Nuremberg Purim Feast

… It is as much a fraud as the United Nations Charter, and cunningly concocted by the same group of Zionists and their pawns. As Veale explains, it purports to create two new crimes against international law: “Crimes against peace” are defined as “planning or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties…

 

Nuremberg Hanging

Brutal Torture of Germans to Extort “Confessions”

British Sunday-Pictorial-January-23-1949-TORTURE_page-3

 

CHAPTER VII NUREMBERG TRIALS AS FRAUD

(Creating ex-post-facto Law)

 

The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.

Prof. Milton R. Konvitz, NYU, Jan 1946

 

PART ONE

MAJOR ADVANCE TO BARBARISM

[*Comments by germanvictims.com]

HERE were several momentous gatherings toward the end of World War II and immediately thereafter…Yalta, Potsdam,  San Francisco, Bretton Woods, Nuremberg. Each of them was a staged and manipulated “event,” each related to the others, much like acts or scenes in a play. Each of them separately and all of them collectively had the ultimate goal of establishing a one-world despotic dictatorship under a United Nations.

Let’s look more closely at the Nuremberg Trials, especially at the main event which extended from 20 November 1945 until the Purim Fest of 16 October 1946… the Grand Finale.

Let’s first consider the setting for these trials, that of Nuremberg, once a proud and historic city of 450,000 residents. In his highly readable book, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial (1994), Joseph E Persico sets the scene by describing the transformation of the “treasure chest of the kingdom” that “chilled Justice Jackson” (chief US prosecutor, Robert Jackson) when he first arrived in July 1945. He and “Wild Bill” Donovan, head of the OSS, traveled in a C-47 Dakota aircraft over the rubble that had once been Germany. They met with General Lucius Clay, Ike’s deputy. Donovan noted that the Russians would insist on Berlin for the trial, but Clay said that the army could not find housing for the trial staff in that shattered city. Clay had a better alternative. They reboarded the Dakota transport. Persico reports:

Jackson dozed off briefly, only to be awakened by Clay pointing earthward. That was it, the general said. Jackson gazed out the starboard window. He had seen the bomb damage in London, the ruins of Frankfurt and Munich. But nothing had prepared him for the urban corpse below. Where were they? He asked. Where Jackson would likely find his courthouse, Clay said. That was Nuremberg.1

In two days of saturation bombing by over 2,000 Flying Fortresses on 18-19 February 1945, over 20,000 high explosives and incendiaries were rained down on the hapless city. This was the culmination of the top secret [*Jew] Lindemann Plan, which was implemented by [*Jew] Churchill in 1942. Between October 1943 and the February 1945 raid, Nuremberg had been bombed 11 times, mostly by the Royal Air Force at night.

As in the case of the Dresden destruction, also in February 1945, Nuremberg was 90% destroyed, and of the original population of 450,000, only 130,000 were still alive at war’s end. Persico informs us that the Americans declared Nuremberg “among the dead cities of the European continent.” Yet, Persico writes, “there survived on its western edge, a huge frowning structure, the Justigehaude, the Palace of Justice: the courthouse of the government of Bavaria.”

It was here in that very Palace of Justice that “victor’s justice” would prevail, leading to the sentencing of 11 Germans to death by hanging for “crimes against humanity.”

For still another view of “victor’s justice,” let’s turn to another great historian – called “America’s intellectual giant” by his peers – Harry Elmer Barnes. Writing in Barnes Against the Blackout, he quotes a highly literate World War II veteran, Edgar L Jones, writing in the Atlantic Monthly (Feb 1946):

We topped off our saturation bombing and burning of enemy civilians by dropping atomic bombs on two nearly defenseless cities, thereby setting an all-time record for instantaneous mass slaughter.2

According to Barnes:

Two great wrongs don’t make a right. Hitler’s evil deeds [*though he has not committed any evil deeds] have been told and retold, beginning long before 1939. After the Cold War started the Western World began to learn something about the monstrous and nefarious doings of Stalin – that ‘man of massive outstanding personality, and deep and cool wisdom,’ as Churchill described him – which far exceeded those of Hitler. But we have heard little of the horrors which were due to the acts and policies of Churchill and Roosevelt, such as the saturation bombing of civilians, the atom bombing of the Japanese cities (planned by Roosevelt), the expulsion of about 15 million Germans from their former homes and the death of four to six million in the process, and the cruel and barbarous treatment of Germany from 1945 to 1948. The greatest horror that could be fairly traced to their doings is still held in reserve for us – the nuclear extermination of mankind.3

NUREMBERG: WOE TO THE VANQUISHED

Nuremberg: The Last Battle by the British writer, David Irving (1998) sheds new light and insight on many of the aspects of the Nuremberg Trial. Irving uncovered long-suppressed facts from private diaries and letters from prosecutors and judges, defendants and witnesses. He shows that the Allies who sat in judgment were themselves guilty of many of the crimes for which the German defendants [*The Germans made war strictly by the Geneva convention] were tried and hanged. He also exposes the Tribunal’s double standard, with the Allies acting as judge, prosecution, jury and executioner. He also reveals how Auschwitz commandant Hoes and other Germans were tortured to produce phony “evidence” that is still widely accepted as fact. He details the invention of the oft- repeated hoax of “six million” victims of the “holocaust.”

Irving reveals particularly the views of the chief American prosecutor, Robert H Jackson. Initially enthusiastic about his role as an architect of international law, his enthusiasm waned even before the opening session of the International Military Tribunal (IMT). Irving reports that Jackson told his superiors back in Washington DC:

If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done as such, but don’t hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to execute a man in any case, there is no occasion for a trial; the world yields no respect to courts that are merely organized to convict.4

We should also consider the Nuremberg Trials in light of the views of learned judges, high-ranking military officers and university professors. Irving reports that it was US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone who in 1945 called the Nuremberg trials a fraud:

[Chief US Prosecutor Robert] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas. 5

Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of “substituting power for principle” at Nuremberg. He later wrote:

I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg Trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”6

As the first trial – the main show – dragged on interminably, Justice Hugo Black ridiculed the IMT, calling it a “serious failure,” and placed the blame for that failure on his colleague, Robert Jackson.7

Actually, it was in all respects a political show trial fashioned after those of Soviet Russia, as explained by Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard in his outstanding book Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime.   Pipes states that:

[T]he Bolsheviks established the original show trial – carefully staged proceedings in which the verdict was preordained and whose objective it was to humiliate the defendants, and, by their example, to intimidate those who sympathized with their cause.8

These elaborate show trials were later mimicked by the IMT at Nuremberg, and still later by the Communists in Red China. And all were designed to further the cause of the Universalists to set up a despotic one-world socialist government. Today, that sanctimonious fraud continues at the international court in The Hague under the aegis of the United Nations.

CREATING A GLOBAL MONSTER

Patrick J. Buchanan, in a syndicated column (2 Jul 1998) considers that in Rome delegates from 156 nations are creating an International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute the soldiers and leaders of any nation it finds guilty of “crimes against humanity,” including our own. “Like the monster of the Frankenstein films, the United Nations has begun to assert a power and authority above that of its creators.”9 [*However, the Americans long claimed exception to this prosecution under the reason that they are in essence “just too powerful to submit to this after they won so many wars.”]

Buchanan writes, “Sensing victory, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is exploiting our isolation at Rome to coerce us to accept his enlarged vision of an ICC or feel the lash of world opinion. ‘No one country,’ he says, ‘will want to be responsible for the failure of the conference.’

“We want a ‘court with teeth’,” he writes in London’s Financial Times, “where acting under orders is no defense and… all individuals in a government hierarchy or military chain of command, without exception, from rulers to private soldiers, must answer for their actions… our own century has seen the invention and use of weapons of mass destruction.…”

“Now,” Buchanan writes, “since the greatest such weapon of mass destruction ever invented and used was the atomic bomb at Hiroshima, one wonders if Annan believes that General George Marshall and President Harry Truman should have been put in an ICC dock.”

Buchanan stresses that “the goal is power – the transfer of power from this republic to international bureaucrats.” Buchanan points out that “without an army of its own, the ICC is going to have to rely on the most powerful UN nation to arrest the war criminals it alone decides to prosecute. And guess who that is.”

Buchanan winds up his sharp rebuke of the Global Monster taking shape in Rome by stating that Congress should pass a joint resolution that the United States will not assist an ICC created against our wishes, will not fund it, will not permit it to operate on US territory, and will work for its early dissolution.

“We do not need any more institutions that trample on our national sovereignty.”10

DEFENDANTS ALREADY CONVICTED

The presiding chief judge for the USSR, I. T. Nikitchenko, explained the Soviet view before the Tribunal convened:

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has already been announced by both Moscow and Crimea (Yalta) declarations by the heads of the (Allied) governments… The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime.11

Both the chief Soviet prosecutor, Lt Gen Roman Rudenko, and Nikitchenko, were Soviet Bolsheviks. Rudenko would later prosecute the US pilot of the U-2 spy plane, Gary Powers.12

The greatest problem they faced, according to Jackson, was to overcome criticism that they were creating ex post facto law. Nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege, the ancient Romans had said: “no crime and no punishment without law.” Related to that problem was another, as explained by the British prosecutor, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. Irving reveals that he brought up another Latin expression, tu quoque, the “so-did-you” defense.

If the crimes they were defining applied only to Germans, how would they escape history’s verdict that the trial was not justice but merely victors’ vengeance?     Atrocities had been committed on all sides. Further, they were planning to prosecute aggression as a war crime.   Yet sitting in judgment would be Russians, whose nation had invaded Finland in 1940 and grabbed a chunk of Poland under its 1939 pact with the Nazis.13

In sharp contrast to his public utterances, the Chief US prosecutor, Robert Jackson, privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman:

[The Allies] have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France].   We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it.   We  say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.14

PREPARING THE SCRIPT FOR A DOCUDRAMA

Historian David Irving highlights this fact in Nuremberg: The Last Battle. He relates that in June 1945, Jackson met in New York with representatives of “several powerful Jewish organizations.” One of them told Jackson that six million Jews had been “lost” during the war and that he had arrived at this figure by extrapolation. Irving states that “in other words his figure was somewhere between a hopeful estimate and an educated guess.” Irving further noted that the six-million figure had been cited 26 years earlier in a leading Jewish-American periodical. Irving reveals:

In a 1919 essay by a former governor of New York (Martin Glynn), readers were told that ‘6 million Jews are dying in a threatened holocaust of human life’ as victims of ‘the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood’.15

Such blatant propaganda was designed to excite the sympathy factor, and as a cover for the ongoing rape of Russia 1917-1924 by eastern European émigrés. Coupled with such intent was the implementation of the Balfour Declaration concerning a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Such deception became the driving force for a future drama staged by the US, Britain, France and the USSR (the United Nations) before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal which played for five years (1945-49) and was written by a great “playwright,” lawyer and avowed Zionist, Murray Bernays. We will shortly discover how this attorney from New York capitalized on this bit of artful deception to create the fraud known as the Nuremberg Trials during World War II.

In October 1944 the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved a program dealing with war crimes. It had been drawn up by the Judge Advocate General of the US Army. At the same time, a War    Crimes Branch was established in the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG). Gen John Ware, assisted by Colonel Melvin Purvis, was to handle all matters related to war crimes for the Departments of War, Navy and State. The approved program was traditional in nature, in that war crimes were based on the accepted laws of war in the field; i.e., a belligerent may try enemy soldiers for the same offenses for which he would try his own troops.

Alas, somebody else was in charge.

It was Samuel Rosenmann, speechwriter and confidant of FDR, who lined up Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Robert Jackson, for the top job of presiding over the Nuremberg Trials. Rosenmann had just returned from an unofficial meeting in England with the British prime minister when FDR died. Because both Rosenmann and Baruch had been wired into the White House loop early on, and because the hapless Harry Truman, as V.P., had been definitely out of the loop, it was a cinch for Rosenmann to convince the new President that Bob Jackson was the man for the job.

In January 1945, Rosenmann met with Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Attorney General Francis Biddle. The thrust of the meeting had to do with meting out proper punishment for the “war criminals” already convicted. It was a stacked deck from the beginning. Attorney General Biddle, who later served as a judge at the Trials, gave FDR the following advice for use at the coming Yalta confab: “The German leaders are well known and the proof of their guilt will not offer great difficulties.”16 [*The Germans did not start the war with Poland. The Poles did; they entered German territory on Sept. 1, 1939, after the tortured and mutilated thousands of German Poles for many months and drove millions off Germans out of Poland over the decades. Then England and France started WW2, since Poland was only a local conflict!]

WHO WAS MURRAY BERNAYS?

Bernays, an avowed Zionist, graduated from Harvard in 1915 and became a New York lawyer. He was granted a commission in the Army in 1942 and spent the war in a small office on the third floor of the War Department Building on Pennsylvania Avenue (near the White House). He devoted his entire time to preparing plans for the trials of German “war criminals.” [*The Germans were honorable leaders who wanted peace and justice for Germany. They were honorable men high values.]  He joined Jackson in London in June 1945.   From his prior work of nearly three years emerged the final plan for the conduct of the trials. The key to this staged docu-drama was the earlier propaganda ploy emerging from World War One, having to do with the “holocaust of the six million.” Bernays enlarged on this aspect, as well as on the Biblical Book of Esther.

Murray Bernays came to America with his Lithuanian Jewish parents in 1900, when he was six years old. He graduated from Harvard and the Columbia Law School, then joined the New York law firm of Morris Ernst. Along the way, he married Hertha Bernays, a niece of Sigmund Freud, and changed his name from Morris Lipstitch to Murray Bernays – certainly a compliment to his lovely wife.

Perhaps more important than his heritage was the detail of Bernays’ plan and how the judges of the four countries involved in the IMT carried it out to the letter… even to the point of sentencing 11 – and only 11 – to be executed by hanging.

One of the first to view Bernays’s “top secret” handiwork was Herbert Wechsler, who worked for Attorney General Francis Biddle.

“What was this conspiracy nonsense?” Wechsler asked. “And defining acts as criminal after they had been committed? That was ex post facto law, bastard law. And declaring that whole organizations – some of whose members numbered in the hundreds of thousands, some in millions – were criminal?   This meat-ax approach was fraught with potential for injustices.”17

Wechsler would serve as Biddle’s legal advisor at the Trials. Jackson was so impressed by Bernays and his plan for the conduct of the trials that he hired him as his executive officer – “his right arm,” Persico tells us. He also explains in his chapter, “Prelude to Judgment,” how the delegates from the four allied countries who would try the German “war criminals” got around the business of ex post facto law.

“On August 8, roughly six weeks after the allied representatives had first assembled at Church House (London), they were ready to sign an agreement to try war criminals in an international court. The document defined the crimes, the structure of the court, the procedures and punishments. But what to name the new instrument? Nomenclature had been tricky. To call it a law, a statute, a code, would brand it, at the outset, as ex post facto. And so a neutral term, charter, was settled on: the Charter of the International Military Tribunal.”18

Murray Bernays authored the Nuremberg Trial’s charter which defined four crimes: 1) conspiracy to carry out aggressive war, 2) [*That was done by Britain, France, Poland and Stalin’s attack on the border, pre-empted by Hitler’s preventive strike.]  the actual launching of aggression; 3) killing, destroying, and plundering during a war not justified by military necessity; and crimes against humanity, including atrocities against civilians, most flagrantly the attempt to exterminate the Jews.

CELEBRATING PURIM FEST

Most haunting regarding the main event of the farcical Nuremberg Trials was the scheduled hanging of 11 “war criminals” on the Jewish Purim Fest. This was the grand finale of the script prepared by the great playwright and Biblical scholar, Murray Bernays.

The first scenario dragged on from March 1946 until that fated day – Purim Fest on 16 October – when just after the stroke of midnight, 11 (mark well the number) already sentenced by the four “impartial” judges of the IMT for execution by hanging, were unceremoniously dragged from their beds and escorted to the gymnasium, where Master Sergeant John Woods, Third US Army’s official hangman, had constructed three gallows.

Why 11? Because that number was preordained in Bernays’ grand design as the frosting on the cake, so to speak. One must read the Book of Esther to understand the implications fully, as many did when Dr. Baruch Goldstein went on a killing rampage in Hebron, Israel, murdering over 30 Arabs as they knelt in prayer. Only by going back to the basics of this philosophy of utter destruction (to be followed by “a day of feasting and gladness” which came to be called Purim) will we begin to understand the    rationality of the massacre in the mosque. It was but one more act of endless revenge, carried out in accordance with Talmudic law and justice. Carried out with appropriate celebrations on Purim Fest. [*After the Jewish cry: Kill the best Gentiles!”]

In the Book of Esther, King Ahasuerus, urged on by his favorite concubine, Esther, and her uncle, Mordecai, hanged Haman and his ten sons:

The Jews gathered themselves together in the cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all the people… and slew of their foes seventy and five thousand.19 [*These were Norse people, our white forefathers that the Jews slaughtered in Palestine a couple thousand years ago! But this fact is hidden from our history until we will not have any more documents and memory of it.]

Related to the dissimulations emerging from World War One and the effort, especially on the part of Britain, to discredit the Germans was the business of “gassing innocents.” Bernays would twist an earlier and cruder propaganda ploy – to prove that all Germans were barbarians – concerning the supposed gassing of innocents.   (See the London Times for 8 March 1917, which asserted that the Germans had gassed 700,000 Serbian civilians.) This hoax was resurrected 25 years later and appeared in the underground Bund report (25 May 1942) from the Warsaw Ghetto that “the Nazis have already exterminated 700,000 Polish Jews.”20

This lie became the trigger for the “extermination of six million Jews” by the Nazis, first by burning in fiery pits, then by steaming to death in showers and finally by “gassing.” Such is the nature of propaganda, especially when one controls a complicit press, that even today, two-thirds of the people polled still accept the “holocaust of six million” as fact.

Meaning that a third do not.

Jean-Francois Revel explains just how such dissimulation works in How Democracies Perish:

It is an occupational habit for actors on the political stage to distort the truth, for reasons and in ways that vary with the nature of the power they hold. Autocrats, in direct control of all means of communication and expression, disguise the present and rewrite the past… in free societies the past is sometimes misrepresented, not as in slave societies, by crude state censorship and lies, but suavely, through legitimate persuasion and the free propagation of an adulterated or entirely bogus version of an event. With repetition, this version joins the body of accepted ideas, those the masses believe; it acquires the status of truth, so firmly that hardly anyone thinks of checking the original facts for confirmation.21

PART TWO

THE BIG SHOW IN THE MAIN TENT

 

The Nuremberg Trials have made the waging of unsuccessful war a crime: the generals on the defeated side are tried and then hanged.

Field Marshal B. L. Montgomery, 9 Jun 1948

 

THE trial opened at Nuremberg on 20 Nov 1945. It was a done deal before it started. The Judge Advocate General (JAG), Maj Gen Myron Kramer, was in league with Justice Jackson from the start. The JAG’s War Crimes Branch took over the screening and selection of prosecution and defense lawyers.

The “big trial” conducted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ran from March until October 1946. It resulted in three acquittals (one of them, Hjalmar Schacht), seven prison sentences and 11 death sentences, which were immediately carried out by hanging (with the exception of Goering, who swallowed a potassium cyanide capsule).

The strangest prison sentence was meted out to Rudolph Hess by the tribunal in absentia. Hess, who had flown a fighter to Scotland early in the war, had surrendered to the British, and had proposed a plan whereby the Germans and the British would team up to defeat Joseph Stalin and prevent the spread of Communism throughout Europe. Because the spread of socialism worldwide was one of the reasons for fighting World War II, one can understand in retrospect why Hess was placed in isolation and solitary confinement – the only prisoner in Spandau – for the rest of his natural life.

And Hjalmar Schacht (Hajim Schachtl), the man behind Hitler, the man behind the international financial chaos of the 1920s and ’30s, went free.

Bear in mind that of the 21 men in the dock at Nuremberg, only 11 were preordained to be sentenced to death by hanging. This in fact was known ahead of time by the four judges of the IMT and their alternates, as well as by others, particularly by the US military officers in attendance.

They too had read Murray Bernays’s top secret script.

A THREE-RING CIRCUS

From 1946 to 1949, a series of twelve less important trials were staged by the US before the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. These trials in the main were politically instigated. There have been many books printed regarding them, one being Professor Arthur Butz’s Hoax of the Twentieth Century. However, the statement by one of the American presiding judges, Charles F. Wennerstrum, sums it up:

If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.… The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.… The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome.… The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors… abhorrent to the American   sense   of   justice   is   the   prosecution’s   reliance   on     selfincriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than 21/2 years, and repeated interrogation without presence of counsel…the lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.…22

Professor Butz reports:

These trials were supervised by the War Crimes Branch. They were perhaps the most shameful episodes in US history.23

He explains that the entire repertoire of third degree methods was employed, with beatings and brutal kicking, to the point of ruining testicles in 137 cases, knocking out teeth, starvation, solitary confinement, torture with burning splinters, and impersonation of priests in order to encourage prisoners to “confess.”

One notable incident occurred when investigator Joseph Kirschbaum brought a certain Einstein into court to testify that the accused Menzel had murdered Einstein’s brother.   When the accused was able to point out that the brother was not only alive and well, but was sitting in the court, Kirschbaum was deeply embarrassed and scolded Einstein: “How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court?”24

The US Army authorities admitted to some of the charges. When the chief of the Dachau War Crimes Branch, Colonel A. H. Rosenfeld, quit his post in 1948, he was asked by reporters if there was any truth to the stories of mock trials at which sham death sentences had been passed, he replied, “Yes, of course. We couldn’t have made these birds talk otherwise.… It was a trick and it worked like a charm.”

The makeup of the War Crimes Branch was essentially Jewish. It was headed by Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus after Judge Samuel Rosenmann had been picked by Truman to oversee the trials of German war criminals. Marcus remained the chief of the War Crimes Branch until April 1947, when he left the Army and went into private law practice.

There is an interesting sequel to Mickey Marcus.   It emerges from an AP story, 12 Jun 1948, that a “Mickey Stone” had been killed in action while serving as supreme commander in the Jerusalem sector in the Jewish-Arab war for the control of Palestine. He was adulated in the New York Times, with all of his accomplishments listed, not as Mickey Stone, but as David Marcus. Strangely, his service as head of the War Crimes Branch during the Nuremberg trials was omitted. So was the fact that he was not killed in action in some bloody engagement in Palestine, but was shot by one of his sentries as he made a late-night foray to the latrine.25

VICTORS’ JUSTICE

In 1946 Capt B. H. Liddell Hart’s book The Evolution of Warfare was published in London. He stated that victory had been achieved by “practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol devastations.” He included not only the terror bombings of German civilians, but the deliberate murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens by nuclear extermination at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, as well as the setting up of the system of “war-crimes trials.”26

In his classic Advance to Barbarism (1948), Frederick J. P. Veale detailed “the development of Total Warfare from Sarajevo to Hiroshima”:

It cannot be denied that this particular reversion to Barbarism was accepted by the public with astonishingly few misgivings.27

Another book outstanding for what it portrays, viz. “justice,” or the lack thereof, was Epitaph at Nuremberg by Montgomery Belgion, first published in 1946, then updated and republished in 1949 by the Henry Regnery Company in the United States under the title Victors’ Justice.

By examining the novel method of disposing of war prisoners agreed upon at Yalta, Belgion determined that “the Nuremberg Trials were not inspired by any overwhelming passion for justice and by a righteous determination that crime should not escape punishment.” In essence, he pointed out, “a trial is a means by which an existing law is enforced, and that at Nuremberg there was no existing law to enforce… the Hands may have been the hands of Justice, but the Voice was Propaganda’s voice.”

Further, he traces it back to World War I and to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, which declared Germany solely guilty for the First World War, [*What a damned lie. Germany was innocent of WWI; this has long been established. These criminal liars!] but had neither moral weight nor judicial validity. And so the victors of the Second World War decided to hold trials of the vanquished that would, they hoped, conclusively establish for all time Germany’s guilt.

That, he submitted, was the real object of the Nuremberg Trial: “It was a gigantic ‘put up show,’ a gigantic piece of ‘propaganda.’”28

STAGE-MANAGING THE TRIAL

The Trial was decked out to look like an authentic judicial process; the victors showed a really astonishing contempt for justice and a really pathetic faith in sophistry. Veale singles out, in addition to the mass murders committed under the saturation bombing of German cities, the mass-deportations of populations totaling over 14 million and entailing indescribable misery. It was sanctioned by Gen Eisenhower under “Operation Keel Haul.”29

In most cases these deportations followed wholesale massmurder carried out in the homelands of the populations condemned to deportation. Not only had Ike had a hand in this, but Gen. Bill Donovan as well. Donovan headed the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) which would later become the CIA. Irving reveals their role:

It soon became clear that the OSS had intended all along to manage the whole trial along the lines of the NKVD [Soviet] show-trial… they proposed to run a pre-trial propaganda campaign in the US, with ‘increasing emphasis on the publication of atrocity stories to keep the public in the proper frame of mind.30

As regards the Nuremberg Trials, Veale states that: “It is perhaps hardly necessary to comment on the fundamental injustice of inventing ad hoc law and then bringing charges alleging acts in breach of this law committed before the law existed.”

In the United States this injustice was widely recognized. Irving brings this out clearly in his book; he quotes US Secretary of War Henry Stimson:

I found around me, particularly in Morgenthau [Secretary of the Treasury], a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt, and I am very much afraid that it will result in our taking mass vengeance on the part of our people.… I cannot believe that he [Roosevelt] will follow Morgenthau’s views.   If he does, it will certainly be a disaster.… The President appoints a committee and then goes off to Quebec with the man [Morgenthau] who really represents the minority and is so biased by his Semitic grievances that he is really a very dangerous advisor.…31

As the leading Republican Senator, Robert A. Taft, a politician respected by all parties, pointed out:

It is completely alien to the American tradition of law to prosecute men for criminal acts which were not declared to be so until long after the fact. The Nuremberg Trials will forever remain a blot on the escutcheon of American jurisprudence.32

UNDERSTANDING “THE LONDON AGREEMENT”

Veale is at his very best describing not only the fundamental injustice of the Trials, but the actual stupidity of the major participants in the prosecution of what came to be called “Crimes against peace” and “Crimes against humanity.”

Of course, it was a sort of stupidity clever in its cunning. It trickled out, over an inordinate time, in the wellspring of regurgitation flowing forth from “The London Agreement,” which in fact was the formulation of ex post facto or bastard law.

The London Agreement was a pact drawn up, in London of course, between and among the British, French, Russian and American Governments in 1945 for the trial of “the major war criminals   whose   offenses   have   no   particular   geographical location.”33

No definition of “major war criminals” was ever given, except that each participant in the farce reserved the right to try, according to its own laws, any war criminal in its hands for offenses committed on its own territory.

Veale explains that attached to the Agreement was a sort of schedule “grandiloquently labeled ‘the Charter,’ which purported to define the powers of the Tribunal and the procedure which it was to adopt.”34

Unsaid by Veale is that the common thread throughout the London Agreement and subsequent trial of “war criminals” was the law of the Babylonian Talmud as interpreted by that great legal scholar, Murray Bernays. The setting up of the London Agreement coincides with his arrival on the scene from his War Department office in Washington, DC, at the behest of that great criminologist, Robert J. Jackson.

An important part of the Agreement is contained in Article 6 of the Charter (actually composed by Bernays). It is as much a fraud as the United Nations Charter, and cunningly concocted by the same group of Zionists and their pawns. As Veale explains, it purports to create two new crimes against international law: “Crimes against peace” are defined as “planning or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties. Crimes against humanity” are defined as “inhuman acts against any civilian population before or during the war and persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds.”

Veale further states:

With regard to the first of these novel creations, the framers of the Charter had abandoned in despair a desperate attempt to define ‘a war of aggression’ without implicitly condemning Russia for her numerous unprovoked attacks on her neighbors [*and the several bombing of German ships in international waters by the U.S. in the spring, summer and fall of 1941] . The chiefs of state at the Yalta Conference had cheerfully convicted their captured enemies of having plotted and waged a war of aggression, and set the framers of the Charter the utterly impossible task of defining this alleged offense. Of course, they failed.35

As we saw earlier, it was equally impossible to define the second novel crime at the same time as the victors were engaged in mass deportations of 14 million people, coupled with mass murder in their homelands. [*5 Million of these Germans were raped to death, tortured to death, beaten to death, shot, froze or hugered to death]. Add to this the saturation and terror bombing of German cities under the Lindemann Plan [*1 Million Germans, mostly mothers and children, some wounded soldiers and the elderly], and the scheme to convert Germany to a goat pasture – the Morgenthau Plan – which, if carried out, would have destroyed another 14 million Germans. [*Jew Dwight Eisenhower starved nearly 6 Million (was the attempt for it to be 6 Million?) German civilian to death; he further murdered over 1 Million German soldiers on the Rheinwiesenlager (Rhein Meadows open air POW camps.]

Considering the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, along with the finale of dropping the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one can begin to understand that such crimes as defined under Article 6 applied only to the losers and therefore needed no definition, as it was the victors who not only created these   new    laws (after the fact), but interpreted them in a fraudulent court of law and meted out unjust punishment in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

This is truly victors’ justice writ large. In fact, it is Talmudic revenge. It is being practiced assiduously today under UN auspices, and controlled by the coterie of modern-day Bolsheviks who are bent on establishing international law as the Law of the Land. By using US forces to capture alleged war criminals (already convicted) in Bosnia and carting them off to a UN tribunal of “justice” in The Hague, they are following once more the script of Murray Bernays and the perfidious London Agreement.

MILITARY VIEWS OF REVENGE FOREVER

Lastly, a personal reflection as we close our inspection of the fraudulent Nuremberg Trials and prepare to examine current and ongoing frauds of a similar nature in the tiny theocratic state of Israel.

This author recently renewed his acquaintance with a former boss in the military. He was a lawyer by education and profession, and would become a federal judge: he is now retired. We met for dinner, which extended into the wee hours in a discussion of the Nuremberg Trials, for he was there and participated as a young captain seconded from his Civil Affairs and Military Government unit to serve in the War Crimes Branch.

His studied opinion, based on 50 years of reflection, was that the Nuremberg Trials were fraudulent, were based on hate and vengefulness; and perhaps most important, are continuing today under the aegis of the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) of the Justice Department. In answer to the question, was there justice at Nuremberg, he said, “no, only revenge, for the war crimes trials of the ’40s, as well as the ongoing witchhunt for ‘hidden Nazis’ are based on hate and revenge … forever.”

Was this learned judge and former military officer perhaps prejudiced, or mistaken in his belief, his views but an aberration?

The 25th Infantry Division commander in Korea was a tough old soldier, later a three-star general, Samuel T. Williams. We called him (behind his back) “Hangin’ Sam.” He was brave and gruff and demanding; we feared and respected him, but admired him too. Later, after he retired, he and I became good friends.

“Hangin’ Sam” earned his sobriquet at the Nuremberg Trials. He was one of the judges, and his response when the judges debated the sentencing was invariably “hang ’em.” There was nothing personal about it, he reminisced. He knew what was expected of him, as “the Jews were in charge of the trials and it was the blood libel of the Jews.… They were getting even for 2,000 years of persecution.”

One of General Williams’ last tours before retirement had been as the senior military advisor for the US Army in Saigon after the fall of Dien Ben Phu and the defeat of the French in 1954. He had warned President Eisenhower not to get involved “in another rice paddy war” in the Far East and apparently Ike had heeded his advice, for we didn’t venture into that “shit pit,” as Williams called it, until after the John F. Kennedy assassination and the advent of LBJ’s Great Society.

Following the October 1973 Yom Kippur War in the Middle East, we shared a dinner and conversation with the hero of the Battle of St. Vith in World War II, General Bruce C. Clarke, friend and neighbor in Arlington, Virginia, who had been our Corps commander in Korea, 1952-53. Gen Clarke considered the conduct of the Nuremberg Trials a black mark on the otherwise unblemished [*Ha! Rape of 2 Million German women inside of West Germany alone, mowing down of tens of thousands of surrendering German soldiers, murdering them in the POW camps and starving over a Million to death – he calls this “unblemished!] “Crusade in Europe.”     He also scoffed at the obviously fabricated yarn that the Israelis had been “surprised at prayer on this, their holiest day” when the Arabs launched a major offensive on Yom Kippur (1973).   “Since 1948, Israel has been our surrogate in the Middle East,” he said. “Now, we have become the surrogates of Israel and international Zionism.… Personally, I fear for my Country.”36

These three officers reflect a knowledge and belief held by most of us who served in combat in some of the bloodiest wars of this century; not only officers, but the countless enlisted men who went forth to defend their country against an ill-defined enemy from without while a well-defined “fox,” hiding under our cloak, was busily gnawing at our guts.

Consider the decisions made at the end of the war by another of our colleagues in uniform who wore five stars on the epaulets of his jacket – one Dwight David Eisenhower.   As recorded by James Bacque in Other Losses (1989), Ike issued an order that German prisoners in our custody would no longer be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention (on treatment of Prisoners of War). This one act condemned hundreds of thousands of POWs to death by starvation and disease.37 [*Over 1 Million is the number!]

We can look back to a revealing issue of the British weekly

The Economist (5 Oct 1946) wherein an editorial stated in part:

Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead ‘not guilty’ on this count? Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo- Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.38 [That’s because they are Jews and stooges of the Jews and Communists who are now taking the U.S.A. and Europe down.]

In looking back at the fraudulent Nuremberg trials, one must ask the question: who was really in charge? We get a clue (or an admission) from one Nahum Goldmann among others, then the president of the World Jewish Congress, who stated in his autobiography (1969) inter alia:

It [the Nuremberg Tribunal] was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials.… Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea.39

Today, we can ask the identical question: who is really in charge? For another clue (or admission), let’s venture a little farther down that bloody and rocky road which leads, however circuitously, to the final goal of our fearful masters – establishment of a global government of absolute despotism.

Source: Excerpt from the book De Grand Pre Donn-Barbarians Inside the Gates

This entry was posted in Allied crimes, Allied Crimes-American-Candadian-Australian, Deception-Irrefuehrung, Defamation-Verfemung, Ethnic cleansing-Säuberung Deutscher, New World Order-Jews, Nuernberg-Nuremberg and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.