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.
Joseph Halow, U.S. Court Reporter at the Dachau War Crimes Trial, writes:
As I began to understand, I saw that the self-righteousness of the Allied war crimes effort bred hypocrisy—and injustice. There were neither trials nor punishments for such atrocities by the victors as the (Anglo-American) bombing of Dresden or the (Soviet) massacre of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn—in fact, the Allies tried at Nuremberg to pin the latter crimes on the Germans!
Nor, in the half-century since the war, has there been any but the slightest application of the novel (and ex post facto) legal constructs introduced at Nuremberg. “Aggressive wars” and “crimes against humanity” flourish around the globe as heartily as ever, undeterred by the “Nuremberg principles.” National leaders continue to give their bellicose orders, and their soldiers continue to obey them, in disregard of future war crimes trials.
If anything lingers from the postwar trials, at Dachau and elsewhere, it is the propaganda version of the war, and especially the concentration camps, which has long ruled the mass media and academia in the Western world, the former Communist block, and—no less—the German nation itself.
Now, many years after the hysteria of World War II should have subsided, it is finally becoming easier to state that the wartime injustices of the vanquished were only compounded by duplicating their methods in bringing them to “justice.” The world is, furthermore, growing tired of hearing of the atrocities, whether real or unreal, ascribed to Germany during World War II, and is perhaps ready to hear of the atrocities inflicted on, rather than by, the Germans.
Source: Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 324.
Is the world now ready to hear of the at the very least 1.1 million plus ordinary German POWs vindictively starved to death through Eisenhower’s specific orders?
That’s just for starters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WakeyWakey,
I hope they are. Chapter Five of my book “Germany’s War” documents this atrocious Allied crime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Now, many years after the hysteria of World War II should have subsided, it is finally becoming easier to state that the wartime injustices of the vanquished . . . ”
Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes was wont to say basically the same. When the emotions, the passions have died down and some time has passed since the events occurred, then history can be brought into accord with the facts. Historians need to be honest, people of integrity, objective, unbiased and dispassionate in their work. In the West, we need to look critically at the current historiography. What passes for history is often propaganda.
We recall the photos of dead German civilians from the Allied terror bombing of Dresden that were used by holocaust promoters and labelled victims of the Germans. This is noteworthy for 2 reasons. First, it is another example of a lie (a falsification) being spread in support of the alleged holocaust of the Jews. Second, it also calls to mind the double standard of these war crimes tribunals held after the war. Why were Allied crimes and atrocities not adjudicated? (I guess because might makes right.) A good work on the Allied campaign of terror bombing during the war is A. C. Grayling’s book, Among The Dead Cities. Grayling is a British philosopher. Moral philosophy is relevant here. Back in 2012, we wrote on our blog that one cannot prosecute a “just war” by immoral means. It is an important issue.
btw, I just ordered some revisionist books to add to my personal collection, one of which was Germany’s War. Thank you Mr. Wear for your work in bringing this important book to publication. It needs to be widely read.
LikeLike
larryzb,
I have read the book Among the Dead Cities by A. C. Grayling and recommend it. I made reference to this book twice in the article “The Dresden Firestorm: Was the Bombing of Dresden Militarily Justified? Part 2” posted on this website on August 15, 2017.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wears war View stats, 26,407 views. This website should deserve more views, do you have anyways to spread it through?
LikeLike
General waffen
We appreciate your kind words. All I can say is to tell your friends and acquaintances how much you like our website. Maybe some of them will have an interest and view the articles on our website.
LikeLike
none of them are interested in viewing this website but I’ll try to get them convinced
LikeLiked by 1 person
26k+ views in several months is not bad for a new blog. Actually, those are very encouraging numbers.
There are 2 ways to get more visitors that work well. First, is when a blogger’s post gets viewed many times, it starts appearing higher on Google searches and that in turn drives more traffic to the post. What this means is Google’s rankings are self perpetuating. Articles appearing on the first couple of pages of search results tend to stay there over time. We know this from the few posts of ours that have made it up high in search results. These are the posts that day after day get more views on our blog site.
Second, is to have one or more other bloggers link to your post/article. There are some very large blogs in terms of readership. If one of these widely followed blogs features a reference or link(s) to your blog, you will see more visitors to your website.
By continuing to post high quality articles, over time, you will get a large number of views of your blog and its articles. It takes time but over time many individuals will see your articles – it is a cumulative process so to speak.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Larry but what if those views are the same people?
LikeLike
Not sure what you mean, sir general. The 2 ways I mentioned will bring new visitors. Sure, in the 26k figure there are no doubt viewers/readers who have visited more than once, you and I are included. So, let us assign an arbitrary figure to the number of times an interested individual has visited the site, a returning visitor, Let’s make it 10. Then even if there were no only one time visitors, 26k divided by 10 would mean this site has had 2,600 readers in the past several months. Again, that is not bad for a new blog. See you on the next post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on THE FOURTH REICH CENTURY.
LikeLike