List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#121

Post by Boby » 29 Jun 2012, 15:29

As I expected, no sources. No evidence. Frick was guilty because IMT found it guilty. There is no need of searching evidence. I offered to you the possibility of sourcing your claims with hard evidence, but you failed.

You are now on ignore. Don't waste your time replying again.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#122

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Jun 2012, 16:55

I offered to you the possibility of sourcing your claims with hard evidence, but you failed.
You have offered nothing but opinion for your idea the judgement was flawed, and even then the rather 'unusual' concept that 'obeying orders' is a defence for illegality.
As I expected, no sources. No evidence. Frick was guilty because IMT found it guilty.
I believe the Avalon Project actually contains the entire transcripts of all the evidence presented against Frick, though you seem to view this as unacceptable.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap16_part09.asp
You are now on ignore. Don't waste your time replying again.
When it is pointed out that as it is you that are making a claim against the accepted view of events it is therefore your responsibility to show why your views should be believed or treated seriously, you respond by saying people are on ignore. This sounds like the literary equivalent of shouting 'lalala I cant hear you' rather than any serious attempt to challenge the judgement against Frick, for which you have put forward nothing other than you own opinion that treaties do not count and everyone was biased.


Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#123

Post by Boby » 29 Jun 2012, 17:18

In fact I acknowledged Frick have some limited responsability as Reichsminister and Reichsprotektor. But your IMT sacred judgement tried to link Frick to planning, initiating and waging aggressive wars and crimes against peace, war-crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no such evidence. IMT judgement is a complete failure, as your response.

Do you have any evidence against Frick, apart of the completely propagandistic IMT judgement? Since it seems you don't have such evidence, there is no room here for serious discussion.

It is very easy: If Frick was personally involved in the above 3 charges, please post here the evidence. Allies have in his possession millions of german documents in 1946. Allies found nothing incriminating against him, and the judgement is a proof. IMT was desperate to search any proof against him, but they found nothing worth. They have nothing in his hands, and for that reason began to link Frick to Euthanasia, and crimes committed by other agencies. Absolutely nonsense.

Frick was a victim of a propagandistic trial.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#124

Post by Terry Duncan » 29 Jun 2012, 17:40


The scope of Frick's personal and direct responsibility for Nazi Crimes against Humanity is so broad that reference need be made only to a few of the most significant instances.

(1) Gestapo atrocities and concentration camps. Frick, as jurisdictional head of the German Police administration, is responsible for the crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the German police, especially the Gestapo and SD, inside and outside of Germany. (See 1643-PS; also Chapter XI on Concentration Camps.)

As already stated, Frick demonstrated particular interest in the "medical" experiments carried on in the concentration camps under the personal direction of Himmler. Frick paid a personal visit to Germany's oldest concentration camp, Dachau, in 1943, for the purpose of inspecting the malaria station and Dr. Rascher's experimental Station (3249-PS). There he could personally acquaint himself with the forced subjection of healthy camp inmates to malarial mosquitoes and the air-pressure and freezing experiments on human beings carried on by Dr. Rascher.

(2) Oppression of inhabitants of occupied territories. As administrative head of the occupied territories, Frick issued decrees depriving the inhabitants of their rights and subjecting them to a cruel and discriminatory regime. Among these enactments were the decree of 4 December 1941 establishing a special penal law for the Polish and Jewish inhabitants of the Gouvernment General (R-96), (1249-PS); the decree of 1 July 1943 depriving Jews of rights remaining to them under the decree of 4 December 1941 (1422-PS); and the Himmler ordinance of 3 July 1943 charging the Gestapo with the execution of the decree of 1 July 1943 (published in Frick's Ministry of Interior Gazette 1943, p.1085) (3085-PS).

Similarly, the Decree on the Utilization of Eastern Workers, which required that they be paid salaries substantially below those fixed for German workers holding similar jobs, was signed in Frick's name by his Secretary of State.

(3) Systematic killing of insane, ill, aged, and incapacitated foreign slave laborers. Frick's greatest guilt perhaps rests on his responsibility, as Reich Minister of the Interior, for the systematic killing of the insane, the sick, and the aged, including those foreign forced laborers who were no longer able to work. These killings were carried out in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Frick, in his capacity of Reichsminister of the Interior, had full jurisdiction over all these institutions (3475-PS).

Proof that the Reichministry of the Interior under Frick actually exercised this jurisdiction is to be found in a letter of 2 October 1940 (621-PS) from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, to the Reichsminister of Justice. The letter informed the Minister of Justice that the Chief Prosecutors' reports concerning the death of inmates of nursing homes had been transmitted to the Reichsminister of the Interior for further action (621-PS). Through other correspondence Frick's Ministry of the Interior was informed of the unexplained deaths of insane persons (1696-PS; 1969-PS).

The most striking example of the continued killings in these institutions, which were under Frick's jurisdiction, is the famous Hadamar case. Systematic killing started at the Hadamar nursing home as early as 1939. At least as early as 1941 Frick was officially acquainted with the fact that these killings had become public knowledge. Proof is found in a letter from the Bishop of Limburg of 13 August 1941 to the Reichsminister of Justice, copies of which were sent to the Reichsminister of the Interior and the Reichsminister for Church Affairs. The letter reads in part as follows:

"* * * About 8 kilometers from Limburg, in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill overlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served various purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home; this institution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by consensus of opinion, the above-mentioned Euthanasia has been systematically practiced for months-approximately since February 1941. The fact has become known beyond the administrative district of Wiesbaden, because death certificates from a Registry Hadamar-Moenchberg are sent to the home communities. * * *

"Several times a week buses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number of such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and say: 'There comes the murder-box again.' After the arrival of the vehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney and are tortured with the ever-present thought of the miserable victims, especially when repulsive odors annoy them, depending on the direction of the wind.

"The effect of the principles at work here are: Children call each other names and say, 'You're crazy; you'll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar.' Those who do not want to marry, or find no opportunity, say 'Marry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the bottling machine!' You hear old folks say, 'Don't send me to a state hospital! After the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.'

"* * * The population cannot grasp that systematic actions are carried out which in accordance with Par. 211 of the German criminal code are punishable with death! * * *

"Officials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress discussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the interest of public peace, this may be well intended. But the knowledge and the conviction and the indignation of the population cannot be changed by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter realization that discussion is prohibited with threats but that the actions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law.

"Facta loquuntur.

"I beg you most humbly, Herr Reich Minister, in the sense of the report of the Episcopate of July 16 of this year, to prevent further transgressions of the Fifth Commandment of God.

"(Signed) Dr. Hilfrich" (615-PS).

Nevertheless, the killings in these institutions continued year after year. This is shown by a certified copy of the charge, specifications, and findings of the U.S. Military Commission at Wiesbaden, against the individuals who operated the Hadamar Sanitarium, where many Russians and Poles were done away with. In this particular proceeding, seven defendants were charged with the murder in 1944 and 1945 of 400 persons of Polish and Russian nationality. Three of the defendants were sentenced to be hanged; the other four were sentenced to confinement at hard labor (3592-PS).

But the murdering in Hadamar was only part of a systematic program. The official report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission, entitled "Detailed Statement on the Murdering of Ill and Aged People in Germany," shows that Frick was one of the originators of the secret law of 1940, which authorized the killing of sick and aged persons and under which the Hadamar "murder mill" was operated until 1945. The first 3 paragraphs of that report read as follows:

"1. The murdering can be traced back to a secret law which was released some time in the summer of 1940.

"2. Besides the Chief Physician of the Reich, Dr. L. Conti, the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, the Reichsminister of the Interior Dr. Frick, as well as other men, the following participated in the introduction of this secret law * * *

"3. As I have already stated, there were-after careful calculation-at least 200,000 mainly mentally deficient, imbeciles, besides neurological cases and medically unfit people-these were not only incurable cases-and at least 75,000 aged people." (1556-PS).

Thus, Frick bears full responsibility for the systematic killing of the "unproductive eaters," for whom the Nazi war machine had no use.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap16_part09.asp

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#125

Post by David Thompson » 29 Jun 2012, 17:45

An assortment of posts, which added nothing of informational value to the discussion, were removed by this moderator - DT.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#126

Post by Boby » 29 Jun 2012, 17:49

You are only doing a "cut and paste" work without questioning it. You needs to contextualize the evidence, the task of real historians. Again, a failure. Again, ignore for you.

Boby
Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 19 Nov 2004, 18:22
Location: Spain

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#127

Post by Boby » 29 Jun 2012, 18:25

Here is my last post here:

1) I presented the evidence for Frick. I explained what role he have in the Third Reich structure. He was not responsible for actions of other agencies. He can't stop them.

2) But not only he can't stop them, because he was a nobody in the decission-making process, he also was not even personally involved in these actions. Since he was not personally involved, he was not responsible. Since he was not responsible, there was no case against him.

As for your "evidence":
(1) Gestapo atrocities and concentration camps. Frick, as jurisdictional head of the German Police administration, is responsible for the crimes and atrocities perpetrated by the German police, especially the Gestapo and SD, inside and outside of Germany
Rubbish nonsense. Frick was "nominally in charge" as RMdI, but the SS apparatus was run by well-known persons. He have no real authority. He can't oppose SS.
As already stated, Frick demonstrated particular interest in the "medical" experiments carried on in the concentration camps under the personal direction of Himmler. Frick paid a personal visit to Germany's oldest concentration camp, Dachau, in 1943, for the purpose of inspecting the malaria station and Dr. Rascher's experimental Station (3249-PS). There he could personally acquaint himself with the forced subjection of healthy camp inmates to malarial mosquitoes and the air-pressure and freezing experiments on human beings carried on by Dr. Rascher.
I don't have the document. I can't say anything. It seems it was only a visit to Dachau, hardly a crime.
As administrative head of the occupied territories, Frick issued decrees depriving the inhabitants of their rights and subjecting them to a cruel and discriminatory regime. Among these enactments were the decree of 4 December 1941 establishing a special penal law for the Polish and Jewish inhabitants of the Gouvernment General (R-96), (1249-PS); the decree of 1 July 1943 depriving Jews of rights remaining to them under the decree of 4 December 1941 (1422-PS); and the Himmler ordinance of 3 July 1943 charging the Gestapo with the execution of the decree of 1 July 1943 (published in Frick's Ministry of Interior Gazette 1943, p.1085) (3085-PS).
Decisions taken by others.
Similarly, the Decree on the Utilization of Eastern Workers, which required that they be paid salaries substantially below those fixed for German workers holding similar jobs, was signed in Frick's name by his Secretary of State.
Wow, what a crime! Decision by others.
Systematic killing of insane, ill, aged, and incapacitated foreign slave laborers. Frick's greatest guilt perhaps rests on his responsibility, as Reich Minister of the Interior, for the systematic killing of the insane, the sick, and the aged, including those foreign forced laborers who were no longer able to work. These killings were carried out in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Frick, in his capacity of Reichsminister of the Interior, had full jurisdiction over all these institutions (3475-PS).
Decision by others.
Proof that the Reichministry of the Interior under Frick actually exercised this jurisdiction is to be found in a letter of 2 October 1940 (621-PS) from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, to the Reichsminister of Justice. The letter informed the Minister of Justice that the Chief Prosecutors' reports concerning the death of inmates of nursing homes had been transmitted to the Reichsminister of the Interior for further action (621-PS). Through other correspondence Frick's Ministry of the Interior was informed of the unexplained deaths of insane persons (1696-PS; 1969-PS).
He was not in charge of Euthanasia. He can't stop it. Decisions by others.
The most striking example of the continued killings in these institutions, which were under Frick's jurisdiction, is the famous Hadamar case. Systematic killing started at the Hadamar nursing home as early as 1939. At least as early as 1941 Frick was officially acquainted with the fact that these killings had become public knowledge. Proof is found in a letter from the Bishop of Limburg of 13 August 1941 to the Reichsminister of Justice, copies of which were sent to the Reichsminister of the Interior and the Reichsminister for Church Affairs. The letter reads in part as follows:

"* * * About 8 kilometers from Limburg, in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill overlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served various purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home; this institution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by consensus of opinion, the above-mentioned Euthanasia has been systematically practiced for months-approximately since February 1941. The fact has become known beyond the administrative district of Wiesbaden, because death certificates from a Registry Hadamar-Moenchberg are sent to the home communities. * * *

"Several times a week buses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number of such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and say: 'There comes the murder-box again.' After the arrival of the vehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney and are tortured with the ever-present thought of the miserable victims, especially when repulsive odors annoy them, depending on the direction of the wind.

"The effect of the principles at work here are: Children call each other names and say, 'You're crazy; you'll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar.' Those who do not want to marry, or find no opportunity, say 'Marry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the bottling machine!' You hear old folks say, 'Don't send me to a state hospital! After the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.'

"* * * The population cannot grasp that systematic actions are carried out which in accordance with Par. 211 of the German criminal code are punishable with death! * * *

"Officials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress discussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the interest of public peace, this may be well intended. But the knowledge and the conviction and the indignation of the population cannot be changed by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter realization that discussion is prohibited with threats but that the actions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law.

"Facta loquuntur.

"I beg you most humbly, Herr Reich Minister, in the sense of the report of the Episcopate of July 16 of this year, to prevent further transgressions of the Fifth Commandment of God.

"(Signed) Dr. Hilfrich" (615-PS).

Nevertheless, the killings in these institutions continued year after year. This is shown by a certified copy of the charge, specifications, and findings of the U.S. Military Commission at Wiesbaden, against the individuals who operated the Hadamar Sanitarium, where many Russians and Poles were done away with. In this particular proceeding, seven defendants were charged with the murder in 1944 and 1945 of 400 persons of Polish and Russian nationality. Three of the defendants were sentenced to be hanged; the other four were sentenced to confinement at hard labor (3592-PS).

But the murdering in Hadamar was only part of a systematic program. The official report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission, entitled "Detailed Statement on the Murdering of Ill and Aged People in Germany," shows that Frick was one of the originators of the secret law of 1940, which authorized the killing of sick and aged persons and under which the Hadamar "murder mill" was operated until 1945. The first 3 paragraphs of that report read as follows:

"1. The murdering can be traced back to a secret law which was released some time in the summer of 1940.

"2. Besides the Chief Physician of the Reich, Dr. L. Conti, the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, the Reichsminister of the Interior Dr. Frick, as well as other men, the following participated in the introduction of this secret law * * *

"3. As I have already stated, there were-after careful calculation-at least 200,000 mainly mentally deficient, imbeciles, besides neurological cases and medically unfit people-these were not only incurable cases-and at least 75,000 aged people." (1556-PS).

Thus, Frick bears full responsibility for the systematic killing of the "unproductive eaters," for whom the Nazi war machine had no use.
Ibid.

Zero evidence. Nothing.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#128

Post by David Thompson » 29 Jun 2012, 19:28

A collection of rubbish posts was removed by the moderator - DT.

Gentlemen -- If you don't have any sourced and relevant information to add to the topic, wait until you do before posting. Taunting repartee posts don't turn the trick here.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#129

Post by Terry Duncan » 02 Jul 2012, 02:03

Boby,
1) I presented the evidence for Frick. I explained what role he have in the Third Reich structure. He was not responsible for actions of other agencies. He can't stop them.
Frick was responsible for his own agencies by definition, therefore any act of a criminal nature committed by Frick's agency is something he must answer for.
2) But not only he can't stop them, because he was a nobody in the decission-making process, he also was not even personally involved in these actions.
Direct personal involvement is not needed, Frick is answerable for actions his agency took, for laws he signed into force, and for laws and rights his actions violated.
Since he was not personally involved, he was not responsible. Since he was not responsible, there was no case against him.
I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest Hitler shot a single person during WWII, do you hold him to be blameless in all of the deaths arising from that conflict?
Rubbish nonsense. Frick was "nominally in charge" as RMdI, but the SS apparatus was run by well-known persons. He have no real authority. He can't oppose SS.
Frick was in charge, and if his subordinates were out of control that does not relieve him of responsibility. He could have always objected to what was being done, especially where he knew laws were being violated, but he did not. He could have taken the stand at Nuremburg to explain his actions or lack of in order to point out any supposed lack of guilt, but did not, in legal terms an actions suggesting he did not challenge the charges against him.
I don't have the document. I can't say anything. It seems it was only a visit to Dachau, hardly a crime.
The visit was one to check on experiments that constituted the violation of human rights, and once again we have no objection to the experiments in Dachau only Frick's keen interest. Himmler was still 'nominally' Frick's subordinate, so why did Frick take no action, even if only to document he wished to accept no responsibility for actions committed under Himmler's orders that he must have known were not legal?
Decisions taken by others.
Frick issued the decree's and thereby takes responsibility for them.
Similarly, the Decree on the Utilization of Eastern Workers, which required that they be paid salaries substantially below those fixed for German workers holding similar jobs, was signed in Frick's name by his Secretary of State.
Wow, what a crime! Decision by others.
Is your suggestion that Frick had no control over any of his subordinates? If that is so the question arises of what did Frick actually do in your eyes? You claim he 'only followed orders from above' or 'a subordinate did it' for every conceivable action, so people above and below were out of control and breaking laws, Frick just signed bits of paper to give them sham legality but takes no responsibility for even this, when he could have always simply resigned or refused to sign them.
Systematic killing of insane, ill, aged, and incapacitated foreign slave laborers. Frick's greatest guilt perhaps rests on his responsibility, as Reich Minister of the Interior, for the systematic killing of the insane, the sick, and the aged, including those foreign forced laborers who were no longer able to work. These killings were carried out in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Frick, in his capacity of Reichsminister of the Interior, had full jurisdiction over all these institutions (3475-PS).
Decision by others.
Actions taken by people in Frick's agency for which he mist accept liability. Earlier you claimed
'He was not responsible for actions of other agencies.'
and it appears here your defence of Frick is now 'He was not responsible for actions of his own agency'.
He was not in charge of Euthanasia. He can't stop it. Decisions by others.
It was his agency and therefore his responsibility. Did he try to stop it? Did he protest at this violation of peoples rights?
Zero evidence. Nothing.
I asked earlier about what you would consider as acceptable evidence, so far you have produced nothing to suggest you will accept anything anyone else puts forward.

You have asked others to put forward evidence for what Frick did, and answered it with nothing more that your opinion in every instance. Simply saying 'it was biased' or 'I dont agree' or posting your opinion that Frick had no responsibility for his agency, or even what he signed carries little or no weight unless you support your claims with evidence yourself. So far you have made no effort to do so.

The accepted position on this matter is that Frick was indeed responsible, so if you wish to challenge that position the onus is upon you to put forward evidence to show that the position taken by the IMT was incorrect and that the massed legal teams there were interpreting international laws on rights and responsibility poorly. You are posting your opinion that Frick was responsible for nothing at all, even where legal convention says he is, so can you support what you claim with any evidence or legal precedent to show you have a case and it is not just your own personal belief and nothing else?

User avatar
BillHermann
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 04 Jan 2012, 16:35
Location: Authie

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#130

Post by BillHermann » 02 Jul 2012, 06:26

I don't want to get too deep into the debate but most of what Terry is saying is accurate. Any current politician or agency executive at the top would be held accountable for crimes that his/her members had committed. They can't just step back and say I did not do anything, I did not pull the trigger. It goes for the same as the person below saying I only was following orders.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#131

Post by LWD » 02 Jul 2012, 15:35

Boby wrote:"von Ribbentrop" (1.10.1946), in: IMT, Vol. XXII, pp. 530-533
War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Ribbentrop participated in a meeting of 6 June 1944, at which it was agreed to start a program under which Allied aviators carry- ing out machine gun attacks should be lynched.
Wow! Ribbentrop participated in a meeting! Surely he wanted to kill aviators with his own hands.
An irrelevant straw man.
In December 1944 Ribbentrop was informed of the plans to murder one of the French generals held as a prisoner of war and directed his subordinates to see that the 'details were worked out in such a way as to prevent its detection by the protecting powers..
Evidence?
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
Ribbentrop is also respon- sible for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity because of his activities with respect to occupied countries and Axis satellites.
Evidence?
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
The top German official in both Denmark and Vichy France was a Foreign Office representative, and Ribbentrop is therefore responsible for the general economic and political policies put into effect in the occupation of these countries.
The most imbecile claim I ever read. IMT team were a bunch of liars.
Care to support these claims with fact or logic rather than just assertion?
He urged the Italians to adopt a ruthless occupation policy in Yugoslavia and Greece.
Wow! He urged the italians! Surely Ribbentrop was in charge of occupation.
Another straw man. If you don't think his "urging" the Italians had any impact then you won't mind providing some sources.
He played an important part in Hitler's "final solution" of the Jewish question.
Evidence?
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
In September 1942 he ordered the German diplomatic representatives accredited to various Axis satellites to hasten the deportation of Jews to the East.
Wow! Ribbentrop contacted AA representativies in axis countries! Unveliable!
Contacting them wasn't the problem now was it?
In June 1942 the German Ambassador to Vichy requested Lava1 to turn over 50,000 Jews for deportation to the East.
Where is Ribbentrop?
Since you brought this up why don't you inform us?
On 25 February 1943, Ribbentrop protested to Mussolini against Italian slowness in deporting Jews from the Italian occupation zone of France.
And the crime is?
??? are you serious?
On 17 April 1943, he took part in- a conference between Hitler and Horthy on the deportation of Jews from Hungary and informed Horthy that the "Jews must either be exterminated or taken to concentration camps."
Ribbentrop has nothing to do with the implementation of the "Holocaust". There were just words.
Words from someone as high up the "food chain" as Ribbentrop and not "just words". As for your initial assertion we are eagerly awaiting your sources.
At the same conference Hitler had likened the Jews to "tuberculosis bacilli" and said if they did not work they were to be shot.
Irrelevant.
Really? It doesn't seem so to me and obviously didn't to the IMT. Care to explain why you think it is?
Ribbentrop's defense to the charges made against him is that Hitler made all the important (decisions, and that he was such a great admirer and faithful follower of Hitler that he never ques-tioned Hitler's repeated assertions that he wanted peace or the truth of the reasons that Hitler gave in explaining aggressive action.
Most probably true.
Perhaps but not adequate as a defence either.
The Tribunal does not consider this explanation to be true.
Of course.
Your point is?
Ribbentrop participated in all of the Nazi aggressions from the occupation of Austria to the invasion of the Soviet Union.
Just because he was foreign minister.
Irrelevant
Although he was personally concerned with the diplomatic rather than the military aspect of these actions, his diplomatic efforts were so closely con- nected with war that he could not have remained unaware of the aggressive nature of Hitler's actions.
He was not responsible. Decissions were taken by Hitler.
The latter doesn't negate the former.
In the administration of territories over which Germany acquire,d control by illegal invasion, Ribbentrop also assisted in carrying out criminal policies,
Evidence? His work was diplomatic. No more.
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
partic- ularly those involving the extermination of the Jews.
Rubbish nonsense.
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
There is abundant evidence, moreover, that Ribbentrop was in complete sympathy with all the main tenets of the National Socialist creed, and that his collaboration with Hitler and ,with other defendants in the commission of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity was whole-hearted.
No evidence. No sources. Just propaganda.
If you dispute it it's up to you to produce the evidence against it not us.
It was because Hitler's policy and plans coincided with his own ideas that Rifbbentrop served him so willingly to the end.
Propaganda. Distortions. Lies.
Or not.

In any case we see another post with essentially nothing but opinion seasoned with straw men and illogical assertions.

Cerdic
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: 20 Nov 2013, 20:52
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#132

Post by Cerdic » 01 Dec 2013, 16:32

I know the following is a Revisionist source, but I'm wondering what others here make of his arguments:
Political justice

The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. /3 Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.

As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes. Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that "the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political." /4

Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, declared that the Nuremberg Tribunal "is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations" against Germany. He added that the Tribunal "is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional system ..." /5

Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal's solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg. In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. /6 At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise: /7

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.
A double standard

In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929. /23

Justice -- as opposed to vengeance -- is a standard that is applied impartially. At Nuremberg, though, standards of "justice" applied only to the vanquished. The four powers that sat in judgment were themselves guilty of many of the very crimes they accused the German leaders of committing. /24 Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies /25

have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.

In violation of the first Nuremberg count of "planning, preparation, initiating or waging a war of aggression," the Soviet Union attacked Finland in December 1939 (and was expelled from the League of Nations as a result). A few months later the Red Army invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and ruthlessly incorporated them into the Soviet Union. The postwar French government violated international law and the Nuremberg charge of "maltreatment of prisoners of war" by employing large numbers of German prisoners of war as forced laborers in France. In 1945 the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly agreed to the brutal deportation of more than ten million Germans from their ancient homes in eastern and central Europe, a violation of the Nuremberg count of "deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population." /26

While Allied prosecutors charged the defendants with a "crime against peace" in planning the German invasion of Norway in 1940, the British government eventually had to admit that Britain and France were themselves guilty of the same "crime" in preparing a military invasion of Norway, code-named "Stratford," before the German move. And in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, a neutral nation. /27

Given this record, it is hardly surprising that the four governments that organized the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 included no definition of "aggression" in the Tribunal's Charter. /28

Mikhail Vozlenski, a Soviet historian who served as a translator at the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946, later recalled that he and the other Soviet personnel felt out of place there because the alleged crimes of the German leaders were "the norm of our life" in the Soviet Union. /29 The Soviet role in the proceedings, which the United States fully supported, moved American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan to condemn the entire Nuremberg enterprise as a "horror" and a "mockery." /30

Nuremberg's double standard was condemned at the time by the British weekly The Economist. It pointed out that whereas both Britain and France had supported the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in 1939 for its unprovoked attack against Finland, just six years later these same two governments were cooperating with the USSR as a respected equal at Nuremberg. "Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies' own justice," the Economist editorial went on. It continued: /31

... Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead "not guilty" on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?... The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.

An official with the postwar US military occupation administration in Germany commented: "What good are the high-flown morals enunciated at Nuremberg if the Americans have agreed to such things as deportation in documents which bear official signatures, and which, therefore, give the Allies the legal right to do the things which at Nuremberg they described as immoral?" /32

If the Nuremberg Tribunal's standards had been applied to the victors of the Second World War, American General and supreme Allied commander in Europe Dwight Eisenhower would have been hanged. At the end of the war Eisenhower ordered that German prisoners in American military custody were no longer to be treated according to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. This violation of international law removed masses of Germans from the protection of the International Red Cross (ICRC), and condemned hundreds of thousands of them to slow death by starvation and disease. /33

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essentially unfair character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy. He was sentenced to life imprisonment even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous but fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations. British historian A.J.P. Taylor once succinctly summed up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise: /34

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.
3. See the succinct declaration by all the German defense attorneys in the IMT case. Published in: Jay W. Baird, ed., From Nuremberg to My Lai (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath, 1972), pp. 81-83.; Note also the summary comment by Hans Lammers of the Nuremberg verdict against him, in: Georg Franz-Willing, Die Reichskanzlei 1933-1945 (Tübingen: 1984), p. 221.

4. Werner Maser, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial (New York: Scribner's, 1979), pp. 281, 282.; The liberal American weekly Nation editorially acknowledged in October 1945: "The Nuremberg court is political court with a political job to perform." Nation, Oct. 27, 1945, p. 418. Quoted in: James J. Martin, Revisionist Viewpoints (Colorado Springs: 1971), p. 125.

5. International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals... ("blue series"), IMT, Vol. 19, p. 398. (Testimony of July 26, 1946).; In a letter to his wife, written shortly before his execution, former Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop commented: "Everyone knows that the [guilty] verdict is utterly untenable, but I was once Adolf Hitler's Foreign Minister and politics demands that for this fact I shall be condemned." Quoted in: Joachim C. Fest, The Face of the Third Reich (New York: 1970), p. 185.

6. Robert Conquest, The Great Terror (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 92.

7. Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, London, 1945 (Washington, DC: US State Dept., 1949), pp. 104-106, 303.; Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial: The Evidence at Nuremberg (Dallas: S.M.U. Press, 1954), pp. 16-17.; Leo Kahn, Nuremberg Trials (New York: Ballantine, 1972), p. 26.

23. Werner Maser, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial (1979), pp. 69, 302 (n. 23). See also: James McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (London: 1985), pp. 412-413.

24. See: Ulrich Stern, ed., Die wahren Schuldigen am zweiten Weltkrieg (Munich: 1990).

25. Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. State Department files. Quoted in: R. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg (1983),
p. 68.

26. Constantine FitzGibbon, Denazification (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), pp. 71-72.

27. "Behind the scenes at Nuremberg," Daily Telegraph (London), Jan. 27, 1977, p. 19.; J. McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg (1985), pp. 245, 414.

28. See: Richard H. Minear, Victor's Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Tokyo: C. Tuttle, 1984), p. 57.

29. M. Vozlenski, Der Spiegel, Oct. 6, 1986 (No. 41), pp. 55 ff.

30. George F. Kennan, Memoirs 1925-1950 (Boston: Little Brown, 1967), pp. 175, 261.

31. "The Nuremberg Judgment," editorial, The Economist (London), Oct. 5, 1946, p. 532.; See also: J. McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg, pp. 67, 173-174, 380, 414 f.

32. Marguerite Higgins, "Russian Quotes Allied Sanction of Deportations," New York Herald Tribune, Nov. 14, 1946.

33. James Bacque, Other Losses (Toronto: Stoddart, 1989). See especially pp. 26-28.

34. Quoted in: Wolf R. Hess, My Father Rudolf Hess (London: 1986), pp. 392 f.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Tria

#133

Post by LWD » 03 Dec 2013, 17:33

I'll just refute the first paragraph at this time.
Cerdic wrote:I know the following is a Revisionist source, but I'm wondering what others here make of his arguments:
Political justice

The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders. The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished.
...
It was hardly the violation of "ancient or fundamental principles of justice". The state has always acted as prosecutor, judge, and if necessary executioner. That's as true today as it was then or it was 3,000 years ago. The charges were not all created "especially for the occasion" while some were they were for crimes so incredibly horrible that justice could hardly be served any other way. Indeed one could argue that many of those involved got off very lightly and in some cases completely. Note also that for some of the crimes mentioned allied personel had already been tried and in some cases convicted. So the applied only to the vanquished doesn't work either.

If the first paragraph is that flawed it should be clear what the rest of the material is worth.

User avatar
DukeOfPrussia
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 27 Jan 2015, 16:48
Location: Malaysia

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial

#134

Post by DukeOfPrussia » 28 Jan 2015, 05:22

IMO, 95% of the war criminals at Nuremberg and Tokyo.

On saying that, Justice should be applied across the board. Despite blatant acts of war crimes by Allies, there is hardly any evidence that the punishment meted out to Axis commanders were used against Allied counterparts. This smacks of victor's justice and double standards.

The Holocaust happened, there is no doubt. But Justice should always be applied to all, not just the losers. Cause that would just make it another kangaroo court.
Regards,
Prav.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: List of double standards and injustice of Nuremberg Trial

#135

Post by David Thompson » 28 Jan 2015, 07:50

DukeOfPrussia -- From the forum & section rules:
Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.
http://forum.axishistory.com/app.php/rules

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”