For Butz: Evidence, Truth, Reality Are Proper Issues

Apollonian

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
For Butz: Evidence, Truth, Reality Are Proper Issues
(Apollonian, 21 Feb 06)

Mike Beder [fm Daily Northwestern, 21 Feb 06, "Butzgate..." below copied] is funny: here we have a repugnant group of people, hated in all lands and throughout history, who are determined to impose an anti-Christ religion of lies, holohoax, and gee whiz, but Mike Beder is so disappointed the Christian American people won't just lie down and accept it; AWWWWW. Ck codoh.com, ihr.org, and Zundelsite.org.

Now let me get to the real nub of things: EVIDENCE for holohoax. Prof. Butz does the world good and right by laying out the simple truth: holohoax is lies, pure and simple, the long and short of it. But Prof. Butz gives the actual history and circumstances, all with numerous references and citations.

Now we get such as Beder who whines and pleads
, like a child, his allegations about his "family" who assured
him they suffered so. But facts are facts, and Jews (World Jewish Congress) were quite upfront about DECLARING WAR against Germany as early as 1933 when prominent Jew organizations actively worked to instigate the US, Britain, and France to eventually declare war. Ck the "Forced War" by David Hoggan. FDR (Roosevelt--whose ancestors were Jews) ordered American warships to fire upon German vessels long, long before Pearl Harbor.

Butz simply gives the details and references. Jews are collectivists by religion, and communism-bolshevism is/was just a more streamlined and secular form of such Judaism. Thus Jews were rightfully suspected and repudiated by the native Germans who genuinely feared the Jew-bolshevik collossus in Russia, for example, being built and subsidized by the West, ESPECIALLY the US. (Ck Antony C. Sutton, "Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution.")

It is significant
to note there have never been any verified witnesses to any German official policies to kill Jews, and this
glaring lack of evidence is now simple matter of court proceedings, as fm the Ernst Zundel trials in Canada of 1984 and 1988--and indeed all and any court proceedings anywhere. ("Nuremburg Trials" were notorious kangaroo courts which murdered the German leadership so as to eliminate any witnesses). Jews must face fact world evermore knows they are liars, pure and simple, now especially with the INTERNET.

Butz again, just presents the facts with copious references. Jew-bolsheviks murdered millions of Russian Christians in the 20's, millions of Ukrainian Christians in the 30's then millions and millions more German Christians in the 40's. Ck James Baque, "Other Losses," and "Crimes And Mercies."

But the present-day oligarchal corporate mass-media, manned and controlled overwhelmingly by Jews, simply a well-known fact (Ck &
quot;Who Rules America?" on frontpage, bottom of Natall.org), repeats, repeats, and repeats, incessantly and constantly the holohoax lies and government-enforced
popular religion now funded by
American taxpayers (holohoax museums, as in in Wash. DC, also in California and other places), this as Jews and ACLU steadily work to suppress the people's Christianity. These are the facts of present-day life, citizens, students, and comrades.

CONCLUSION: Beder pretends he's so "dismayed"--well good: it means Jew lies and holohoax false religion aren't going over too well and too easily. For there's yet more behind this false Jew anti-Christ religion of holohoax: it has to do with the United Nations beast-enforcer and the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) COUNTERFEITING scam. (Ck JBS.org.) But those are stories (regarding UN and Fed) all their own, which Beder would no doubt be pained to get into all over again. Poor Beder, the truth about reality is so difficult
for him--maybe he should look for another job. Ck for more Apollonian essays on NewNation.org (under "commentary") and WhiteAlert.com. Thanks for ur attn. Honest elections and death to the Fed.


Apollonian, combat-scholar/theologian, part-time exorcist, Christian patriot


--------below copied fm Daily Northwestern 21 Feb 06, Beder III----------

Butzgate leaves dismay in wake
bY Michael Beder February 21, 2006

The last few weeks of the all-consuming Butzgate uproar have been among the most discouraging experiences of my two-and-a-half years at Northwestern.
Why? First and foremost by far is Arthur Butz himself. My grandmother survived the Nazi concentration camps; most of her family, including her parents and all but one of her siblings, weren’t so lucky. So I have no trouble understanding how infuriating it is that a professor can trade on this university’s good name to conclude that the Naz
is weren’t really trying to kill millions of my people — to say nothing of the additional millions of non-Jews also killed in the camps — using theories and sources that have mostly been discredited (including by Emory University Prof.
Deborah Lipstadt, who wrote in this space yesterday).
The outrage his comments sparked was heartfelt, genuine and well-justified. It has taken the form of forums, letters to the editor and petitions among students and faculty who repudiate Butz’s views.
Some of the petitions call on him to resign, although all acknowledge that his tenure and the importance of academic freedom prevent NU from firing him. Just in the pages of this newspaper, Butz has been called a crank, an embarrassment and — in University President Henry Bienen’s memorable and apt description — “odious.” And that’s just a sampling.
As far as I’m concerned, Butz deserves every word of it. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. But journalist
ic principles also say that when someone is attacked in your paper — not just the man’s views in general, but the man specifically and by name —you should make every effort to present his response. That this principle apparently isn’t self-
evident is discouraging as well, and a comment on how poorly the public understands journalism. We gave Butz a guest column, and we ran an editorial a few days later explaining why we did so. Cue the next firestorm.
People on both sides misinterpreted and twisted our words. On the one hand, some of Butz’s supporters tried to claim us as their champion; on the other, groups both on and off campus, including the Anti-Defamation League, denounced us as irresponsible. Much of the criticism was focused on our statement that “the facts used were all verified, even if (Butz) drew horrendous, misguided conclusions from them.” Critics interpreted that to mean that we were claiming to verify Butz’s view of the Holocaust. Pay no attention
to that second clause, I suppose, or to our explicit statement that we didn’t doubt the truth of the Holocaust.
What we actually meant was that we checked Butz’s specific assertions. Yes, a chemist named Germar Rudolf is in prison for violating Ger
man laws against denying the Holocaust. Yes, Timothy Ryback wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” at Auschwitz. (Although the quote is out of context. Ryback goes on to explain that “the Nazis were scrupulous when it came to obscuring the ‘Final Solution’ in bureaucratic euphemism and also dismantling or obliterating their machinery of death.”) No, none of this means we chose “to provide legitimacy to the views of a Holocaust denier,” as the ADL asserts. No, I don’t particularly appreciate the implication that I’m an anti-Semite — and yes, I do take it personally.
If nothing else the whole fiasco has gotten people talking. Some
thing encouraging could still come out of all this. Maybe more people will sign up for Prof. Peter Hayes’ course on the history of the Holocaust. And if the newly launched Never Again campaign really takes off, maybe some of this will have been worth it.
The o
ther alternative is for us all to go through the same vicious cycle every few years. Now that’s a discouraging thought.
Campus Editor Michael Beder is a Medill junior. He can be reached at m-beder@northwestern.edu.
 
Yeah Apollo I run into commies often on my blog. They wonder if I hate my sex since I hate feminism. I also have been called a very very derogitory female name for hating single parent families. Mr Kitty can back me up on these things too. But then I sit here thinking I bet Jesus went through simular sh*t too when he was preaching. Communisim is here in America and it is happening right under our noses. Most people think only violence denotes an impending revolution but not always. Our democratic party should be called the communist part and the donken traded out for the sickle and hammer.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cltncblondeeagle @ Feb 22 2006, 04:08 AM) [snapback]70912[/snapback]</div>
Mr Kitty can back me up on these things too.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes. But as Hitler wrote :

On principle the movement must so educate its members that they do not view the struggle as something idly cooked up, but as the thing that they themselves are striving for. Therefore, they must not fear the hostility of their enemies, but must feel that it is the presupposition for their own right to exist. They must not shun the hatred of the enemies of our nationality and our philosophy and its manifestations; they must long for them. And among the manifestations of this hate are lies and slander.

The best yardstick
for the value of his attitude, for the sincerity of his conviction, and the force of his will is the hostility he receives from the mortal enemy of our people.

Every Jewish
slander and every Jewish lie is a scar of honor on the body of our warriors.

The man they have most reviled stands closest to us and the man they hate worst is our best friend.
 
Vengeful Jews Give the Lie to Allied War-Crimes Trials​

John Wear

Link: https://inconvenienthistory.com/12/3/7403

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, the 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT), and numerous other trials are repeatedly cited as proof of the Holocaust story. For example, Jewish American judge Norbert Ehrenfreund wrote:

Germans of the 21st century know what happened during the Nazi era because they learn about it in school, through television programs and various other sources. And this information did not arise from rumor or questionable hearsay. Nor was it a fabrication of the Jewish people, as suggested by some anti-Semitic factions. Proof of the Holocaust was based on the record of solid evidence produced at the [Nuremberg] trial.[1]

This article documents some of the Jewish attorneys, investigators and witnesses whose words and actions prove that the Allied-run war-crimes trials were politically motivated proceedings which failed to produce credible evidence of the so-called Holocaust.

Benjamin Ferencz

Benjamin Ferencz, a Jewish American war-crimes investigator, was born in Transylvania and grew up in New York City before earning his law degree from Harvard. He secured an appointment to investigate the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Dachau after the war.[2]

Ferencz states in an interview that he did not have a high opinion of the Dachau war-crimes trials conducted by the U.S. Army:

I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army, and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the basis for prosecutions…But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was nothing resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials. For example, they might bring in 20 or 30 people, line them up, each one with a number on a card tied around his neck. The court would consist of three officers. None of them had any legal education as far as I could make out; it was coincidental if they did. One officer was assigned as defense counsel, another as prosecutor, the senior one presiding. The prosecutor would get up and say something like this: We accuse all of you of being accomplices to crimes against humanity and war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other brutalities in the camp, between 1942 and 1943, what do you have to say for yourself? Each defendant would be given about a minute to state his case, which was usually, not guilty. One trial for instance, which lasted two minutes, convicted 10 people and sentenced them all to death. It was not my idea of a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.[3]

Ferencz further states that nobody including himself protested against these procedures in the Dachau trials.[4] Ferencz later said concerning the military trials at Dachau: “Did I think it was unjust? Not really. They were in the camp; they saw what happened…But I was sort of disgusted.”[5]

The defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial and later trials at Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.[6] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions:

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.[7]

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explained that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as “auf der Flucht erschossen” [shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as “auf der Flucht erschossen,” but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.[8]

The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[9] Any Harvard-law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

Robert Kempner

Robert Kempner was the American chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg in which 21 German-government officials were defendants. Kempner was a German Jew who had lost his position as Chief Legal Advisor of the Prussian Police Department because of National-Socialist race laws. He emigrated first to Italy and then to the United States. Kempner was bitter about the experience and was eager to prosecute and convict German officials in government service.[10]

Kempner influenced Under-Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus, a leading official from the German foreign office, to testify for the prosecution in the Ministries Trial. The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus reveals that Kempner persuaded Gaus to switch the role of defendant with that of a prosecution collaborator. Gaus was released from isolation two days after his interrogation. A few days later a German newspaper reported a lengthy handwritten declaration from Gaus in which Gaus asserted the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s accusation to the newspaper.[11]

Many people became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of Friedrich Gaus, for example, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate.[12] Attorney Charles LaFollete said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation was common knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of us who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the Germans would attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in Nuremberg.”[13]

Kempner also attempted to influence German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during the Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate. Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote: “During the proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good, it suffered from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my father’s defense attorney.” Richard von Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing but pure cynicism.[14]

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz concludes that “there are excellent grounds, based on the public record, for believing that Kempner abused the power he had at the military tribunals, and produced ‘evidence’ by improper methods involving threats and various forms of coercion.”[15]

Torture of Witnesses

Jewish prosecutors often used torture to help convict the German defendants at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence is the confession of Rudolf Höss, a wartime commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at the IMT was the key evidence presented of a German extermination program. Höss said that more than 2.5 million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.[16] No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss’s testimony at the IMT are widely acknowledged to be untrue.

In 1983, the anti-Nazi book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler stated that Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession. The torture of Höss was notably brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler finds anything wrong or immoral in the torture of Höss. Neither of them seems to appreciate the implications of their accounts. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss’s testimony at Nuremberg was obtained by torture, and is therefore not credible evidence in establishing a program of German genocide against European Jewry.[17]

Bernard Clarke was not the only Jew who tortured Germans to obtain confessions. Tuviah Friedman, for example, was a Polish Jew who was an inmate in German concentration camps. Friedman by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and uncover SS members. Friedman stated that “It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”[18]

Many of the investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. One Dachau trial court reporter quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.[19]

In addition to torturing defendants into making confessions, some defendants did not live to see the beginning of their trials. For example, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, adamantly denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers in his pre-trial interrogations at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. Baer died in June 1963 under mysterious circumstances while being held in pretrial custody. An autopsy performed on Baer at the Frankfurt-am-Main University School of Medicine said that the ingestion of an odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as a cause of death.

It has been widely known ever since the illegal abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina that the Israeli Mossad has immense capabilities. Given the fact that Chief Public Prosecutor Fritz Bauer was a Zionist Jew, which should have precluded him from heading the pretrial investigation, it is quite possible that the forces of international Jewry were able to murder Richard Baer in his jail. Conveniently, the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Germany began almost immediately after Baer’s death. With Baer’s death the prosecutors at the trial were able to obtain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas-chamber myth and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.[20]

False Witness Testimony

False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crimes trials. Stephen F. Pinter served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. In a 1960 affidavit, Pinter said that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to convict Germans with false and unfounded crimes. Pinter stated, “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”[21]

Joseph Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, later described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:

“…the major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp cases were what came to be known as “professional wtinesses,” and everyone working at Dachau regarded them as such. “Professional,” since they were paid for each day they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau for months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words, these witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least, have called their testimony into question.”[22]

An egregious example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials. Jewish U.S. investigator Josef Kirschbaum brought a former concentration-camp inmate named Einstein into the court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel, however, foiled this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in the courtroom listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to Einstein and exclaimed, “How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into the court?”[23]

The use of false witnesses has been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was an ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps from 1941 to 1945. Neuhäusler wrote that in some of the American-run trials “many of the witnesses, perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with criminal records ranging from robbery to homosexuality.”[24]

False Jewish-eyewitness testimony has often been used to attempt to convict innocent defendants. For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk by forging documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the five Jewish eyewitness accounts were not credible and that Demjanjuk was innocent.[25]

Another example of false Jewish-eyewitness testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by Simon Wiesenthal that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal action. Eleven Jews testified under oath during the trial that Walus had murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded regarding Walus’s trial that “…in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”[26]

Jewish Prosecutorial Role in Trials

A Russian asked Benjamin Ferencz why the Americans didn’t just kill the German war criminals. Ferencz replied: “…we don’t do that. We’ll give them a fair trial.”[27] Robert Kempner stated that the Nuremberg and other trials resulted in “the greatest history seminar ever held.”[28] In reality, Germans did not receive fair trials after World War II, and the “trials” they did receive have played a major role in establishing the fraudulent Holocaust story.

Jews played a crucial role in organizing the IMT at Nuremberg. Nahum Goldmann, a former president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), stated in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of WJC officials. Goldmann said that only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg Tribunal.[29] The WJC also played an important but less-obvious role in the day-to-day proceedings of the trial.[30]

Two Jewish U.S. Army officers (commissioned for the purpose) also played key roles in the Nuremberg trials. Lt. Col. Murray Bernays, a prominent New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to put the defeated German leaders on trial.[31] Col. David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, was head of the U.S. government’s War Crimes Branch from February 1946 until April 1947. Marcus was made head of the War Crimes Branch primarily in order “to take over the mammoth task of selecting hundreds of judges, prosecutors and lawyers” for the Nuremberg NMT Trials.[32]

This Jewish influence caused the Allies to give special attention to the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews. Chief U.S. Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, for example, declared in his opening address to the Nuremberg Tribunal: “The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews…It is my purpose to show a plan and design to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people…The avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole…History does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty.”[33]

British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed Jackson’s words in his final address to the IMT. Based on Jewish influence, numerous other Holocaust-related trials were later held in West Germany, Israel and the United States, including the highly publicized trials in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann and John Demjanjuk.[34]

Jewish influence in Germany has resulted in a defendant being assumed to be guilty merely for having served in a German concentration camp during the war. For example, after being acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court, John Demjanjuk was charged again on the grounds that he had been a guard named Ivan Demjanjuk at the Sobibor Camp in Poland. On May 11, 2009, Demjanjuk was deported from Cleveland to be tried in Germany. Demjanjuk was convicted by a German criminal court as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at Sobibor and sentenced to five years in prison. No evidence was presented at Demjanjuk’s trial linking him to specific crimes. Demjanjuk died in Germany before his appeal could be heard by a German appellate court.[35]

This postwar German policy is breathtaking in its duplicity. It incorrectly asserts that certain German concentration camps were designed and used for the sole purpose of exterminating Jews when, in fact, none of them was. Moreover, this German law finds a person guilty merely for having served at any camp. People can be found guilty of a crime even when no evidence is presented that they committed a crime. Jewish groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center continue prosecuting and convicting other elderly German guards under this line of German legal doctrine to the present day.[36]

Conclusion

The IMT and later Allied-run war-crimes trials were a travesty of justice organized by Jews who sought to demonize and punish Germans. These Allied-run trials were politically motivated proceedings that falsely accused Germans of conducting a policy of genocide against European Jewry.

Endnotes

[1] Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crime Trials Changed the Course of History, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 140.

[2] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, p. 32.

[3] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Lowe, Keith, The Fear and the Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017, p. 198.

[6] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.

[7] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.

[8] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.

[9] Ibid., p. 83.

[10] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.

[11] Ibid., pp. 97-98.

[12] Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.

[13] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.

[14] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.

[15] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, p. 169.

[16] Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.

[17] Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.

[18] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.

[19] Halow, Joseph, “Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of Franz Kofler et al.,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 1989-1990, p. 459. See also Bower, Tom, Blind Eye to Murder, Warner Books, 1997, pp. 304, 310, 313.

[20] Staeglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.

[21] Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.

[22] Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.

[23] Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.

[24] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.

[25] An excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel, Yoram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible”: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk, Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.

[26] “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.

[27] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 16.

[28] Bazyler, Michael, Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law: A Quest for Justice in a Post-Holocaust World, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 106.

[29] Goldmann, Nahum, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann: Sixty Years of Jewish Life, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp. 216-217.

[30] Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 170.

[31] Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 10-13.

[32] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.

[33] Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (11 vols.), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt., 1946-1948. (The “red series”) / NC&A, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.

[34] Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.

[35] The Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2013, p. 9A.

[36] Ibid.


Author(s):
John Wear

Title: Vengeful Jews Give the Lie to Allied War-Crimes Trials

Sources: see notes, above

Dates: published: 2020-09-23, first posted: 2020-09-24 02:35:32
 
Holocaust Denier Remains on Northwestern Website After Author of Controversial Op-Ed Scrubbed​

Link: https://freebeacon.com/campus/holoc...-after-author-of-controversial-oped-scrubbed/

Chrissy Clark - December 17, 2020 1:05 PM

Northwestern University scrubbed its website of references to a former professor who penned a controversial op-ed against Jill Biden—but it continues to feature a professor who denies the Holocaust.

Joseph Epstein, a writer and former adjunct lecturer at Northwestern University, had argued in the Wall Street Journal that Jill Biden shouldn't call herself a "Dr." Following the op-ed, Northwestern issued a condemnation of Epstein and removed his profile from its website. Yet the school still has a page for Arthur Butz, a tenured engineering professor who calls the Holocaust a "hoax" and a "legend."

Butz authored a book titled, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, which argues against the existence of the Holocaust. In the book, Butz claims that there is no substantial evidence to prove the Holocaust happened, that Jews were asked to shave their hair and shower in gas chambers to fight lice, and that Jews used Auschwitz as a propaganda campaign.

"What we are offered in evidence was gathered after the war, in trials," Butz wrote. "The evidence is almost all oral testimony and ‘confessions.' Without the evidence of these trials there would be no significant evidence of ‘extermination.'"

Butz has caused problems for the university in the past. In 2006, former university president Henry Bienen condemned Butz's beliefs but acknowledged his views and comments were within the bounds of academic freedom. "Like all faculty members, [Butz] is entitled to express his personal views … as long as he does not represent such opinions as the view of the university," Bienen wrote. "Butz has made clear that his opinions are his own and at no time has he discussed those views in class or made them part of his class curriculum." Because Butz has tenure, the university cannot fire him.

Northwestern took a similar attitude toward Epstein, despite his op-ed being comparatively mainstream. In a press release, the university condemned Epstein's "misogynistic views" and stated that it is "firmly committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion." It issued only a short caveat claiming the school "firmly support academic freedom and freedom of expression."

Attempts to censor controversial speech have become commonplace on college campuses. At Cornell University, the Black Law Students Association, Cornell alumni, and law school faculty created a petition calling on the university to sack a professor who publicly critiqued Black Lives Matter. The same silencing strategy resulted in a University of Chicago professor losing his job at the Federal Reserve, again for critiquing Black Lives Matter.

Epstein told the Washington Free Beacon he is not commenting on his latest op-ed at this time. Northwestern University did not respond to requests for comment.
 
Tyranny at Nuremberg​

Link: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/11/tyranny-at-nuremberg/

August 11, 2017
Paul Craig Roberts

Update Aug. 12, 2017: Here is David Irving’s account of his arrest, trial, and imprisonment in Austria. His conviction was overturned by a higher court, and he was released. http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Banged/up.pdf

The showtrial of a somewhat arbitrarily selected group of 21 surviving Nazis at Nuremberg during 1945-46 was US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s show. Jackson was the chief prosecutor. As a long-time admirer of Jackson, I always assumed that he did a good job.

My admiration for Jackson stems from his defense of law as a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of government, and from his defense of the legal principle known as mens rea, that is, that crime requires intent. I often cite Jackson for his defense of these legal principles that are the very foundation of liberty. Indeed, I cited Jackson in my recent July 31 column. His defense of law as a check on government power plays a central role in the book that I wrote with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

In 1940 Jackson was US Attorney General. He addressed federal prosecutors and warned them against “picking the man and then putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense—that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views or being personally obnoxious to, or in the way of, the prosecutor himself.”

Later as a Supreme Court justice Jackson overturned a lower court conviction of a person who had no idea, or any reason to believe, that he had committed a crime.

Having just finished reading David Irving’s book Nuremberg (1996), I am devastated to learn that in his pursuit of another principle, at Nuremberg Jackson violated all of the legal principles for which I have so long admired him. To be clear, at Nuremberg Jackson was in pursuit of Nazis, but their conviction was the means to his end—the establishment of the international legal principle that the initiation of war, the commitment of military aggression, was a crime.

The problem, of course, was that at Nuremberg people were tried on the basis of ex post facto law—law that did not exist at the time of their actions for which they were convicted.

Moreover, the sentence—death by hanging—was decided prior to the trial and prior to the selection of defendants.

Moreover, the defendants were chosen and then a case was made against them.

Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Charges on which defendants were convicted turned out to be untrue.

The trials were so loaded in favor of the prosecution that defense was pro forma.

The defendants were abused and some were tortured.

The defendants were encouraged to give false witness against one another, which for the most part the defendants refused to do, with Albert Speer being the willing one. His reward was a prison sentence rather than death.

The defendants’ wives and children were arrested and imprisoned. To Jackson’s credit, this infuriated him.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Eisenhower, and Winston Churchill thought that surviving Nazis should be shot without trial. Roosevelt laughed about liquidating 50,000 German military officers. Eisenhower told Lord Halifax that Nazi leaders should be shot while trying to escape, the common euphemism for murder. Russians spoke of castrating German men and breeding German women to annihilate the German race. US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wanted to reduce Germany to an agrarian society and send able-bodied Germans to Africa as slaves to work on “some big TVA project.”

Robert Jackson saw in these intentions not only rank criminality among the allied leadership but also a missed opportunity to create the legal principle that would criminalize war, thus removing the disaster of war from future history. Jackson’s end was admirable, but the means required bypassing Anglo-American legal principles.

Jackson got his chance, perhaps because Joseph Stalin vetoed execution without trial. First a showtrial, Stalin said, to demonstrate their guilt so that we do not make martyrs out of Nazis.

Whom to select for the list of 21-22 persons to be charged? Well, whom did the allies have in custody? Not all those they desired. They had Reichsmarschall Herman Göring who headed the air force. Whatever the valid charges against Göring, they were not considered to be mitigated by the fact that under Göring the German air force was mainly used against enemy formations on the battleground and not, like the US and British air forces in saturation terror bombing of civilian cities, such as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, or by the fact that in Hitler’s final days Hitler removed Göring from all his positions, expelled him from the party, and ordered his arrest.

The Nuremberg trials are paradoxical in that the law Jackson intended to establish applied to every country, not to Germany alone. The ex post facto law under which Germans were sentenced to death and to prison also criminalized the terror bombing of German and Japanese cities by the British and US air forces. Yet, the law was only applied to the Germans in the dock. In his book, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden (1995), Irving quotes US General George C. McDonald’s dissent from the directive to bomb civilian cities such as Dresden. Gen. McDonald characterized the directive as the “extermination of populations and the razing of cities,” war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.

They had foreign minister Ribbentrop. They had field marshals Keitel and Jodl and the grand-admirals Raeder and Dönitz. They had a German banker, who was saved from sentencing by the intervention of the Bank of England. They had a journalist. They had Rudolf Hess who had been in a British prison since 1941 when he went to Britain on a peace mission to end the war. They wanted an industrialist, but Krupp was too old and ill. He was devoid of the persona of a foreboding evil. You can read the list in Irving’s book.

Göring knew from the beginning that the trial was a hoax and that his death sentence had already been decided. He had the means (a poison capsule) throughout his imprisonment to commit suicide, thus depriving his captors of their planned humiliation of him. Instead, he held the Germans together, and they stood their ground. Possessed of a high IQ, time and again he made fools of his captors. He made such a fool of Robert Jackson during his trial that the entire court burst out in laughter. Jackson never lived down being bested in the courtroom by Göring.

And Göring wasn’t through with making his captors look foolish and incompetent. He, the field marshalls and grand admiral requested that they be given a military execution by firing squad, but the pettiness of the Tribunal wanted them hung like dogs. Göring told his captors that he would allow them to shoot him, but not hang him, and a few minutes before he was to be marched to the gallows before the assembled press and cameras he took the poison capsule, throwing the execution propaganda show into chaos. To this injury he added insult leaving the prison commandant, US Col. Andrus a note telling him that he had had 3 capsules. One he had left for the Americans to find, thus causing them to think his means of escaping them had been removed. One he had taken minutes prior to his show execution, and he described where to find the third. He had easily defeated the continuous and thorough inspections inflicted upon him from fear that he would commit suicide and escape their intended propaganda use of his execution.

There was a time in Anglo-American law when the improprieties of the Nuremberg trials would have resulted in the cases being thrown out of court and the defendants freed. Even under the ex post facto law and extra-judicial, extra-legal terms under which the defendants were tried, at least two of the condemned deserved to be cleared.

It is not clear why Admiral Donitz was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The chief American judge of the Tribunal, Francis Biddle, said: “It is, in my opinion, offensive to our concept of justice to punish a man for doing exactly what one has done himself.” “The Germans,” Biddle said, “fought a much cleaner war at sea than we did.“

Jodl, who countermanded many Nazi orders, was sentenced to death. The injustice of the sentence was made clear by a German court in 1953 which cleared Jodl of all Nuremberg charges and rehabilitated him posthumously. The French justice at the Nuremberg Tribunal said at the time that Jodl’s conviction was without merit and was a miscarriage of justice.

The entire Nuremberg proceeding stinks to high heaven. Defendants were charged with aggression for the German invasion of Norway. The fact was kept out of the trial that the British were about to invade Norway themselves and that the Germans, being more efficient, learned of it and managed to invade first.

Defendants were accused of using slave labor, paradoxical in view of the Soviets own practice. Moreover, while the trials were in process the Soviets were apparently gathering up able-bodied Germans to serve as slave labor to rebuild their war-torn economy.

Defendants were accused of mass executions despite the fact that the Russians, who were part of the prosecution and judgment of the defendants, had executed 15,000 or 20,000 Polish officers and buried them in a mass grave. Indeed, the Russians insisted on blaming the Germans on trial for the Katyn Forest Massacre.

Defendants were accused of aggression against Poland, and Ribbentrop was not permitted to mention in his defense the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, without which Germany could not have attacked Poland. The fact that the Soviets, who were sitting at Nuremberg in judgment on the Germans, had themselves invaded Poland was kept out of the proceedings.

Moreover, without the gratuitous British “guarantee” to Poland, the Polish military dictatorship would likely have agreed to return territories stripped from Germany by the Versailles Treaty and the invasion would have been avoided.

The greatest hypocrisy was the charge of aggression against Germany when the fact of the matter is that World War 2 began when the British and French declared war on Germany. Germany conquered France and drove the British from the European Continent after the British and French started the war with a declaration of war against Germany.

Irving’s book is, of course, politically incorrect. However, he lists in the introduction the voluminous files on which the book is based: Robert Jackson’s official papers and Oral History, Francis Biddle’s private papers and diaries, Col. Andrus’ papers, Adm. Raeder’s prison diary, Rudolf Hess’ prison diary, interrogations of the prisoners, interviews with defense counsel, prosecutors, interrogators, and letters from the prisoners to their wives. All of this and more Irving has made available on microfilms for researchers. He compared magnetic tape copies of the original wire-recordings of the trial with the mimeographed and published transcripts to insure that spoken and published words were the same.

What Irving does in his book is to report the story that the documents tell. This story differs from the patriotic propaganda written by court historians with which we are all imbued. The question arises: Is Irving pro-truth or pro-Nazi. The National Socialist government of Germany is the most demonized government in history. Any lessening of the demonization is unacceptable, so Irving is vulnerable to demonization by those determined to protect their cherished beliefs.

Zionists have branded Irving a “holocaust denier,” and he was convicted of something like that by an Austrian court and spent 14 months in prison before the conviction was thrown out by a higher court.

In Nuremberg, Irving removes various propaganda legends from the holocaust story and reports authoritative findings that many of the concentration camp deaths were from typhus and starvation, especially in the final days of the war when food and medicine were disappearing from Germany, but nowhere in the book does he deny, indeed he reports, that vast numbers of Jews perished. As I understand the term, a simple truthful modification of some element of the official holocaust story is sufficient to brand a person a holocaust denier.

My interest in the book is Robert Jackson. He had a noble cause—to outlaw war—but in pursuit of this purpose he established precedents for American prosecutors to make law a weapon in their pursuit of their noble causes just as it was used against Nazis—organized crime convictions, child abuse convictions, drug convictions, terror convictions. Jackson’s pursuit of Nazis at Nuremberg undermined the strictures he put on US attorneys such that today Americans have no more protection of law than the defendants had at Nuremberg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top