HOME PAGEEUROPA THE LAST BATTLEHOLOCAUST DeprogramINFO PRIMER BOOK9/11 TRUTH PRIMER9/11 Rabbi DOV ZAKHEIM9/11 Pentagon Infestation9/11 DONALD RUMSFELD9/11 Murderer Silverstein9/11 WTC Jew Art Students9/11 WTC BUILDING 79/11WTC Building 6 Vault9/11 Dr. Jones THERMATE9/11 Ptech9/11 DICK CHENEY9/11 BUSH'S Farcical Role9/11 Commission Fraud9/11 Traitors - Suspects9/11 CHRIS BOLLYN Truth9/11 A & E For TRUTH9/11 PILOTS for TRUTH9/11 Further ReadingPATRIOT ACT HacksODED YINON PLANFALSE FLAG OPSUSS LIBERTY Truth-FactsLBJ Blackmailed-BribedHIDDEN HISTORY CourseZIO-HISTORY REVEALEDHOUSE OF ROTHSCHILDEdmond de RothschildBalfour DeclarationLondon Crown CorporationThe USA CORPORATIONFederal Reserve BankI.R.S. THE FACTSBANKSTERSBANKER'S WARSWAR IS A RACKETIsrael's Third World WarsSilent Weapons Quiet WarsA JEW EXPOSES ISRAELJews Genociding WhitesSolzhenitsyn USSR JewsJews Genocided RussiansTHE ANTI HUMANSJews Genocided UkrainiansJews Genocided ArmeniansCommunism Is JudaismJoe McCarthy Was RightIron Curtain Over AmericaNAME THE JEWWHAT IS ZIONISM?JEW History ReligionProtocols Of ZionZionist Crimes HistoryZIONIST JEW OrganizationsANTI ZIONIST LEAGUEChristian Zionism IdiocyJEW Chabad ExposedJEW TALMUD REVEALEDJEW Frankfurt SchoolJEW Tyranny ExposedJew Influence RevealedJew USA EXPLOITATIONJEW WHITE HOUSE CONTROLJew Puppet TRUMP ISJEW Rahm Emanuel TraitorJew Hollywood-TV ControlJEW Porn IndustryJEW MEDIA CONTROLJEW GUN CONTROLJEW LOBBY A LISTJEW AIPAC ExposedJEW-MASON OrganizationJew Assassiation MonoplyJEWS KILLED KENNEDYSJEWS Killed ForrestalJews Killed TraficantJew Killed Rachel CorrieJews and the MobJews and SlaveryJEWS & THE NAACPJews & ADL - ACLU - SPLCJEWS SPY ON USAJEW CIRCUMCISION FRAUDJew BERNAYS PROPAGANDAJEW EINSTEIN was a FraudIsrael's Samson OptionAID WASTED ON ISRAELHENRY FORD'S WarningRobison's Warning 1798ORWELL and HUXLEY (books)Ben Freedman SpeechGrace Halsell on IsraelShame The Devil (book)Anti-JWO OrganizationsBOYCOTT ISRAELSOROS the Errand BoyBILDERBERGERS 2018THE Confederate JEWCromwell and the JEWSNixon's Jew ProblemJOHN Songbird McCAINJew-American TraitorsWhat's Said About JEWSMartin Luther on JEWSJimmy Carter on PalestineGreat Sedition Trial 1944Robert E. EdmondsonELZABETH DILLING (books)FATHER COUGHLINSIR OSWALD MOSLEYEzra PoundREVILO P. OLIVERSpanish-American WarSpanish Civil WarWW I Hidden HistoryTreaty of VersailleLINDBERGH and DISNEYWorld War II TRUTHTHE NAMELESS WAR (book)War On WWII LiesTHE BAD WAR (WWII)PEARL HARBOR TRUTHMcCollum MemoRainbow 5 War PlanNAZI WORD ORIGINSWASTIKA HISTORYGerman American BundJUSTICE FOR GERMANSGreatest Story Never ToldHitler The ArtistHitler's SpeechsHitler-Churchill DebateWINSTON CHURCHILLMEIN KAMPF (book)Hitler's SECOND BOOKHitler Not A RothschildHitler Defied The BankersHitler Peace RejectedHitler's War DeclarationWhy Hitler InvadedDunkirk TruthMyth of German Villiany (book)Nur für DeutscheNon-German SS DivisionsGerman Soldiers SpeakJUSTICE FOR GERMANYWhy Were Germans AngryDer Giftpilz (Book)Germany Must Perish (book)Israel Must Perish (book)Krystallnacht 1938D-DAY JUNE 6, 1944HELLSTORMDRESDEN HOLOCAUSTEisenhower Death CampsOTHER LOSSES (books)Looting & Rape of GermanyPost War StarvationGerman ExpulsionsNuremberg Trials FarceJews Killed Gen. PATTONWWII Explained in QuotesTRANSFER AGREEMENTJEWISH EXPULSIONSHOLOCAUST DENIALUnz HOLOCAUST DENIALTHE HOLOCAUST LIESHOLOCAUST LIES SitesANNE FRANK FRAUDAUSCHWITZAuschwitz CommandantDachau Med ExperimentsThe Mengele MythRemember Ernst ZundelMeet Fred LeuchterMeet David IrvingMeet Robert FaurissonMeet Germar RudolfFree Ursula HaverbeckFree Alfred SchaeferWir Sind Monika SchaeferMeet Joe & Jim RizoliCODOH Holocaust DebateLASHA DARKMOON SiteJohn Kaminski siteInst. Historical ReviewSearch For Truth U.K.No Time For SilenceSMOLOKO.COMMORE LINKSMore Recommended SitesA MEME COLLECTIONA Letter To AmericansA Fighter Pilot's Memoirs

Dachau’s 800-Pound Kangaroo (Court)


The Dachau trial began on November 15, 1945 and ended four weeks later on December 13.

All 40 of the defendants were convicted, with 36 being sentenced to death by hanging.

[1] This article will examine whether the defendants at the Dachau trial received a fair hearing.

 

                                Unjustness of the Dachau Trials

 

The Dachau tribunal was composed of eight senior U.S. military officers with the rank

of at least full colonel. The president of the court, Brig. Gen. John M. Lentz, was the

former commanding general of the 3rd Army’s 87th Infantry Division.[2] These U.S.

military officers, with no formal legal training, were not qualified to objectively review the

evidence presented in the trial.

 

William Denson, the chief prosecuting attorney, used a legal concept called “common design”

for establishing that camp personnel at Dachau were guilty of violating the laws and usages

of war. The Dachau tribunal accepted Denson’s legal concept of common design. In common

design, Denson exploited a legal concept broad enough to apply to everyone who had

worked in Dachau.[3] In essence, every Dachau defendant was guilty unless proven innocent

(a verdict most-unlikely to ensue).  

                 

The rules of evidence used at the Dachau trial were also atrociously lax. For example,

hearsay evidence presented by the prosecution was routinely allowed by the “judges.”

Such testimony was permitted at the Dachau trials if it seemed “relevant to a reasonable

man.” This departure from normal Anglo-Saxon law was intended to compensate

for the fact that some potential eyewitnesses had died in captivity.[4]

 

False witnesses were used at most of the American-run war-crimes trials at Dachau.

Joseph Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, described

some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:

 

[T]he major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp

cases were what came to be known as “professional witnesses,” and everyone working

at Dachau regarded them as such. “Professional,” since they were paid for each day

they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when

these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau for

months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words, these

witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former

inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least,

have called their testimony into question.[5]

 

Stephen F. Pinter, an American lawyer who served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney

at the American-run trials of Germans at Dachau, confirmed Halow’s statement. In a 1960

affidavit Pinter said that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to convict Germans

of false and unfounded crimes. Pinter stated, “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages

of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”[6]

 

The use of false witnesses has also been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was

an ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps from

1941 to 1945. Neuhäusler stated that in some of the American-run trials “many of the

witnesses, perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with criminal records ranging

from robbery to homosexuality.”[7]

 

Lt. Col. Douglas T. Bates, the chief defense attorney, was also not permitted to fully

cross-examine all of the prosecution witnesses. For example, prosecution witness

Arthur Haulot, a 32-year-old journalist and former lieutenant in the Belgian army, threatened

to leave the trial after being aggressively cross-examined by Bates. An hour later, Bates

and the other defense lawyers met with Haulot outside of the courtroom. Bates put a friendly

arm around Haulot’s shoulder and said: “We just want to thank you. By speaking up, you

got us properly scolded. We were doing what we had to do, and frankly it disgusted us.

You won’t be bothered like that again.”[8]         

              

Such a concession by the defense counsel could never have occurred if the trial had taken

place in a court in America. However, at Dachau the defense attorneys were soldiers who

took seriously reprimands from their superior officers, who were judges in the trial.[9]

 

Signed confessions by the defendants were often used to obtain convictions at the Dachau trial.

Evidence was presented that many of the defendants in the Dachau trial made their

confessions under torture. For example, defendant Johann Kick testified:

 

I was under arrest here in Dachau from sixth to 15th of May. During this time I was

beaten all day and night. I had to stand at attention for hours. I had to kneel down on

pointed objects. I had to stand under a lamp for hours and look into the light, at

which time I was also beaten and kicked. As a result of this treatment my arm was

paralyzed for about 10 weeks.[10]

 

Kick testified that as a result of these beatings, he signed the confession presented to

him by U.S. Lt. Paul Guth.[11] Kick’s report regarding his torture, however, made no

difference to the eight U.S. military officers who presided as judges in the trial.

 

Common Design

 

The prosecution used the legal device of common design to establish that (wartime) camp

personnel at Dachau were guilty of violating the laws and usages of war. Defense attorney

Douglas Bates in his closing statement challenged the court’s use of common design. Bates said:

 

The most talked-of phrase has been “common design.” Let us be honest and admit that

common design found its way into the judgment for the simple expedient of trying 40

defendants in one mass trial instead of having to try one each in 40 trials. Where is

the common design? Conspicuous by its absence, established for the purpose of trapping

some defendants against whom there was a shortage of proof—by arguing, for example,

that if Schoep was a guard in the camp, then he was equally responsible for everything

that went on. There are guards at each gate of this American post today. Is it not

far-fetched to say they are responsible for crimes that may be committed within the

confines of this large area? If every one of the defendants is guilty of participating in

that large common design, then it becomes necessary to hold responsible every member

of the Nazi Party and every citizen of Germany who contributed to the waging of total war—

and I submit that can’t be done.

 

I read this in Life magazine today: “Justice cannot be measured quantitatively. If the

whole of Germany is guilty of murder, no doubt it would be just to exterminate the

German people. The real problem is to know who is guilty of what.” Perhaps the

prosecution has arrived at a solution as to how an entire people

can be indicted as an acting part of a mythical common design.

 

And a new definition of murder has been introduced along with common design. This

new principle of law says, “I am given food and told to feed these people. The food

is inadequate. I feed them with it, and they die of starvation. I am guilty of murder.”

Germany was fighting a war she had lost six months before. All internal business had

completely broken down. I presume people like Filleboeck and Wetzel should have

reenacted the miracle at Galilee, where five loaves and fishes fed a multitude.

 

There has been a lot of impressive law read by the chief counsel, and it is good law—Miller,

Wharton. The sad thing is that little of it is applicable to the facts in this case. Perhaps

we have not been diligent enough in seeking applicable law. Some think the prosecution

has found applicable law in the Rules of Land Warfare on the doctrine of superior orders.

We have no intention of arguing that executions by the German Reich were due process.

Nevertheless, we contend that executions were the result of law of  the then recognized

regime in Germany and that members of the firing squad were simple soldiers

acting in the same capacity as in any military organization in the world….

 

If law cloaks a bloodbath in Germany, the idea of law will be the real victim. Lynch law,

of which we have known a good deal in America, often gets the right man. But its aftermath

is a contempt for the law, a contempt that breeds more criminals. It is far, far better that

some guilty men escape than that the idea of law be endangered. In the long

run, the idea of law is our best defense against Nazism in all its forms

In closing, I ask permission to paraphrase a great statesman. Never in the history of

judicial procedure has so much punishment been asked against so many on so little proof.[12]

 

Despite its injustice, William Denson refused to acknowledge that the legal concept of common

design should not apply in this case. Denson stated: “I do not want the court to feel that it is

necessary to establish individual acts of misconduct to show guilt or innocence. If he

participated in this common design, as evidence has shown, it is sufficient to establish his guilt.”[13]

 

                                 The Case of Dr. Schilling   

 

The injustice and hypocrisy of the Dachau trial is illustrated by the case of Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling

(pictured right at his execution). Malaria experiments at Dachau were performed by

Dr. Schilling, who was an internationally famous parasitologist. Dr. Schilling was

ordered by Heinrich Himmler in 1936 to conduct medical research at Dachau for the

specific purpose of immunizing individuals against malaria. The medical supervisor at

Dachau would select the people to be inoculated and then send this list of people to Berlin

to be approved by a higher authority. Those who were chosen were then

turned over to Dr. Schilling to conduct the medical experimentation.[14]

 

Dr. Schilling acknowledged in court that he had performed malaria experiments on inmates

in Dachau. When asked why these experiments had not been performed on animals,

Dr. Schilling replied:

 

I have been asked hundreds of times why I do not work with animals. The simple answer

is that malaria of the human being cannot be transmitted to animals. Even highly

developed apes and chimpanzees are not receivers of malaria. That is a recognized principle of

malaria experiments.[15]

 

William Denson stated that Dr. Schilling was “nothing more than a common murderer”

whose medical experimentation could not be compared to that performed in the United States.[16]

 

However, evidence in the later Doctors’ trial in Nuremberg showed that doctors in the

United States performed medical experiments on prison inmates and conscientious objectors

during the war. The evidence showed that large-scale malaria experiments were performed on

800 American prisoners, many of them black, from federal penitentiaries in Atlanta and state

penitentiaries in Illinois and New Jersey. U.S. doctors conducted human experiments with

malaria tropica, one of the most dangerous of the malaria strains, to aid the U.S. war effort in

Southeast Asia.[17]

 

Although Dr. Schilling’s malaria experiments were no more-dangerous or illegal than the

malaria experiments performed by U.S. doctors, Dr. Schilling had to pay for his malaria

experiments by being hanged to death while his wife watched.[18] The U.S. doctors

who performed malaria experiments on humans were never charged with any crime.           

                     

Verdict 

 

It took the Dachau tribunal only 90 minutes to convict all 40 defendants. Joshua Greene

writes: “Even if history looked back and judged his work charitably, Denson might have

imagined one hour and 30 minutes to be a shockingly short time in which to determine the fate

of 40 men.”[19]    

 

William Denson had no doubt that the U.S. Army tribunal would find the German defendants

guilty of war crimes.[20] The 90 minutes it took to convict the 40 defendants was also

probably not a surprise to Denson. In fact, in the later Mauthausen trial in which Denson

was the lead prosecutor, the American military tribunal took only 90 minutes to find all 61

defendants guilty.[21]

 

Historian Tomaz Jardim writes concerning these verdicts: “Given the brevity of deliberations,

it is clear that the judges spent no significant amount of time reviewing the evidence, examining

legal precedent, or evaluating the issues surrounding the common-design charge that

defense counsel had raised. In all likelihood, the judges had begun deliberations with their

minds made up.”[22]

 

Conclusion

 

Benjamin Ferencz acknowledges the injustice of the Dachau trial:

 

I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army,

and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the

basis for prosecutions…But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was

nothing resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials…It was not my idea of

a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.[23]

 

Ferencz states that nobody including himself protested

against such procedures in the Dachau trials.[24]            

 

The defendants did not receive a fair and impartial hearing in the Dachau trial. The use of

interrogation methods designed to produce false confessions, lax rules of evidence and

procedure, the presumption that the defendants were guilty unless proven innocent,

American military judges with little or no legal training, unreliable eyewitness testimony,

the nonexistence of an appeals process, and the inability of defense counsel to aggressively

cross-examine some of the prosecution witnesses ensured the conviction of all of the

defendants in the Dachau trial.

 

 Endnotes

[1] Jaworski, Leon, Confession and Avoidance: A Memoir,

Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1979, p. 115.

 

[2] Greene, Joshua M., Justice at Dachau: The Trials of an

American Prosecutor, New York: Broadway Books, 2003, p. 41.

 

[3] Ibid., pp. 42-43.

[4] Ibid., pp. 47-48.

 

[5] Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.:

Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.

 

[6] Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960.

Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429. 

 

[7] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Nazi Past: The Politics of Amnesty

and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.

 

[8] Greene, Joshua M., Justice at Dachau: The Trials of an American

Prosecutor, New York: Broadway Books, 2003, pp. 55-57.

 

[9] Ibid., p. 57.

[10] Ibid., p. 77.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid. pp. 113-115.

[13] Ibid., p. 112.

 

[14] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer

Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 64-65.

 

[15] Greene, Joshua M., Justice at Dachau: The Trials of an

American Prosecutor, New York: Broadway Books, 2003, p. 88.

 

[16] Ibid., p. 112.

 

[17] Schmidt, Ulf, Karl Brandt: The Nazi Doctor,

New York: Continuum Books, 2007, p. 376.

 

[18] McCallum, John Dennis, Crime Doctor, Mercer

Island, Wash.: The Writing Works, Inc., 1978, pp. 66-67.

 

[19] Greene, Joshua M., Justice at Dachau: The Trials of an

American Prosecutor, New York: Broadway Books, 2003, p. 115.

 

[20] Ibid., p. 116.

[21] Ibid., p. 221.

 

[22] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 180-181.

 

[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and

the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.

[24] Ibid.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

The Bizarre Lies Told At Nuremberg To Execute Germans

They Wish You’d Forget

By JohnWear

 

…many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most

defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse”.

 

 

After Germany’s defeat in WWII, the Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily

for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. Wears War brings to you each

week a quote from the many fine men and women who were openly appalled by the trials.

All of these people were highly respected and prominent in their field, at least until they

spoke out against the trials.

 
Healthy Inmates Celebrate Liberation With Alcohol, Buchenwald, 1945
 
 

Many defenders of the Holocaust story maintain that the 42-volume Trial of the Major

War Criminals (The Blue Series) supplies a massive compilation of damning evidence against

Germany’s National Socialist regime. In his book Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Carlos

Porter confronts the evidence directly by reproducing page after page from the Blue Series.

Porter shows that many of the charges made at Nuremberg are so bizarre that most defenders

of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse. In addition to killing Jews in homicidal gas

chambers, the Germans at Nuremberg were accused of:

 

–building special electrical appliances to zap inmates to death with mass electrical shocks;

 

–killing 20,000 Jews in a village near Auschwitz with an atomic bomb;

 

–forcing prisoners to climb trees and then killing the prisoners by cutting down the trees;

 

–killing 840,000 Russian prisoners at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp using

a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine, and then burning the bodies in four mobile crematories;

 

–torturing and executing people at the Yanov camp in Russia in time to musiccreated

by a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners, and then shooting every

member of the orchestra;

 

grinding the bones of 200 people at one time as described

in documents and photographs that have disappeared;

 

making lampshades, handbags, driving gloves for SS officers,

book bindings, saddles, house slippers, etc. out of human skin;

 

–killing prisoners and concentration camp inmates for everything

from having soiled underwear to having armpit hair; and

 

steaming people to death like lobsters in steam chambers at Treblinka.

 

After this incredible survey of Nuremberg atrocity evidence, Carlos Porter provides

numerous examples of improper prosecution tactics at Nuremberg. The defendants at

Nuremberg were rarely able to confront their accusers, since affidavits from witnesses

who had been deposed months before sufficed. The prosecution made it difficult for the

defense lawyers to have timely access to the documents introduced into evidence by

the prosecution. Also, photocopies and transcripts were usually submitted into evidence

instead of the original German documents, which in many cases seemed to have disappeared.

Finally, the defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered

material to the case. The defense had no right to review the tons of

remaining documents that might help them defend their clients.

 

 
 
American soldiers with deloused clothing airing outside the dis-infestation chambers, 1945.
The dis-infestation chambers and Zyklon-B continued to be used after the Allied liberation
 
 

Quote Source: Porter, Carlos Whitlock, Made in Russia:

The Holocaust, Historical Review Press, 1988.

 

 
 
Repeat After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair &
Objective Justice For The Greater Good Of Humanity!”
 
 
 
 
Decades Later Americans Pay To Administer Reparation Agreements: “
After Survivors Interfered In U.S. State & Federal Contract Tenders In 2016. Repeat
After Me: “The Nuremberg Trials Dispensed Fair & Objective Justice For The Greater GUILT Of Humanity!”

 _______________________________

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1 Article 19
 
 
>The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply
to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure,
and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. 
 
 
 
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1 Article 21
 
 
>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 Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the
various  allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records
and findings military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. 
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

The Einsatzgruppen Trial


Historical Background

 

The Einsatzgruppen trial was the ninth of 12 American-run trials held after the International

Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The trial was

officially titled “The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al.” and lasted from

September 29, 1947 to April 10, 1948. The court indicted 24 Einsatzgruppen leaders on

three counts of criminality: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in

organizations declared criminal by the IMT. Only 22 defendants were tried because

one committed suicide and another had to be excluded for health reasons.[1]

 

Benjamin Ferencz, a 27-year-old Harvard-educated attorney, was appointed by Telford Taylor

as chief prosecutor in the case. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the

Einsatzgruppen reports his team had discovered in Berlin. Ferencz later said about the

Einsatzgruppen reports:[2]

 

“So we had the names of each town and village, the date, the number of people killed,

the name of the unit, the officer in charge, and other officers. I sat down in my office

with a little adding machine, and I began to count the people that were murdered in

cold blood. When I reached a million, I said that’s enough for me. I flew from Berlin to

Nuremberg, to see Telford Taylor, who by then was a general. And I said, we’ve got to

put on another trial.”

 

Ferencz said the Einsatzgruppen trial would not have taken place if his

team had not had the extraordinary luck of finding these reports.[3]

 

The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence lasted less than two days and consisted

mainly of excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen reports. Ferencz and the four attorneys assisting

him called no prosecution witnesses and presented no films during the trial. Thus, the

Nuremberg prosecutors set out to prove by documentation alone that the defendants had

participated in some of the worst crimes of the National Socialist regime.[4] Since the

Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine

the validity of these reports.

    

The Einsatzgruppen Reports

 

The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports

were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS

offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these

reports exist today in the original—all of them are copies.[5]

 

That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies

is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers

before the Allies conquered Germany.[6] The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports

has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents

emerged from the Soviet occupation zone.[7]   

 

The copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports which have been produced show clear signs of

postwar additions. A typical example is Einsatzgruppen Report No. 111. Peter Winter writes

that this report contains not only completely garbled wording, but also a

clear addition to the end of a paragraph (highlighted in italics below)[8]:

 

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political

officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives,

Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and

informers of the NKVD, persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses,

were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness,

undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members

of Russian bands, armed insurgents—provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators,

drifting juveniles, Jews in general.

 

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity

of the Einsatzgruppen reports. Butz writes [9]:

 

They [the documents] are mimeographed and signatures are most rare and, when they

occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a

signature, R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various

units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler

reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November

1942. This claim occurs on page four of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s

occur on the irrelevant page one. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy

to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.

 

Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the

Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate. Mattogno writes [10]:

 

For example, in the summary of the activity of Einsatzgruppe A (October 16, 1941, to

January 31, 1942) the number of Jews present in Latvia at the arrival of the German

troops is 70,000, but the number of Jews shot is reported as being 71,184! Furthermore,

another 3,750 Jews were alive in work camps. In Lithuania, there were 153,743 Jews,

of which 136,421 were allegedly shot, whereas 34,500 were taken to the ghettos at

Kaunas, Wilna, and Schaulen, but the total of those two figures is 170,921 Jews!

 

The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also

proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based

on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had

executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney,

Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible[11]:

 

 In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they

had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol

clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution

of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one

company of S.D. was in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometers from the

town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were

probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on

suspicion of resistance activity…

 

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly

in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumors about an S.D.

excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared

that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger…

 

By the time we had finished with the figures and pointed out the repeated self-contradiction

in the S.D. reports, it became probable that at least one “0” would have to be knocked

off the total claimed by the S.D. and we also established that only about one-third of

Ohlendorf’s activities had taken place in von Manstein’s area. It is impossible to know

even the approximate number of murdered Jews, for not only was Ohlendorf lying to

his superiors but as we were able to show, his company commanders were lying to him.

 

Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that Einsatzgruppe D or the German army

had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent

of murdering Jews.[12]

 

 

Benjamin Ferencz’s Credibility

 

Benjamin Ferencz has made statements that call into question his independence and

integrity. For example, the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted

that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had

been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.

[13] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that

these defense counsel’s claims were correct[14]:

 

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American

pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall.

Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never

occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.

 

In the same interview, Ferencz admits that he observed the torturing

and execution of a captured Nazi at a concentration camp[15]:

 

I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel

gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him

back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing

to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air,

but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?

 

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates

a story concerning the interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his

pistol in order to intimidate him[16]:

 

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m

in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen

[shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped

him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour,

covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was

reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right

now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen,

but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly

what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they

died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no

obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…”

[Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside

and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession.

I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to

be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.

 

Peter Winter asks the question: “Is this the sort of ‘objective’ legal person who can be relied

upon to produce evidence at a major trial?”[17] The fact that Ferencz threatened and

humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated

in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[18] Any lawyer

knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

 

 

Defendants’ Testimony

 

Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded

in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately

90,000 people. Ohlendorf’s testimony horrified the court and had a depressing effect on

the defendants. Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist, wrote that Ohlendorf’s

testimony established “the inescapable reality and shame of mass

murder…by the unquestionable reliability of a German official.”[19]

 

British attorney Reginald Paget, however, questioned the validity of Ohlendorf’s testimony

at the IMT. Paget wrote: “Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole

Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything

that would please his employers. The Americans, also, had found him the perfect witness.”[20]

 

Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that

there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under

cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews or Gypsies killed by his Group D

were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000

people had been executed by his Group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.[21]

 

Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, testified that he knew

nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando

while he was its leader. Haensch claimed he first learned of the murder of Jews in July 1947

when his interrogator at Nuremberg told him of the Final Solution. Haensch testified that the

Einsatzgruppen reports that contradicted his testimony were inaccurate. After the trial,

Haensch became so obsessed with proving his innocence that he refused to apply for parole,

hoping that American officials would see their error and grant him the clemency he deserved.[22]  

 

Benjamin Ferencz claims the Einsatzgruppen reports were definitive proof that the

Einsatzgruppen had mass murdered Jews. Ferencz states: “There were times when I felt

outraged. For example, the day one defendant, a colonel, said: ‘What, Jews were shot? I

hear that in this courtroom for the first time.’ We had the records of every day that man

was out murdering, and he had the gall to say that. I was ready to

jump over the bar and poke my fingers into his eyes.”[23]        

 

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their

presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes

that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt[24]:

 

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made

up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how

to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week

before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death

by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He

gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial. 

 

 

Conclusion 

 

Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men—including non-combat

troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen—became operational soon after the

German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of

fighting against partisans, and in pursuit of this mission they performed numerous

mass shootings.[25]

 

The official Holocaust historiography, however, claims that the Einsatzgruppen had the

additional task of committing genocide against Soviet Jews. The Einsatzgruppen reports,

which fall into the period from June 1941 to May 1942, are the primary proof of this alleged

genocide. The Einsatzgruppen reports that have been produced are copies which show

clear signs of postwar additions, inaccurate and inflated figures, and obscure signatures

appearing on non-incriminating pages. Such reports would not constitute

valid proof for legitimate historiography or a legitimate court of law.[26]   

 

The defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trial did not receive a fair hearing. The shootings

carried out by the Einsatzgruppen were not nearly as extensive as claimed at the trial, for

the numbers mentioned in the Einsatzgruppen reports cannot be objectively confirmed

and in many cases are demonstrably exaggerated. These reports provide no basis in

justice or fact to convict the Einsatzgruppen defendants of genocide against Soviet Jewry.[27]       

 

 

Endnotes

 

 


[1] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1, 9-11.
[2] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 14-15.
[3] Ibid., p. 14.
[4] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 179-180.
[5] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.
[6] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 204.
[7] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 25
[8] Ibid., pp. 24-25.
[9] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 198.
[10] Rudolf, Germar and Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 243.
[11] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, pp. 169-172.
[12] Ibid., p. 174.
[13] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
[14] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[17] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.
[18] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 83.
[19] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 72.
[20] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, p. 171.
[21] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 202.
[22] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162-163.
[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 19.
[24] Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[25] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp. 203, 205.
[26] Ibid., pp. 203-211.
[27] Ibid., pp. 208-211.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Torture and Testicle Crushing at Nuremberg

. . . by Lasha Darkmoon

 

Confessions at Nuremberg were obtained under torture.

The grimmest of these tortures, practiced mostly by

Jewish operatives on their German prisoners of war,

was testicle crushing.

 

Nuremberg defendants

 

 

German defendants at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials,

1946-1949. How many of them had their testicles crushed?

 

“The Holocaust legend is built on ‘confessions’ obtained by the use of  torture.”

 So begins an article that has just been brought to my attention by an unknown emailer.

 

At the same time, by sheer coincidence, another correspondent has just sent me

some stomach-churning details about testicle crushing. He ends his letter with

these words : “This is what Jewish interrogators did to their German prisoners

of war after WWII in order to get them to “sing”—i.e., to confess to crimes they

never committed.”

 

I was a bit shocked by these words. To tell the truth, testicle crushing is not something

I have thought about a great deal, nor do I wish to dwell too much on this distasteful subject.

I am aware of course that a lot of testicle crushing went on at Nuremberg in order to wring

confessions out of the prostrate Germans, but I had been unaware that

American  Jews had been foremost in the ranks of these torturers.

 

Apparently, as many as three out four interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jewish—and

these Jewish interrogators, I was to learn to my horror, had been by far the most sanguinary

and sadistic. There was almost no level of human depravity to which these monsters were

not willing to sink, including forcing their German victims to

eat excrement and to have sex with disinterred corpses.

 

Yes, so this is something we ought to bear in mind when watching all those Hollywood

movies celebrating the heroic deeds of the Allies in World War Two and lamenting the

horrors of the Holocaust : that Jewish interrogators, working for the Americans, are

known to have beaten, tortured, and crushed the testicles of German defendants before

charging them with war crimes at Nuremberg. Without these confessions, obtained under

extreme torture, there is no solid proof that any Jewish Holocaust took place at all. There

is only legend, hearsay and “eyewitness accounts” : like those of Elie Wiesel and his kind—

accounts that have turned out, in retrospect, to be based on pure fantasy, fiction,

and grotesque exaggeration.

 

Proponents of the official storyline say that some of the strongest evidence that “proves”

the Holocaust—i.e. the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews in gas chambers on the

instructions of Hitler—consists of the supposed “confessions” of the German officials

who were put on trial at Nuremberg. What they neglect to tell you is that most of these

confessions were obtained under extreme torture. Indeed, according to Jewish investigator

John Sack, torture was often practiced for its own sake, even when there was nothing

to find out. It was practiced for sheer pleasure: because it gave the torturers a ‘high’, a

feeling of sadistic omnipotence, of orgasmic euphoria.

 

It has since been openly admitted in the memoirs of the top British official, Colonel

Alexander Scotland, who ran the interrogation program, that thousands of Germans

were tortured by British Military Intelligence, under the direction of the Prisoner of War

Interrogation Section (PWIS). This torture of German POWs occurred during the war to

obtain military intelligence. After the war was over, it was used again in order to obtain

confessions for convictions of “war crimes”.

 

German POWs reported that the torture techniques included deprivation of

sleep, starvation, systematic beatings, ripping hair from the scalp, menacing with

red-hot pokers, threatened use of electrical devices to deliver shocks, and, finally,

the worst torture of all, the slow and systematic mangling of the spermatic

cords of the testicles—a procedure that had their victims

thrashing about and screaming like wild animals for hours.

 

The prosecutors at Nuremberg accused and convicted the Germans of murdering some

4 million people at Auschwitz. These charges were based largely upon the supposed “confessions”

obtained by the torture of German officers, such as the signed “confession” by Rudolf Höss

the commandant at Auschwitz, giving details of how he had personally supervised the murder of 2.5 million jews.

 

In 1989, however, the Soviet government reduced the claim of the number killed at Auschwitz

 from 4 million to 1.5 million. (See picture below). This was later reduced to 1 million.

 

Auch_dees

 

 

It became apparent at once that if only 1 million Jews had died at Auschwitz, as was now

officially admitted, it no longer became possible to state that 2.5 million Jews had been killed

there under Höss while he was a commandant there. The “confession” by Höss that 2.5 million

Jews had been killed at Auschwitz  under his auspices was therefore worthless.

It had been a confession clearly extracted under torture.

 

If, moreover, only 1 million Jews perished at Auschwitz instead of the 4 million

originally claimed to have died there, it’s obvious that there has been an overestimate

of three million dead Jews.  It is no longer possible to assert that 6 million Jews

died in the Holocaust. That becomes a mathematical impossibility. 

 

And yet, incredibly, this mathematical impossibility is brazenly

asserted to this day in every mainstream media outlet.

 

21_52

 

 

We are all expected to pretend that 6 million Jews minus  3 million Jews somehow

equals 6 million Jews, just as Winston Smith (in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four)

was expected to believe that 2 + 2  = 5. Winston Smith, you will remember, managed

to believe this absurdity in the end, with the help of a little extra tuition he received

via the famous “rat torture“.        

§

The startling revelation that almost all the German defendants at Nuremberg had

had their testicles crushed must make us sit up and think. How can testimonies

obtained under testicle crushing be regarded in any way as reliable?

 

Following reports that defendants were tortured at the Malmedy massacre trial, the

US Army formed the “Simpson Commission” to investigate the alleged misconduct. 

Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission. According to Van Roden’s book, 

American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German

“war criminals” who were investigated by the commission—and who were subsequently

put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II

—”137 of these Germans were tortured by having their testicles crushed.” 

 

Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings,

placing a hood over prisoners and punching them in the face with brass knuckles,

breaking their jaws, knocking out their teeth, putting them on starvation rations,

and subjecting them to solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented

with prepared statements to sign. Confess or face more torture!

 

It emerged that Jewish prosecutors and interrogators had obtained complete

control over the US Military tribunal that was to put German officials on trial

for war crimes. This is seldom mentioned, as to do so is regarded as “anti-Semitic”.

To state the unvarnished truth—that 137 Germans had their testicles mangled

at Nuremberg by largely Jewish interrogators in order to obtain

proof for the Holocaust—is regarded as “hate speech”.

 

perl_william

 

Lt. William Perl was an Austrian Jew

who had emigrated to America in 1940.

 

He was the chief interrogator of Germans accused of the Malmedy massacre. This

was because he could speak fluent German; and indeed many of the interrogators at

Nuremberg were German or Austrian Jews who had emigrated to America before WWII

and were known as the ‘Ritchie Boys’. There were roughly 9000 of these Jews in

America and they specialized in the “interrogation” of German prisoners. (See here).

 

Perl supervised the torture of the German defendants. He was an ardent and active

Zionist and was assisted by other Jews in his endeavors to extract confessions by

the infliction of maximum pain. Jews specalizing in torture techniques at

Nuremberg included  Josef Kirschbaum, Harry Thon and Morris Ellowitz. (See here)

 

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the interrogation of Germans at Malmedy:

 

“The accusations [against the German defendants]  were mainly based on the sworn

and written statements provided by the defendants in Schwäbish Hall. To counter the

evidence given in the men’s sworn statements and by prosecution witnesses, the

lead defense attorney, Lieutenant Colonel Willis M. Everett tried to show

that the statements had been obtained by inappropriate methods.

 

Note that exquisite euphemism: “inappropriate methods”. That’s how respectable, politically

correct Americans refer to confessions obtained under torture. The methods are not described

as horrendously cruel. They are not described as morally indefensible.

They are described as “inappropriate”.

 

On Sept. 25, 1945, Thomas Dodd, who was the second in command on the American

prosecution team at Nuremberg, made the following observation in which

he claimed that three out of four interrogators at Nuremberg were Jewish:

 

“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism,” he said. “You know how

strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge,

you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish.”

 

One person who has made a close study of the Nuremberg trial archives in the original

German and knows more about this subject than anyone else I know is the multilingual

American scholar Carlos W. Porter who is fluent in German, French, Italian, Spanish

and Portuguese. Having renounced his American citizenship in 1984, and having then

relocated to Belgium with his wife and children, the Holocaust revisionist author of

Not Guilty at Nuremberg” took the trouble to write to me about the Nuremberg trials in

a private communication (July 28, 2015 at 9:55 pm). Porter confirmed what I had always

suspected: that most of the American interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jews, and that

torture had been freely practiced against the helpless Germans on trial in order to force

them to confess to non-existent crimes:

 

“You can be absolutely CERTAIN,” Carlos Porter wrote to me, “that nearly ALL

the interrogators and interpreters in ALL the trials were Jewish, because the

Americans stamped out the German language from all American schools during

WWI, so German Jewish refugees were almost the only competent people they

had. Of course, other “German-Americans” could not be trusted not to be “Nazis”,

so they were stuck with the German Jews.

 

That there was a great deal of mistreatment and torture in the minor trials is

absolutely certain. I reproduced a couple of accounts of torture at the Dachau

trials in “War Crimes Trials and Other Essays”. But I’m sure it’s only the tip

of the iceberg. Minor personnel could be tortured with impunity, and 99% of

them would be afraid even to mention it. It would be hard to get away with

torturing somebody like Goering though.

 

There’s a lot of literature on the subject, more all the time. The Brits appear

to have been surprisingly enthusiastic torturers, whether Jewish or not.”

 

Testicle crushing, incidentally, is a tried and tested method for obtaining confessions.

It was used throughout the Middle Ages and particularly in France during the French Revolution.

That the Jews, a scholarly race noted for their vast erudition and academic achievements,

should have mastered all the techniques of testicle crushing is therefore not surprising.

Their talents for acquiring such outré information must not be underestimated.

 

Though Perl had lots of German blood on his hands, he was nevertheless allowed by

the Americans to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War trials. Another Jew of

note at the Nuremberg war crimes trials was Richard W. Sonnenfeldt. He was the chief

interpreter for American prosecutors such as Perl. He “interrogated” some of the most

notorious Nazi leaders of World War II and died in 2009, age 86, at his home in

Port Washington, N.Y. (See here)

 

The Presiding Judge at Nuremberg was also—coincidence?—a Jew. His name was 

A.H. Rosenfeld and he was a colonel in the American army. Col. Rosenfeld cheerfully

admitted to torturing German prisoners of war as a matter of policy. “We couldn’t have

made those birds talk otherwise,” he remarked cynically. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”

 

antisemitism_Shlomo_MorelIn a recent private email to me, in response to some of my queries about torture at

Nuremberg, Thomas Goodrich, acclaimed author of Hellstorm : The Death of Nazi

Germany (1944-1947), mentioned the names of four well-known Jews in the American

zone whom he identified as “torturer-inquisitors” : Harry Thon, William Perl,

AH Rosenfeld, and Shlomo Morel.

 

This last-named individual, Shlomo Morel (pictured right), was a particularly

nasty piece of work whom Goodrich describes as follows:

 

“a vicious monster who drowned men and women in outdoor latrines, who

made them eat excrement, who personally beat captives to death, and

who forced women to kiss and make love with disinterred corpses.”

 

(For more grisly details, confirming all this, see here)

 

After escaping from the killing fields of Germany, where he had taken immense pleasure

in dancing over mounds of corpses and shedding rivers of human blood, this cruel psychopath 

 “lived out his life in comfort and ease in Israel.” Yes, Israel!the final bolthole and refuge

dump for many a runaway Jew fleeing the long arm of the law, a place described in a prescient

comment by Adolf Hitler as early as 1925 as “a haven for convicted scoundrels

and a university for budding crooks.”  (Mein Kampf, chapter 11, excerpt.)

§

Here now are some grisly details about testicle crushing that the reader may find of some

interest. These distasteful details are given here only because they are relevant to our

discussion. If you are of a queasy disposition and prone to easy vomiting, you are advised

to skip the description and stop reading right here. Remember that all this was done to

137 Germans at Nuremberg in order to extract confessions from them with a view to establishing

the “truth” about the Holocaust. Without all that testicle crushing, the Holocaust might

have been much harder to prove.

 

“Standard practice [to obtain castration] in France from the Middle Ages to

the French Revolution was to crush the condemned’s testicles in a vise, which

burst them as mush from the scrotum, then crunch the spermatic cords with pliers.

The condemned was turned upside down in order to maximize the blood flow

to his brain, after which he was unable to pass out or enter a

state of shock until, perhaps, the last few seconds of his ordeal.

 

The condemned was sure to vomit repeatedly with violent convulsions, even

well after he had voided the contents of his stomach, but he rarely screamed

except for an initial shriek, which immediately silenced, because the pain overwhelmed

his ability to breathe. Most men would hang and thrash wildly during and

after the crushing of each testicle, and their thrashing would renew upon

the crushing of each spermatic cord.

 

This torture method (accompanied by others) was usually reserved for the

crime of regicide or attempted regicide. The condemned was mercifully put

to death afterwards, but his torture routinely lasted for the better part of a day,

witnessed by large crowds. It is interesting to note that, whereas most crowds

were instructed to jeer, mock, and ridicule the condemned, and did so even

during a disemboweling, and drawing and quartering, most crowds remained

silent and stared with shocked expressions as a castration was carried out

in this manner.

 

Onlookers, male and female, are recorded to

have vomited at the sight of the spectacle.

 

Yes, they certainly knew what they were doing at Nuremberg! They were the experts.

 

 

 _______________________________________________________

 

 

The Malmedy Trial:

Denial of the Obvious




The Malmedy trial took place from May 16 to July 16, 1946 at Dachau before a military

tribunal of American officers operating under rules established by the Nuremberg International

Military Tribunal.[1] American historian Steven P. Remy has written a book titled

The Malmedy Massacre which disputes that the 73 German defendants in this trial

were improperly convicted.

 

Remy states in his book’s conclusion that American interrogators did not use physical

or psychological pressure to obtain information at any of their postwar trials. Remy writes:[2]

 

“There is no evidence that in the North African, European, or Pacific theaters American

interrogators relied on systematic forms of physical and psychological pressure to

obtain information from combatants or civilians. Nor is there convincing

evidence that they did so in war crimes investigations after the war.”

 

This article will document some of the physical and psychological

pressure used in the Malmedy and other American-run postwar trials.

 

Improper Postwar Interrogations

 

Scene from the Malmedy Show Trial

 

 

Contrary to Remy’s statement, physical and psychological pressure was frequently used

by interrogators in American-run postwar trials. Benjamin Ferencz, a Jewish American

war crimes investigator who received a Harvard law degree in 1943, was assigned to

investigate the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Dachau.[3] Ferencz

admits that he used threats to obtain confessions. Ferencz relates a story concerning

his interrogation of an SS colonel in which he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:[4]

 

“What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m

in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen

(shot while trying to escape)… I said ‘you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!’ I stripped

him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an

hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was

reported to be. Then I said ‘now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding

right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht

erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and

write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many

died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are

under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…’

(Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:) I then went to someone outside

and said ‘Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession.

I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.’ The second one seemed

to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.”

 

The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to

his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods

were acceptable.[5] Any Harvard law graduate knows that such evidence is not

admissible in a legitimate court of law.

 

The defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions

of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the

defendants through physical abuse, coercion, and deceit.[6] Ferencz

admits that these defense counsel’s claims were correct:[7]

 

“You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American

pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall.

Then I’d say, ‘Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.’ It never

occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.”

 

Robert Kempner was the American chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial in which 21

German government officials were defendants. Kempner was a German Jew who had

lost his job as Chief Legal Advisor of the Prussian police department because of National

Socialist race laws. He was forced to emigrate first to Italy and then to the United States.

Kempner was bitter about the experience and was eager to prosecute and convict

German officials in government service.[8]

 

Kempner bribed German Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus to testify for the

prosecution in the Ministries Trial. The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus

reveals that Kempner persuaded Gaus to exchange the role of defendant for that of

collaborator with the prosecution. Gaus was released from isolation, and a few days

later a German newspaper reported a long handwritten declaration from Gaus in which

he confessed the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given

Gaus’s confession to the newspaper.[9] Kempner had also threatened to turn Gaus

over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate with the prosecution.[10]

 

Attorney Charles LaFollete said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation

was common knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of

us who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the Germans would

attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in Nuremberg.”[11]

 

Kempner also attempted to bribe German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during

the Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate.

Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote: “During the

proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good, it suffered

from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my father’s defense attorney.”

Richard von Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing more than pure cynicism.[12]

 

 

Torture of Defendants

 

Allied prosecutors often used torture to help convict the defendants at Nuremberg and

other postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence is the

confession of Rudolf Höss, the former commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at

the Nuremberg trial was the most important evidence presented of a German extermination

program. Höss said that more than 2.5 million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz

gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.[13]

No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key

portions of Höss’s testimony at Nuremberg are widely acknowledged to be untrue.

 

In 1983 the anti-Nazi book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler stated that Jewish Sgt.

Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession.

The torture of Höss was exceptionally brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler

finds anything wrong or immoral in Höss’s torture. Neither of them seems to understand

the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss’s

testimony at Nuremberg was obtained by torture, and is therefore not credible

evidence in establishing a program of German genocide against European Jewry.[14]

 

Bernard Clarke was not the only Jew who tortured Germans to obtain confessions.

Tuviah Friedman, for example, was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration

camps. Friedman by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain

confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated that

“It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”[15]

 

Joseph Kirschbaum was also accused of physical abuse at the Malmedy trial when German

prisoner Otto Eichler accused Kirschbaum of beating him. A review of the medical records

indicated that Eichler had received an injury, but it could not be proven that Kirschbaum had

caused the injury.[16]

 

 

False and Perjured Witness Testimony

 

False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crime trials. Stephen F. Pinter served

as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. In a

1960 affidavit Pinter said that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to charge

Germans with false and unfounded crimes. Pinter stated, “Unfortunately, as a result

of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”[17]

 

Joseph Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947,

later described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:[18]

 

“…the major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp

cases were what came to be known as ‘professional witnesses,’ and everyone working

at Dachau regarded them as such. ‘Professional,’ since they were paid for each day

they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when

these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau

for months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words,

these witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were

former inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans

should, at the very least, have called their testimony into question...”

 

As is easily demonstrated by studying the Franz Kofler trial, these witnesses had often

never laid eyes on the men against whom they were testifying! That they lied in court is

clear from a close reading of the proceedings of the trials, for their

testimony is frequently full of contradictions and inconsistencies.[19]

 

An embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials.

U.S. investigator Joseph Kirschbaum brought a former concentration- camp inmate named

Einstein into the court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother.

Menzel, however, foiled this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in

the court room listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to

Einstein and exclaimed, “How can we bring this pig to the gallows,

if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into the court?”[20]

 

The use of false witnesses has been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was an

ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps from 1941 to

1945. Neuhäusler wrote that in some of the American-run trials “many of the witnesses,

perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with criminal records ranging from

robbery to homosexuality.”[21]

 

 

Willis N. Everett, Jr.

 

American attorney Willis N. Everett, Jr. was the lead defense counsel at the Malmedy trial.

Everett was convinced that the Malmedy trial had been an ethical abomination.

Approximately 100 of Everett’s friends and some additional American military officers

advised Everett to forget about the Malmedy case and live in the present. Everett’s

sense of ethics, however, set him on a mission to obtain justice for the Malmedy defendants.[22]

 

Everett and another defense-team member prepared a 228-page critique of the investigation

and trial, stating that the Malmedy convictions had been secured primarily on the basis of

“illegal and fraudulently procured confessions.” The petition also argued that the trial was

a travesty of justice to German soldiers since the Allies were also guilty of the same violations

of international law. Everett sent this document to Lt. Col. Clio Straight’s office for inclusion

in the internal review process that was mandatory before verdicts and sentences became final.[23]

 

Everett began a multipronged campaign of judicial appeal, publicity and congressional 

pressure to get a retrial of the Malmedy case. Everett filed an unsuccessful petition with

the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the Malmedy case. Everett then prepared an appeal

to the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ). Everett knew there was little

chance the ICJ would accept his case since only states could be parties to cases before

the ICJ. The ICJ predictably refused to hear Everett’s appeal of the Malmedy case.[24]

 

Everett made a huge personal and financial sacrifice to free the Malmedy defendants.

The physical and emotional stress from the appeal process caused Everett to suffer

from declining health and at least one heart attack. Everett estimated his out-of-pocket

expenses to be as much as $50,000, to which must be added the income lost through

his neglect of his law practice. The West German consul in Atlanta later presented Everett

with a check for $5,000 as a gesture of appreciation for his inexhaustible efforts

on behalf of the Malmedy defendants.[25]

 

Why did Everett make such a huge personal and financial sacrifice? Remy writes:[26]

 

“Everett also believed the army had treated him shabbily. He had been given an assignment

for which he did not have the requisite experience or enough time, in his view, to prepare

the case. Though he and the other defense lawyers had nonetheless mounted a vigorous

defense, they lost the case, and badly. Facing the prospect of returning to his struggling

Atlanta law firm and professional obscurity, he viewed a challenge to the outcome of

the Malmedy trial as an opportunity for personal and professional redemption. Not least,

there was the possibility of considerable financial gain, as he believed he had a story

worth a great deal of money to the press.”

 

Remy provides no documentation for his contention that Everett challenged the outcome

of the Malmedy trial “as an opportunity for personal and professional redemption” and

“the possibility of considerable financial gain.” Everett had more to gain financially and

professionally by forgetting the Malmedy trial and working full time in his law firm.

Remy by his unsubstantiated statements is attempting to discredit Everett’s motives

for challenging the Malmedy verdict.

 

Conclusion

 

Steven Remy writes:[27]

“The creation and perpetuation of self-serving myths about the past remains one of the

most powerful cultural and political forces in the modern world. Gone unchallenged,

such myths harden hearts and impede dialog and reconciliation between individuals,

communities, and entire nations. They block the flow of honest and open-ended argument

about the past and its significance to the present. Understanding the relationship

between conflict and memory—individual and collective—will always be

difficult and inconclusive. The point is to keep having the arguments.”

 

Remy is correct that we should keep having the arguments. These arguments should

include the following from American attorney Warren Magee, who served as defense counsel

in the Ministries Trial:[28]

 

“‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the driving force behind the prosecutions

at Nuremberg. While it grieves me to say this, the prosecution staff, its lawyers, research

analysts, interpreters, clerks, etc. is largely Jewish. Many are Germans who fled their

country and only recently took out American citizenship. Jewish influence was even apparent

at the first trial, labeled the IMT. Atrocities against Jews are always stressed above all else…

With persecuted Jews in the background directing the proceedings, the trials cannot be

maintained in an objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, personal grievances, and racial

desires for revenge… Basic principles have been disregarded by ‘new’ Americans,

many of whom have imbedded in their very beings European racial hatreds and prejudices.”

 

The arguments should also include the following from Benjamin Ferencz:[29]

 

“I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army,

and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the basis

for prosecutions…But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was nothing

resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials. For example, they might bring in 20

or 30 people, line them up, each one with a number on a card tied around his neck. The

court would consist of three officers. None of them had any legal education as far as I

could make out; it was coincidental if they did. One officer was assigned as defense counsel,

another as prosecutor, the senior one presiding. The prosecutor would get up and say

something like this: We accuse all of you of being accomplices to crimes against humanity

and war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other brutalities in the camp,

between 1942 and 1943, what do you have to say for yourself? Each defendant would

be given about a minute to state his case, which was usually, not guilty. One trial for instance,

which lasted two minutes, convicted 10 people and sentenced them all to death. It was

not my idea of a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.”

 

Ferencz states that nobody including himself protested

against such procedures in these Dachau trials.[30]

 

The Malmedy trial was probably closer to a fair judicial process than Ferencz’s aforementioned

description. However, the Malmedy trial was not a fair and impartial hearing. The lack

of documentary evidence, the use of mock trials and interrogation methods designed to

produce false confessions, military judges with little or no legal training, and unreliable

eyewitness testimony assured the conviction of all 73 German defendants in the Malmedy trial.[31]

 


Notes

[1] Parker, Danny S., Hitler’s Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, Boston, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2014, p. 148.
[2] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 279.
[3] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, p. 32.
[4] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[5] Ibid., p. 83.
[6] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
[7] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[8] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
[9] Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[10] Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
[11] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
[12] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
[13] Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
[14] Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.
[15] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.
[16] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 141.
[17] Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
[18] Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
[19] Ibid., p. 312.
[20] Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
[21] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
[22] Weingartner, James J., A Peculiar Crusade: Willis M. Everett and the Malmedy Massacre, New York: New York University Press, 2000, pp. 119, 138.
[23] Ibid., pp. 120-122.
[24] Ibid., pp. 150, 175, 181-183.
[25] Ibid., pp. 199, 220.
[26] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 130-131.
[27] Ibid., p. 280.
[28] Ibid., p. 134.
[29] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 58, 125.