List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial

[Boby]

Both were cleared though, which does tend to support the claims that the IMT was not simply constructed for vengeance or was operating unfairly.

If IMT operated unfairly or not, you have to look all accusations against every other defendant. Saying IMT was unbiased because Papen et al were exonerated is going nowhere.

[Terry Duncan]

If IMT operated unfairly or not, you have to look all accusations against every other defendant. Saying IMT was unbiased because Papen et al were exonerated is going nowhere.

I simply addressed the three people the previous poster identified. The accusations against the other accused seem for the most part to be fairly accurate with a couple of exceptions on certain charges only.

[john h]

Dear Mr Thompson because i do not toe the party line and because i will not be spoon fed the Allied one sided propoganda does not mean you have to tear my posts to bits and then come out with sarcastic remarks

You were quite right i was quoting Mark Weber but he was quoting the same sources that i quoted if you look at the end of each paragraph i have given a source the same as Weber has done i dont see this has being any different than the posts you have put into threads quoting I M T JUDGEMENTS you give sources just the same as i did

[Terry Duncan]

john h,

I have no doubt David will wish to answer your post himself but the following needs to be considered.

I think you will find that the problem David has is that you lifted large chunks of Mark Weber's work without crediting him for it, and therefore represented it as your own work. As such that constitutes plagiarism and this site frowns upon it for obvious reasons. It is not that you wish to quote the same source material as Mark Weber, or the case you wish to put, is is simply that you cannot use somebody else's work and represent it as your own for legal reasons.

[David Thompson]

An unsourced opinion post from Kilgore Trout, along with a now unnecessary reply from Terry Duncan, were removed by the moderator pursuant to the warning posted to Kilgore Trout at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1711016 - DT.

Kilgore Trout -- If you've got something to say about allied war crimes, please specify what crimes you're talking about. If you have sources for your factual claims, post them.

[BillHermann]

I find the dynamic interesting.

The anger and emotion towards Nuremberg being a sham is really personal by most who feel that the Allies were full of double standards. In theory minus emotion, they were not. The facts may be analyzed and say that they may have not been impartial but the time period and acts of the Nazis , SS and Germans warented some kind of court case. The concept of saying that the allies bombed Dresden or killed SS in Dachau does not give the SS or Nazis a get out of jail free card.

Let's put it into perspective and keep it simple, a police officer catches another police officer doing something illegal ( murder and theft ) . but the first police officer is caught speeding and doing something like a traffic violation while chasing the first police officer. Does that mean that the killer police man should get a get out of jail free card? Or that his Police force and the Judge should be held accountable for the first crime?

No

When adding to the fact that this happend 70 years ago also makes it very difficult to be critical of this event. Even the big boys in the Nazi party knew they were in the wrong as they were all running to the hills.

The Nuremberg trails were not perfect but they were what was avalable at the time and they should have happend. The concept of saying that SS members should have walked because the Allies were bad too is absured.

[Boby]

Frick case:

M. de Vabres, "Frick" (1.10.1946), in: IMT, Vol. XXII, pp. 544-547

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Always rabidly anti-Semitic, Frick drafted, signed, and admin- istered many laws designed to eliminate Jews from German life and economy. .His work formed the basis of the Nuremberg Decrees, and he was active in enforcing them. Responsible for prohibiting Jews from following various professions and for confiscating their property, he signed a final decree in 1943, after the mass destruction of Jews in the East, which placed them "outside the law" and handed them over to the Gestapo. These laws paved the way for the "final solution," and were extended by Frick to the incorporated territories and to certain of the occupied territories. While he was Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, thousands of Jews were transferred from the Terezin ghetto in Czechoslovakia to Auschwitz, where they were killed. He issued a decree providing for special penal laws against Jews and Poles in the Government General.

The Police officially fell under the jurisdiction of the Reich Minister of the Interior. But Frick actually exercised little control over Himmler and police matters. However, he signed the law appointing Himmler Chief of the German Police, as well as the decrees establishing Gestapo jurisdiction over concentration camps and regulating the execution of orders for protective custody. From the many complaints he received, and from the testimony of witnesses, the Tribunal concludes that he knew of atrocities com-mitted in these camps. With knowledge of Himmler's methods, Frick signed decrees authorizing him to take necessary security measures in certain of the incorporated territories. What these "security measures" turned out to be has already been dealt with.

As the supreme Reich authority in Bohemia and Moravia, Frick bears general responsibility for the acts of oppression in that territory after 20 August 1943, such as terrorism of the population, slave labor, and the deportation of Jews to the concentration camps for extermination. It is true that Frick's duties as Reich Protector were considerably more limited than those of his predecessor, and that he had no legislative and limited personal executive authority in the Protectorate. Nevertheless, Frick knew full well what the Nazi policies of occupation were in Europe, particularly with respect to Jews, at that time, and by accepting the office of Reich Protector he assumed responsibility for carrying out those policies in Bohemia and Moravia.

German citizenship in the occupied countries as well as in the Reich came under his jurisdiction while he was Minister of the Interior. Having created a racial register of persons of German extraction, Frick conferred German citizenship on certain groups of citizens of foreign countries. He is responsible for Germanization in Austria, Sudetenland, Memel. Danzig, Eastern Territories (West Prussia and Posen), and in the territories of Eupen, Malmedy, and Moreunet. He forced on the citizens of these territories German law, German courts, German education, German police security, and compulsory military service.

During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this Judgment, came under Frick's jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick, and aged people, "useless eaters," were being systematically put to death. Complaints of these murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was responsible, fell victim to it.

Concluision The Tribunal finds that Frick is not guilty on Count One. He is guilty on Counts Two, Three and Four.

So what were Frick crimes? He have no authority to opposse Himmler, Hitler or Göring. He has anything to do with euthanasia, germanization and the killing of jews. He only put his signature as Reichsminister in laws ordered by Hitler and others. As Reichsprotektor, he was a nobody.

The judgement against him is simply rubbish.

[Boby]

Streicher case:

"Streicher" (1.10.1946), in: IMT, Vol. XXII, pp. 547-549

Crimes against Humanity[/b

For his 25 years of speaking, writing, and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as "Jew-Baiter Number One." In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Sem-itism and incited the German people to active persecution. Each issue of Der Sturmer, which reached a circulation of 600,000 in 1935, was filled with such articles, often lewd and disgusting. Streicher had charge of the Jewish boycott of 1 April 1933. He advocated the Nuremberg Decrees of 1935. He was responsible for the demolition on 10 August 1938 of the synagogue in Nuremberg.

And on 10 November 1938, he spoke publicly in support of the Jewish pogrom which was taking place at that time.
But it was not only in Germany that this defendant advocated his doctrines. As early as 1938 he began to call for the annihilation of the Jewish race. 23 different articles of Der Sturmer between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which extermination "root and branch" was preached. Typical of his teachings was a leading article in September 1938 which termed the Jew a germ and a pest, not a human being, but "a parasite, an enemy, an evil-doer, a disseminator of diseases who must be destroyed in the lnterest of mankind." Other articles urged that only when world Jewry had been annihilated would the Jewish problem have been solved, and predicted that 50 years hence the Jewish graves "will proclaim that this people of murderers and criminals has after all met its deserved fate." Streicher, in February 1940, published a letter from one of Der Sturmer's readers which compared Jews with swarms of locusts which must be exterminated completely. Such was the poison Streicher injected into the minds of thousands of Germans which caused them to follow the National Socialist policy of Jewish persecution and extermination. A leading article of Der Sturmer, in

May 1939, shows clearly his aim:
"A punitive expedition must come against the Jews in Russia.
A punitive expedition which will provide the same fate for
them that every murderer and criminal must expect. Death
sentence and execution. The Jews in Russia must be killed.
They must be exterminated root and branch."

As the war in the early stages proved successful in acquiring more and more territory for the Reich, Streicher even intensified his efforts to incite the Germans against the Jews. In the record are 26 articles from Der Sturmer, published between August 1941 and September 1944, 12 by Streicher's own hand, which demanded anni- hilation and extermination in unequivocal terms. He wrote and published on 25 December 1941:

"If the danger of the reproduction of that curse of God in the
Jewish blood is finally to come to an end, then there is only
one way-the extermination of that people whose father is
the devil."

And in February 1944 his own article stated: "Whoever does what a Jew does is a scoundrel, a criminal. And he who repeats and wishes to copy him deserves the same fate: annihilation, death."

With knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories, this defendant continued to write and publish his propaganda of death. Testifying in this Trial, he vehe- mently denied any knowledge of mass executions of Jews. But the evidence makes it clear that he continually received current infor- mation on the progress of the "final solution." His press photographer was sent to visit the ghettos of the East in the spring of 1943, the time of the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto. The Jewish newspaper, Israelitisches Wochenblatt, which Streicher received and read, carried in each issue accounts of Jewish atrocities in the East, and gave figures on the number of Jews who had been deported and killed. For example, issues appearing in the summer and fall of 1942 reported the death of 72,729 Jews in Warsaw, 17,542 in Lodz, 18,000 in Croatia, 125,000 in Romania, 14,000 in Latvia, 85,000 in Yugoslavia, 700,000 in all of Poland. In November 1943 Streicher quoted verbatim an article from the Israelitisches Wochenblatt which stated that the Jews had virtually disappeared from Europe, and commented: "This is not a Jewish lie." In December 1942, refer- ring to an article in the London Times about the atrocities aiming at extermination, Streicher said that Hitler had given warning that the second World War would lead to the destruction of Jewry. In January 1943 he wrote and published an article which said that Hitler's prophecy was being fulfilled, that world Jewry was being extirpated, and that it was wonderful to know that Hitler was freeing the world of its Jewish tormentors.

In the face of the evidence before the Tribunal it is idle for Streicher to suggest that the solution of the Jewish problem which he favored was strictly limited to the classification of Jews as aliens, and the passing of discriminatory legislation such as the Nuremberg Laws, supplemented if possible by international agreement on the creation of a Jewish state somewhere in the world, to which all Jews should. emigrate.

Streicher's incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with War Crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a Crime against Humanity.

Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that Streicher is not guilty on Count One, but that he is guilty on Count Four.

Another rubbish judgement. Politically, Streicher was nobody in the reich since 1940. He has anything to do with the "final solution". His articles attacking the jews are totally unrelated to actual events. Killings were not determined by his "incitement to murder". Surely no one in the RSHA or other political/economic agencies ever waste his time with Streicher.

[waldzee]

Konrad wrote:

And I wonder how the defense lawyers of O.J.Simpson would have reacted in case they were confronted with such rules especially made for their trial.

Didn't matter much. They still managed to get a murderer off.

Those articles applied both to the prosecution and defense.

As to the tired old Kangaroo court charge, three defendants were acquitted of all charges, many were acquitted of some charges. Defendants had counsel who conducted vigorous defenses and cross-examinations.

Articles 19 and 21 were procedural. The defendants were tried on the four basic counts in the indictment. Evidence was presented and challenged. I find it most humorous that posters to this forum would try to find flaws with the IMT's proceedings against the accused Nazi war criminals when we know that the Germans never would have bothered with a trial. In fact, they didn't. They murdered and exterminated without even the pretext of law.

The IMT, in my view, bent over backwards to ensure a fair proceeding. Was it perfect? No. But its imperfection does not make it invalid. The IMT provided a great service because it accumulated tremendous amounts of evidence, documention, testimony that showed conclusively the horrendous crimes of the Nazi regime. The posters who bitch about the IMT have repeatedly failed to show that its conclusions were wrong, or that the Nazi Government and those who ran it were innocent.

This is just another feeble attempt by the sad followers of David Irving, a liar and a fraud, to try to make the Nazi leadership out to be victims.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An excellent post that eight years on should be read by some 'lengthy posters'.
In 1946 Germans needed a public trial to hammer home the idea that change was real.
file it under 'scum clearance'.
Besides food was short. Striecher & co. had become the 'useless eaters' he foamed on about.

[john h]

Terry
The point i was trying to get across was Mark Weber put his name to a document titled The Nuremburg Trials and the Holocaust this document runs to 29 pages on page 5 under the heading A Double Standard this contains 10 paragraphs none of these are Webers work each paragraph is taken from a book or an offical document and sourced accordingly all i did was use the same sources that Weber did so if i am guilty well Mark Weber and i hold our hands up

[LWD]

Both were cleared though, which does tend to support the claims that the IMT was not simply constructed for vengeance or was operating unfairly.

If IMT operated unfairly or not, you have to look all accusations against every other defendant.

Not really. For one thing it's hardly the accusations that are important as far as bias goes but the outcomes. However if you think some of the accusations or outcomes were biased how about presenting them.

Saying IMT was unbiased because Papen et al were exonerated is going nowhere.

This is what is commonly known as a "straw man". No one has been saying that the IMT was "unbiased" because of the exonerations or for any other reasons. What has been claimed is that there is little evidence of excessive bias and that it wasn't "all about vengence". So a straw man and an attempt at diversion in two short sentances.

[LWD]

Frick case:...
So what were Frick crimes?

I believe your quote listed them.

He have no authority to opposse Himmler, Hitler or Göring.

He could always have resigned.

He has anything to do with euthanasia, germanization and the killing of jews.

That's not what the refence you posted suggested.

He only put his signature as Reichsminister in laws ordered by Hitler and others.

According to your reference he drafted and implimented them as well.

As Reichsprotektor, he was a nobody.

Really? That's hardly the impression one gets from the quote you listed.

The judgement against him is simply rubbish.

Again an opinion sans logic or fact.

[Kilgore Trout]

Utterly INCREDIBLE! As if the entire world - and possibly the populations of several other planets - was somehow unaware that agents of the S.U. wilfully murdered nearly 22,000 officers of the Polish military. At least 4300 bodies, mostly shot through the back of the skull, wer uncovered in at least two locations in the Katyn Forest west of Smolensk, Russia in 1943. A large number of others were force marched to near Archengelsk and loaded onto barges. The barges were towed out into the White Sea, wher the Re Danner Fleet used them for gunnery practice. That is, I admit, VERY general, but I'm certain anyone can easily find more details. C., 1991, the S.U. government actually admitted it did this, after trying to hand the crime on the Nazis for 48 years. The German government was blamed for this at the Nurnberg Show Trials. Sorry if I don't provide chapter and verse.
"The Joy of Killing", Laurence Rees, World War II magazine, July/August 2012 edition, p. 20 describes his interview with Zinaida Pytkina, in which she brags about murdering a German army major who was a prisoner of war.
There. Those are, by the very definition, war crimes. Perpetrated by "the Allies" (wasn't MY idea to ally with the greatest mass-murderer in human history just to overcome the #3 guy).
Rule of law? ... duh, W.T.F. is that, man?
Is THAT good enough for you?. By the way, the word is hypocrisy.

[LWD]

Just examing one part of this:

Streicher case:
.... Another rubbish judgement. Politically, Streicher was nobody in the reich since 1940. He has anything to do with the "final solution". His articles attacking the jews are totally unrelated to actual events.

Again we have an opinion that is unsupported but did not his activities help create a climate where such things were possible? IS this not the bases of many of todays "Hate Speach" laws? I have by the way seen his case mentioned as the worst of the IMT's judgements.

[LWD]

.... Those are, by the very definition, war crimes. Perpetrated by "the Allies" (wasn't MY idea to ally with the greatest mass-murderer in human history just to overcome the #3 guy).
Rule of law? ... duh, W.T.F. is that, man?
Is THAT good enough for you?. By the way, the word is hypocrisy.

None here have denied that the Soviets commited a huge number of war crimes. However that doesn't make the IMT guilty of hypocrisy. It could legitimatly be claimed that the Soviets were guilty of it but that's a different matter. It also doesn't mean that the actions of the IMT were not just in any case.