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 regularly brings to you quotes 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.
The Legally-Flawed Nuremberg “War Crimes Trials” Did Not “Prove” the Holocaust
By Peter Winter,
The Holocaust storytellers like to claim that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials “proved” the mass murder of Jews in open court.
In reality, nothing of the sort was ever proved, and the main charges did not relate at all to the alleged mass murder of Jews.
Below: The Nuremberg Trials have been dismissed by all honest legal experts as a farce. People were charged on hearsay evidence, and for “crimes” such as “waging aggressive war.” The Soviets, who had invaded Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States earlier in the war, sat on the judges’ panel and sentenced German leaders to death for invading Poland.
The actual indictments at the main Nuremberg Trials were as follows:
“1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace.
“2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace.
“3. War crimes.
“4. Crimes against humanity.”
In normal legal systems, it is an established legal principle that no one can be charged for a crime that was not a crime at the time the act was committed—in other words, that no one can be charged retrospectively for an act which was not classified as a crime at the time when it was committed.
The Nuremberg Trial indictments are clearly a major abrogation of this principle, a fact which led the famous British General Bernard Montgomery, victor of the Battle of El Alamein, to remark with reference to the Nuremberg Trials that he no longer wished to lead any armies because it had now “become a crime to lose a war.”
The legal basis of these main charges aside, the entire Nuremberg Trials process was from the very beginning a mockery because one of the judging parties—the Soviet Union—had, for the first two years of the war, been an ally of Nazi Germany!
For the German leaders to be charged with “waging aggressive war” and “planning, initiating, and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace”—and then to be found guilty thereof by judges who included Soviets, is one of the most extreme acts of twisted irony ever seen on the international legal stage.
If Germany could be charged for invading Poland on September 1, 1939 (the main charge of “waging aggressive war”), then why were the Soviets not charged for invading Poland on September 17, 1939—after concluding a secret deal with Nazi Germany over the matter? Why was the Soviet Union not charged with “waging aggressive war” over its invasion of neutral Finland on November 30, 1939? In addition, nothing was said of the seizure of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia by the Soviet Union in June 1940.
The irony of the Soviets sitting in judgment over the Germans on charges of “waging aggressive war” was but only one of the many travesties of justice at the Nuremberg Trials.
The third charge, that of “war crimes” was equally outrageous. According to the definition used at the trials, a war crime was “a serious violation of the laws and customs of war.” The mass Allied bombing of German civilians—started by Britain (with the Germans only retaliating after months of nightly bombing)—was certainly a violation of the “laws and customs of war,” as were the mass rapes of German women carried out by Soviet soldiers in 1945.
However, these same Allies saw fit to put German leaders on trial for a handful of outrageous acts committed by underlings—none of which were ever sanctioned at senior level, unlike the bombing of civilians, an idea which came from Winston Churchill himself.
The fourth charge, “Crimes against humanity” was vaguely defined by the Nuremberg Trials as acts “committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity” (Judgment: The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, Judgment of the International Military Tribunal). In other words, none of the defendants at Nuremberg were specifically charged with the mass gassing of Jews or the operation of extermination camps. They were only alleged to have been “generally responsible.”
As a result it is untrue to claim that the Nuremberg Trials “proved the Holocaust.”
Even much of the “evidence” produced at those trials has long since been accepted as false. A reading of some of the incredible evidence presented as evidence borders on the laughable if it were not so illustrative of the outrageousness of the “trials.” By way of example, some of the “evidence” submitted to Nuremberg under the “crimes against humanity” charge included wild claims of “Jewish soap,” “shrunken heads,” “lampshades,” “gassing by steam”, execution by “electrocution” socks made of human hair, and even an astonishing affidavit by a “survivor” which claimed that the SS had killed Jews in one of the Polish camps with a “pedal-driven brain-bashing machine.”
All of this was accepted at face value during the court proceedings, even though they have long since been dismissed as lies by all serious historians.