By Carlos W. Porter
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 ; VII 597-600 [656-659]; XIX 506 [566-567]; XXII 496 ).
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 “soap” 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 National Socialists “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)).
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 USSR-197), human hair socks (Document USSR-511), and cannibal hamburgers (Exhibit 1873, Tokyo Trial) of the war crimes prosecutors, is for the reader to decide.
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 NS 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 ).
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 Biblical text had to be used; deletions, manipulations or distortions of the text were forbidden. [don’t leave out passages of Yahweh condoning incest, cannibalism, mass murder, child rape, child trafficking, homosexuality, thievery, mass feticide, human sacrifice?] 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]).
Doenitz 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, fertilizer, 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 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Neutrality”, 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, “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 counter-blockade 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, Doenitz prohibited any act of rescue. This was called an order to “exterminate survivors.” This was not upheld in the judgment, however.
Doenitz was also accused of encouraging the German people to hopeless resistance, a crime also committed by Winston Churchill, Doenitz 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, [well well over a million] 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]).
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, these were former 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 , XIX 360 ).
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 ) along with 3 other documents alleging mass extermination by gassing at Dachau (Document 3249-PS, V 172-173 , 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 , 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).
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 Hindenburg (Reich President’s Decree of 28 February 1933), under the authority of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Weimar Constitution (XVII 535 , XIX 357 ).
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 ).
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 ).
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 ).
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 ). 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). 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 countries were no longer fighting (XVIII 472-473 .
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 ).
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 ; XXII 148 ). “Polish” jews were involved in many financial scandals and swindling schemes, such as the Barnat-Kutitsky affair (XXI 569 ).
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 ).
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 , XXII 78 ). 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 ; 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 ) or to protect citizens of a foreign country from their own government (XIX 472 ; XXII 37 ), except when Germans did it (X 456 ). 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 ). 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]).
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, therefore, committed “aggression” against Germany was left unanswered (IX 473 ; XVII 580 ).
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.
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 .
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 gauge 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 ; 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 ).
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 ).
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]).
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 resistance members. It was conceded by the prosecution that such people could be legally shot (V 405 ) 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 ). 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].
JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP
Von Ribbentrop was hanged for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which preceded 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 ).
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 ).
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 ) 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 , XIX 10 ).
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 ), 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 ) 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 supplies (XXI 385 ).
Hitler was a bluffer who loved to terrify politicians with grossly illogical, self-contradictory speeches (XIV 34-48 [43-59]; 329-330 ), 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 , 356 ).
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
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 these artworks 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 ). 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 resistance 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 ). 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]).
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 .
Rosenberg’s case appears at XI 444-599 [490-656]; XVIII 69-128 [81-143]).
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 ).
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” (6 pages 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 ) by the Russians(IV 245 , VIII 293-301 [324-332]).
Katyn is listed as a German crime (NMT IV 112, Einsatzgruppen).
The Germans are supposed to have killed 22,000,000 people (XXII 238 ), or 12,000,000 (XXII 312 ), 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 ; XII 321 ).
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 ). The Hitler ‘confession’ is a “certified” photocopy (Streicher Defense Document 9, XLI 547).
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 Jäger) and were tortured in mass-produced torture boxes disguised as clothes lockers (Document D-892), 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 ).
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 ).
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 ).
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]).
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 ) 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 mental 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 ).
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 ). 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 ). 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 ).
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 ).
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 [correct: Theodor] 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])