one fifth of the French total alone. Moreover, German submarines
were much smaller than those of other nations. A counterblockade against the
British could only be enforced by warning neutrals not to sail in waters
surrounding the British Isles. To the British, this was a "crime".

Of these 26 submarines, many were, at any one time,
under repair; so that during some months only 2 or 3 were seaworthy. It is
obvious that submarines cannot carry out search and seizure in the same manner
as a surface navy; a submarine, once it has surfaced, is almost defenseless
against the smallest gun mounted on a merchant vessel, not to mention radio,
radar, and aircraft.

It was demanded by the British at Nuremberg that German
submarines should have surfaced, notified the surface vessel of their intention
to search; waited for the surface vessel to commence hostilities; then sink the
vessel, presumably with the submarine's deck guns; then take the dozens of
hundreds of survivors on board the submarine (where they would be in far greater
danger than in any lifeboat), and take them to the nearest land.

When British aircraft appeared and sank the submarine,
killing the survivors, they had, of course, been "murdered" by the Germans. No
international convention requires this, and no nation fought in this manner.
Since rescuing survivors rendered the submarine unfit for duty and frequently
resulted in the loss of submarine and crew, Dönitz prohibited any act of rescue.
This was called an order to "exterminate survivors". This was not upheld in the
judgment, however.

Dönitz was also accused of encouraging the German people
to hopeless resistance, a crime also committed by Winston Churchill, Dönitz
replied.

"It was very painful that our cities were still being
bombed to pieces and that through these bombing attacks and the continued fight
more lives were lost. The number of these people is about 300,000 to 400,000,
the largest number of whom perished in the bombing of Dresden, which cannot be
justified from a military point of view, and which could not have been
predicted.

"Nevertheless, this figure is relatively small compared
with the millions of German people we would have lost in the East, soldiers and
civilians, if we had capitulated in the winter."
(XIII 247-406 [276-449];
XVIII 312-372[342-406]).

HANS FRANK

Frank was accused of making hundreds of anti-Semitic
statements in a 12,000 page document called his "diary". The "diary" contains
only one page signed by Frank, and hundreds of humane statements, which were
ignored (XII 115-156[129-173]). The anti-Semitic statements were selected by the
Russians and typeset in a short document which was introduced into evidence as
Document 2233-PS, invariably called "Frank's Diary".

The actual "diary" of 12,000 pages consists of summaries
(not verbatim transcripts or stenographic notes) of conferences in which 5 or 6
people often spoke at once in circumstances of great confusion; it was not clear
to whom which statements should be attributed (XII 86[97-98]).

Frank gave his "diary" to the Americans in the belief
that it would exonerate him; he had protested Hitler's illegality in public
speeches at great personal risk, and tried to resign 14 times (XII 2-114
[8-128]; XVIII 129-163[144-181]).

Frank became convinced that atrocities had occured after
reading about the Soviet Maidenak Trial in the foreign press (XII 35 [43]).
Auschwitz was not in territory controlled by Frank.

Frank saw his task as the creation of an independent
judiciary in a National Socialist State, a task which he found impossible. In a
speech on November 19, 1941, Frank said,

"Law cannot be degraded to a position where it becomes
an object of bargaining. Law cannot be sold. It is either there, or it is not
there. Law cannot be marketed on the stock exchange. If the law finds no
support, then the State too loses its moral stay and sinks into the depths of
night and horror."

Hitler's illegalities never included the passing of an
ex post facto law; in 3 cases, punishment was increased retroactively (XVII
504[547]).

Frank's alleged looting of art treasures will be
discussed together with that of Rosenberg.

WILHELM FRICK

Frick was hanged for "Germanizing" the inhabitants of
Posen, Danzig, West Prussia, Eupen, Malmedy, the Sudetenland, the Memelland, and
Austria. With the exception of Austria, thesewere fomer parts of the Prussian
Reich, separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Malmedy is
French-speaking - the other areas are all German speaking. Austria was unable to
subsist as an economic unit after 1919, and had demanded to be united with
Germany by vote. The Allied victors responded by threatening to cut off all food
supplies (XVIII 55 [66], XIX 360 [397]).

Another crime committed by Frick was killing 275,000
feeble-minded persons, according to the "report" of a Czech "War Crimes
Commission".

Frick, like Göring, was accused of responsibility for
the existence of the concentration camps. In Frick's defense it was pointed out
that "protective custody" pre-dated the National Socialist accession to power in
both Germany and Austria. In Austria, it was called Anhaltehaft, and was used to
imprison thousands of National Socialists (XXI 518-521 [572-576]). "Protective
custody" exists in West Germany today and is called U-haft.

In the final judgment of one of the most important
Dachau Trials (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty-Nine Others, Law
Reports of Trials of War Criminals, volume XI, p.15, published by the United
Nations), the following sentence appears: "In the Mathausen Concentration Camp
case the facts were basically the same - though the casualty figures were much
higher as mass extermination by means of a gas chamber was practised
---"

Is this an admission that no gas chamber existed at
Dachau? According to Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, no Dachau trial
ever "proved" the existence of a gas chamber at Dachau.

At Nuremberg, a "certified true copy" of the judgment of
the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty Nine Others was introduced into
evidence with that sentence deleted as Document 3590-PS (V 199 [228]) along with
3 other documents alleging mass extermination by gassing at Dachau (Document
3249-PS, V 172-173 [198>, XXXII 60; Document 2430-PS, XXX 470; and
159-L,XXXVII 621).

Frick was accused by the deponent of the "mass gassings
at Dachau" affidavit, Document 3249-PS, (written by Lt. Daniel L. Margolies,
also involved in the forgery of 3 Hitler speeches, XIV65 [77], and signed by Dr.
Franz Blaha) of having visited Dachau. Frick denied this, and demanded to take
the stand to be confronted with Blaha and to testify in his own
defense.

This request was denied, and Frick apparently gave up.
He never testified. His defense summation appears at XVIII 164-189
[182-211].

The deponent, Dr. Franz Blaha, a Communist, was
President of the International Dachau Association in 1961, still claiming to
have witnessed mass gassings and to have made trousers and other leather goods
out of human skin.

The trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss is available on 6
reels of microfilm (MII 74, National Archives). The pre-trial gas chamber
exhibits (report, diagrams, shower nozzle, reel 1) were never introduced into
evidence and are missing from the trial exhibits (reel 4). The transcripts
(reels 2 & 3) contain no mention of any gas chamber at Dachau except for a
few sentences in the testimony of Dr Blaha (Volume 1 pp. 166-169). The human
skin came from moles (Volume 4, pp. 450, 462, 464).

HANS FRITZCHE

Fritzsche became convinced from a letter that mass
killings were being carried out in Russia and attempted to verify this. He was,
however, unable to find any evidence of it (XVII 172-175[191-195]). Fritzsche is
an important defendant because it was admitted in his case that foreign
newspapers printed much false news about Germany (XVII 175-176 [194-196]; see
also XVII 22-24 [30-33]). Yet, these same newspaper stories and radio reports
constituted the "facts of common knowledge" which the Tribunal alleged needed no
proof (Article 21 of rules of evidence, I 15[16], II 246 [279]).

It was pointed out in Fritzsche's defense that no
international convention exists regulating propaganda or atrocity stories, true
or false, and that only one national law of one state (Switzerland) made it
unlawful to insult foreign Heads of State. That Fritzsche could be guilty of no
crime, was, at Nuremberg, simply irrelevant. It was deemed undesirable to have a
"trial" in which all defendants were convicted. In the horse-trading which
preceeded the final verdict, it was agreed that Fritzsche should be released
(XVII 135-261 [152-286]; XIX 312-352[345-388]).

WALTER FUNK

Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected
artistic family, married for 25 years at the time of the trial, and former
financial editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk was accused of performing
"immoral acts" such as accepting birthday gifts from Hitler, proving "willing
participation in the Common Plan". (Obviously, such acts are not
illegal.)

Funk claimed that the British and the Poles had
conspired to provoke Germany into war in the belief that the generals would
overthrow Hitler (XIII 111-112 [125-126]).

Funk was accused of conspiring with the SS to murder
concentration camp inmates in order to finance the war effort by pulling their teeth
out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at the Reichsbank, along with
shaving kits, fountain pens, large alarm clocks, and other more or less useless
junk. Forgotten was Rudolf Hoess's testimony that the teeth were melted at
Auschwitz (XI 417 [460]).

Funk testified that the amounts and kinds of loot were
"absurd" and pointed out that the SS acted as customs police and enforced
exchange control regulations, including a prohibition against the ownership of
gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency. It was quite natural that the SS
should confiscate large amounts of valuables, and that the SS, as a government
agency, should have financial accounts, and that these accounts would contain
valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same vaults as well, to which the
Reichsbank had no access, since they were private safety deposit accounts.

With the increased bombing raids, more and more
valuables were deposited in the vaults by ordinary German citizens. Finally,
after a particularly damaging raid on the bank, the valuables were removed to a
potassium mine in Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables there, and
falsified a film of it. Funk and his attorney showed the falsity of the film
using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest testimony and cross
examination in the entire trial (XIII 169 [189-190], 203-204 [227-228], 562-576
[619-636]; XXI 233-245 [262-275]).

Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl
affidavit, Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use of
gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party attended by
dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263 [245-291]). This affidavit is
in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner. Pohl was later convicted of
"steaming" people to death in 10 "steam chambers" at Treblinka, and
making doormats out of their hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg).

Funk believed, like other defendants, that crimes had
occurred, but maintained that he knew nothing about it. His belief that crimes
had occurred does not, in itself, prove that that belief was true.

KURT GERSTEIN

Kurt Gerstein is often referred to as a Holocaust
"witness"; however, this is not correct. By "witness", one normally understands
a person who has seen something and who appears to testify as to his personal
knowledge; Gerstein did not do that. Gerstein was an unworn affiant or deponent,
which means that he is simply a name appearing at the end of a "statement",
typewritten in French, which he may or may not have written. (Document 1553-PS
rejected at Nuremberg) (VI 333-334 [371-372], 362-363 [398-399]).

One of the stories current about Gerstein is that he
wrote the statement in Cherche-Midi prison, in France, and committed suicide,
after which his body disappeared.

It is far more probable that the statement was written
in French by a German Jewish interrogator-"interpreter", and that some of the
inconsistencies (such as winter occuring in August, or being in a car in one
sentence, and a train in the next) resulted from imperfect transcription of the
notes of interrogation into affidavit form. In minor war crimes trials and
Japanese war crimes trials, unsworn "statements" of this kind are fairly common,
on the theory that they possess "probative value" but less "weight" than sworn
statements. It is also possible that Gerstein died of injuries sustained during
"interrogation"; or perhaps he hanged himself with the typewriter
ribbon.

This document was later extensively quoted in the Pohl
Trial, where it was "proven" that Treblinka had 10 'gas chambers' (1553-PS) and
10 'steam chambers' (3311-PS) in the same camp at the same
time.

G.M. GILBERT

One of the most famous accounts of the behavior and
psychology of the Nuremberg Trial defendants is that of the German-born
psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, in his book Nuremberg Diary. Much of the material
consists of conversations which the defendants and other persons, such as Rudolf
Hoess, allegedly had with Gilbert or each other(!) and which Gilbert allegedly
wrote down from memory afterwards.

A comparison of texts with the Nuremberg trial
transcript will show that the defendants did not speak in the style attributed
to them by Gilbert. Gilbert took no notes. No witnesses were
present.

Persons who believe that Documents 1014-PS, 798-PS, and
L-3 are "Hitler
speeches", at least in comparison with Document Ra-27, may continue believing
that Gilbert's book contains "statements of the Nuremberg Trial defendants".
This does not rule out, of course, that they may have made statements similar to
those allegedly "remembered" by Gilbert.

Gilbert believed that the defendants gassed millions of
Jews. If they felt no guilt for their actions, this proved that they were
"schizoid".

It is obvious that such a belief on Gilbert's part would
influence his perception and memory to some extent, even if he is telling the
truth as he remembers it. If he lied, he was not the only "American" at
Nuremberg who did so. Telford Taylor, for example, was incapable of repeating
the simplest statement truthfully. (See XX 626 [681-682]), the statements of
General Manstein, compared with Taylor's "quotation" from Manstein, XXII 276
[315]).

Gilbert's dishonesty is best proven by the entry for
December 14, 1945:

"Major Walsh continued reading documentary evidence of
the extermination of the Jews atTreblinka and Auschwitz. A Polish document
stated: 'All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were
collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were
driven into the death chambers . . . small children were simply thrown inside"
(p.69, 1st edition).

The "documentary evidence" is, of course, a Communist
"War Crimes Report" and the "death chambers", of course, are steam chambers" (III 567-568
[632-633]).

HERMANN GÖRING

Göring was accused of creating the concentration camp
system and plotting "aggressive war" against Poland. Göring's defense was that
Germany was a sovereign state, recognized by every government in the world (XXI
580-581 [638-639]); that Hitler was legally elected; that every nation has the
right to legislate and to organize its affairs as it sees fit; that General von
Schleicher had attempted to rule illegally and unconstitutionally without the
support of the National Socialists; that Germany was on the verge of civil war
in 1933; that concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer
War, and that internment of aliens and political opponents was practiced by both
Britain and the United States during WWII.

The order to create the camps was unquestionably legal
under an emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution, and was signed by
Hindenberg (Reich President's Decree of 28 February 1933), under the authority
of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Weimar Constitution (XVII 535 [581], XIX 357
[394]).

According to a prosecution document, Document R-129 (III
506 [565-566])) there were 21,400 inmates in all German concentration camps put
together in 1939. 300,000 persons were confined in ordinary prisons (XVII
535-536 [581-582], XX 159 [178]).

One year after the war, 300,000 Germans were held in
Allied prison camps under "automatic arrest" clauses in Allied agreements (such
as Point B-5 of the Joint Declaration of Potsdam)(XVIII 52 [62]).

The majority of prisoners in German concentration camps
were Communists and common criminals (XVII 535-536 [581-582], XXI 516-521
[570-576], 607-614 [677-685]).

During the war, due to the Allied blockade, the camp
system was expanded to utilize the labour of enemy aliens, criminals, Jehovah's
Witnesses and Communists. It was pointed out that America imprisoned 11,000
Jehovah's Witnesses (XI 513 [563]).

Britain fought both world wars in defiance of
international law by reducing Germany and any occupied territories to literal
starvation through blockade (XIII 445-450 [492-497]; XVIII 334-335 [365-367]).
It was this which necessitated requisitions and labour conscription in occupied
territories, legal under Article 52 of The Fourth Hague Convention on Land
Warfare 18 October 1907. It was this which made people happy to work in Germany
and remit wages to their families (between two and three billion Reichsmarks
during the war).

The "slaves" paid German taxes on their wages, and were
disciplined through fines, which could not exceed a week's wages (V 509 [571]).
For gross indiscipline, they could be sent to a work camp (not a concentration
camp) for a period not exceeding 56 days (XXI 521 [575-576]). It was strictly
forbidden to beat or mistreat them.

Prisoners of war could volunteer to be released from
prisoner of war camps and work in industry, in which case they were treated like
any other industrial workers (XVIII 496-498 [542-544]), but lost protection
under the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention. They could not be forced to do so.

The Vichy Regime in France obtained the release and
immediate return home of 1 prisoner of war for every 3 workers sent to Germany
under contract for a period of 6 months (XVIII 497[543]). It was not possible to
violate the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by forcing French, Belgian or
Dutch prisoners to participate in hostilities against their own countries,
because their own countires were no longer fighting (XVIII 472-473 [516].

As for the attack on Poland, the Polish crisis existed
for over a year prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German and Soviet
attack. During this entire time, the Poles never called for an impartial
international Court of Arbitration; never called on the League of Nations;
because they did not wish an equitable solution. They were content to continue
to violate their international agreements by expelling Polish citizens of German
descent, as well as many hundreds of thousands of Jews (XVI 275
[304]).

The influx of Polish Jews into Germany was the principal
immediate cause of German anti-Semitism, according to many defendants and
defense witnesses (XXI 134-135 [155]; XXII 148 [169]). Polish Jews were involved
in many financial scandals and swindling schemes, such as the Barnat-Kutitsky
affair (XXI 569 [627]).

As for "conspiracy to wage war in defiance of the laws
of war", of course it was the British who did that, with mass aerial bombings.
German soldiers went into battle with detailed written instructions that
property was to be respected; prisoners must be humanely treated; women must be
respected; and so on (IX 57-58 [68-69], 86 [100-101], XVII 516
[560]).

Frequent trials resulting in many death penalties
against Germans were carried out by the German armed forces against members of
their own armed forces for rape or looting, even if the value of the property
involved was slight (XVIII 368 [401-402], XXI 390 [431], XXII 78 [92]).
Requisition of government property was legal under the Hague Convention. The
Soviet Union was not a signatory to this convention. In any case, in Communist
countries there was no private property. Göring said he had been to Russia, and
the people there had nothing to steal (IX 349-351 [390-393]). Furthermore, the
Allies were presently engaged in everything they accused the Germans of doing
(XXI 526 [581]; XXII 366-367 [418-420]).
Göring demolished the "pressure
chamber medical experiment" accusation by saying that every airman had to test
his physical reactions to high altitude; there was nothing sinister about a
so-called "pressure chamber" (XXI 304-310 [337-344]). Americans carried out
medical experiments resulting in death while the Nuremberg trial was still going
on (XIX 90-92 [102-104]; see also XXI 356, 370 [393, 409]). Ironically, it was
alleged that "defensive war" included preventive attack (XXII 448 [508]) or to
protect citizens of a foreign country from their own government (XIX 472 [527];
XXII 37 [49]), except when Germans did it (X 456 [513]). Protests that Germans
did just that were ignored.The Soviets had 10,000 tanks and 150 divisions massed
along the border of eastern Poland, and had increased the number of airports in
their section of the country from 20 to 100. Detailed maps were later found
which would not have been necessary for defensive purposes. It was believed that
to await an attack upon the oil fields of Roumania or the coal fields of Silesia
would be suicidal (XIX 13-16 [20-23], XX 578 [630-631]; XXII 71 [85]). It seems
unlikely that nations with vast colonial empires (Britain, France) or claims
upon entire hemispheres (the United States) could agree upon a workable
definition of "aggressive war". Indeed it was admitted in the judgment of
Nuremberg that "defense", "aggression", and "conspiracy" were never defined
(XXII 464, 467 [527, 531]). No doubt "defensive war" is the medieval "bellum
justum" dressed up in liberal jargon (IX 236-691 [268-782]; XVII 516-550
[560-597]; XXI 302-317 [335-351]).

RUDOLF HESS

According to the report of Robert H. Jackson, (quoted by
Judge Bert A. Röling of the Tokyo Tribunal, writing in A Treatise on
International Criminal Law, vol. 1., pp. 590-608, edited by M.Cherif Bassiouni
and Ved. F. Nanda, Chas Thomas Publisher), the British, French, and Soviets at
Nuremberg did not wish to charge the Germans with "aggressive war" at all, for
obvious reasons. This accusation was invented by the Americans for the sole,
express, and admitted purpose of justifying American violations of international
law. These violations of international law would include the Lend Lease Program;
convoying and repairing British wartime ships for two years prior to Pearl
Harbor; allowing British ships to disguise themselves as American while the U.S.
was officially neutral; the illegal declaration of a 300 mile limit; the
occupation of Iceland; reporting the movements of German and Italian submarines;
bombing and ramming attacks against German and Italian submarines beginning as
early as July of 1941, and other actions obviously indicative of "aggressive
war".
Thus Hess was imprisoned for 47 years not only for actions which were
not illegal (attempting to stop the war, save millions of lives and prevent the
destruction of Europe and the British Empire), but for "crimes" which were
invented to cover the crimes of his accusers.
It was not alleged at
Nuremberg that Germany had committed "aggression" against Britain or France; the
question of whether Britain and France had, thereofre, committed "aggression"
against Germany was left unanswered (IX 473 [525]; XVII 580 [629]). Hess was
accused of plotting with Hitler to take Britain out of the war so that Hitler
could attack Russia. His defense was that his action was dictated by sincerity;
that he knew nothing of any attack on Russia.
Hess's defense summation
appears at XIX 353-396 [390-437]. From his final (and only) statement (XXII
368-373 [420-425]) Hess appears to have been a man who could be totally insane
one moment, and brilliantly lucid, sane and logical a moment later. It is
possible that this condition was acquired in Britain.

RUDOLF HÖSS

Rudolf Höss was the Auschwitz commandant whose
"confessions" have "proven" that Hitler gassed six million Jews (or five
million, the figure usually used at Nuremberg). His best-known "confession" is
the one quoted by William L. Shirer on pages 968-969 of The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich.

This document, Document 3868-PS, should be seen in its
context. The ex parte written "statement" or affidavit (i.e., prepared in the
presence of only one of the parties) was a principal prosecutor's tool in the
witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages, only to disappear for several centuries,
then reappear in Communist show trials and war crimes trials.

These
documents violate many standard rules of legal procedure, such as the rule
against asking leading questions, the rule against prior consistent statements
(i.e., the multiplication of evidence by repetition; normally, such statements
are only admissible when they contradict other statements made later), the right
to confront and cross-examine one's accuser, and the privilege against
self-incrimination.

Nor would the "evidence" in war crime trials be
admissable in a court martial. Even in 1946, the introduction of depositions by
the prosecution in capital cases before a court martial was forbidden by Article
25 of the US Articles of War. Article 38 required the use of standard Federal
rules of evidence. At Nuremberg, there was never the slightest pretense that
Höss wrote this document. If that had been the case, it would not state, "I
understand English as it is written above", but rather, "I have written this
statement myself".

In the minor trials (Hadamar, Natzweiler, etc.) it is
common to find confessions written entirely in the handwriting of the
interrogator, in English, with a final statement in the prisoners handwriting,
in German, stating that these are his statements and that he is satisfied with
the translation into English! Another formula occurs on page 57 of the Hadamar
volume of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's book, War Crimes Trials, "I certify that the
above has been read to me in German, my native tongue" (in English).

The
pretense was that the prisoner was interrogated through an interpreter in
question and answer form, after which the questions were deleted, and the
answers were run together in the form of an affidavit, usually written by a
different person from the interrogator who conducted the questioning. At Belsen,
for example, every affidavit was written by one officer, Major Smallwood. In
this trial, a combination Auschwitz-Belsen trial, the court-appointed British
and free Polish defense team demolished the prosecution case - including the
"selections for mass gassings" - but were overruled on the grounds that
involuntary statements and oral and written hearsay were admissable, "not to
convict the innocent, but to convict the guilty" (Law Reports of Trials of War
Criminals, Vol. II. (This thin volume must be read in its entirety.)) After the
affidavit was prepared by the officer who did nothing but write affidavits, it
was presented in its finished form to the prisoner for signature. If it was not
signed, it was introduced into evidence anyway.

Objections went to
"weight", in the jargon of war crimes proceedings, rather than to
"admissibility". An example of an unsigned affidavit by Rudolf Höss is Document
NO-4498-B. The B means that this document is a "translation" with typewritten
signature of an "original" document, Document NO-4498-A, written in Polish, and
allegedly signed by Höss.
There is also a Document NO-4498-C, in English.
Affidavits A and C are not attached to Affidavit B, the "true copy". Document
3868-PS, quoted by Shirer, was signed in English, 3 times, but not in the
"translation" into German. The document contains a minor change initialled by
Höss, with a small "h", and an entire sentence written entirely in the
interrogator's handwriting (compare capital "W"s) not initialled by Hoss. The
initial, of course, is there to "prove" that he has "read and corrected" the
document. The content of this handwritten sentence is refuted elsewhere (XXI 529
[584]).

When the affidavit was presented to the prisoner, it was
sometimes corrected extensively, leading to two or more versions of the same
document. In these cases, the longer ones are "quoted", and the shorter ones are
"lost". An example of this practice is Document 948-949, the affidavit of Dr.
Wilhelm Jäger (See Albert Speer.) Jäger testified that he signed 3 or 4 copies
of the same document, a much shorter one. The shorter one was originally
presented against the elder Krupp, before charges against him were dropped. In
this document, the longer one, the translation into English is dated prior to
the signature date on the "original". Jäger's court appearance was an
unmitigated disaster, but that is forgotten (XV 264-283 [291-312]).If the
affiant appeared to testify, he invariably contradicted the affidavit, but
contradictions are ignored.

Other affidavit signers whose court
appearances were catastrophic include General Westhoff, who contradicted his
unsworn "statement" 27 times (XI 155-189 [176-212]); and a "germ warfare
witness", Schreiber (XXI 547-562 [603-620]); Paul Schmidt's affidavit (Schmidt
was Hitler's interpreter), Document 3308-PS - presented to him for signature
when he was too sick to read it carefully - was partially repudiated by him (X
222 [252]), but used in evidence against Von Neurath, despite Schmidt's
repudiation (XVI 381 [420-421] XVII 40-41 [49-50]). Ernst Sauckel signed an
affidavit written prior to his arrival at Nuremberg (XV 64-68 [76-80]) and
signed under duress (his wife and 10 children were to be handed over to the
Poles or Russians).

Since the affiants almost never (if ever) wrote
their own "statements", it is common to find identical or nearly identical
phrases or even entire paragraphs occurring in different documents, even when
they have been prepared on different days by supposedly different people; for
example, affidavits 3 and 5 of Blaskovitz and Halder (Exhibits 536-US and
537-US); Documents USSR-471 and USSR-472 and 473; and Documents USSR-264 and 272
(human soap affidavits).

Other affidavits signed by Höss include Document
NO-1210, in which the English was written first, with extensive interpolations,
additions and corrections, including 2 different first drafts of page 4, and 2
different first drafts of page 5, then translated into German and signed by
Höss. That is, the "translation" is the "original", and the "original" is the
"translation".

Document 749(b)D was "translated orally" into German
from English for Höss prior to signature. The signature is faint to the point of
illegibility, indicating possible ill health, fatigue or torture. The torture
has been described by Rupert Butler in Legions of Death (Hamlyn Paperbacks) The
"confession" quoted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe on April Fool's Day, April 1,
1946, in which Höss "confessed" to killing 4 million Jews (X 389 [439-440]),
instead of the usual 2.5 million of April 5, 1946, has either never existed or
has gotten "lost".

It is not true that Höss's court appearance at
Nuremberg consisted chiefly of assenting to his affidavit; this is true only of
his cross-examination by Col. John Amen of the U.S. Army. Instead, Höss appeared
to testify, and, as usual, contradicted his affidavit and himself as much as
possible (XI 396-422 [438-466]). For example, where the affidavit states (XI 416
[460]) "we knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped", (a
crudely obvious toxicological impossibility), his oral testimony claims (XI 401
[443], in response to grossly improper leading questions posed by
Kaltenbrunner's "defense attorney"), that the people became unconscious; leaving
unsolved the problem of just how he knew when they were, in fact, dead. He
forgot to mention that killing insects with Zyklon took two days, a fact he
mentioned elsewhere (Document NO-036, p. 3, German text, answer to Question 25,
and Kommandant in Auschwitz, p. 155). With such a slow-acting poison, the people
would suffocate first.

Höss claimed that the order to kill the Jews of
Europe was given orally (XI 398 [440]), but that orders to keep the killings
secret were given in writing (XI 400 [442]. He claimed that persons were
cremated in pits at Auschwitz, a notorious swamp (XI 420 [464]), and that gold
teeth were melted down on the spot (XI 417 [460]), but an evacuation of the
concentration camps to avoid capture would have led to unnecessary deaths (XI
407 [449-450]), and, almost, that there was no killing program at all! This is
worth quoting:

"Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the
camps regarding feeding, accomodation, and treatment of detainees, was the same
as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich.The detainees were treated
strictly, yes, but methodical beatings or ill-treatment were out of the
question. The Reichsfuhrer gave frequent warnings that every SS man who laid
violent hands on a detainee would be punished; and quite often SS men who did
ill-treat detainees were punished. Feeding and accomodation at that time were in
every respect put on the same basis as that of other prioners under legal
administration. The accomodation in the camps during those years was still
normal because the mass influxes at the outbreak of and during the war had as
yet not taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries of political
detainees arrived, and, later on, when detainees, who were members of resistence
movements, arrived from the occupied territories, the construction of buildings
and the extensions of the camps could no longer keep up with the number of
detainees who arrived.

"During the first years of the war this problem
could still be overcome by improvising measures; but, later, due to the
exigencies of the war, this was no longer possible, since there were practically
no building materials any longer at our disposal"- (Note: the bodies are
supposed to have been burnt using wood for fuel.) - . . .

"This led to a
situation where detainees in the camps no longer had sufficient powers of
resistence against the ensuing plagues and epidemics . . . the aim wasn't to
have as many dead as possible or to destroy as many detainees as possible. The
Reichsfuhrer was constantly concerned with the problems of engaging all forces
possible in the armament industry . . .

"These so-called ill-treatments
and torturing in concentration camps, stories of which were spread everywhere
amongst the people, and particularly by detainees who were liberated by the
occupying armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by
individual leaders, sub-leaders, and men who laid violent hands on them . . .

" If in any way such a matter was brought to my notice, the perpetrator
was, of course, immediately relieved of his post or transferred somewhere else.
So that, even if he wasn't punished because there wasn't evidence to prove his
guilt, he was taken away and given another position . . ..

"The
catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the fact that as a
result of the destruction of railways and of the continuous bombings of the
industrial works, it was no longer possible to properly care for these masses,
for example, at Auschwitz, with its 140,000 detainees. Improvised measures,
truck columns, and everything else tried by the commandants to improve the
situation, were of little or no avail. The number of sick became immense. There
were next to no medical supplies; plagues raged everywhere.

"Detainees
who were capable of work were used continuously by order of the Reichsfuhrer,
even half-sick people had to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result,
every bit of space in the concentration camps which could possibly be used for
lodging was filled with sick and dying detainees .

"At the end of the
war, there were still thirteen concentration camps. All the other points which
are marked here on the map means so-called labour camps attached to the armament
factories situated there . . .

"If any ill-treatment of detainees by
guards occurred - I myself have never observed any - then this was possible only
to a very small degree, since all officers in charge of the camps took care that
as few SS men as possible had immediate contact with the inmates, because in the
course of the years the guard personnel had deteriorated to such an extent that
the former standards could no longer be maintained . . .

"We had
thousands of guards who could hardly speak German, who came from all leading
countries of the world as volunteers and joined these units; or we had elder
men, between 50 and 60, who lacked all interest in their work, so that a camp
commandant had to take care continuously that these men fulfilled even the
lowest requirements of their duties.
Furthermore, it is obvious that there
were elements among them who would ill-treat detainees, but this ill-treatment
was never tolerated.

"Furthermore, it was impossible to have these
masses of people working or when in the camp directed by SS men, so that
everywhere detainees had to be engaged to give instructions to the detainees and
set them to work, and who almost exclusively had the administration of the inner
camp in their hands. Of course, a great deal of ill-treatment occured which
couldn't be avoided, because at night there was hardly any member of the SS in
the camps. Only in specific cases were the SS men allowed to enter the camp, so
that the detainees were more or less exposed to the detainee supervisors."

Question (by defense attorney for the SS, Dr. Babel):

"You have
already mentioned regulations which existed for the guards, but there was also a
standing order in all the camps. In this camp order there were laid down the
punishments for detainees who violated the camp rules. What punishments were
these?"

Answer:

"First of all, transfer to a "penal company"
(Strafkompanie), that is to say, harder work, and their accomodation restricted;
next, detention in the cell block, detention in a dark cell; and in very serious
cases, chaining or strapping. Punishment by 'strapping' (Anbinden) was
prohibited in the year 1942 or 1943, I can't say exactly when, by the
Reichsfuhrer. Then there was the punishment of standing to attention during a
long period at the entrance to the camp (Strafstehen), and finally punishment by
beating.

"However, this punishment of beating could not be decreed by
any commandant independently. He could apply for it."

Oral testimony of Rudolf Höss, 15 April 1946 (XI 403-411
[445-454]).

Höss's motivation appears to have been to protect his
wife and 3 children, and to save the lives of others by testifying that only 60
people knew of the mass killings. Höss attempted to save Kaltenbrunner by
implicating Eichmann and Pohl, who had not yet been apprehended. (For a similar
case, see Heisig's affidavit implicating Raeder, XIII 460-461
[509-510]).
Höss appeared as a "defense witness", and his cross-examination
by the prosecution was cut short by the prosecution itself (XI 418-419
[461-462]). Perhaps they were afraid he would spill the beans.

Höss's
famous "autobiography" Kommandant in Auschwitz, probably prepared in question
and answer from through interrogation like a gigantic "affidavit", then written
up to be copied in his handwriting, is not much better. In this book, German
text, cremation fires were visible for miles (p. 159). Everyone in the area knew
of the exterminations (p. 159) the victims knew they were going to be gassed
(pp. 110, 111, 125), but it was possible to fool them (pp. 123-124; Document
3868-PS), and his family never knew a thing (pp. 129-130). Höss was a chronic
drunkard who "confessed" these things when he had been drinking (p. 95) or was
being tortured (p. 145).

It is not true that, according to p. 126 of
this text, bodies were removed from gas chambers by Kapos eating and smoking
and/or not wearing gas masks; the text does not say that. Dr Robert Faurisson
has proven that Höss did make this assertion, but elsewhere, during an
"interrogation". The Polish "translation" of this book, published prior to the
publication of the German "original text", seems to agree with the German text,
except that place names and dates are missing, indicating that the Polish was
probably written first, these details being inserted later in the German
translation. The uncut, unexpurgated complete writings of Rudolf Höss(?) (in
Polish) are available through international library loan.
(Wspomnienia
Rudolfa Hössa, Komendanta Obozu Oswiecimskiego)

JAPANESE WAR CRIMES TRIALS

General
Yamashita

While Germans were being convicted of making human
"soap" (taken seriously in the seventh edition of Oppenheim and Lauterpacht's
prestigious International Law, vol. II, p. 450) Japanese defendants were being
convicted of making human "soup" in repeated trials.

This is not a
misprint; it was considered a "proven fact" in 1948 - a "fact" proven in
numerous "trials" - that the Japanese are a race of habitual cannibals who were
forbidden upon pain of death from devouring the corpses of their own dead, but
who were officially encouraged to eat Americans. Americans were served fried, or
as soup; people were eaten when other food was available. Thus, the Japanese
engage in cannibalism out of choice rather than necessity.

Favourite
human body parts for culinary purposes are liver, pancreas and gall bladder;
Chinese are swallowed in pill form! Among the "trials" in which this was
"proven" are U.S. v Tachibana Yochio and 13 others, Mariana Islands, 2nd-15th
August, 1946;
Commonwealth of Australia vs. Tazaki Takehiko, Wewak, 30th
November 1945;
Commonwealth of Australia v. Tomiyasu Tisato, Rabaul, 2nd
April 1946;

and the most complex war crimes trial in history, the
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) personally supervised
by Douglas McArthur, which lasted from May 1946 until December 1948 (see The
Tokyo Judgment, vol. 1, pp. 409-410, University of Amsterdam Press 1977, pp.
49,674-5 of mimeographed transcript.

The 25 defendants who survived
trial were all convicted; 7 were hanged. Their crimes included:

*
planning, initiation and waging "aggressive war" against the Soviet Union (the
Soviet Union attacked Japan two days after Hiroshima in violation of a
Non-Agression Pact; on this same day the London Agreement was signed, pursuant
to which the Nuremberg Trial was held);

* planning, initiation, and
waging "aggressive war" against France (France is in Europe);

* illegal
sea blockade and indiscriminate population bombing (case against Shimada), that
is, the actions of the British in Europe would have been illegal if committed by
the Japanese; trial of war criminals before a military tribunal (case against
Hata and Tojo; see also U.S. vs. Sawada, probably the most disgusting and
hypocritical accusation of all; the victims were 7 Americans guilty of
participating in the fire-bombing of Tokyo in which 80,000 women and children
were burned to death) and

* cannibalism. It was not alleged that the
defendants ate anyone personally.

The evidence included:

* Soviet
War Crimes Reports
* Chinese War Crimes Reports
* Soviet reports based
on Japanese documents not attached to the reports
* Summaries of Japanese
military aggression in China (written by the Chinese)
* 317 Judge Advocate
General War Crimes Reports (total length: 14,618 pages) "quoting" "captured"
Japanese documents, diaries, cannibalism confessions, mass murder orders, orders
to gas P.O.W.s on remote South Sea islands, etc. ("captured documents" not
attached to reports; proof of authenticity not required)
* affidavits of
Japanese soldiers imprisoned in Siberia
* affidavits of Japanese referring
to Japs as the 'enemy'
* affidavits of Red Army Officers
* newspaper
clippings (admissable evidence for the prosecution, but not usually for the
defense; i.e., events in China were proven by quoting the Chicago Daily Tribune,
the New Orleans Times-Picayune, the Sacrimento Herald, Oakland Tribune, New York
Herald, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc.
* the "affidavit" of
Marquis Takugawa (written in English and not read to him in Japanese)
* the
statements of Okawa (Okawa was declared insane and confined to a lunatic asylum,
but his statements were used in evidence)
* the testimony of Tanaka (a
professional witness paid by the Americans; Okawa, when drunk, has confessed
everything to Tanaka; Tanaka 'The Monster' Ryukichi was supposedly responsible
for millions of atrocities but was not tried, instead he moved freely about
Japan)
* Kido's diary (titbits of gossip about everybody Kido didn't like)

* Harada's Memoirs (Harada had suffered a stroke, so his dictation was
incomprehensible; how well he could remember and what he meant to say were
anybody's guess; the translations were a guess; many different "copies" had been
"corrected" by a variety of people other than the person to whom he had
dictated; added to which he had a reputation for telling lies).

The
Prosecution's Answer to Defense Arguments at the end of the trial refutes all
defensive evidence, stating that documents (translations of excerpts "copies"
without proof of issuance or signature) are the best witnesses. If prosecution
and defense both quote a document, defense have quoted out of context, but never
the prosecution. Hearsay has probative value; testimony of defense witnesses has
no probative value; cross-examination is a waste of time.

Five of the 11
judges - William Webb of Australia, Delfin Jaranilla of the Philippines, and
Bert. A. Röling of the Netherlands, Henri Bernhard of France, and R.B. Pal of
India - dissented.

Pal wrote a famous 700 page dissentient opinion in
which he called the prosecution atrocity evidence "mostly worthless", remarking
sarcastically that he hoped one of the documents was in Japanese.

A
peculiarity of war crimes trials is that far from "proving" anything, they all
contradict each other. It was held at Tokyo that the Chinese had a "right" to
violate "unfair" treaties, and that Japanese efforts to enforce such treaties -
because they were "unfair" - constituted "aggression".

When the atomic
bombs were dropped, Shigemitsu had been attempting to negotiate a surrender for
nearly 11 months, beginning on September 14, 1944. This of course became another
"crime" - "prolonging the war through negotiation".
"Proof" of Japanese
cannibal activity may be found in JAG Report 317, pp.12, 467-8 of mimeographed
transcript; Exhibits 1446 and 1447, pp. 12,576-7; Exhibit 1873, pp. 14, 129-30,
and Exhibits 2056 and 2056A and B, pp.15,032-42.

ALFRED
JODL

Jodl was hanged for complicity in the Commando Order, an
order to shoot British soldiers who fought in civilian clothes and strangled
their own prisoners of war (XV 316-329 [347-362]).

Jodl's defense was
that international law is intended to protect men who fight as soldiers.
Soldiers are required to bear arms openly, wear clearly recognizable emblems or
uniforms, and to treat prisoners in a humane manner.

Partisan warfare
and the activities of British commando units were prohibited. Trial and
execution of such people is legal if carried out under the terms of Article 63
of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention of 1929.

(See also dissentient
opinion of Judge Rutledge, U.S. v. Yamashita; Habeas Corpus action of Field
Marshall Milch.)

In fact, almost no one was shot as a result of the
Commando Order. (55 in Western Europe, according to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, XXII
284 [325].

The intention was to deter men from fighting in this manner,
thinking they could simply surrender afterwards. Another "crime" was notifying
the Commander in Chief of the Army that Hitler had repeated an already
previously issued order that an offer of surrender from Leningrad was not to be
accepted.

Like so many German crimes, this remained an idea
without effect, since no offer of surrender ever came. The intention was to
force the population to withdraw to the rear, since it would be impossible to
feed millions of people or to prevent epidemics. Gaps were left in German lines
to the East in order to enable the population to do this. Kiev, Odessa, and
Kharkov had capitulated but were mined, killing thousands of German soldiers
with delayed-action detonator devices. The docks were required for military
purposes; Russian railroads were on a different guage from German ones, and
supplies could not be brought forward to feed millions of half-starved prisoners
or Jews. The Soviet propaganda lie that Germans killed millions of Russian
prisoners has been taken seriously by many people who do not know the causes of
the mortality.

The order concerning Leningrad, Document C-123, is not
signed.

The case against Jodl illustrates the absurdity of the entire
trial. In the words of his defense attorney, Dr. Exner:

"Murder and
revolution - in peacetime this would have meant civil war; in wartime, the
immediate collapse of the front and the end of the Reich. Should he then have
cried, 'Fiat justia, pereat patria?

"It really appears that the
prosecution holds the view that such conduct could be demanded of the
defendants. An astonishing idea! Whether murder and treason can ever be
justified ethically had better be left to moralists and theologians. At all
events, jurists cannot even discuss such an idea. To be obliged on pain of
punishment to murder the head of state? A soldier should do that? And in
wartime? Those who have committed such deeds have always been punished, but to
punish them for not doing so would indeed be something new." (XIX 45 [54]; XXII
86-90 [100-105]).

At Tokyo, the generals were hanged for interfering in
politics.

At another point, Dr. Exner exclaimed, "On one single page of
the Anglo-American trial brief the phrase 'Jodl was present at' occurs six
times. What does this mean legally?" (XIX 37 [44]).

Jodl was asked by one of the Soviet prosecutors, Col.
Pokrovsky, "Do you know that the German troops . . . quartered, hanged upside
down, and roasted Soviet captives over the fire? Did you know that?"

To which Jodl replied, "Not only did I not know it, but
I do not even believe it" (XV 545 [595]).

This is the entire vast subject of war crimes trials
boiled down into 3 sentences (XV 284-561 [313-612]; XVIII 506-510 [554-558]; XIX
1-46 [7-55]).

ERNST KALTENBRUNNER

During Kaltenbrunner's cross examination, he was
indignantly asked how he had the nerve to pretend he was telling the truth and
that 20 or 30 witnesses were lying (XI 349 [385]).
The "eyewitnesses", of
course, did not appear in court; they were merely names on pieces of paper. One
of these names is that of Franz Ziereis, commandant of Mauthausen concentration
camp.
Ziereis "confessed" to gassing 65,000 people;
making lampshades
out of human skin;
manufacturing counterfeit money;
and supplied a
complicated table of statistical information containing the exact number of
inmates in 31 different camps.

He then accused Kaltenbrunner of ordering the entire
camp (Mauthausen) to be killed upon the approach of the Americans.
Ziereis
had been dead for 10 and a half months when he made this "confession".
Fortunately, the "confession" has been "remembered" by someone else: a
concentration camp inmate named Hans Marsalek, who never appeared in court, but
whose signature appears on the document (Document 3870-PS, XXXIII 279-286).

Pages 1 through 6 of this document are in quotation marks(!), including
the statistical table, which states, for example, that there were 12,000 inmates
at Ebensee; 12,000 at Mauthausen; 24,000 at Gusen I and II; 20 inmates at
Schloss-Lindt, 70 inmates at Klagenfurt-Junkerschule, etc, for all of 31 camps
in the table.

The document is not signed by anyone else alleged to
have been present at Ziereis's "confession", and no notes alleged to have been
taken at the time are appended to the document. The document bears two
signatures only: that of Hans Marsalek, the inmate; and that of Smith W.
Brookhart Jr. U.S. Army.

The document bears the date 8 April 1946. Ziereis died
23 May 1945.

The pretense was that Ziereis was too seriously injured
(he died of multiple gunshot wounds through the stomach) to sign anything at the
time, but he was healthy enough to dictate this lengthy and complex document,
which was then "remembered" exactly and verbatim by Marsalek for 10 and a half
months. Marsalek would, of course, have had no motivation to lie.

The
document is in German. Brookhart was a confession ghostwriter who also wrote the
"confessions" of Rudolf Höss (in English, Document 3868-PS) and Otto Ohlendorf
(in German, Document 2620-PS).

(Brookhart was the son of a Senator from
Washington Iowa. Address in 1992: 18 Hillside Drive, Denver Colorado, USA.
Brookhart never answered my letter as to whether he had any papers or memoirs.)

Ziereis's "confession" continues to be taken seriously by Reitlinger,
Shirer, Hilberg, and other itinerant peddlars of Holo-Schlock.

Kaltenbrunner claimed that there were 13 central
concentration camps or "Stammlager" during the war (XI 268-269 [298-299]). The
prosecution total of 300 concentration camps was achieved by including perfectly
normal work camps.

The 13th camp, Matzgau, near Danzig, was a special camp
whose prisoners were SS guards and police who had been sentenced to imprisonment
for offenses against prisoners in their charge: physical mistreatment,
embezzlement, theft of personal property, etc.

This camp with its inmate
SS men fell into the hands of the Russians at the end of the war (XI 312, 316
[345, 350]).

Kaltenbrunner claimed that sentences passed by SS and
police courts were far more severe than sentences passed by other courts for the
same offenses.

The SS carried out frequent trials of their own men for
offenses against inmates and violations of discipline (XXI 264-291, 369-370
[294-323, 408-409]).

Third degree methods of interrogation were permitted by
law for the sole purpose of obtaining information relating to future resistence
activity; it was forbidden for the purpose of obtaining confessions. These
interrogators required the presence of a doctor, and allowed a total of 20 blows
with a stick once only, on the bare buttocks, a process which could not be
repeated later. Other forms of legal "Nazi torture" included confinement in a
dark cell, or standing during lengthy interrogations (XX 164, 180-181 [184,
202-203]; XXI 502-510; 528-530 [556-565, 583-584]).

Kaltenbrunner and many other defense witnesses claimed
that similar methods were used by police all over the world (XI 312 [346]) and
that respected police officials visited Germany to study German procedures (XXI
373 [412]).

Defense evidence on this and related topics amounts to
many thousands of pages divided between the Tribunal and "commission", and
136,000 affidavits (XXI 346-373 [382-412]; 415 [458], 444 [492]).

Kaltenbrunner was convicted of conspiring to "lynch"
Allied airmen who committed mass bombings of civilians. The lynchings would have
been illegal, but did not occur. Many airmen were saved from mobs by German
officials. The Germans refused to contemplate such a matter, fearing it would
lead to a general slaughter of parchuted fliers. Like so many other German
crimes, this remained an idea without effect (XXI 406-407 [449-450], 472-476
[522-527]).

Another crime committed by Kaltenbrunner was
responsibility for the so-called "Bullet Order". This is supposed to have been
an order to shoot prisoners of war using a measuring contraption (probably
inspired by the Paul Waldmann pedal-driven brain bashing machine, Document USSR-52, VII
377[416-417]).

The "Bullet Order", Document 1650-PS, if it is an
authentic document, which it probably is not (XVIII 35-36 [43-44]) is a
mistranslation: the sense of the order is that prisoners who attempt to escape
should be chained to an iron ball (Kugel), and not that they should be shot with
a "bullet" (also Kugel). The word "chained" appears in the document, but the
word "shot" does not (III 506 [565]; XXI 514 [568]); Gestapo affidavit 75; XXI
299 [332]). The document is a "teletype" thus, without a signature (XXVII
424-428).

"Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) is an example of
the ugly jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best translated as
"treatment on a case by case basis".
Kaltenbrunner was able to show that it
meant, in the context of one document, the right to drink champagne and take
French lessons. The prosecution got a winter resort mixed up with a
concentration camp (XI 338-339 [374-375]); (XI 232-386 [259-427]; XVIII 40-68
[49-80]). (The winter resort document is Document 3839-PS, XXXIII 197-199, an
"affidavit").

WILHELM KEITEL

Keitel was hanged for alleged responsibility in
atrocities said to have been committed in Russia, and for the Commissar and
Night and Fog Decrees.
The evidence against Keitel consists largely of the
"reports" of Soviet War Crimes Commissions (XVII 611-612 [663-664], XXII 76-83
[90-98]). These are summaries containing final judgments, conclusions, and
generalizations without any underlying evidence or documents. In these reports,
military agencies are wrongly named and confused.
Among the Soviet documents
used to convict Keitel are Documents USSR-4; 9; 10; 35; 38; 40; 90; 364; 366;
407; and 470.
USSR-4 is a "report" which alleges intentional spreading of
typhus epidemics to exterminate the Russian population. Responsibility for this
crime is attributed to the "Hitler Government and the Supreme Command of the
Armed Forces"; see also "Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea", Peking (1952)
(American Germ Warfare).
Documents USSR-9, 35, and 38 are also Soviet War
Crimes Reports.
Document USSR-90 is the judgment of a Soviet military court,
and states that "German fascist intruders committed bestial crimes", and
attributes these crimes to the "German Armed Forces Command".
Original
documents are not appended, and specific orders are not mentioned. Keitel's name
is not mentioned. The other documents are "certified true copies" (XVIII 9-12
[16-19]) of documents supposedly possessed by the Russians.
The "Night and
Fog Decree" (XVIII 19-22 [27-30]) was intended as an alternative to shooting
resistence members. It was conceded by the prosecution that such people could be
legally shot (V 405 [456]) but the Germans considered it undesirable to sentence
everyone to death. Prison sentences were felt to have little deterrent value,
since everyone expected the war to end in a few years (XXI 524 [578-579]).

The Commissar Order had little if any practical effect, partly due to the
difficulty of determining who was a Commissar (XXI 404-405 [446-447]); XXII 77
[91]). Keitel is accused to this day of blocking access to Hitler, that is,
shielding Hitler from certain information. This accusation, absurd in the
extreme, is refuted on pages 645-661 [710-717] of volume XVII.

Also used against Keitel was Document 81-PS, quoted in
Jackson's opening speech, and Document USSR-470, a "true copy"
(meaning the document has been re-typed to make the copy) of an "original
document" written entirely in Serbo Croat, and supposedly located in Yugoslavia,
with a typewritten signature by Keitel. It was not alleged that Keitel
understood Serbo-Croat, rather that this was a "translation" of a document
written in German which the Yugoslavians did not find (XV 530-536 [578-585]).

Keitel's case appears at X 468-658 [527-724]; XI 1-28 [7-37]; XVII 603-661
[654-717]; XVIII 1-40 [7-48].

CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH

Von Neurath was the victim of a major forgery, Document
3859-PS. The Czechs re-typed an authentic document, making extensive alterations
and additions, and presented a "photocopy" of their "copy" (with typewritten
signatures) to the Tribunal. The original document was in Czechoslovakia.
On
this document, nearly everything is wrong: German bureaucracy was extremely
complex, and many prosecution documents bear wrong addresses, false references,
and incorrect procedural markings which are not immediately obvious. In relation
to this document, Von Neurath said, "I regret to say that you are lying" (XVII
67 [79]; 373-377 [409-413]).

Von Neurath was convicted of closing Czech universities
(not a crime under international law when performed by an occupation government)
and shooting 9 Czech student leaders after a demonstration. These crimes were
"proven" with various documents:
USSR-489, a "certified true copy",
certified by the Czechs;
USSR-60, a "report" of a "War Crimes Commission",
quoting the "statements" of Karl Hermann Frank, which were not appended to the
report; and USSR-494, an "affidavit" signed by Karl Hermann Frank 33 days before
his execution. The statements attributed to Frank in the War Crimes Report were,
of course, not signed or dated, and the original documents were in
Czechoslovakia (XVII 85-90 [98-104]).

Much of the "evidence" concocted against Von Neurath,
Schacht, Von Papen, Raeder, and others came from the affidavits of an elderly
American diplomat living in Mexico (Documents 1760-PS; 2385-PS; 2386-PS;
EC-451).
The diplomat, Messersmith, was claimed to be too old to come to
court (II 350 [387]); it was denied, however, that he was senile (II 352 [389]).
The "evidence" consists of Messersmith's personal opinions as to the motivations
and character of other people. Von Neurath's case appears at XVI 593-673
[649-737]; XVII 2-107 [9-121]; XIX 216-311 [242-345]).

FRANZ VON PAPEN

Von Papen was accused of conspiring with Hitler to
induce Hindenburg to take Hilter into government as Reichschancellor. According
to this view, Hindenburg was deceived by Von Papen into believing that civil war
would ensue if this was not done.

The Reichschancellor at that time,
General Von Schleicher, had attempted to rule illegally and unconstitutionally
for some time without the support of the National Socialists, who enjoyed the
largest majority in the history of the Reichstag. Many of Hitler's illegalities
actually date back to the period of Von Schleicher's rule (XXII 102-103
[118-119]). This was the only alternative to the chaos of 41 political parties,
each representing some private financial interest.

The democratic
victors demanded of Von Papen, in 1946, that he should have foreseen Hitler's
intent to wage "aggresive war" in 1933, and conspired with Von Schleicher to
rule through military dictatorship.

Von Schleicher was later shot
following the Rohm Putsch. These shootings were considered legal by Hindenburg,
as was evidenced by a telegram congratulating Hitler (XX 291 [319]; XXI 350
[386]; 577-578 [636-637]; XXII 117 [134-135]).

Von Papen also considered
the shooting of Rohm and his followers to have been justified by emergency (XVI
364 [401]), but considered that many other murders took place which were not
justified, and that it was Hitler's duty to conduct an investigation and punish
these acts. This was not done.

It was conceded by the prosecution at
Nuremberg that the Nazi Party Program contained nothing illegal, and was indeed
almost laudable (II 105 [123]). The National Socialists were declared legal by
the occupation authorities in the Rheinland in 1925 (XXI 455 [505]) and by the
German Supreme Court in 1932 (XXI 568 [626]) and by the League of Nations and
Polish Resident General in Danzig in 1930 (XVIII 169 [187-188]).

It was
not clear in 1933 that the Army would unanimously support Von Schleicher against
the National Socialists, who had a legal right to govern.

Hindenburg's refusal to violate the Constitution at the
risk of civil war brought Hitler into government in an entirely legal manner
(see also XXII 111-112 [128-129]).

Von Papen was accused of "immoral acts
in furtherance of the Common Plan", such as the use of the intimate "du" form in
conversation with the Austrian Foreign Minister, Guido Schmidt: Von Papen
remarked, "Sir David, if you had ever been in Austria in your life, you would
know that in Austria almost everyone says 'du' to everyone else" (XVI 394
[435]).

Acts of Von Papen's which could not be called "criminal" were
used to prove the defendant's "duplicity" (no pun intended). A mental
construction was placed on Von Papen's acts with the benefit of hindsight.

It is sometimes alleged that since Von Papen, Fritzsche and Schacht were
acquitted, Nuremberg was a "fair trial". The contrary does not apply to the
International Military Tribunal of the Far East, or other trials in which there
were no acquittals; it is forgotten that the witchcraft trials of the XVIIth
Century averaged 5-10% in acquittals. Von Papen's case appears at XVI 236-422
[261-466]; XIX 124-177 [139-199].

ERICH RAEDER

Raeder was accused of "conspiring" with the Japanese to
attack the United States.
Other crimes committed by Raeder included
listening to speeches, being present at conferences, having knowledge of
contingency plans, and accepting birthday gifts.
Raeder proved that the
Americans knew of the impending Pearl Harbour attack 10 days before it occured,
while the Germans knew nothing (XIV 122 [137-138]).
Raeder's discussion of
German military preparedness and Hitler speeches will be discussed together with
Von Ribbentrop's (XIII 595-599 [656-660]; 617-631 [680-696]; XIV 1-246 [7-275];
XVIII 372-430 [406-470]).

JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP

Von Ribbentrop was hanged for signing the
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which preceeded and made possible the attack on Poland.
Ribbentrop defended his actions on the grounds that one million Germans had been
expelled from Polish territory over a 20-year period, accompanied by numerous
atrocities, and that complaints to the World Court in The Hague and the League
of Nations in Geneva had been ignored for just as long. These were ethnic
Germans with Polish citizenship living in lands given to the new Polish state
under the Versailles Treaty.
On October 23, 1938, Ribbentrop made an offer
to the Poles which the British ambassador, Sir Neville Henderson, admitted was
reasonable, calling it a "pure League of Nations proposal": Ribbentrop asked for
a plebiscite in the Polish corridor; the return of Danzig (a 100% German city)
to the Reich, and the construction of an extra-territorial double-track railway
and highway across the Corridor to East Prussia, which had previously been
separated from the rest of Germany and could only be reached by sea, in defiance
of all common sense, that is, a land bridge to East Prussia (X 260-269
[295-304]; 280-281 [317-318]; 367-369 [416-417]).

In return, the Poles were to receive an advantageous
financial settlement: a guarantee of port facilities and outlet for Polish goods
through the port of Danzig. The future of the Corridor was to be decided
according to the principle of self-determination, the Poles would receive an
outlet to the sea, and the German-Polish Friendship Pact (signed by Hitler in
1934 in the face of bitter German opposition), would be renewed for an
additional period (XIX 362-368 [399-406].
For the prosecution version of
these same events, see III 209-229 [237-260)).
This was the "Nazi Plan to
conquer the world" which served as a pretext for the entire war, including,
eventually, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Yalta.

In reply, the Poles maintained that any change in the
status of Danzig would mean war with Poland. A general mobilization was ordered.
The expulsions continued, filling refugee camps along the Polish
border.

The Polish ambassador, Lipski, reportedly stated on
August 31, 1939, that he was well aware of conditions in Germany, having served
there for many years. He was not interested in any note or proposal from
Germany. In the event of war, revolution would break out in Germany, and the
Polish Army would march in triumph to Berlin (XVII 520-521 [565-566]; 564-566
[611-614]; XX 607 [661]).
Ribbentrop claimed that the attitude of the Poles
made war inevitable; that the problem of the Corridor and the expulsions had to
be solved; that for both Hitler and Stalin the territories involved had been
lost to both countries after a disastrous war followed by equally disastrous
treaties (X 224-444 [254-500]; XVII 555-603 [602-655]).

To the Germans at Nuremberg, there appeared only one
explanation: the Poles and the British were in contact with the so-called German
underground, which had grossly exaggerated its own importance (XVII 645-661
[699-717]; XIII 111-112 [125-126]).

Hitler's interpreter appeared as a witness, and
testified that the Germans could not believe that the British would go to war
over something which their ambassador admitted was reasonable. According to the
interpreter, Paul Schmidt, there was a full minute of silence when the message
of the British declaration of war was delivered, after which Hitler turned to
Ribbentrop and said "What shall we do now?" (X 200 [227]).

Schmidt's testimony shed light on a famous remark
attributed to Von Ribbentrop, that Jews should be killed or confined to
concentration camps.
What happened, according to Schmidt (X 203-204 [231])
was that Hitler was putting pressure on Horthy to take stronger measures against
Jews. Horthy said, "What am I supposed to do? I can't kill them." Ribbentrop was
very irritable and said, "There are two alternatives: either you can do just
that, or they can be interned."
This appeared in the minutes of the
conference as "The Reichs Foreign Minister said that Jews should be killed or
confined to concentration camps". The statement was used against Ribbentrop and
all other defendants during the trial, despite Schmidt's testimony that the
minutes were inaccurate (X 410-411 [462-463]).

According to Ribbentrop, Raeder, Göring, and nearly all
defendants except Schacht, the Germans were not prepared for war and did not
plan "aggression" (XVII 522 [566-567]), XXII 62, 90 [76, 105]).

The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France were not
"aggression", because France had declared war on Germany. Belgium and Holland
allowed British planes to fly over their countries every night to bomb the Ruhr.
The Germans protested in writing 127 times (XVII 581 [630], XIX 10 [16]).

Göring, Raeder, Milch and many others testified that
Germany had only 26 Atlantic submarines with insufficient torpedoes, as opposed
to 315 submarines in 1919 (XIV 26 [34]), and a "ridiculous" bomb supply (XIX 4-5
[11-12]).

Hitler told Field Marshall Milch in May 1939 that there
was no need for full bomb production, as there would be no war. Milch replied
that full bomb production would take several months to bring to capacity. The
order to begin full production of bombs was not given until October 12 or 20,
1939 (IX 50 [60-61]; XVII 522 [566-567]).

The German Air Force was designed for defensive,
pin-point bombing; the Germans cooperated with both the Russians and the British
in exchange of technical information of military value until 1938 (IX 45-133
[54-153]; XIV 298-351 [332-389]).

The Germans never built anywhere near the number of
ships and especially submarines (XIV 24 [31]) allowed to them under the terms of
the Anglo-German Naval Accord of 1935 (XVIII 379-389 [412-425]). This agreement
represented a recognition by the British that the Versailles Treaty was out of
date. It was also a voluntarily undertaken limitation by Hitler of German naval
armament (XIX 224-232 [250-259]).

When war broke out, many large German battleships were
still under construction and had to be scrapped, because they would have taken
years to finish (XIII 249-250 [279-280]; 620-624 [683-687]). According to an
affidavit signed by her captain, one of Germany's largest battleships, the
Gneisenau, was on a training cruise near the Canary Islands when war broke out,
without any ammunition suplies (XXI 385 [425]).

Hitler was a bluffer who loved to terrify politicians
with grossly illogical, self-contradictory speeches (XIV 34-48 [43-59]; 329-330
[366]), which all contradicted each other (XXII 66-68 [80-81]). For this reason,
exact stenographic notes were never taken until 1941 (XIV 314-315 [349-350]).

Many "Hitler speeches" are semi-falsifications or
forgeries (XVII 406-408 [445-447], XVIII 390-402 [426-439]; XXII 65 [78-79]).

The Germans believed they were no longer bound by the
Versailles Treaty because its terms - the preamble to Part V - had been violated
by the British, and especially the French. German disarmament was to be followed
by general disarmament (IX 4-7 [12-14]; XIX 242 [269], 356 [392]).

Hitler had offered to disarm to the last machine gun,
provided other nations did likewise; but Germany could not remain in a weakened
position forever, to be invaded and crushed at any moment. The reoccupation of
the Rhineland gave Germany a natural frontier protecting the Ruhr, and would
have been a matter of course for any government. Eastern Europe seethed with
conflict between heavily armed states; East Prussia was not defensible; the
Poles were openly demanding parts of Upper Silesia (XII 476-479 [520-524]; XIX
224-232 [249-259], XX 570-571 [623-624]).

The French-Soviet Accord of 5 December 1934 violated the
Locarno Pact, which the Germans were convicted of violating (XIX 254, 269, 277
[283, 299, 308]). It was not clear that the occupation of the remainder of
Czechoslovakia violated the Munich Accord (X 259 [293-294]). This was done
because the Russians were building airports there, in cooperation with the
Czechs. The Czechs hoped to turn the remainder of Czechoslovakia into a
"aircraft carrier" from which Germany could be attacked (X 348 [394-395];
427-430 [480-484]).

Roosevelt had declared that American interest extended
to all of the Western Hemisphere, and Britain claimed dominion over half the
world; surely German interest could extend as far as Czechoslovakia. From Prague
to Berlin by plane is half an hour; Czech actions were plainly threatening to
German security.
There is no such thing as a treaty which lasts forever.
Generally, they are superceded by subsequent treaties, and become obsolete. This
is usually covered in the language of the treaty itself by the words "rebus sic
stantibus". By 1935, Versailles and Lucarno had become obsolete.

ALFRED ROSENBERG AND ERNST SAUCKEL

Rosenberg

Like Frank, Rosenberg was accused of "looting" and
"plundering" works of art.
Rosenberg and Frank both pointed out that Germany
was required to protect works of art under the terms of The Hague Convention,
and that doing so required removing them from the scene of hostilities. The
artworks were carefully packed, appraised and repaired. Had it been the German
intention to "loot" or to "steal", it would not have been necessary to catalogue
theseartworks with an exact notation of the name and address of the owner, if
that was known.

Several works of art were appropriated by Göring, not
for Göring's personal use, but for a museum which Hitler intended to create in
Linz.

Rosenberg protested against this appropriation on the
grounds that it was his duty to maintain the collections intact until the end of
the war in the hope that a peace settlement could be made regarding these
objects.
Rosenberg was also accused of stealing thousands of railroad car
loads of furniture. The furniture had belonged to Jews who had abandoned their
homes upon German arrival in Paris. The Jewish apartments were sealed for 90
days, then the property in them was confiscated as abandoned, since its
safekeeping could not be assured. Eventually it was used for the benefit of
Germans who had been rendered homeless by bombing raids. Again, it was hoped to
make a settlement at the end of the war.
Rosenberg's ministry received a
large number of complaints, which were investigated. many were found to have no
basis in fact. At Nuremberg, it was simply assumed that every complaint was
"true". Letters to Rosenberg were used against him in evidence, though his
answers to those letters had been lost. The complaints and letters were held to
prove "willing membership in the Common Plan".
Rosenberg was accused of
conspiring with Sauckel to obtain "slaves" for the war effort from the occupied
territories. Rosenberg, Sauckel, Speer, Göring, and Seyss-Inquart all protested
that had it not been for the Allied blockade such "plundering" and "slavery"
would not have been necessary; that the sea blockade was illegal, and caused
mass unemployment in the occupied territories; and that occupation governments
are allowed to demand payment in services under the Hague Convention. The
"slaves" were paid the same wages as German workers, who were also subject to
compulsory labour. Funk claimed the "slaves" remitted 2 billion Reichsmarks in
wages to their families (XIII 136 [153]). Seyss-Inquart claimed there were
500,000 unemployed in Holland as a result of the blockade, and if they were not
provided with employment, voluntary or otherwise, they would join the resistence
movement, illegal under international law. They were quite happy to work on
German fortifications in Holland, because this made it less likely that the
Allied invasion would take place in Holland.
(The likelihood of Allied
invasion was also the reason for the deportation of Dutch Jews) (XV 662-668
[719-726]; XIX 99-102 [113-115]).

Fritzsche and others testified that the "slaves" could
be seen moving about freely in all German cities (XVII 163-164 [183-184]), had
plenty of money, and controlled the black market (XIV 590 [649]). Moreover,
hundreds of thousands of these "slaves" refused to leave the country after the
war, even though their own countries had been "liberated" and Germany was
devastated (XVIII 155 [172-173]).
Nor did the "slaves" revolt at the end of
the war (XVIII 129-163 [144-181]; 466-506 [509-554]; XIX 177-216 [199-242]; XXI
471-472 [521-522]).

Sauckel testified that the "slave labour" recruitment in
France was carried out by the French government and by French collaborationist
organizations. Many persons wished to be "compelled" in order to avoid reprisals
by the resistance (XV 1-263 [7-290]) but all were paid the same wages as German
workers and enjoyed the same health benefits and terms of contract.
Far from
"looting" the occupied territories, it was necessary to import much valuable
equipment. In Russia, everything had been destroyed during the retreat by the
Russians. When Germans imported equipment and withdrew it during their own
retreat, this was called "looting" (IX 171-172 [195-196]).
An example of a
"complaint" which became a "crime" was the case in which theatre goers were
reportedly rounded up into "slavery". Sauckel investigated for some months, and
found this to have been a case in which a labour contractor interrupted a party
of his own workers in order to move them to another workplace (XV 17-18
[25-26]).

Sauckel

As conditions worsened, more compulsion became
necessary. If the Allies had the right to confiscate property of neutrals at
sea, the Germans had the right to utilize the resources of occupied territories
on land.

Another accusation against Rosenberg was the so-called
"Hay Action", in which 50,000 children were "kidnapped" into "slave labour".
Rosenberg and Von Schirach both testified that this was an apprenticeship
program designed to remove orphans from the war zone (XI 489-490 [538-539] XIV
501-505 [552-556]).
If Rosenberg's ministry did not remove the orphans from
the area, the Army would do it.

A related accusation is the "Lebensborn" organization,
supposedly a plot to kidnap babies after measuring the size of their penises
(according to mentally ill Jewish "historians"). The purpose of this
organization was to remove the stigma of illegitimacy and to aid families with
numerous children (XXI 654-664, German volumes. These pages have disappeared
from the American transcript. See also XXI 352 [389].
Rosenberg's case
appears at XI 444-599 [490-656]; XVIII 69-128 [81-143]).

HJARMAR SCHACHT

Schacht is an anomaly as a defendant because the
accusations against him contradict those made against the other defendants.
While the others were accused of "acts of moral turpitude" such as accepting
birthday gifts; making birthday speeches; being photographed; signing laws
legally passed by the Head of State; being in political agreement with the Head
of State; or if not, failing in their moral duty to overthrow and murder the
Head of State (obviously not a duty that can be imposed by law); Schacht was
accused of all these things, and, for good measure, violating his oath of
loyalty to Hitler and deceiving Hitler! This was considered proof of particular
wickedness (XII 597 [652-653]).

Schacht's remark on the necessity of lying has been
widely quoted to prove Nazi duplicity; it is forgotten that the person being
lied to was Hitler.
Schacht ridiculed these accusations with one wisecrack
after another, and was even more sarcastic than Göring. Jackson, however, lacked
the perspicacity to realize that Schacht was making a fool of him (XII 416-493
[454-539]; 507-602 [554-658]; XIII 1-48 [7-58]; XVIII 270-312 [299-342].

Jackson's lie that he forced Schacht to "admit that he
lied" has been taken seriously by many people who should know better. Jackson
habitually lied (for example, II 438 [483]; IX 500-504 [555-559]).

BALDUR VON SCHIRACH

Von Schirach was accused of conspiring with millions of
children to conquer the world in imitation Boy Scout uniforms. It was pointed
out in his defense that a conspiracy involving millions of members is a logical
absurdity (XIV 360-537 [399-592], XVIII 430-466 [470-509].

To further this aim, the conspirators engaged in target
practice with .22 calibre rifles (XIV 381 [420-421]) and sang songs which were
sometimes 300 years old (XIV 474 [521]).

At Nuremberg, crimes could be found anywhere. In the
case against the SA, an article on foot care was quoted to prove "intent to
engage in aggressive war" (XXI 221-223 [248-250]).

Schirach was accused of knowledge of atrocities by Hans
Marsalek, whose "recollection" of Ziereis's "confession" (in quotation marks)
one year after Ziereis died, was used against Kaltenbrunner (XI 330-333
[365-369]; XIV 436-440 [480-485]).

Another crime committed by Schirach was being short and
fat (affidavit of Georg Ziemer, 244-PS, XIV 400-401 [440-441]).
Schirach
denied this charge. (A "short, fat student leader" had delivered an anti-Semitic
speech.)

Schirach was supposed to have received Einsatzgruppen reports at his
office as Gauleiter of Vienna. These documents are photocopies of "true copies"
on plain paper without headings or signature, prepared by unknown persons, and
found buried in a salt mine (II 157 [185]) by the Russians(IV 245 [273], VIII
293-301 [324-332]).

Katyn is listed as a German crime (NMT IX 96-117, Trial
of Otto Ohlendorf).

The Germans are supposed to have killed 22,000,000
people (XXII 238 [270]), or 12,000,000 (XXII 312 [356]), after which the bodies
were burned and the documents were buried. Documents are combustible and bodies
are not.

Schirach and Streicher were both taken in by a
"photocopy" of a Hitler document in which he "confessed" to mass killings (XIV
432 [476]; XII 321 [349]).

Since Hitler was a genius (X 600 [671-672], and since
geniuses do not kill millions of people with Diesel exhaust and insecticides
which take 24 hours to kill moths (Document NI-9912), it appears that the
significance of this document has been overrated.
In fact, it is typical
Hitler: full of violent language, but short of factual content. Nor is it
certain that Hitler was of sound mind in 1945 (IX 92 [107]). The Hitler
'confession' is a "certified" photocopy (Streicher Defense Document 9, XLI
547).

ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART

Seyss-Inquart is an example of the manner in which
perfectly legal actions were charged as "crimes" when undertaken by Germans,
while identical actions, or actions criminal under the Tribunal's own Statute
(such as the Dresden bombings, illegal under Article 6(b), XXII 471, 475 [535,
540]), were treated as the minor inconveniences of a great crusade to eradicate
evil.

Under international law, occupation governments are
allowed to legislate as they see fit (a right claimed by the Tribunal itself,
XXII 461 [523], but contradicted at XXII 497 [565-565] and obedience to their
authority is required. They are allowed to conscript labour within certian
limits, to confiscate government property, levy taxes to cover the costs of
occupation, and are not required to tolerate armed resistence, striking,
publication of hostile newspapers, or to employ local officials who will not
follow orders.
Initialling documents or passing on orders are not crimes
under international law. Seyss-Inquart prevented much unnecessary destruction at
the end of the war which would have been illegal (XV 610-668 [664-726]; XVI
1-113 [7-128]; XIX 46-111 [55-125]).

As Reichskommissar for Holland, Seyss-Inquart passed on
orders to execute resistence members after conviction for acts of sabotage or
armed resistence, illegal under The Hague Convention. The executions were
carried out after renewed acts of sabotage occurred. This was called "execution
of hostages". The word "hostage", however, is incorrect (XII 95-96 [108], XVIII
17-19 [25-27], XXI 526 [581], 535 [590]).

For a discussion of international law from the
prosecution point of view, conceding the legality of these actions, see V 537
[603-604]. It was conceded by the prosecution that resistence members may be
shot (V 405 [455-456]).

The Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 18
October 1907 contains an all-participation clause (Art. 2); belligerants
violating the convention may be required to pay compensation (Art. 3); prohibits
bombardments "by whatever means" of undefended cities, cultural monuments (Art.
23). Not ratified by Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia. Ratified by Czarist
Russia.

ALBERT SPEER

Albert Speer was convicted of conspiring to enslave
millions of people for work in German armaments industries, where they were
forced to sleep in urinals (Document D-288, Affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jager) and
were tortured in mass-produced torture boxes disguised as clothes lockers (Documents
USA-894), the bizarre "disguise" being intended to permit the introduction
of perfectly ordinary objects as proof of "atrocities".

Regarding this charge, Speer said, "I consider this
affidavit a lie... it is not possible to drag the German people in the dirt in
such a way" (XVI 543 [594]).

Speer was the kind of man who is successful under any
system. He always claimed he knew nothing about "exterminations", but said he
would have heard about it if prisoners had been cremated using atomic bombs (a
Robert Jackson hallucination, XVI 529-530 [580]).

Speer claimed to have plotted to assassinate Hitler
using a highly sophisticated nerve gas (XVI 494-495 [542-544]). The plot failed
because the gas could only be produced at high temperatures (XVI 529 [579]).

Actually, Zyklon presents a similar problem, in that the liquid must
evaporate, and does so slowly unless heated. German technical wizardry and
industrial advancement in general renders ridiculous any notion of a "Holocaust"
using insecticide or Diesel exhaust. It would be more difficult to "drag the
German people in the dirt" if it were not for people like Albert Speer. (XVI
430-588 [475-645]); XIX 177-216 [199-242]).

JULIUS STREICHER

Streicher was hanged for 'incitement to race hatred', a
crime which is becoming more popular. The Streicher case is remarkable in that
nations which preach separation of church and state and freedom of speech and
press should conspire with Jews and Communists to hang a man for expressing
opinions which were not alleged to have been untrue.

One of Streicher's crimes was the publication of a
'ritual murder' supplement in his anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sthrmer. It was
expressly admitted by the prosecution that his illustrations were authentic (V
103 [119]) and that the article was referenced correctly.

Among Streicher's references was at least one recognised
scholar, Dr. Erich Bischof of Leipzig, and modern legal proceedings (IX 696-700
[767-771]). It was felt that to investigate the validity of these references
would have unduly prolonged the trial, so the article was not alleged to have
been untrue.

Rather, an act of mental telepathy was performed, and
Streicher was hanged for his alleged metnal processes and motivation.

Another Streicher crime was calling the Old Testament "a horrible criminal
romance . . . this 'holy book' abounds in murder, incest, fraud, theft and
indecency". No evidence was introduced to rebut this view (V 96 [112]).

Streicher is famous as a 'pornographer', 'sex pervert'
and 'swindler'. The 'pornography collection', upon further examination, turned
out to be the Sturmer archive of Judaica (XII 409 [445]). The 'sex pervert'
charge, heavily emphasized by the Russians, had as its origin the so-called
Göring Report, a Party disciplinary proceeding brought by one of Streicher's
many enemies. This charge was dropped at Nuremberg and stricken from the record;
Streicher was told he need not answer any questions related to this accusation
(XII 330, 339 [359, 369]).

The 'property swindle' was also drawn from the Göring
Report, and related to a single case, involving the Mars Works. The man
responsible for the accusations contained in the report was, by some
coincidence, the man responsible for the purchase (V 106 [123]). The report
states that the shares were returned, and that the money that Streicher had paid
for them, 5000 Reichsmarks, was returned to Streicher after the
investigation.

Streicher gave his business managers full power of
attorney to do as they liked, saying "Do not worry me with business matters
There are other things more important than money". Streicher claimed his
newspaper was published in a rented house until the end of the war. It was not a
Party newspaper, and Streicher had nothing to do with the war.

One of Streicher's employees appeared as a witness and
stated, "Whoever knows Herr Streicher as I do, knows that Herr Streicher has
never taken anything from a Jew" (XII 385-386 [420]).

Streicher's second wife, Adele Streicher, appeared and
stated, "I consider it quite impossible that Julius Streicher acquired shares
that way. I believe that he does not even know what a share looks like" (XII 391
[426]).
It was not alleged at Nuremberg that Streicher wrote all his own
articles and publications. "Trau keinem Fuchs auf gruner Heid, und keinem Jud'
bei seinem Eid", translated by the prosecution as "Don't Trust a Fox Whatever
You Do, Nor Yet the Oath of any Jew" (XXXVIII 129) took its title from Martin
Luther.
'Der Giftpilz', (The Poisonous Fungus) was written by one of
Streicher's editors, inspired by a famous child molester case, that of the
Jewish industrialist, Louis Schloss (XII 335 [364-365]).
Schloss was later
murdered in Dachau, which became another 'Nazi atrocity'. In the prosecution
discussion of the Schloss murder, it is never mentioned that he was a sexual
attacker of children; instead it was implied that Schloss was killed for being
Jewish, and for no other reason (Document 664-PS, XXVI 174-187).

No causal nexus was ever shown between Streicher, Frank
or Rosenberg's anti-Semitic beliefs and the commission of any crime; nor was it
proven that the crime involved (i.e., the so-called "Holocaust") was ever even
committed. This was assumed, and Streicher's writings were assumed to have
helped 'cause' it.

Streicher made several 'highly improper' remarks which
were stricken from the record, and for which he was admonished, with the consent
of his attorney, Dr Marx. One of these remarks has been deleted after the fifth
paragraph of page 310 of volume XII of the typeset transcript [page 337, line 30
of the German], but may be found on pages 8494-5 of the mimeographed transcript.
Streicher said:

"If I might finish now with a description of my own
life, it will be with the description of an experience which will show you,
gentlemen, of the Tribunal, that without the government's wanting it, things may
happen which are not human, not according to the principles of
humanity.

"Gentlemen, I was arrested, and during my internment I
experienced things such as we, the Gestapo, have been accused of. For four days
I was without clothes in a cell. I was burned; I was thrown on the floor; and an
iron chain was put upon me. I had to kiss the feet of Negroes who spit in my
face. Two coloured men and a white officer spit in my mouth, and when I didn't
open it any more, they opened it with a wooden stick, and when I asked for water
I was led to the latrine and I was ordered to drink from there.

"In Wiesbaden, gentlemen, a doctor took pity, and I
state here a Jewish director of the hospital acted correctly. I state here, in
order not to be misunderstood, the Jewish officers who are guarding us here in
prison have acted correctly, and doctors who also treat me have even been
considerate. And you may see from this statement the contrast from that prison
until this moment."

Another 'improper remark' has been deleted after the
first paragraph on page 349 of volume XII [page 379 in German], and appears in
the mimeographed transcript on page 8549:

"So as to avoid a misunderstanding, I have to say that I
was beaten in Freising so much and for days without clothes that I have lost
forty per cent of my hearing capacity and people are laughing when I ask. I
can't help it that I was treated like that. Therefore, I ask to hear the
question again."

To which Lt. Col. Griffith-Jones replied:

"I can show it to you and we'll repeat the question as
loud as you want it."

Since this was a matter within Streicher's personal
knowledge, and not hearsay, it is difficult to see why the remarks were
stricken, while hearsay favourable to the prosecution was retained (indeed, the
prosecution case consists of little else beside oral and written hearsay). If
the prosecution did not believe Streicher's testimony that he had been tortured,
they were free to cross-examine him for inconsistencies and to show that he was
lying; instead, he was simply admonished, and the passages stricken. So much for
truth, justice, and a fair trial.

Streicher claimed that his demands for the
'extermination' of Jewry were mostly brought about by the bombing raids and
calls for extermination of the German people from the other side;

"If in America an author called Erich Kauffman can
publicly demand that all men in Germany capable of fathering children should be
sterilised, for the purpose of exterminating the German people, then I say, eye
for eye and tooth for tooth. This is a theoretical literary matter." (XII 366
[398-399]). (V 91-119 [106-137]; XII 305-416 [332-453]; XVIII 190-220
[211-245]).

MADE IN RUSSIA - THE HOLOCO$T

Return to ARTICLES PAGE

Return to CONTENTS PAGE