Nuremberg trials

From Metapedia

The Nuremberg trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the Allied forces after World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of National Socialist Germany.

After the Nuremberg trials numerous other trials, politically correct historiography, and many other politically correct activities have relied on the conclusions from the Nuremberg trials.

While the Nuremberg trials are today sometimes perceived as being trials only on the Holocaust they in fact involved many other aspects of National Socialist Germany and the war.

Different trials

The trials were held in the city of Nuremberg, Germany. The first, and best known of these trials, conducted by four major Allied powers (Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States), was the 1945-46 trial of the "major war criminals" before the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Not included were Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels, all of whom had died before the trial started. The most well-known top National Socialist at the trial was Hermann Göring.

The IMT in effect made the politically correct view of the Holocaust and various other alleged events official truths that could not be questioned at the later Nuremberg trials: "The determination of the International Military Tribunal in the judgments […] that invasions, aggressive acts, aggressive wars, crimes, atrocities or inhumane acts were planned or occurred, shall be binding on the tribunals established hereunder and shall not be questioned except insofar as the participation therein or knowledge thereof by any particular person may be concerned. Statements of the International Military Tribunal in the judgment […] constitute proof of the facts stated, in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary."^[1]

The IMT also had other legal effect such as in 1949 when West Germany was established. "The basic treaty establishing the partial sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany decreed that the verdicts of the IMT were final and binding for all official and judicial authorities of the Federal Republic... the Allies effectively placed the view of history resulting from their post-war judicial conclusions and verdicts beyond revision even for German courts."^[2]

The second set of trials of "lesser war criminals" was conducted by the U.S. alone at the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) during the 1946-49 period. While these trials are often seen as less important, in regards to the Holocaust it has been argued that they are possibly more important, since the IMT relied almost exclusively on "confessions" and "testimonies", while the NMT introduced alleged documentary evidence such as the first Posen speech and the Wannsee protocol.^[1]

In addition there were at this time various other trials and commissions which produced conclusions which were cited as evidence at or otherwise influenced the Nuremberg trials. See later sections in this article on Polish and Soviet commissions which produced reports cited as evidence during the Nuremberg trials. The British Belsen trial which included accusations of gassings at Auschwitz concluded already in 1945 at about the time the IMT started. The American Dachau trials, criticized as having been even worse than the Nuremberg trials, started before the IMT and some of the trials concluded before the IMT concluded.

Origins

The Nuremberg trials.

The alleged guilt of the German government and future punishment was declared long before the trials started. In April 1940, a joint British-French-Polish declaration protested "the action of the German government whom they must hold responsible for these crimes which cannot remain unpunished."^[3]

In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000-100,000 German staff officers.^[4] According to the minutes of a Roosevelt-Stalin meeting at Yalta, on 4 February 1945, President Roosevelt "said that he had been very much struck by the extent of German destruction in the Crimea and therefore he was more bloodthirsty in regard to the Germans than he had been a year ago, and he hoped that Marshal Stalin would again propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German Army."^[5]

Secret British War Cabinet documents, released on 2 January 2006, showed that as early as December 1944, the Cabinet had discussed their policy for the punishment of the leading Nazis if captured. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had then advocated a policy of summary execution in some circumstances, with the use of an Act of Attainder to circumvent legal obstacles, being dissuaded from this only by talks with US and Soviet leaders later in the war.^[6]

The Jewish U.S. Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., suggested the Morgenthau Plan. The plan proposed a de-industrialization of Germany, along with forced labour and other draconian measures. It also included summary executions without trials of "Arch Criminals", trials for "Certain Other War Criminals" with sentencing being death except in exceptional cases, and membership in the SS or Gestapo to automatically cause the inclusion into compulsory labor battalions to serve outside Germany.^[7]

Both Churchill and Roosevelt supported this plan. Later, details were leaked to the public, generating widespread protest. Roosevelt, aware of strong public disapproval, abandoned the plan. The demise of the Morgenthau Plan created the need for an alternative method of dealing with the National Socialist leadership. A plan for the "Trial of European War Criminals" was drafted by the Secretary of War and the War Department. Following Roosevelt's death in April 1945, the new president, Harry S. Truman, gave strong approval for a judicial process. A series of negotiations between the Allies worked out details of the trial.

Part of the reason for finally deciding on a “fair trial” was that it was perceived that only this could have the desired propaganda effect on the German people.^[8]

David Irving has argued that it was actually Stalin who, mindful of his success in destroying rivals with the help of elaborate show trials in the Soviet Union, insisted that the German leaders be put on similar trials. Roosevelt and Churchill fell in line after initially having argued for simply executing most German leaders without a trial. Furthermore, Irving has argued, based partially on access to the private paper of US chief prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, that "Jackson had a serious disagreement about his job with “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the United States’ OSS intelligence service (predecessor to the CIA): It soon became clear that the OSS had intended all along to manage the whole trial along the lines of an NKVD [Soviet] show-trial, with Jackson little more than a professional actor. As part of the stage-management, they proposed to run a pre-trial propaganda campaign in the United States, with “increasing emphasis on the publication of atrocity stories to keep the public in the proper frame of mind.” To this end the OSS devised and scripted for the education of the American public a two-reel film on war crimes, called Crime and Punishment; it was designed to put the case against the leading Nazis. Jackson declined to participate."^[9] Furthermore, the OSS is stated to have had many member on the prosecution staff at the IMT.^[1]

See also the "Quotes" section regarding views by the chief participants such as the trials being "a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations."

Location

The Soviet Union had wanted the trials to take place in Berlin, but Nuremberg was chosen as the site for the trials:^[10]

• The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few that had remained largely intact through extensive Allied bombing of Germany). A large prison was also part of the complex.
• Because Nuremberg was considered the ceremonial birthplace of the NSDAP, there was symbolic value in making it the place of its demise.

Criticisms

The Auschwitz commander Rudolf Höss at the Nuremberg trials. Revisionists argue that he and others were tortured (sometimes by Jewish torturers) into making confessions that also non-revisionists now agree are false (such as three million being killed at Auschwitz under his command) and that sometimes are absurd (such as using dynamite to blow up the bodies in order to dispose of them).^{[11][12][8][2]} See the article on Höss for more details.

See also The Holocaust and Lebensraum articles

• A "victors' justice" in which the people who won the war were the prosecutors, the judges and the alleged victims, all at the same time.

• New crimes were defined ("crime against peace" and "crime against humanity") which earlier did not exist, and they were applied retroactively, but not to the Allies.

• The Allies not on trial for starting wars in relation to the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states; the British and Soviet invasion of Iran; the British invasions of Iceland and Iraq; various attacks on neutral Vichy France and French colonies; the Soviet attack on Japan despite a still valid neutrality pact; the British coup in Egypt using British military forces; and the planned British and French invasions of Norway and Sweden. See also Revisionist views on the causes of the World Wars.

• The Allies not on trial for events such as bombings of civilians (including the only uses of nuclear weapons), atrocities against civilians in particular by the Soviets, mass rapes, mistreatment and large scale deaths of POWs, use of Germans for forced labor, plunder of German property and patents, and violent ethnic cleansing of Germans from large areas causing large scale deaths.

• The Allies not on trial for more controversial historical events such as deliberate starvation of Germans after the war.

• "These trials represented a large-scale prosecution of Nazis, many of whom pleaded the defence of superior orders. In previous war trials, after previous wars, this defence was generally held to be available to subordinate soldiers. Before World War II, prosecutions for war crimes were limited to heads of State, and to high-ranking military commanders. The defence of superior orders was an accepted general principle of law recognised by the community of nations. In convicting lower-ranking soldiers the Nuremberg trials were, in a sense, applying international law retrospectively. Before the trials, lower-ranking soldiers could claim that in following orders from their superiors they were not breaking any law. At the trials they were told that their actions were crimes against humanity: that their actions were criminal even though they were not in breach of international law as settled at the time that their acts were committed."^[13]

• The main Soviet judge, Iona Nikitchenko, presided over some of the most notorious of Joseph Stalin's show trials during the Great Purges of 1936 to 1938. The Soviet prosecutor, Roman Rudenko, later became commandant of NKVD special camp Nr. 7. By the time the camp closed in the spring of 1950, at least 12,000 prisoners had died due to the catastrophic prison conditions, hunger and psychological or physical exhaustion.^[14][15][16]

• The sentencing of Rudolf Hess has been seen as particularly unjust . "Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the ... intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany. He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war. After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg ... No crime has ever been proved against Hess ... As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans."^[17] In addition there are theories that the lifelong imprisonment and isolation was implemented as a cover-up of a very extensive peace offering from Hitler which may also have been covered-up by Germany after the mission failed since proposal included an alliance against the Soviet Union which was at this time an ally of Germany.

• The trials were deeply criticized by persons such as the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and even by judges at the Nuremberg trials. See the "Quotes" section.

• The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence." Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value." Article 21 stipulated: "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations."^[17]

• On the basis of these articles, the Tribunal accepted as valid the most dubious "evidence," including hearsay and unsubstantiated reports of Soviet and Polish "investigative" commissions. For example, the Tribunal accepted a Polish government report (submitted by the US) that "proved" killings by steam at Treblinka and Soviet reports about Auschwitz and Majdanek which which explained in detail how the Germans allegedly killed four million at Auschwitz and another one-and-a-half million at Majdanek. Today even non-revisionist historians reject such figures.^[17]

• The secret protocols of the non-aggression pact between National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union (and which proposed the partition of Poland) was falsely declared to be a forgery in order to put all blame on the Germans.

• The Soviets submitted massive amounts of false evidence including faked forensic evidence and false testimonies in an attempt to blame Germans for the Katyn Massacre. However, the other Allies refused to support this particular falsification (possibly because it was already being widely known to be a Soviet massacre, the massacre was not part of the Holocaust narrative, and the massacre was useful as propaganda against the Soviets). In 1990, the Russian government acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by the Germans, but by the Soviet secret police.^[18][17]

• "the Western Allies said not a public word at Nuremberg to challenge the Soviet "evidence" on Katyn (the judges quietly glossed over the Red charges by omitting them from their verdict)... It is the special service of Made in Russia: The Holocaust to remind readers that the same Soviet stamp which converted the fake Katyn reports into admissible evidence at Nuremberg also provided proof of the extermination of millions of Jews at Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, and elsewhere. As Porter emphasizes, physical and forensic evidence for the Holocaust was never introduced, nor is there any reason whatsoever to imagine it ever existed. All we have is a handful of "testimonies," and "confessions," and the reports of a number of Soviet or Soviet-controlled "investigative" commissions. The same Red prosecutors who framed the victims of Stalin's purges at the Moscow show trials, and sent millions of innocents to their deaths in our gallant Soviet ally's Gulag archipelago, are the chief source for the vaunted Nuremberg evidence of the "Holocaust.""^[19]

• The prosecution sifted through enormous amounts of official and other German documents and archives in order to find possibly incriminating evidence. The defense was allowed only very limited access and was not allowed to use as evidence some of the material it was given access to. There are also accusations of documents incriminating the Allies and exonerating the accused having disappeared on a large scale. In some cases the original documents are "lost" but there remain "copies" (which may or may not not been altered compared with the original).^[17]

• Famous documents used as evidence at the Nuremberg trials such as the October 4, 1943 Posen Speech, the Wannsee protocol, the Hossbach Memorandum, Generalplan Ost, the Gerstein Report, and the Einsatzgruppen reports have been criticized as being incorrectly interpreted, being partly edited, or being complete fabrications.

• Several other previously important documents introduced at the Nuremberg Trials are now generally admitted to be fraudulent.^[17][20]

• Not only WWII documents are argued to have been fabricated or edited but also alleged pre-WWII documents such as several key Crystal Night "documents" presented at the Nuremberg trial by the Allies in order to incriminate the German leaders.^[21]

• The forgers are argued to have had access to genuine German typewriters, stationary, stamps, and so on, making it no great achievement to fabricate “original” documents looking similar to genuine documents based on only these aspects.^[22][23]

• There are also various other criticisms of the alleged documents such as "The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions."^[24]

• A very influential part of the evidence was films showing heaps of corpses in camps located in Germany as well as other forms of evidence supposedly supporting genocidal mass murders such as statements by inmates and camp personnel in these camps. Also non-revisionists now agree that none of the western Holocaust camps were "extermination camps". The "extermination camps" are now all alleged to have been in eastern areas such as Poland.^[8] See also Holocaust documentary evidence: Movies.

Shrunken human heads (one with war painting) and alleged human skin artifacts allegedly made from the corpses of Buchenwald camp prisoners. Used as evidence at the Nuremberg trials. Such alleged items have disappeared without a trace or have been shown to not be made from humans. See the article on the Western Holocaust camps for more details.

• Examples of argued absurd and today seldom mentioned claims at the trials include vaporizing 20,000 Jews near Auschwitz with "atomic energy"; killing 840,000 Russian POW's at the Sachsenhausen camp (in one month, with special pedal-driven brain-bashing machines, no less), then disposing of them in mobile [sic] crematoria; torturing and killing Jewish prisoners to the tempo of a specially composed "Tango of Death" in Lvov; steaming Jews to death like lobsters at Treblinka; electrocuting them en masse at Belzec; making not only lampshades and soap but also handbags, driving gloves, book bindings, saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, etc. from the remains of their victims.^[19]

• Defendants: threats and psychological torture; prolonged interrogations; confiscation of personal property.^[8]

• Witnesses for the defense: intimidation, threats, even arrests; withholding of defense witnesses; forced testimony.^[8]

• Evidence: “proof” based on hearsay; documents of arbitrary kinds; disappearance of exonerating evidence; distorted affidavits; twisted documents.^[8]

• Procedure: dishonest simultaneous translations; arbitrarily rejected motions to introduce evidence; confiscation of files; refusal to provide defense access to documents; systematic obstruction of the defense’s efforts by the prosecution, and so on.^[8]

• Physical torture: The IMT was conducted in during international publicity, so the prosecution, for the most part, is argued to have refrained from physical torturing the defendants, with the exception of Julius Streicher. However, German prosecution witnesses appearing before the IMT or whose written statements were introduced into evidence are argued to have been physically tortured in order to gain "confessions".^[8]

• An objection to the trials being show trials is that the defendants disagreed with some of the claims of the prosecution and in some cases were acquitted. However, the revisionist book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century argues that the Allies were absolutely politically committed to the trials "proving" that Germany was guilty of committing crimes such as starting the war and the existence of the Holocaust. But "On the other hand, with only a tiny handful of exceptions, the courts were not a priori committed on questions of personal responsibility of individuals. With respect to individuals the courts were not as greatly constrained, politically speaking. In most cases judgments of absence of personal responsibility were well within the realm of political possibility (as distinct from probability). All defense cases were organized in relation to these undeniably valid observations, and even with those individuals whose cases were hopeless, the lawyers had no choice but to proceed on the assumption that a favorable verdict was within the realm of the possible."^[25] See also Holocaust testimonial evidence: The legal strategy of acknowledging the Holocaust while attempting to shift blame.

• Regarding more specific details on the accused at the IMT, the alleged evidence against them, revisionist arguments, and their fate, see "NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG: The German Defense Case" in the "External links" section.

Jewish and Zionist influence

Jews have been argued to have been influential in the creation of the trials and in the selection of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers. Some Jewish participants are argued to have been Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. Some of interrogators accused of using brutal methods have been stated to have been Jewish.^[17]

Robert H. Jackson, chief US council when setting up the IMT and chief US prosecutor during the IMT, has been stated to have been a Zionist.^[26]

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century stated that the US “War Crimes Branch” (of the US Army occupying Germany) was the real controlling agency of US activities during trials such as the Dachau trials and the Nuremberg trials (and as noted the US conducted the later Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT) alone). In charge of setting up the NMT and deciding judges, prosecutors, and lawyers was the Jewish Zionist David Marcus who would later became Israel's first general and who died in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. During the NMT the most important prosecutor may have been the Jewish Robert Kempner who is associated with some of the allegedly most important Holocaust documents such as the first Posen speech and the Wannsee protocol and who has been accused of numerous crimes (see the article on Kempner).^[1]

Did Six Million Really Die? stated that "the real background of the Nuremberg Trials was exposed by the American judge, Justice Wenersturm, President of one of Tribunals. He was so disgusted by the proceedings that he resigned his appointment and flew home to America, leaving behind a statement to the Chicago Tribune which enumerated point by point his objections to the Trials (cf. Mark Lautern, Das Letzte Wort über Nürnberg, p. 56). Points 3 -8 are as follows: 3. The members of the department of the Public Prosecutor, instead of trying to formulate and reach a new guiding legal principle, were moved only by personal ambition and revenge. 4. The prosecution did its utmost in every way possible to prevent the defence preparing its case and to make it impossible for it to furnish evidence. 5. The prosecution, led by General Taylor, did everything in its power to prevent the unanimous decision of the Military Court being carried out i.e. to ask Washington to furnish and make available to the court further documentary evidence in the possession of the American Government. 6. Ninety per cent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of biased persons who, either on political or racial grounds, furthered the prosecution's case. 7. The prosecution obviously knew how to fill all the administrative posts of the Military Court with "Americans" whose naturalisation certificates were very new indeed, and who, whether in the administrative service or by their translations etc., created an atmosphere hostile to the accused persons. 8. The real aim of the Nuremberg Trials was to show the Germans the crimes of their Führer, and this aim was at the same time the pretext on which the trials were ordered ... Had I known seven months earlier what was happening at Nuremberg, I would never have gone there."^[27]

Mark Weber testified at the Ernst Zundel's Holocaust trials in 1988 regarding the statements on Justice Wenersturm. "Concerning Point 6, that ninety per cent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of people biased on racial or political grounds, this was a fact confirmed by others present. According to Earl Carrol, an American lawyer, sixty per cent of the staff of the Public Prosecutor's Office were German Jews who had left Germany after the promulgation of Hitler's Race Laws. He observed that not even ten per cent of the Americans employed at the Nuremberg courts were actually Americans by birth. The chief of the Public Prosecutor's Office, who worked behind General Taylor, was Robert M. Kempner, a German-Jewish emigrant... What Harwood wrote about Judge Wennerstrum was essentially accurate, said Weber. Wennerstrum, who was a member of the State Supreme Court from Iowa, was an American judge at one of the secondary Nuremberg trials conducted by the Americans. He was disgusted by what he saw there according to his own statement which was published in the Chicago Tribune. Weber had consulted the Chicago Tribune and confirmed that the statements quoted by Harwood were in fact correct. Wennerstrum felt that the people at Nuremberg were biased on racial or political grounds and Weber shared that belief. Interrogators and interpreters were very often Jewish refugees from Germany and from Central Europe who had taken refuge in the United States before and during the war. Judge Wennerstrum was alarmed and unhappy by the fact that these people, who he felt were biased, were used so extensively by the Americans in prosecuting the Germans at Nuremberg. Weber believed that the figure of 60 percent of the staff being Jewish as stated by Harwood was approximately correct."^[27]

Quotes

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime... The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences.

—Iola T. Nikitchenko, Soviet judge at an infamous 1936 Moscow show trial and at the Nuremberg Tribunal.^[17]

As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems

—U.S. Chief prosecutor, R. Jackson.^[8]

[Chief U.S. prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my oldfashioned ideas.

—Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone.^[8]

I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.

—US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.^[17]

About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials -- government policy and not justice -- with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.

—US Senator Robert A. Taft.^[17]

As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States... A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.

—Congressman, John Rankin.^[17]

If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here. Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt. […] The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars. The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. […] Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.

—Charles F. Wennerstrum, American judge of the Nuremberg Tribunal.^[8]

One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.

—Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge.^[28]

You will understand when I tell you that this [prosecution] staff is about 75% Jewish.

—leading U.S. prosecutor Thomas Dodd.^[8]

It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people's sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier's death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.

—Herman Göring.^[28]

See also

• Made in Russia: The Holocaust‎
• Dachau trials

External links

• The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust
• NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG: The German Defense Case - Carlos Porter
  • DOCUMENTS USED IN "EVIDENCE" AT THE NUREMBERG "TRIAL"
  • Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case - Review
• Documentary Evidence
• Use of word "Master Race" at First Nuremberg Trial
• The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust

Torture

• The interrogation camp that turned prisoners into living skeletons
• How Britain tortured Nazi PoWs: The horrifying interrogation methods that belie our proud boast that we fought a clean war
• British Torture: What Does it Mean for Revisionism?

Books

• MADE IN RUSSIA - THE HOLOCAUST
  • Made in Russia: The Holocaust - Review
• Free to read WWII books by David Irving - Including "Nuremberg, the Last Battle"
  • Nuremberg: Woe to the Vanquished - Review

Article archives

• Codoh: War Crime Trials + Prosecutions
  • IMT + NMTs
  • Individual Allied Trials in Germany
• Exposing the Holocaust™ Hoax Archive: Nuremberg Trials

References