Editor’s Comment: The MSM can print articles today stating “Why The German People Should Be Abolished”, they can label anyone they do not like a “Neo-Nazi” and yet they are now struggling with how to label the outspoken Dali Lama.
This week’s post gives an insight into the tangled web of hysteria they have weaved for themselves over many decades. An examination of the establishment’s WWII narrative is increasingly relevant to our lives today. Perhaps that is why it is so heavily guarded and protected by legislation, threats, intimidation and violence against anyone who asks for objective forensic examination of the evidence. Even the most vulnerable in our society, our elderly people, are terrorized for asking the wrong questions.
The Nuremberg Trials
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, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:
“…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.”[i]
[i] Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
Joseph Halow’s observations about the questionable testimony of “professional witnesses” are not unique. As we have presented previously here and here, Carlos Porter examined the claims of these witnesses, the evidence and proceedings. As Karl Brecht noted in his review of Porter’s book Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case:
Normal rules of evidence were suspended and affidavits of “witnesses” were not allowed to be cross examined. The prosecution presented as evidence numerous documents which were such absurdly bad forgeries that they were disallowed by their own judges out of sheer embarrassment. Both the American judge, Biddle, and the Russian judge, Nikitchenko, made statements prior to the trial to the effect that the defendants had already been convicted. The press was invited to watch the proceedings and the trial was broadcast over the radio. It lasted nearly a year and for entertainment value it outdid the Circus Maximus and the games of the Roman Colosseum combined. It was the political show trial of the century, making the 1930’s purge trials of Stalin seem like the epitome of just law.
Carl Porter Examines The Claims Of The ‘Professional Witnesses’:
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 music created 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.
Quote Source: Porter, Carlos Whitlock, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Historical Review Press, 1988.