The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/p//porter.carlos/ngan-960306

This copy of _Not Guilty at Nuremberg_ was taken from Bradley Smith's
web site on May 10, 1996:

Note that, near the end of the book, Porter explicitly disclaims
copyright on this (original English) edition.

The German Defense Case

Carlos Porter

Final revision: March 6 1996
All references revised in English and German
German page numbers in <>

Dedicated to Barbara Kulaszka and Dan Gannon


The re-writing of history is as old as history itself.

The Annals of Tacitus, for example, (xv 38), mentions a "rumour" that
Nero burned Rome; this "rumour" was repeated by later Roman historians
as "fact" (Suetonius, Nero, 38; Dio Cassius, Epistulae, lxii 16;
Pliny, Naturalis Historia xvii 5).

Later writers called this "fact" into question, and demoted the "fact"
to mere "rumour".

In 1946, it was a "proven fact" that Nazis made human soap (Judgement,
Nuremberg Trial, IMT I 252 <<283>>; VII 597-600 <<656-659>>; XIX 506
<<566-567>>; XXII 496 <<564>>).

This "fact" has since become, apparently, merely "rumour" (Hilberg,
"revised definitive" Destruction of the European Jews, Holmes and
Meier, NY, page 966: "To this day, the origin of the soap making
rumour has not been traced").

The forensically untested "rumour" of Soviet origin (Exhibit USSR 393)
is in the Peace Palace of The Hague. Peace Palace officials show it to
eager visitors and tell them it is authentic; but do not, apparently,
answer letters from persons asking to have it tested.

In 1943, it was a "rumour" that Nazis were steaming, frying,
parboiling, electrocuting, vacuuming and gassing Jews (see, for
example, The Black Book: The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People, pp.
270, 274, 280, 313, introduced as "evidence" before the Nuremberg
Commission); by 1946, the "gassings" had become "fact", while the
steamings, fryings, parboilings, electrocutions and vacuumings
remained mere "rumour". (Note: the "steamings" were "proven" in the
Pohl Trial, Fourth Nuremberg Trial, NMT IV, 1119-1152).

The "evidence" that Nazis "gassed" Jews is qualitatively no better
than the "evidence" that they steamed, fried, parboiled, electrocuted,
or vacuumed them; it appears legitimate to call this "evidence" into

This book contains, not a re-writing of history, but a simple guide to
historical material which has been forgotten. The 312,022 notarized
defense affidavits presented at the First Nuremberg Trial have been
forgotten, while the 8 or 9 prosecution affidavits which "rebutted"
them are remembered ((XXI 437 <<483>>)).

This book contains a great many references to page numbers. They are
not there to confuse, impress, or intimidate the reader, or to prove
the truth of the matter stated, but to help interested people find

Whether the statements of the defense are more credible than the human
soap (Document 397), human hair socks (Document USSR-511), and
cannibal hamburgers (Exhibit 1873, Tokyo Trial) of the war crimes
prosecutors, is for the reader to decide.

NOTE: IMT = 1st Nuremberg Trial, in 4 languages.

NMT = 12 later Nuremberg Trials, in English.

In the absence of any indication to the contrary, all page numbers
refer to the American edition, with the German page numbers in


Bormann was accused of "persecution of religion" and many other
crimes. Bormann's attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out that many modern
countries (meaning the Soviet Union) are avowedly atheist, and that
orders forbidding priests from holding high Party offices (that is,
offices in the Nazi Party) could not be called "persecution". In Dr.
Bergold's words:

"The party is described as criminal - as a conspiracy. Is it a crime
to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is
that considered a crime?" (V 312 <<353>>).

Documents were produced in which Bormann prohibited persecution of
religion and expressly allowed religion to be taught (XXI 462-465
<<512-515>>). A condition of this order was that the full Bibilical
text had to be used; deletions, manipulations or distortions of the
text were forbidden. Churches received government subsidies until the
end of the war. Due to wartime paper shortages, restrictions were
placed upon the printing of all newspapers, not just religious ones
(XIX 111-124 <<125-139>>; XXI 262-263; 346; 534; 539; <<292-293; 383;
589; 595>>; XXII 40-41 <<52-53>>).

Bormann's attorney had little difficulty in showing that Bormann could
not be convicted of a criminal offense under the laws of any country,
since it is clear that stenographers are not criminally responsible
for every document they sign. It was not clear to what extent Bormann
acted merely as stenographer or secretary. To the prosecution,
however, law was irrelevant, and Bormann was sentenced to be hanged.
Sentence was to be carried out immediately, ignoring extensive
testimony that he had been killed by the explosion of a tank and was
unlikely to be in one piece, presenting certain problems of a
practical nature (XVII 261-271 <<287-297>>).


The defense evidence for the "criminal organizations" consists of the
testimony of 102 witnesses and 312,022 notarized affidavits (XXII 176

The term "criminal" was never defined (XXII 310 <<354>>; see also XXII
129-135 <<148-155>>).

Nor was it defined when these organizations became "criminal" (XXII
240 <<272-273>>). The Nazi Party itself was criminal dating back to
1920 (XXII 251 <<285>>) or then again maybe only 1938 (XXII 113
<<130>>) or maybe even not at all (II 105 <<123>>).

The 312,022 notarized affidavits were presented to a "commission", and
evidence before this "commission" does not appear in the transcript of
the Nuremberg Trial. The National Archives in Washington do not
possess a copy of the commission transcript, had never heard of it,
and do not know what it is.

Of the 312,022 affidavits, only a few dozen were ever translated into
English, so the Tribunal could not read them (XXI 287, 397-398 <<319,

The President of the Tribunal, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence, understood no
German; neither did Robert Jackson.

Due to a last-minute rule change (XXI 437-438, 441, 586-587 <<483-485,
488, 645-646>>) many more affidavits were rejected on technical
grounds (XX 446-448 <<487-489>>).

The "commission" prepared "summaries" which were presented to the
Tribunal (x-thousand affidavits alleging humane treatment of
prisoners, etc). These summaries were not considered to be in
evidence. The Tribunal promised to read the 312,022 affidavits before
arriving at their verdict (XXI 175 <<198>>); 14 days later it was
announced that the 312,022 affidavits were not true (XXII 176-178

Then a single affidavit from the prosecution (Document D-973) was
deemed to have "rebutted" 136,000 affidavits from the defense (XXI
588; 437, 366 <<647, 483-484, 404>>).

The 102 witnesses were forced to appear and testify before the
"commission" before appearing before the Tribunal. Then, 29 of these
witnesses (XXI 586 <<645>>), or 22 of these witnesses (XXII 413
<<468>>) were allowed to appear before the Tribunal, but their
testimony was not permitted to be 'cumulative', that is, repetitive of
their testimony before the 'commission' (XXI 298, 318, 361 <<331, 352,

Then, six affidavits from the prosecution were deemed to have
"rebutted" the testimony of the 102 witnesses (XXI 153 <<175>>, XXII
221 <<251>>).

One of these affidavits was in Polish, so the defense could not read
it (XX 408 <<446>>). Another was signed by a Jew named Szloma Gol who
claimed to have dug up and cremated 80,000 bodies, including that of
his own brother (XXI 157 <<179>>, XXII 220 <<250>>).

(In the British transcript he has only dug up 67,000 bodies).

The prosecution had already rested its case when this occurred (XX
389-393, 464 <<426-430, 506>>; XXI 586-592 <<645-651>>).

The prosecution then claimed in its final summation that 300,000
affidavits had been presented to the Tribunal and had been considered
during the trial, giving the impression that these are prosecution
documents (XXII 239 <<272>>).

In fact, the prosecution got through the entire trial with no more
than a few really important affidavits of their own. (See, for
example, XXI 437 <<483>>, where eight or nine affidavits were
presented for the prosecution against three hundred thousand for the
defense; see also XXI 200 <<225>>; 477-478 <<528-529>>; 585-586
<<643-645>>; 615 <<686-687>>).

In the various concentration camp trials, such as the Trial of Martin
Gottfried Weiss, a simpler expedient was agreed upon: mere employment
in the camp, even if only for a few weeks, was deemed to constitute
"constructive knowledge" of the "Common Plan". "Common Plan", of
course, was not defined. It was not necessary to allege specific acts
of mistreatment, or to show that anyone had died as a result of
mistreatment. (36 of the 40 defendants were sentenced to death.)

The transcript of the Nuremberg commission is in The Hague, and fills
half of one fire-proof floor-to-ceiling vault. The testimony of each
witness was typed with a pagination beginning with page 1, then
re-typed, with consecutive pagination running to many thousands of
pages. The first drafts and clean copy are in folders, together,
stapled, on very brittle paper, with rusty staples. It is absolutely
certain that, at least at The Hague, no one has ever read this

Summation relating to the testimony of the 102 witnesses appears
mostly in fine print in volumes XXI and XXII in the Nuremberg Trial
transcript. The fine print means that the passages were deleted from
the final defense summation (otherwise the trial would have been much
too long). This material runs to several hundred pages. In the
transcript published in the United Kingdom, every word of this
material is gone. In English, 11 pages in fine print are missing
between paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 594 from volume XXI. These appear
in the German volumes (XXI 654-664). Most of the rest of it appears to
be there.

The material covers, for example:

   - Total War XIX 25 <<32>>

   - Reparations XIX 224-232 <<249-259>>

   - German trade unions XXI 462 <<512>>

   - Gestapo and concentration camps XXI 494-530 <<546-584>>

   - Roehm Putsch XXI 576-592 <<635-651>>

   - Crystal Night XXI 590-592 <<649-651>>

   - Resettlement XXI 467-469, 599-603 <<517-519, 669-674>>

   - SD XXII XXII 19-35 <<27-47>>

   - Armaments XXII 62-64 <<75-78>>

The 312,022 affidavits are probably on deposit with a German archive.

The judgment of the Nuremberg trial is printed twice, in Volumes I and

It is important to obtain the German volumes and read the juudgment in
volume XXII in German. Bad German, mistranslations, etc, written by
the Americans have been corrected, with footnotes. Mistakes of this
kind in documents may be taken as proof of forgeries.

Generally, the German IMT volumes are preferable to the American ones.
Frequent footnotes throughout these volumes alert the reader to
mistranslations, missing documents, and falsified copies (for example,
XX 205 of the German volumes: "This phrase does not appear in the
original document.").

The German volumes are available in paperback from Delphin Verlag,
Munich (ISBN 3.7735.2509.5). (Transcript only; transcript and document
volumes in English are available from Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry
NY. on microfilm).


The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000
documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and
that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at
The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of
"photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were
written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any
kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial
or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document
as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not.
Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by
Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20
interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5
original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3
mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by
somebody else and 1 unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hauge has many
original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal
Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material. They have
the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human
soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently
no original wartime German documents. The Hague has negative
photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has
been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed.
When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents
have not been photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say
it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of
Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference)
claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims
the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtarchiv Nurnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no
original documents, and both say the original documents are in
Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is
often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following
forged or otherwise worthless documents: 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS;
81-PS; 212-PS; and many others (II 120-142 <<141-168>>).

1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from General
Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later
signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in
question (XXI 381 <<420-421>>).

The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the Baroness von
Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is not
included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44.
Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal (XXI 380

The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these
'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared
(See Taylor, Captured Documents).

1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report to himself
about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the
report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI 137-141 <<157-161>>;
195-198 <<219-224>>; 425 <<470>>; XXII 147-150 <<169-172>>. See also
Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May
1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and
The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy
(XXVII 485).

1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an
unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech'
although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date.
There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS,
798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII 406-408
<<445-447>>; XVIII 390-402 <<426-439>>.

The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was
never even accepted into evidence (II 286 <<320-321>>), but 250 copies
of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286-293 <<320-328>>).

This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of
the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to
his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii,
No 192 and 193.

L-3 is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler,
particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our
enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also
compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the
Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the
photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same
typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other
versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin
from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.

81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper
prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of
a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written
by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511 <<560-561>>). The
document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a
bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person
to whom it was addressed (XVII 612 <<664>>). 81-PS is a 'photocopy'
with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).

212-PS was also prepared by an unknown person, entirely on plain
paper, without any handwritten markings, date, address, or stamp (III
540 <<602>>, XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative photostats
from The Hague).

This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach
Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a
certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true
copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy'
prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by
Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later.
This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know
who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII

Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person,
listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or
prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The
document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the
copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although
there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged
statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C
did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of
evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified
by witnesses.

The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg,
because the documents were not brought to court. The "original
document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe
in the Document Centre (II 195 <<224>>, 256-258 <<289-292>>).

Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21 <<29>>) or 6 photocopies (II
251-253 <<284-286>>) were prepared and brought to court. All other
copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504

In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II
249-250 <<283-284>>; XIII 200 <<223>>, 508 <<560>>, 519 <<573>>, XV 43
<<53>>, 169 <<189>> 171 <<191>> 327 <<359>>), to distinguish the
photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246 <<273-274>>).

"Translations" of all documents were available from the beginning of
the trial (II 159-160 <<187-189>>, 191 <<219-220>>, 195 <<224>>, 215
<<245>>, 249-250 <<282-283>>, 277 <<312>>, 415 <<458>>, 437
<<482-483>>), but the "original" German texts were not available until
at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial briefs
and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS. The defense received no
documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26 <<31-35>>).

Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same typewriter
include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of
Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor sending
Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 <<381-385>>). This
letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416


Doenitz was imprisoned for waging "illegal submarine warfare" against
the British. In international law, everything is a matter of
reciprocity and international agreements, which can only be enforced
through reciprocity. In warfare, the best defense against a weapon is
a vigorous counterattack with the same weapon. The British, due to
their mastery of the seas, fought both world wars through blockade,
and the so-called Navicert system. Neutral ships were stopped at sea,
and forced to pull into British ports where they were searched
according to complicated formulae: if a neutral country imported more
food, fertlizer, wool, leather, rubber, cotton, etc. than the
quantities believed necessary for its own consumption (in the opinion
of the British), the difference was assumed to be intended for
reshipment to the Germans. Result: the ship (and entire cargo) was
confiscated and sold at auction, which also violated the clauses of
all British marine insurance contracts.

In 1918-19, the blockade was maintained for 8 months after the
Armistice to force the Germans to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
Hundreds of thousands of Germans died of starvation after the war
while the diplomats delayed, an obvious violation of the conditions of
the Armistice and all international law. This is what Hitler correctly
termed "the greatest breach of faith of all time". The British point
of view appears to be that the blockade was legal but was carried out
in a totally illegal manner (see 1911 Encyplopaedia Brittannica,
"Neutrality", 1922 Encyclopaedia Brittannica, "Blockade", "Peace
Conference". In the war against Japan, the Americans "sank everything
that moved since the first day of the war".

Neutrals, including the United States, complained that this violated
their neutrality, but complied, again, in violation of their own
neutrality. A nation which allows its neutrality to be violated may be
treated as a belligerent.

The British never ratified the Fifth Hague Convention of 18 October
1907 on the Rights of Neutrals, but considered its terms binding on
the Germans and Japanese, despite an all-participation clause (i.e.,
the convention ceases to apply if a non-signatory participates in the

In 1939, the Germans possessed only 26 Atlantic-going submarines, one
fifth of the French total alone. Moreover, German submarines were much
smaller than those of other nations. A counterblockade against the
British could only be enforced by warning neutrals not to sail in
waters surrounding the British Isles. To the British, this was a

Of these 26 submarines, many were, at any one time, under repair; so
that during some months only 2 or 3 were seaworthy. It is obvious that
submarines cannot carry out search and seizure in the same manner as a
surface navy; a submarine, once it has surfaced, is almost defenseless
against the smallest gun mounted on a merchant vessel, not to mention
radio, radar, and aircraft.

It was demanded by the British at Nuremberg that German submarines
should have surfaced, notified the surface vessel of their intention
to search; waited for the surface vessel to commence hostilities; then
sink the vessel, presumably with the submarine's deck guns; then take
the dozens of hundreds of survivors on board the submarine (where they
would be in far greater danger than in any lifeboat), and take them to
the nearest land.

When British aircraft appeared and sank the submarine, killing the
survivors, they had, of course, been "murdered" by the Germans. No
international convention requires this, and no nation fought in this
manner. Since rescuing survivors rendered the submarine unfit for duty
and frequently resulted in the loss of submarine and crew, Doenitz
prohibited any act of rescue. This was called an order to "exterminate
survivors". This was not upheld in the judgment, however.

Doenitz was also accused of encouraging the German people to hopeless
resistance, a crime also committed by Winston Churchill, Doenitz

"It was very painful that our cities were still being bombed to pieces
and that through these bombing attacks and the continued fight more
lives were lost. The number of these people is about 300,000 to
400,000, the largest number of whom perished in the bombing of
Dresden, which cannot be justified from a military point of view, and
which could not have been predicted.

"Nevertheless, this figure is relatively small compared with the
millions of German people we would have lost in the East, soldiers and
civilians, if we had capitulated in the winter." (XIII 247-406
<<276-449>>; XVIII 312-372 <<342-406>>).


Frank was accused of making hundreds of anti-Semitic statements in a
12,000 page document called his "diary". The "diary" contains only one
page signed by Frank, and hundreds of humane statements, which were
ignored (XII 115-156 <<129-173>>). The anti-Semitic statements were
selected by the Russians and typeset in a short document which was
introduced into evidence as Document 2233-PS, invariably called
"Frank's Diary".

The actual "diary" of 12,000 pages consists of summaries (not verbatim
transcripts or stenographic notes) of conferences in which 5 or 6
people often spoke at once in circumstances of great confusion; it was
not clear to whom which statements should be attributed (XII 86

Frank gave his "diary" to the Americans in the belief that it would
exonerate him; he had protested Hitler's illegality in public speeches
at great personal risk, and tried to resign 14 times (XII 2-114
<<8-128>>; XVIII 129-163 <<144-181>>).

Frank became convinced that atrocities had occured after reading about
the Soviet Maidenak Trial in the foreign press (XII 35 <<43>>).
Auschwitz was not in territory controlled by Frank.

Frank saw his task as the creation of an independent judiciary in a
National Socialist State, a task which he found impossible. In a
speech on November 19, 1941, Frank said,

"Law cannot be degraded to a position where it becomes an object of
bargaining. Law cannot be sold. It is either there, or it is not
there. Law cannot be marketed on the stock exchange. If the law finds
no support, then the State too loses its moral stay and sinks into the
depths of night and horror."

Hitler's illegalities never included the passing of an ex post facto
law; in 3 cases, punishment was increased retroactively (XVII 504

Frank's alleged looting of art treasures will be discussed together
with that of Rosenberg.


Frick was hanged for "Germanizing" the inhabitants of Posen, Danzig,
West Prussia, Eupen, Malmedy, the Sudetenland, the Memelland, and
Austria. With the exception of Austria, these were fomer parts of the
Prussian Reich, separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty.
Malmedy is French-speaking - the other areas are all German speaking.
Austria was unable to subsist as an economic unit after 1919, and had
demanded to be united with Germany by vote. The Allied victors
responded by threatening to cut off all food supplies (XVIII 55
<<66>>, XIX 360 <<397>>).

Another crime committed by Frick was killing 275,000 feeble-minded
persons, according to the "report" of a Czech "War Crimes Commission".

Frick, like Goering, was accused of responsibility for the existence
of the concentration camps. In Frick's defense it was pointed out that
"protective custody" pre-dated the National Socialist accession to
power in both Germany and Austria. In Austria, it was called
Anhaltehaft, and was used to imprison thousands of National Socialists
(XXI 518-521 <<572-576>>). "Protective custody" exists in West Germany
today and is called U-haft.

In the final judgment of one of the most important Dachau Trials
(Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty-Nine Others, Law Reports
of Trials of War Criminals, volume XI, p. 15, published by the United
Nations), the following sentence appears:

"In the Mathausen Concentration Camp case . . . the facts were
basically the same - though the casualty figures were much higher as
mass extermination by means of a gas chamber was practised ---"

Is this an admission that no gas chamber existed at Dachau? According
to Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, no Dachau trial ever
"proved" the existence of a gas chamber at Dachau.

At Nuremberg, a "certified true copy" of the judgment of the Trial of
Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty Nine Others was introduced into
evidence with that sentence deleted as Document 3590-PS (V 199
<<228>>) along with 3 other documents alleging mass extermination by
gassing at Dachau (Document 3249-PS, V 172-173 <<198>, XXXII 60;
Document 2430-PS, XXX 470; and 159-L, XXXVII 621).

Frick was accused by the deponent of the "mass gassings at Dachau"
affidavit, Document 3249-PS, (written by Lt. Daniel L. Margolies, also
involved in the forgery of 3 Hitler speeches, XIV 65 <<77>>, and
signed by Dr. Franz Blaha) of having visited Dachau. Frick denied
this, and demanded to take the stand to be confronted with Blaha and
to testify in his own defense.

This request was denied, and Frick apparently gave up. He never
testified. His defense summation appears at XVIII 164-189 <<182-211>>.

The deponent, Dr. Franz Blaha, a Communist, was President of the
International Dachau Association in 1961, still claiming to have
witnessed mass gassings and to have made trousers and other leather
goods out of human skin.

The trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss is available on 6 reels of
microfilm (MII 74, National Archives). The pre-trial gas chamber
exhibits (report, diagrams, shower nozzle, reel 1) were never
introduced into evidence and are missing from the trial exhibits (reel
4). The transcripts (reels 2 & 3) contain no mention of any gas
chamber at Dachau except for a few sentences in the testimony of Dr
Blaha (Volume 1 pp. 166-169). The human skin came from moles (Volume
4, pp. 450, 462, 464).


Fritzsche became convinced from a letter that mass killings were being
carried out in Russia and attempted to verify this. He was, however,
unable to find any evidence of it (XVII 172-175 <<191-195>>).

Fritzsche is an important defendant because it was admitted in his
case that foreign newspapers printed much false news about Germany
(XVII 175-176 <<194-196>>; see also XVII 22-24 <<30-33>>). Yet, these
same newspaper stories and radio reports constituted the "facts of
common knowledge" which the Tribunal alleged needed no proof (Article
21 of rules of evidence, I 15 <<16>>, II 246 <<279>>).

It was pointed out in Fritzsche's defense that no international
convention exists regulating propaganda or atrocity stories, true or
false, and that only one national law of one state (Switzerland) made
it unlawful to insult foreign Heads of State. That Fritzsche could be
guilty of no crime, was, at Nuremberg, simply irrelevant. It was
deemed undesirable to have a "trial" in which all defendants were
convicted. In the horse-trading which preceeded the final verdict, it
was agreed that Fritzsche should be released (XVII 135-261
<<152-286>>; XIX 312-352 <<345-388>>).


Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected artistic family,
married for 25 years at the time of the trial, and former financial
editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk was accused of performing
"immoral acts" such as accepting birthday gifts from Hitler, proving
"willing participation in the Common Plan". (Obviously, such acts are
not illegal.)

Funk claimed that the British and the Poles had conspired to provoke
Germany into war in the belief that the generals would overthrow
Hitler (XIII 111-112 <<125-126>>).

Funk was accused of conspiring with the SS to murder concentration
camp inmates in order to finance the war effort by pulling their teeth
out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at the Reichsbank, along
with shaving kits, fountain pens, large alarm clocks, and other more
or less useless junk. Forgotten was Rudolf Hoess's testimony that the
teeth were melted at Auschwitz (XI 417 <<460>>).

Funk testified that the amounts and kinds of loot were "absurd" and
pointed out that the SS acted as customs police and enforced exchange
control regulations, including a prohibition against the ownership of
gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency. It was quite natural that
the SS should confiscate large amounts of valuables, and that the SS,
as a government agency, should have financial accounts, and that these
accounts would contain valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same
vaults as well, to which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were
private safety deposit accounts.

With the increased bombing raids, more and more valuables were
deposited in the vaults by ordinary German citizens. Finally, after a
particularly damaging raid on the bank, the valuables were removed to
a potassium mine in Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables
there, and falsified a film of it.

Funk and his attorney showed the falsity of the film using an opposing
witness, in some of the shrewdest testimony and cross examination in
the entire trial (XIII 169 <<189-190>>, 203-204 <<227-228>>, 562-576
<<619-636>>; XXI 233-245 <<262-275>>).

Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use of
gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263
<<245-291>>). This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert
Kempner. Pohl was later convicted of "steaming" people to death in 10
"steam chambers" at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their hair
(NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal, Nuremberg).

Funk believed, like other defendants, that crimes had occurred, but
maintained that he knew nothing about it. His belief that crimes had
occurred does not, in itself, prove that that belief was true.


Kurt Gerstein is often referred to as a Holocaust "witness"; however,
this is not correct. By "witness", one normally understands a person
who has seen something and who appears to testify as to his personal
knowledge; Gerstein did not do that. Gerstein was an unworn affiant or
deponent, which means that he is simply a name appearing at the end of
a "statement" typewritten in French, which he may or may not have
written. (Document 1553-PS rejected at Nuremberg) (VI 333-334
<<371-372>>, 362-363 <<398-399>>).

One of the stories current about Gerstein is that he wrote the
statement in Cherche-Midi prison, in France, and committed suicide,
after which his body disappeared.

It is far more probable that the statement was written in French by a
German Jewish interrogator-"interpreter", and that some of the
inconsistencies (such as winter occuring in August, or being in a car
in one sentence, and a train in the next) resulted from imperfect
transcription of the notes of interrogation into affidavit form. In
minor war crimes trials and Japanese war crimes trials, unsworn
"statements" of this kind are fairly common, on the theory that they
possess "probative value" but less "weight" than sworn statements. It
is also possible that Gerstein died of injuries sustained during
"interrogation"; or perhaps he hanged himself with the typewriter

This document was later extensively quoted in the Pohl Trial, where it
was "proven" that Treblinka had 10 'gas chambers' (1553-PS) and 10
'steam chambers' (3311-PS) in the same camp at the same time.


One of the most famous accounts of the behavior and psychology of the
Nuremberg Trial defendants is that of the German-born psychologist,
G.M. Gilbert, in his book Nuremberg Diary. Much of the material
consists of conversations which the defendants and other persons, such
as Rudolf Hoess, allegedly had with Gilbert or each other(!) and which
Gilbert allegedly wrote down from memory afterwards.

A comparison of texts with the Nuremberg trial transcript will show
that the defendants did not speak in the style attributed to them by
Gilbert. Gilbert took no notes. No witnesses were present.

Persons who believe that Documents 1014-PS, 798-PS, and L-3 are
"Hitler speeches", at least in comparison with Document Ra-27, may
continue believing that Gilbert's book contains "statements of the
Nuremberg Trial defendants". This does not rule out, of course, that
they may have made statements similar to those allegedly "remembered"
by Gilbert.

Gilbert believed that the defendants gassed millions of Jews. If they
felt no guilt for their actions, this proved that they were

It is obvious that such a belief on Gilbert's part would influence his
perception and memory to some extent, even if he is telling the truth
as he remembers it. If he lied, he was not the only "American" at
Nuremberg who did so. Telford Taylor, for example, was incapable of
repeating the simplest statement truthfully. (See XX 626 <<681-682>>),
the statements of General Manstein, compared with Taylor's "quotation"
from Manstein, XXII 276 <<315>>).

Gilbert's dishonesty is best proven by the entry for December 14,

"Major Walsh continued reading documentary evidence of the
extermination of the Jews at Treblinka and Auschwitz. A Polish
document stated: 'All victims had to strip off their clothes and
shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women
and children first, were driven into the death chambers . . . small
children were simply thrown inside" (p.69, 1st edition).

The "documentary evidence" is, of course, a Communist "War Crimes
Report" and the "death chambers", of course, are "steam chambers" (III
567-568 <<632-633>>).


Goering was accused of creating the concentration camp system and
plotting "aggressive war" against Poland. Goering's defense was that
Germany was a sovereign state, recognized by every government in the
world (XXI 580-581 <<638-639>>); that Hitler was legally elected; that
every nation has the right to legislate and to organize its affairs as
it sees fit; that General von Schleicher had attempted to rule
illegally and unconstitutionally without the support of the National
Socialists; that Germany was on the verge of civil war in 1933; that
concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War,
and that internment of aliens and political opponents was practiced by
both Britain and the United States during WWII.

The order to create the camps was unquestionably legal under an
emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution, and was signed by
Hindenberg (Reich President's Decree of 28 February 1933), under the
authority of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Weimar Constitution (XVII
535 <<581>>, XIX 357 <<394>>).

According to a prosecution document, Document R-129 (III 506
<<565-566>>)) there were 21,400 inmates in all German concentration
camps put together in 1939. 300,000 persons were confined in ordinary
prisons (XVII 535-536 <<581-582>>, XX 159 <<178>>).

One year after the war, 300,000 Germans were held in Allied prison
camps under "automatic arrest" clauses in Allied agreements (such as
Point B-5 of the Joint Declaration of Potsdam) (XVIII 52 <<62>>).

The majority of prisoners in German concentration camps were
Communists and common criminals (XVII 535-536 <<581-582>>, XXI 516-521
<<570-576>>, 607-614 <<677-685>>).

During the war, due to the Allied blockade, the camp system was
expanded to utilize the labour of enemy aliens, criminals, Jehova's
Witnesses and Communists. It was pointed out that America imprisoned
11,000 Jehova's Witnesses (XI 513 <<563>>).

Britain fought both world wars in defiance of international law by
reducing Germany and any occupied territories to literal starvation
through blockade (XIII 445-450 <<492-497>>; XVIII 334-335
<<365-367>>). It was this which necessitated requisitions and labour
conscription in occupied territories, legal under Article 52 of The
Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare 18 October 1907. It was this
which made people happy to work in Germany and remit wages to their
families (between two and three billion Reichsmarks during the war).

The "slaves" paid German taxes on their wages, and were disciplined
through fines, which could not exceed a week's wages (V 509 <<571>>).
For gross indiscipline, they could be sent to a work camp (not a
concentration camp) for a period not exceeding 56 days (XXI 521
<<575-576>>). It was strictly forbidden to beat or mistreat them.

Prisoners of war could volunteer to be released from prisoner of war
camps and work in industry, in which case they were treated like any
other industrial workers (XVIII 496-498 <<542-544>>), but lost
protection under the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention. They could not
be forced to do so.

The Vichy Regime in France obtained the release and immediate return
home of 1 prisoner of war for every 3 workers sent to Germany under
contract for a period of 6 months (XVIII 497 <<543>>). It was not
possible to violate the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by forcing
French, Belgian or Dutch prisoners to participate in hostilities
against their own countries, because their own countires were no
longer fighting (XVIII 472-473 <<516>>.

As for the attack on Poland, the Polish crisis existed for over a year
prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German and Soviet attack.
During this entire time, the Poles never called for an impartial
international Court of Arbitration; never called on the League of
Nations; because they did not wish an equitable solution. They were
content to continue to violate their international agreements by
expelling Polish citizens of German descent, as well as many hundreds
of thousands of Jews (XVI 275 <<304>>).

The influx of Polish Jews into Germany was the principal immediate
cause of German anti-Semitism, according to many defendants and
defense witnesses (XXI 134-135 <<155>>; XXII 148 <<169>>). Polish Jews
were involved in many financial scandals and swindling schemes, such
as the Barnat-Kutitsky affair (XXI 569 <<627>>).

As for "conspiracy to wage war in defiance of the laws of war", of
course it was the British who did that, with mass aerial bombings.
German soldiers went into battle with detailed written instructions
that property was to be respected; prisoners must be humanely treated;
women must be respected; and so on (IX 57-58 <<68-69>>, 86
<<100-101>>, XVII 516 <<560>>).

Frequent trials resulting in many death penalties against Germans were
carried out by the German armed forces against members of their own
armed forces for rape or looting, even if the value of the property
involved was slight (XVIII 368 <<401-402>>, XXI 390 <<431>>, XXII 78

Requisition of government property was legal under the Hague
Convention. The Soviet Union was not a signatory to this convention.
In any case, in Communist countries there was no private property.
Goering said he had been to Russia, and the people there had nothing
to steal (IX 349-351 <<390-393>>).

Furthermore, the Allies were presently engaged in everything they
accused the Germans of doing (XXI 526 <<581>>; XXII 366-367

Goering demolished the "pressure chamber medical experiment"
accusation by saying that every airman had to test his physical
reactions to high altitude; there was nothing sinister about a
so-called "pressure chamber" (XXI 304-310 <<337-344>>). Americans
carried out medical experiments resulting in death while the Nuremberg
trial was still going on (XIX 90-92 <<102-104>>; see also XXI 356, 370
<<393, 409>>).

Ironically, it was alleged that "defensive war" included preventive
attack (XXII 448 <<508>>) or to protect citizens of a foreign country
from their own government (XIX 472 <<527>>; XXII 37 <<49>>), except
when Germans did it (X 456 <<513>>). Protests that Germans did just
that were ignored.

The Soviets had 10,000 tanks and 150 divisions massed along the border
of eastern Poland, and had increased the number of airports in their
section of the country from 20 to 100. Detailed maps were later found
which would not have been necessary for defensive purposes. It was
believed that to await an attack upon the oil fields of Roumania or
the coal fields of Silesia would be suicidal (XIX 13-16 <<20-23>>, XX
578 <<630-631>>; XXII 71 <<85>>).

It seems unlikely that nations with vast colonial empires (Britain,
France) or claims upon entire hemispheres (the United States) could
agree upon a workable definition of "aggressive war". Indeed it was
admitted in the judgment of Nuremberg that "defense", "aggression",
and "conspiracy" were never defined (XXII 464, 467 <<527, 531>>). No
doubt "defensive war" is the medieval "bellum justum" dressed up in
liberal jargon (IX 236-691 <<268-782>>; XVII 516-550 <<560-597>>; XXI
302-317 <<335-351>>).


According to the report of Robert H. Jackson, (quoted by Judge Bert A.
Roeling of the Tokyo Tribunal, writing in A Treatise on International
Criminal Law, vol. 1., pp. 590-608, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni and
Ved. F. Nanda, Chas Thomas Publisher), the British, French, and
Soviets at Nuremberg did not wish to charge the Germans with
"aggressive war" at all, for obvious reasons. This accusation was
invented by the Americans for the sole, express, and admitted purpose
of justifying American violations of international law.

These violations of international law would include the Lend Lease
Program; convoying and repairing British wartime ships for two years
prior to Pearl Harbor; allowing British ships to disguise themselves
as American while the U.S. was officially neutral; the illegal
declaration of a 300 mile limit; the occupation of Iceland; reporting
the movements of German and Italian submarines; bombing and ramming
attacks against German and Italian submarines beginning as early as
July of 1941, and other actions obviously indicative of "aggressive

Thus Hess was imprisoned for 47 years not only for actions which were
not illegal (attempting to stop the war, save millions of lives and
prevent the destruction of Europe and the British Empire), but for
"crimes" which were invented to cover the crimes of his accusers.

It was not alleged at Nuremberg that Germany had committed
"aggression" against Britain or France; the question of whether
Britain and France had, thereofre, committed "aggression" against
Germany was left unanswered (IX 473 <<525>>; XVII 580 <<629>>).

Hess was accused of plotting with Hitler to take Britain out of the
war so that Hitler could attack Russia. His defense was that his
action was dictated by sincerity; that he knew nothing of any attack
on Russia.

Hess's defense summation appears at XIX 353-396 <<390-437>>. >From his
final (and only) statement (XXII 368-373 <<420-425>>) Hess appears to
have been a man who could be totally insane one moment, and
brilliantly lucid, sane and logical a moment later. It is possible
that this condition was acquired in Britain.

[Photograph captioned, "The wreckage of the plane that Rudolf Hess
flew to Britain in an attempt to stop the war, leading to his
conviction for crimes against peace."]


Rudolf Hoess was the Auschwitz commandant whose "confessions" have
"proven" that Hitler gassed six million Jews (or five million, the
figure usually used at Nuremberg). His best-known "confession" is the
one quoted by William L. Shirer on pages 968-969 of The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich.

This document, Document 3868-PS, should be seen in its context. The ex
parte written "statement" or affidavit (i.e., prepared in the presence
of only one of the parties) was a principal prosecutor's tool in the
witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages, only to disappear for several
centuries, then reappear in Communist show trials and war crimes

These documents violate many standard rules of legal procedure, such
as the rule against asking leading questions, the rule against prior
consistent statements (i.e., the multiplication of evidence by
repetition; normally, such statements are only admissible when they
contradict other statements made later), the right to confront and
cross-examine one's accuser, and the privilege against
self-incrimination. Nor would the "evidence" in war crime trials be
admissable in a court martial. Even in 1946, the introduction of
depositions by the prosecution in capital cases before a court martial
was forbidden by Article 25 of the US Articles of War. Article 38
required the use of standard Federal rules of evidence.

At Nuremberg, there was never the slightest pretense that Hoess wrote
this document. If that had been the case, it would not state, "I
understand English as it is written above", but rather, "I have
written this statement myself". In the minor trials (Hadamar,
Natzweiler, etc.) it is common to find confessions written entirely in
the handwriting of the interrogator, in English, with a final
statement in the prisoners handwriting, in German, stating that these
are his statements and that he is satisfied with the translation into

Another formula occurs on page 57 of the Hadamar volume of Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe's book, War Crimes Trials, "I certify that the above has
been read to me in German, my native tongue" (in English).

The pretense was that the prisoner was interrogated through an
interpreter in question and answer form, after which the questions
were deleted, and the answers were run together in the form of an
affidavit, usually written by a different person from the interrogator
who conducted the questioning.

At Belsen, for example, every affidavit was written by one officer,
Major Smallwood. In this trial, a combination Auschwitz-Belsen trial,
the court-appointed British and free Polish defense team demolished
the prosecution case - including the "selections for mass gassings" -
but were overruled on the grounds that involuntary statements and oral
and written hearsay were admissable, "not to convict the innocent, but
to convict the guilty" (Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol.
II. (This thin volume must be read in its entirety.))

After the affidavit was prepared by the officer who did nothing but
write affidavits, it was presented in its finished form to the
prisoner for signature. If it was not signed, it was introduced into
evidence anyway. Objections went to "weight", in the jargon of war
crimes proceedings, rather than to "admissibility".

An example of an unsigned affidavit by Rudolf Hoess is Document
NO-4498-B. The B means that this document is a "translation" with
typewritten signature of an "original" document, Document NO-4498-A,
written in Polish, and allegedly signed by Hoess. There is also a
Document NO-4498-C, in English.

Affidavits A and C are not attached to Affidavit B, the "true copy".

Document 3868-PS, quoted by Shirer, was signed in English, 3 times,
but not in the "translation" into German. The document contains a
minor change initialled by Hoess, with a small "h", and an entire
sentence written entirely in the interrogator's handwriting (compare
capital "W"s) not initialled by Hoss. The initial, of course, is there
to "prove" that he has "read and corrected" the document. The content
of this handwritten sentence is refuted elsewhere (XXI 529 <<584>>).

When the affidavit was presented to the prisoner, it was sometimes
corrected extensively, leading to two or more versions of the same
document. In these cases, the longer ones are "quoted", and the
shorter ones are "lost". An example of this practice is Document
948-949, the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger (See Albert Speer.)

Jaeger testified that he signed 3 or 4 copies of the same document, a
much shorter one. The shorter one was originally presented against the
elder Krupp, before charges against him were dropped. In this
document, the longer one, the translation into English is dated prior
to the signature date on the "original". Jaeger's court appearance was
an unmitigated disaster, but that is forgotten (XV 264-283

If the affiant appeared to testify, he invariably contradicted the
affidavit, but contradictions are ignored. Other affidavit signers
whose court appearances were catastrophic include General Westhoff,
who contradicted his unsworn "statement" 27 times (XI 155-189
<<176-212>>); and a "germ warfare witness", Schreiber (XXI 547-562
<<603-620>>); Paul Schmidt's affidavit (Schmidt was Hitler's
interpreter), Document 3308-PS - presented to him for signature when
he was too sick to read it carefully - was partially repudiated by him
(X 222 <<252>>), but used in evidence against Von Neurath, despite
Schmidt's repudiation (XVI 381 <<420-421>> XVII 40-41 <<49-50>>).
Ernst Sauckel signed an affidavit written prior to his arrival at
Nuremberg (XV 64-68 <<76-80>>) and signed under duress (his wife and
10 children were to be handed over to the Poles or Russians).

Since the affiants almost never (if ever) wrote their own
"statements", it is common to find identical or nearly identical
phrases or even entire paragraphs occurring in different documents,
even when they have been prepared on different days by supposedly
different people; for example, affidavits 3 and 5 of Blaskovitz and
Halder (Exhibits 536-US and 537-US); Documents USSR-471 and USSR-472
and 473; and Documents USSR-264 and 272 (human soap affidavits).

Other affidavits signed by Hoess include Document NO-1210, in which
the English was written first, with extensive interpolations,
additions and corrections, including 2 different first drafts of page
4, and 2 different first drafts of page 5, then translated into German
and signed by Hoess. That is, the "translation" is the "original", and
the "original" is the "translation".

Document 749(b)D was "translated orally" into German from English for
Hoess prior to signature. The signature is faint to the point of
illegibility, indicating possible ill health, fatigue or torture. The
torture has been described by Rupert Butler in Legions of Death
(Hamlyn Paperbacks)

The "confession" quoted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe on April Fool's Day,
April 1, 1946, in which Hoess "confessed" to killing 4 million Jews (X
389 <<439-440>>), instead of the usual 2.5 million of April 5, 1946,
has either never existed or has gotten "lost".

It is not true that Hoess's court appearance at Nuremberg consisted
chiefly of assenting to his affidavit; this is true only of his
cross-examination by Col. John Amen of the U.S. Army.

Instead, Hoess appeared to testify, and, as usual, contradicted his
affidavit and himself as much as possible (XI 396-422 <<438-466>>).

For example, where the affidavit states (XI 416 <<460>>) "we knew when
the people were dead because their screaming stopped", (a crudely
obvious toxicological impossibility), his oral testimony claims (XI
401 <<443>>, in response to grossly improper leading questions posed
by Kaltenbrunner's "defense attorney"), that the people became
unconscious; leaving unsolved the problem of just how he knew when
they were, in fact, dead. He forgot to mention that killing insects
with Zyklon took two days, a fact he mentioned elsewhere (Document
NO-036, p. 3, German text, answer to Question 25, and Kommandant in
Auschwitz, p. 155).

With such a slow-acting poison, the people would suffocate first.

Hoess claimed that the order to kill the Jews of Europe was given
orally (XI 398 <<440>>), but that orders to keep the killings secret
were given in writing (XI 400 <<442>>. He claimed that persons were
cremated in pits at Auschwitz, a notorious swamp (XI 420 <<464>>), and
that gold teeth were melted down on the spot (XI 417 <<460>>), but an
evacuation of the concentration camps to avoid capture would have led
to unnecessary deaths (XI 407 <<449-450>>), and, almost, that there
was no killing program at all! This is worth quoting:

   "Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the camps
   regarding feeding, accomodation, and treatment of detainees, was
   the same as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich. The
   detainees were treated strictly, yes, but methodical beatings or
   ill-treatment were outof the question. The Reichsfuhrer gave
   frequent warnings that every SS man who laid violent hands on a
   detainee would be punished; and quite often SS men who did
   ill-treat detainees were punished. Feeding and accomodation at
   that time were in every respect put on the same basis as that of
   other prioners under legal administration. The accomodation in the
   camps during those years was still normal because the mass
   influxes at the outbreak of and during the war had as yet not
   taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries of
   political detainees arrived, and, later on, when detainees, who
   were members of resistence movements, arrived from the occupied
   territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of
   the camps could no longer keep up with the number of detainees who
   arrived. During the first years of the war this problem could
   still be overcome by improvising measures; but, later, due to the
   exigencies of the war, this was no longer possible, since there
   were practically no building materials any longer at our disposal"
   - (Note: the bodies are supposed to have been burnt using wood for
   fuel.) - . . . This led to a situation where detainees in the
   camps no longer had sufficient powers of resistence against the
   ensuing plagues and epidemics . . . the aim wasn't to have as many
   dead as possible or to destroy as many detainees as possible. The
   Reichsfuhrer was constantly concerned with the problems of
   engaging all forces possible in the armament industry . . . These
   so-called ill-treatments and torturing in concentration camps,
   stories of which were spread everywhere amongst the people, and
   particularly by detainees who were liberated by the occupying
   armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by
   individual leaders, sub-leaders, and men who laid violent hands on
   them . . . If in any way such a matter was brought to my notice,
   the perpetrator was, of course, immediately relieved of his post
   or transferred somewhere else. So that, even if he wasn't punished
   because there wasn't evidence to prove his guilt, he was taken
   away and given another position . . .
   "The catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the
   fact that as a result of the destruction of railways and of the
   continuous bombings of the industrial works, it was no longer
   possible to properly care for these masses, for example, at
   Auschwitz, with its 140,000 detainees. Improvised measures, truck
   columns, and everything else tried by the commandants to improve
   the situation, were of little or no avail. The number of sick
   became immense. There were next to no medical supplies; plagues
   raged everywhere. Detainees who were capable of work were used
   continuously by order of the Reichsfuhrer, even half-sick people
   had to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result, every
   bit of space in the concentration camps which could possibly be
   used for lodging was filled with sick and dying detainees . . .
   "At the end of the war, there were still thirteen concentration
   camps. All the other points which are marked here on the map means
   so-called labour camps attached to the armament factories situated
   there . . .
   "If any ill-treatment of detainees by guards occurred - I myself
   have never observed any - then this was possible only to a very
   small degree, since all officers in charge of the camps took care
   that as few SS men as possible had immediate contact with the
   inmates, because in the course of the years the guard personnel
   had deteriorated to such an extent that the former standards could
   no longer be maintained . . .
   "We had thousands of guards who could hardly speak German, who
   came from all leading countries of the world as volunteers and
   joined these units; or we had elder men, between 50 and 60, who
   lacked all interest in their work, so that a camp commandant had
   to take care continuously that these men fulfilled even the lowest
   requirements of their duties. Furthermore, it is obvious that
   there were elements among them who would ill-treat detainees, but
   this ill-treatment was never tolerated. Furthermore, it was
   impossible to have these masses of people working or when in the
   camp directed by SS men, so that everywhere detainees had to be
   engaged to give instructions to the detainees and set them to
   work, and who almost exclusively had the administration of the
   inner camp in their hands. Of course, a great deal of
   ill-treatment occured which couldn't be avoided, because at night
   there was hardly any member of the SS in the camps. Only in
   specific cases were the SS men allowed to enter the camp, so that
   the detainees were more or less exposed to the detainee
   Question (by defense attorney for the SS, Dr. Babel):
   "You have already mentioned regulations which existed for the
   guards, but there was also a standing order in all the camps. In
   this camp order there were laid down the punishments for detainees
   who violated the camp rules. What punishments were these?"
   "First of all, transfer to a "penal company" (Strafkompanie), that
   is to say, harder work, and their accomodation restricted; next,
   detention in the cell block, detention in a dark cell; and in very
   serious cases, chaining or strapping. Punishment by 'strapping'
   (Anbinden) was prohibited in the year 1942 or 1943, I can't say
   exactly when, by the Reichsfuhrer. Then there was the punishment
   of standing to attention during a long period at the entrance to
   the camp (Strafstehen), and finally punishment by beating.
   "However, this punishment of beating could not be decreed by any
   commandant independently. He could apply for it."

   Oral testimony of Rudolf Hoess, 15 April 1946 (XI 403-411

Hoess's motivation appears to have been to protect his wife and 3
children, and to save the lives of others by testifying that only 60
people knew of the mass killings. Hoess attempted to save
Kaltenbrunner by implicating Eichmann and Pohl, who had not yet been
apprehended. (For a similar case, see Heisig's affidavit implicating
Raeder, XIII 460-461 <<509-510>>).

Hoess appeared as a "defense witness", and his cross-examination by
the prosecution was cut short by the prosecution itself (XI 418-419
<<461-462>>). Perhaps they were afraid he would spill the beans.

Hoess's famous "autobiography" Kommandant in Auschwitz, probably
prepared in question and answer from through interrogation like a
gigantic "affidavit", then written up to be copied in his handwriting,
is not much better. In this book, German text, cremation fires were
visible for miles (p. 159). Everyone in the area knew of the
exterminations (p. 159) the victims knew they were going to be gassed
(pp. 110, 111, 125), but it was possible to fool them (pp. 123-124;
Document 3868-PS), and his family never knew a thing (pp. 129-130).
Hoess was a chronic drunkard who "confessed" these things when he had
been drinking (p. 95) or was being tortured (p. 145).

It is not true that, according to p. 126 of this text, bodies were
removed from gas chambers by Kapos eating and smoking and/or not
wearing gas masks; the text does not say that. Robert Faurisson has
proven that Hoess did make this assertion, but elsewhere, during an

The Polish "translation" of this book, published prior to the
publication of the German "original text", seems to agree with the
German text, except that place names and dates are missing, indicating
that the Polish was probably written first, these details being
inserted later in the German translation.

The uncut, unexpurgated complete writings of Rudolf Hoess(?) (in
Polish) are available through international library loan (Wspomnienia
Rudolfa Hoessa, Komendanta Obozu Oswiecimskiego).


While Germans were being convicted of making human "soap" (taken
seriously in the seventh edition of Oppenheim and Lauterpacht's
prestigious International Law, vol. II, p. 450) Japanese defendants
were being convicted of making human "soup" in repeated trials.

This is not a misprint; it was considered a "proven fact" in 1948 - a
"fact" proven in numerous "trials" - that the Japanese are a race of
habitual cannibals who were forbidden upon pain of death from
devouring the corpses of their own dead, but who were officially
encouraged to eat Americans. Americans were served fried, or as soup;
people were eaten when other food was available. Thus, the Japanese
engage in cannibalism out of choice rather than necessity. Favourite
human body parts for culinary purposes are liver, pancreas and gall
bladder; Chinese are swallowed in pill form!

Among the "trials" in which this was "proven" are U.S. Tachibana
Yochio and 13 others, Mariana Islands, 2nd-15th August, 1946;
Commonwealth of Australia vs. Tazaki Takehiko, Wewak, 30th November
1945; Commonwealth of Australia v. Tomiyasu Tisato, Rabaul, 2nd April
1946; and the most complex war crimes trial in history, the
International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) personally
supervised by Douglas McArthur, which lasted from May 1946 until
December 1948 (see The Tokyo Judgment, vol. 1, pp. 409-410, University
of Amsterdam Press 1977, pp. 49,674-5 of mimeographed transcript.

The 25 defendants who survived trial were all convicted; 7 were

Their crimes included:

Planning, initiation and waging "aggressive war" against the Soviet
Union (the Soviet Union attacked Japan two days after Hiroshima in
violation of a Non-Agression Pact; on this same day the London
Agreement was signed, pursuant to which the Nuremberg Trial washeld);
planning, initiation, and waging "aggressive war" against France
(France is in Europe); illegal sea blockade and indiscriminate
population bombing (case against Shimada), that is, the actions of the
British in Europe would have been illegal if committed by the
Japanese; trial of war criminals before a military tribunal (case
against Hata and Tojo; see also U.S. vs. Sawada, probably the most
disgusting and hypocritical accusation of all; the victims were 7
Americans guilty of participating in the fire-bombing of Tokyo in
which 80,000 women and children were burned to death) and cannibalism.
It was not alleged that the defendants ate anyone personally.

The evidence included:

   - Soviet War Crimes Reports
   - Chinese War Crimes Reports
   - Soviet reports based on Japanese documents not attached to the
   - Summaries of Japanese military aggression in China (written by
     the Chinese)
   - 317 Judge Advocate General War Crimes Reports (total length:
     14,618 pages) "quoting" "captured" Japanese documents, diaries,
     cannibalism confessions, mass murder orders, orders to gas
     P.O.W.s on remote South Sea islands, etc. ("captured documents"
     not attached to reports; proof of authenticity not required)
   - affidavits of Japanese soldiers imprisoned in Siberia
   - affidavits of Japanese referring to Japs as the 'enemy'
   - affidavits of Red Army Officers
   - newspaper clippings (admissable evidence for the prosecution,
     but not usually for the defense; i.e., events in China were
     proven by quoting the Chicago Daily Tribune, the New Orleans
     Times-Picayune, the Sacrimento Herald, Oakland Tribune, New York
     Herald, New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, etc. * the
     "affidavit" of Marquis Takugawa (written in English and not read
     to him in Japanese)
   - the statements of Okawa (Okawa was declared insane and confined
     to a lunatic asylum, but his statements were used in evidence)
   - the testimony of Tanaka (a professional witness paid by the
     Americans; Okawa, when drunk, has confessed everything to Tanaka;
     Tanaka 'The Monster' Ryukichi was supposedly responsible for
     millions of atrocities but was not tried, instead he moved freely
     about Japan)
   - Kido's diary (titbits of gossip about everybody Kido didn't
   - Harada's Memoirs (Harada had suffered a stroke, so his dictation
     was incomprehensible; how well he could remember and what he
     meant to say were anybody's guess; the translations were a
     guess; many different "copies" had been "corrected" by a variety
     of people other than the person to whom he had dictated; added
     to which he had a reputation for telling lies).

The Prosecution's Answer to Defense Arguments at the end of the trial
refutes all defensive evidence, stating that documents (translations
of excerpts "copies" without proof of issuance or signature) are the
best witnesses. If prosecution and defense both quote a document,
defense have quoted out of context, but never the prosecution. Hearsay
has probative value; testimony of defense witnesses has no probative
value; cross-examination is a waste of time.

Five of the 11 judges - William Webb of Australia, Delfin Jaranilla of
the Philippines, and Bert. A. Roeling of the Netherlands, Henri
Bernhard of France, and R.B. Pal of India - dissented. Pal wrote a
famous 700 page dissentient opinion in which he called the prosecution
atrocity evidence "mostly worthless", remarking sarcastically that he
hoped one of the documents was in Japanese.

A peculiarity of war crimes trials is that far from "proving"
anything, they all contradict each other. It was held at Tokyo that
the Chinese had a "right" to violate "unfair" treaties, and that
Japanese efforts to enforce such treaties - because they were "unfair"
- constituted "aggression".

When the atomic bombs were dropped, Shigemitsu had been attempting to
negotiate a surrender for nearly 11 months, beginning on September 14,
1944. This of course became another "crime" - "prolonging the war
through negotiation".

"Proof" of Japanese cannibal activity may be found in JAG Report 317,
pp. 12,467-8 of mimeographed transcript; Exhibits 1446 and 1447, pp.
12,576-7; Exhibit 1873, pp. 14, 129-30, and Exhibits 2056 and 2056A
and B, pp. 15,032-42.


Jodl was hanged for complicity in the Commando Order, an order to
shoot British soldiers who fought in civilian clothes and strangled
their own prisoners of war (XV 316-329 <<347-362>>).

Jodl's defense was that international law is intended to protect men
who fight as soldiers. Soldiers are required to bear arms openly, wear
clearly recognizable emblems or uniforms, and to treat prisoners in a
humane manner. Partisan warfare and the activities of British commando
units were prohibited. Trial and execution of such people is legal if
carried out under the terms of Article 63 of the Geneva Prisoner of
War Convention of 1929. (See also dissentient opinion of Judge
Rutledge, U.S. v. Yamashita; Habeas Corpus action of Field Marshall
Milch.) In fact, almost no one was shot as a result of the Commando
Order. (55 in Western Europe, according to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe,
XXII 284 <<325>>. The intention was to deter men from fighting in this
manner, thinking they could simply surrender afterwards.

Another "crime" was notifying the Commander in Chief of the Army that
Hitler had repeated an already previously issued order that an offer
of surrender from Leningrad was not to be accepted.

Like so many German crimes, this remained an idea without effect,
since no offer of surrender ever came. The intention was to force the
population to withdraw to the rear, since it would be impossible to
feed millions of people or to prevent epidemics. Gaps wer left in
German lines to the East in order to enable the population to do this.
Kiev, Odessa, and Kharkov had capitulated but were mined, killing
thousands of German soldiers with delayed-action detonator devices.
The docks were required for military purposes; Russian railroads were
on a different guage from German ones, and supplies could not be
brought forward to feed millions of half-starved prisoners or Jews.
The Soviet propaganda lie that Germans killed millions of Russian
prisoners has been taken seriously by many people who do not know the
causes of the mortality. The order concerning Leningrad, Document
C-123, is not signed.

The case against Jodl illustrates the absurdity of the entire trial.
In the words of his defense attorney, Dr. Exner:

"Murder and revolution - in peacetime this would have meant civil war;
in wartime, the immediate collapse of the front and the end of the
Reich. Should he then have cried, 'Fiat justia, pereat patria?

"It really appears that the prosecution holds the view that such
conduct could be demanded of the defendants. An astonishing idea!
Whether murder and treason can ever be justified ethically had better
be left to moralists and theologians. At all events, jurists cannot
even discuss such an idea. To be obliged on pain of punishment to
murder the head of state? A soldier should do that? And in wartime?
Those who have committed such deeds have always been punished, but to
punish them for not doing so would indeed be something new." (XIX 45
<<54>>; XXII 86-90 <<100-105>>).

At Tokyo, the generals were hanged for interfering in politics.

At another point, Dr. Exner exclaimed, "On one single page of the
Anglo-American trial brief the phrase 'Jodl was present at' occurs six
times. What does this mean legally?" (XIX 37 <<44>>).

Jodl was asked by one of the Soviet prosecutors, Col. Pokrovsky, "Do
you know that the German troops . . . quartered, hanged upside down,
and roasted Soviet captives over the fire? Did you know that?"

To which Jodl replied, "Not only did I not know it, but I do not even
believe it" (XV 545 <<595>>).

This is the entire vast subject of war crimes trials boiled down into
3 sentences (XV 284-561 <<313-612>>; XVIII 506-510 <<554-558>>; XIX
1-46 <<7-55>>).


During Kaltenbrunner's cross examination, he was indignantly asked how
he had the nerve to pretend he was telling the truth and that 20 or 30
witnesses were lying (XI 349 <<385>>).

The "eyewitnesses", of course, did not appear in court; they were
merely names on pieces of paper. One of these names is that of Franz
Ziereis, commandant of Mauthausen concentration camp.

Ziereis "confessed" to gassing 65,000 people; making lampshades out of
human skin; manufacturing counterfeit money; and supplied a
complicated table of statistical information containing the exact
number of inmates in 31 different camps. He then accused Kaltenbrunner
of ordering the entire camp (Mauthausen) to be killed upon the
approach of the Americans.

Ziereis had been dead for 10 and a half months when he made this
"confession". Fortunately, the "confession" has been "remembered" by
someone else: a concentration camp inmate named Hans Marsalek, who
never appeared in court, but whose signature appears on the document
(Document 3870-PS, XXXIII 279-286).

Pages 1 through 6 of this document are in quotation marks(!),
including the statistical table, which states, for example, that there
were 12,000 inmates at Ebensee; 12,000 at Mauthausen; 24,000 at Gusen
I and II; 20 inmates at Schloss-Lindt, 70 inmates at
Klagenfurt-Junkerschule, etc, for all of 31 camps in the table.

The document is not signed by anyone else alleged to have been present
at Ziereis's "confession", and no notes alleged to have been taken at
the time are appended to the document. The document bears two
signatures only: that of Hans Marsalek, the inmate; and that of Smith
W. Brookhart Jr. U.S. Army. The document bears the date 8 April 1946.
Ziereis died 23 May 1945.

The pretense was that Ziereis was too seriously injured (he died of
multiple gunshot wounds through the stomach) to sign anything at the
time, but he was healthy enough to dictate this lengthy and complex
document, which was then "remembered" exactly and verbatim by Marsalek
for 10 and a half months. Marsalek would, of course, have had no
motivation to lie. The document is in German. Brookhart was a
confession ghostwriter who also wrote the "confessions" of Rudolf
Hoess (in English, Document 3868-PS) and Otto Ohlendorf (in German,
Document 2620-PS).

(Brookhart was the son of a Senator from Washington Iowa. Address in
1992: 18 Hillside Drive, Denver Colorado, USA. Brookhart never
answered my letter as to whether he had any papers or memoirs.)

Ziereis's "confession" continues to be taken seriously by Reitlinger,
Shirer, Hilberg, and other itinerant peddlars of Holo-Schlock.

Kaltenbrunner claimed that there were 13 central concentration camps
or "Stammlager" during the war (XI 268-269 <<298-299>>). The
prosecution total of 300 concentration camps was achieved by including
perfectly normal work camps. The 13th camp, Matzgau, near Danzig, was
a special camp whose prisoners were SS guards and police who had been
sentenced to imprisonment for offenses against prisoners in their
charge: physical mistreatment, embezzlement, theft of personal
property, etc. This camp with its inmate SS men fell into the hands of
the Russians at the end of the war (XI 312, 316 <<345, 350>>).

Kaltenbrunner claimed that sentences passed by SS and police courts
were far more severe than sentences passed by other courts for the
same offenses. The SS carried out frequent trials of their own men for
offenses against inmates and violations of discipline (XXI 264-291,
369-370 <<294-323, 408-409>>).

Third degree methods of interrogation were permitted by law for the
sole purpose of obtaining information relating to future resistence
activity; it was forbidden for the purpose of obtaining confessions.
These interrogators required the presence of a doctor, and allowed a
total of 20 blows with a stick once only, on the bare buttocks, a
process which could not be repeated later. Other forms of legal "Nazi
torture" included confinement in a dark cell, or standing during
lengthy interrogations (XX 164, 180-181 <<184, 202-203>>; XXI 502-510;
528-530 <<556-565, 583-584>>).

Kaltenbrunner and many other defense witnesses claimed that similar
methods were used by police all over the world (XI 312 <<346>>) and
that respected police officials visited Germany to study German
procedures (XXI 373 <<412>>).

Defense evidence on this and related topics amounts to many thousands
of pages divided between the Tribunal and "commission", and 136,000
affidavits (XXI 346-373 <<382-412>>; 415 <<458>>, 444 <<492>>).

Kaltenbrunner was convicted of conspiring to "lynch" Allied airmen who
committed mass bombings of civilians. The lynchings would have been
illegal, but did not occur. Many airmen were saved from mobs by German
officials. The Germans refused to contemplate such a matter, fearing
it would lead to a general slaughter of parchuted fliers. Like so many
other German crimes, this remained an idea without effect (XXI 406-407
<<449-450>>, 472-476 <<522-527>>).

Another crime committed by Kaltenbrunner was responsibility for the
so-called "Bullet Order". This is supposed to have been an order to
shoot prisoners of war using a measuring contraption (probably
inspired by the Paul Waldmann pedal-driven brain bashing machine,
Document USSR-52, VII 377 <<416-417>>).

The "Bullet Order", Document 1650-PS, if it is an authentic document,
which it probably is not (XVIII 35-36 <<43-44>>) is a mistranslation:
the sense of the order is that prisoners who attempt to escape should
be chained to an iron ball (Kugel), and not that they should be shot
with a "bullet" (also Kugel). The word "chained" appears in the
document, but the word "shot" does not (III 506 <<565>>; XXI 514
<<568>>); Gestapo affidavit 75; XXI 299 <<332>>). The document is a
"teletype" thus, without a signature (XXVII 424-428).

"Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) is an example of the ugly
jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best translated as
"treatment on a case by case basis". Kaltenbrunner was able to show
that it meant, in the context of one document, the right to drink
champagne and take French lessons. The prosecution got a winter resort
mixed up with a concentration camp (XI 338-339 <<374-375>>); (XI
232-386 <<259-427>>; XVIII 40-68 <<49-80>>). (The winter resort
document is Document 3839-PS, XXXIII 197-199, an "affidavit").


Keitel was hanged for alleged responsibility in atrocities said to
have been committed in Russia, and for the Commissar and Night and Fog
Decrees. The evidence against Keitel consists largely of the "reports"
of Soviet War Crimes Commissions (XVII 611-612 <<663-664>>, XXII 76-83
<<90-98>>). These are summaries containing final judgments,
conclusions, and generalizations without any underlying evidence or
documents. In these reports, military agencies are wrongly named and

Among the Soviet documents used to convict Keitel are Documents
USSR-4; 9; 10; 35; 38; 40; 90; 364; 366; 407; and 470.

USSR-4 is a "report" which alleges intentional spreading of typhus
epidemics to exterminate the Russian population. Responsibility for
this crime is attributed to the "Hitler Government and the Supreme
Command of the Armed Forces"; see also "Report on U.S. Crimes in
Korea", Peking (1952) (American Germ Warfare).

Documents USSR-9, 35, and 38 are also Soviet War Crimes Reports.

Document USSR-90 is the judgment of a Soviet military court, and
states that "German fascist intruders committed bestial crimes", and
attributes these crimes to the "German Armed Forces Command".

Original documents are not appended, and specific orders are not
mentioned. Keitel's name is not mentioned. The other documents are
"certified true copies" (XVIII 9-12 <<16-19>>) of documents supposedly
possessed by the Russians.

The "Night and Fog Decree" (XVIII 19-22 <<27-30>>) was intended as an
alternative to shooting resistence members. It was conceded by the
prosecution that such people could be legally shot (V 405 <<456>>) but
the Germans considered it undesirable to sentence everyone to death.
Prison sentences were felt to have little deterrent value, since
everyone expected the war to end in a few years (XXI 524 <<578-579>>).
The Commissar Order had little if any practical effect, partly due to
the difficulty of determining who was a Commissar (XXI 404-405
<<446-447>>); XXII 77 <<91>>).

Keitel is accused to this day of blocking access to Hitler, that is,
shielding Hitler from certain information. This accusation, absurd in
the extreme, is refuted on pages 645-661 <<710-717>> of volume XVII.

Also used against Keitel was Document 81-PS, quoted in Jackson's
opening speech, and Document USSR-470, a "true copy" (meaning the
document has been re-typed to make the copy) of an "original document"
written entirely in Serbo Croat, and supposedly located in Yugoslavia,
with a typewritten signature by Keitel. It was not alleged that Keitel
understood Serbo-Croat, rather that this was a "translation" of a
document written in German which the Yugoslavians did not find (XV
530-536 <<578-585>>).

Keitel's case appears at X 468-658 <<527-724>>; XI 1-28 <<7-37>>; XVII
603-661 <<654-717>>; XVIII 1-40 <<7-48>>.


Von Neurath was the victim of a major forgery, Document 3859-PS. The
Czechs re-typed an authentic document, making extensive alterations
and additions, and presented a "photocopy" of their "copy" (with
typewritten signatures) to the Tribunal. The original document was in

On this document, nearly everything is wrong: German bureaucracy was
extremely complex, and many prosecution documents bear wrong
addresses, false references, and incorrect procedural markings which
are not immediately obvious. In relation to this document, Von Neurath

"I regret to say that you are lying" (XVII 67 <<79>>; 373-377

Von Neurath was convicted of closing Czech universities (not a crime
under international law when performed by an occupation government)
and shooting 9 Czech student leaders after a demonstration. These
crimes were "proven" with various documents: USSR-489, a "certified
true copy", certified by the Czechs; USSR-60, a "report" of a "War
Crimes Commission", quoting the "statements" of Karl Hermann Frank,
which were not appended to the report; and USSR-494, an "affidavit"
signed by Karl Hermann Frank 33 days before his execution. The
statements attributed to Frank in the War Crimes Report were, of
course, not signed or dated, and the original documents were in
Czechoslovakia (XVII 85-90 <<98-104>>).

Much of the "evidence" concocted against Von Neurath, Schacht, Von
Papen, Raeder, and others came from the affidavits of an elderly
American diplomat living in Mexico (Documents 1760-PS; 2385-PS;
2386-PS; EC-451).

The diplomat, Messersmith, was claimed to be too old to come to court
(II 350 <<387>>); it was denied, however, that he was senile (II 352
<<389>>). The "evidence" consists of Messersmith's personal opinions
as to the motivations and character of other people.

Von Neurath's case appears at XVI 593-673 <<649-737>>; XVII 2-107
<<9-121>>; XIX 216-311 <<242-345>>).


Von Papen was accused of conspiring with Hitler to induce Hindenburg
to take Hilter into government as Reichschancellor. According to this
view, Hindenburg was deceived by Von Papen into believing that civil
war would ensue if this was not done.

The Reichschancellor at that time, General Von Schleicher, had
attempted to rule illegally and unconstitutionally for some time
without the support of the National Socialists, who enjoyed the
largest majority in the history of the Reichstag. Many of Hitler's
illegalities actually date back to the period of Von Schleicher's rule
(XXII 102-103 <<118-119>>). This was the only alternative to the chaos
of 41 political parties, each representing some private financial

The democratic victors demanded of Von Papen, in 1946, that he should
ahve foreseen Hitler's intent to wage "aggresive war" in 1933, and
conspired with Von Schleicher to rule through military dictatorship.

Von Schleicher was later shot following the Rohm Putsch. These
shootings were considered legal by Hindenburg, as was evidenced by a
telegram congratulating Hitler (XX 291 <<319>>; XXI 350 <<386>>;
577-578 <<636-637>>; XXII 117 <<134-135>>). Von Papen also considered
the shooting of Rohm and his followers to have been justified by
emergency (XVI 364 <<401>>), but considered that many other murders
took place which were not justified, and that it was Hitler's duty to
conduct an investigation and punish these acts. This was not done.

It was conceded by the prosecution at Nuremberg that the Nazi Part
Program contained nothing illegal, and was indeed almost laudable (II
105 <<123>>). The National Socialists were declared legal by the
occupation authorities in the Rheinland in 1925 (XXI 455 <<505>>) and
by the German Supreme Court in 1932 (XXI 568 <<626>>) and by the
League of Nations and Polish Resident General in Danzig in 1930 (XVIII
169 <<187-188>>).

It was not clear in 1933 that the Army would unanimously support Von
Schleicher against the National Socialists, who had a legal right to
govern. Hindenburg's refusal to violate the Constitution at the risk
of civil war brought Hitler into government in an entirely legal
manner (see also XXII 111-112 <<128-129>>).

Von Papen was accused of "immoral acts in furtherance of the Common
Plan", such as the use of the intimate "du" form in conversation with
the Austrian Foreign Minister, Guido Schmidt: Von Papen remarked, "Sir
David, if you had ever been in Austria in your life, you would know
that in Austria almost everyone says 'du' to everyone else" (XVI 394

Acts of Von Papen's which could not be called "criminal" were used to
prove the defendant's "duplicity" (no pun intended). A mental
construction was placed on Von Papen's acts with the benefit of

It is sometimes alleged that since Von Papen, Fritzsche and Schacht
were acquitted, Nuremberg was a "fair trial". The contrary does not
apply to the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, or other
trials in which there were no acquittals; it is forgotten that the
witchcraft trials of the XVIIth Century averaged 5-10% in acquittals.

Von Papen's case appears at XVI 236-422 <<261-466>>; XIX 124-177


Raeder was accused of "conspiring" with the Japanese to attack the
United States. Other crimes committed by Raeder included listening to
speeches, being present at conferences, having knowledge of
contingency plans, and accepting birthday gifts.

Raeder proved that the Americans knew of the impending Pearl Harbour
attack 10 days before it occured, while the Germans knew nothing (XIV
122 <<137-138>>).

Raeder's discussion of German military preparedness and Hitler
speeches will be discussed together with Von Ribbentrop's (XIII
595-599 <<656-660>>; 617-631 <<680-696>>; XIV 1-246 <<7-275>>; XVIII
372-430 <<406-470>>).


Von Ribbentrop was hanged for signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact,
which preceeded and made possible the attack on Poland.

Ribbentrop defended his actions on the grounds that one million
Germans had been expelled from Polish territory over a 20-year period,
accompanied by numerous atrocities, and that complaints to the World
Court in The Hague and the League of Nations in Geneva had been
ignored for just as long. These were ethnic Germans with Polish
citizenship living in lands given to the new Polish state under the
Versailles Treaty.

On October 23, 1938, Ribbentrop made an offer to the Poles which the
British ambassador, Sir Neville Henderson, admitted was reasonable,
calling it a "pure League of Nations proposal": Ribbentrop asked for a
plebiscite in the Polish corridor; the return of Danzig (a 100% German
city) to the Reich, and the construction of an extra-territorial
double-track railway and highway across the Corridor to East Prussia,
which had previously been separated from the rest of Germany and could
only be reached by sea, in defiance of all common sense, that is, a
land bridge to East Prussia (X 260-269 <<295-304>>; 280-281
<<317-318>>; 367-369 <<416-417>>).

In return, the Poles were to receive an advantageous financial
settlement: a guarantee of port facilities and outlet for Polish goods
through the port of Danzig. The future of the Corridor was to be
decided according to the principle of self-determination, the Poles
would receive an outlet to the sea, and the German-Polish Friendship
Pact (signed by Hitler in 1934 in the face of bitter German
opposition), would be renewed for an additional period (XIX 362-368
<<399-406>>. For the prosecution version of these same events, see III
209-229 <<237-260)).

This was the "Nazi Plan to conquer the world" which served as a
pretext for the entire war, including, eventually, Pearl Harbor,
Hiroshima, and Yalta.

In reply, the Poles maintained that any change in the status of Danzig
would mean war with Poland. A general mobilization was ordered. The
expulsions continued, filling refugee camps along the Polish border.

The Polish ambassador, Lipski, reportedly stated on August 31, 1939,
that he was well aware of conditions in Germany, having served there
for many years. He was not interested in any note or proposal from
Germany. In the event of war, revolution would break out in Germany,
and the Polish Army would march in triumph to Berlin (XVII 520-521
<<565-566>>; 564-566 <<611-614>>; XX 607 <<661>>).

Ribbentrop claimed that the attitude of the Poles made war inevitable;
that the problem of the Corridor and the expulsions had to be solved;
that for both Hitler and Stalin the territories involved had been lost
to both countries after a disastrous war followed by equally
disastrous treaties (X 224-444 <<254-500>>; XVII 555-603 <<602-655>>).

To the Germans at Nuremberg, there appeared only one explanation: the
Poles and the British were in contact with the so-called German
underground, which had grossly exaggerated its own importance (XVII
645-661 <<699-717>>; XIII 111-112 <<125-126>>).

Hitler's interpreter appeared as a witness, and testified that the
Germans could not believe that the British would go to war over
something which their ambassador admitted was reasonable. According to
the interpreter, Paul Schmidt, there was a full minute of silence when
the message of the British declaration of war was delivered, after
which Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and said "What shall we do now?" (X
200 <<227>>).

Schmidt's testimony shed light on a famous remark attributed to Von
Ribbentrop, that Jews should be killed or confined to concentration
camps. What happened, according to Schmidt (X 203-204 <<231>>) was
that Hitler was putting pressure on Horthy to take stronger measures
against Jews. Horthy said, "What am I supposed to do? I can't kill
them." Ribbentrop was very irritable and said, "There are two
alternatives: either you can do just that, or they can be interned."
This appeared in the minutes of the conference as "The Reichs Foreign
Minister said that Jews should be killed or confined to concentration
camps". The statement was used against Ribbentrop and all other
defendants during the trial, despite Schmidt's testimony that the
minutes were inaccurate (X 410-411 <<462-463>>).

According to Ribbentrop, Raeder, Goering, and nearly all defendants
except Schacht, the Germans were not prepared for war and did not plan
"aggression" (XVII 522 <<566-567>>), XXII 62, 90 <<76, 105>>).

The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France were not "aggression",
because France had declared war on Germany. Belgium and Holland
allowed British planes to fly over their countries every night to bomb
the Ruhr. The Germans protested in writing 127 times (XVII 581
<<630>>, XIX 10 <<16>>).

Goering, Raeder, Milch and many others testified that Germany had only
26 Atlantic submarines with insufficient torpedoes, as opposed to 315
submarines in 1919 (XIV 26 <<34>>), and a "ridiculous" bomb supply
(XIX 4-5 <<11-12>>).

Hitler told Field Marshall Milch in May 1939 that there was no need
for full bomb production, as there would be no war. Milch replied that
full bomb production would take several months to bring to capacity.
The order to begin full production of bombs was not given until
October 12 or 20, 1939 (IX 50 <<60-61>>; XVII 522 <<566-567>>).

The German Air Force was designed for defensive, pin-point bombing;
the Germans cooperated with both the Russians and the British in
exchange of technical information of military value until 1938 (IX
45-133 <<54-153>>; XIV 298-351 <<332-389>>).

The Germans never built anywhere near the number of ships and
especially submarines (XIV 24 <<31>>) allowed to them under the terms
of the Anglo-German Naval Accord of 1935 (XVIII 379-389 <<412-425>>).
This agreement represented a recognition by the British that the
Versailles Treaty was out of date. It was also a voluntarily
undertaken limitation by Hitler of German naval armament (XIX 224-232

When war broke out, many large German battleships were still under
construction and had to be scrapped, because they would have taken
years to finish (XIII 249-250 <<279-280>>; 620-624 <<683-687>>).
According to an affidavit signed by her captain, one of Germany's
largest battleships, the Gneisenau, was on a training cruise near the
Canary Islands when war broke out, without any ammunition suplies (XXI
385 <<425>>).

Hitler was a bluffer who loved to terrify politicians with grossly
illogical, self-contradictory speeches (XIV 34-48 <<43-59>>; 329-330
<<366>>), which all contradicted each other (XXII 66-68 <<80-81>>).
For this reason, exact stenographic notes were never taken until 1941
(XIV 314-315 <<349-350>>).

Many "Hitler speeches" are semi-falsifications or forgeries (XVII
406-408 <<445-447>>, XVIII 390-402 <<426-439>>; XXII 65 <<78-79>>).

The Germans believed they were no longer bound by the Versailles
Treaty because its terms - the preamble to Part V - had been violated
by the British, and especially the French. German disarmament was to
be followed by general disarmament (IX 4-7 <<12-14>>; XIX 242 <<269>>,
356 <<392>>).

Hitler had offered to disarm to the last machine gun, provided other
nations did likewise; but Germany could not remain in a weakened
position forever, to be invaded and crushed at any moment. The
reoccupation of the Rhineland gave Germany a natural frontier
protecting the Ruhr, and would have been a matter of course for any
government. Eastern Europe seethed with conflict between heavily armed
states; East Prussia was not defensible; the Poles were openly
demanding parts of Upper Silesia (XII 476-479 <<520-524>>; XIX 224-232
<<249-259>>, XX 570-571 <<623-624>>).

The French-Soviet Accord of 5 December 1934 violated the Locarno Pact,
which the Germans were convicted of violating (XIX 254, 269, 277
<<283, 299, 308>>).

It was not clear that the occupation of the remainder of
Czechoslovakia violated the Munich Accord (X 259 <<293-294>>). This
was done because the Russians were building airports there, in
cooperation with the Czechs. The Czechs hoped to turn the remainder of
Czechoslovakia into a "aircraft carrier" from which Germany could be
attacked (X 348 <<394-395>>; 427-430 <<480-484>>). Roosevelt had
declared that American interest extended to all of the Western
Hemisphere, and Britain claimed dominion over half the world; surely
German interest could extend as far as Czechoslovakia. From Prague to
Berlin by plane is half an hour; Czech actions were plainly
threatening to German security.

There is no such thing as a treaty which lasts forever. Generally,
they are superceded by subsequent treaties, and become obsolete. This
is usually covered in the language of the treaty itself by the words
"rebus sic stantibus". By 1935, Versailles and Lucarno had become


Like Frank, Rosenberg was accused of "looting" and "plundering" works
of art. Rosenberg and Frank both pointed out that Germany was required
to protect works of art under the terms of The Hague Convention, and
that doing so required removing them from the scene of hostilities.
The artworks were carefully packed, appraised and repaired. Had it
been the German intention to "loot" or to "steal", it would not have
been necessary to catalogue these artworks with an exact notation of
the name and address of the owner, if that was known.

Several works of art were appropriated by Goering, not for Goering's
personal use, but for a museum which Hitler intended to create in
Linz. Rosenberg protested against this appropriation on the grounds
that it was his duty to maintain the collections intact until the end
of the war in the hope that a peace settlement could be made regarding
these objects.

Rosenberg was also accused of stealing thousands of railroad car loads
of furniture. The furniture had belonged to Jews who had abandoned
their homes upon German arrival in Paris. The Jewish apartments were
sealed for 90 days, then the property in them was confiscated as
abandoned, since its safekeeping could not be assured. Eventually it
was used for the benefit of Germans who had been rendered homeless by
bombing raids. Again, it was hoped to make a settlement at the end of
the war.

Rosenberg's ministry received a large number of complaints, which were
investigated. many were found to have no basis in fact. At Nuremberg,
it was simply assumed that every complaint was "true". Letters to
Rosenberg were used against him in evidence, though his answers to
those letters had been lost. The complaints and letters were held to
prove "willing membership in the Common Plan".

Rosenberg was accused of conspiring with Sauckel to obtain "slaves"
for the war effort from the occupied territories. Rosenberg, Sauckel,
Speer, Goering, and Seyss-Inquart all protested that had it not been
for the Allied blockade such "plundering" and "slavery" would not have
been necessary; that the sea blockade was illegal, and caused mass
unemployment in the occupied territories; and that occupation
governments are allowed to demand payment in services under the Hague
Convention. The "slaves" were paid the same wages as German workers,
who were also subject to compulsory labour. Funk claimed the "slaves"
remitted 2 billion Reichsmarks in wages to their families (XIII 136
<<153>>). Seyss-Inquart claimed there were 500,000 unemployed in
Holland as a result of the blockade, and if they were not provided
with employment, voluntary or otherwise, they would join the
resistence movement, illegal under international law. They were quite
happy to work on German fortifications in Holland, because this made
it less likely that the Allied invasion would take place in Holland.
(The likelihood of Allied invasion was also the reason for the
deportation of Dutch Jews) (XV 662-668 <<719-726>>; XIX 99-102

Fritzsche and others testified that the "slaves" could be seen moving
about freely in all German cities (XVII 163-164 <<183-184>>), had
plenty of money, and controlled the black market (XIV 590 <<649>>).
Moreover, hundreds of thousands of these "slaves" refused to leave the
country after the war, even though their own countries had been
"liberated" and Germany was devastated (XVIII 155 <<172-173>>). Nor
did the "slaves" revolt at the end of the war (XVIII 129-163
<<144-181>>; 466-506 <<509-554>>; XIX 177-216 <<199-242>>; XXI 471-472

Sauckel testified that the "slave labour" recruitment in France was
carried out by the French government and by French collaborationist
organizations. Many persons wished to be "compelled" in order to avoid
reprisals by the resistance (XV 1-263 <<7-290>>) but all were paid the
same wages as German workers and enjoyed the same health benefits and
terms of contract. Far from "looting" the occupied territories, it was
necessary to import much valuable equipment. In Russia, everything had
been destroyed during the retreat by the Russians. When Germans
imported equipment and withdrew it during their own retreat, this was
called "looting" (IX 171-172 <<195-196>>).

An example of a "complaint" which became a "crime" was the case in
which theatre goers were reportedly rounded up into "slavery". Sauckel
investigated for some months, and found this to have been a case in
which a labour contractor interrupted a party of his own workers in
order to move them to another workplace (XV 17-18 <<25-26>>).

As conditions worsened, more compulsion became necessary. If the
Allies had the right to confiscate property of neutrals at sea, the
Germans had the right to utilize the resources of occupied territories
on land.

Another accusation against Rosenberg was the so-called "Hay Action",
in which 50,000 children were "kidnapped" into "slave labour".
Rosenberg and Von Schirach both testified that this was an
apprenticeship program designed to remove orphans from the war zone
(XI 489-490 <<538-539>> XIV 501-505 <<552-556>>). If Rosenberg's
ministry did not remove the orphans from the area, the Army would do

A related accusation is the "Lebensborn" organization, supposedly a
plot to kidnap babies after measuring the size of their penises
(according to mentally ill Jewish "historians"). The purpose of this
organization was to remove the stigma of illegitimacy and to aid
families with numerous children (XXI 654-664, German volumes. These
pages have disappeared from the American transcript. See also XXI 352

Rosenberg's case appears at XI 444-599 <<490-656>>; XVIII 69-128


Schacht is an anomaly as a defendant because the accusations against
him contradict those made against the other defendants. While the
others were accused of "acts of moral turpitude" such as accepting
birthday gifts; making birthday speeches; being photographed; signing
laws legally passed by the Head of State; being in political agreement
with the Head of State; or if not, failing in their moral duty to
overthrow and murder the Head of State (obviously not a duty that can
be imposed by law); Schacht was accused of all these things, and, for
good measure, violating his oath of loyalty to Hitler and deceiving
Hitler! This was considered proof of particular wickedness (XII 597

Schacht's remark on the necessity of lying has been widely quoted to
prove Nazi duplicity; it is forgotten that the person being lied to
was Hitler.

Schacht ridiculed these accusations with one wisecrack after another,
and was even more sarcastic than Goering. Jackson, however, lacked the
perspicacity to realize that Schacht was making a fool of him (XII
416-493 <<454-539>>; 507-602 <<554-658>>; XIII 1-48 <<7-58>>; XVIII
270-312 <<299-342>>.

Jackson's lie that he forced Schacht to "admit that he lied" has been
taken seriously by many people who should know better. Jackson
habitually lied (for example, II 438 <<483>>; IX 500-504 <<555-559>>).


Von Schirach was accused of conspiring with millions of children to
conquer the world in imitation Boy Scout uniforms. It was pointed out
in his defense that a conspiracy involving millions of members is a
logical absurdity (XIV 360-537 <<399-592>>, XVIII 430-466 <<470-509>>.

To further this aim, the conspirators engaged in target practice with
.22 calibre rifles (XIV 381 <<420-421>>) and sang songs which were
sometimes 300 years old (XIV 474 <<521>>).

At Nuremberg, crimes could be found anywhere. In the case against the
SA, an article on foot care was quoted to prove "intent to engage in
aggressive war" (XXI 221-223 <<248-250>>).

Schirach was accused of knowledge of atrocities by Hans Marsalek,
whose "recollection" of Ziereis's "confession" (in quotation marks)
one year after Ziereis died, was used against Kaltenbrunner (XI
330-333 <<365-369>>; XIV 436-440 <<480-485>>).

Another crime committed by Schirach was being short and fat (affidavit
of Georg Ziemer, 244-PS, XIV 400-401 <<440-441>>). Schirach denied
this charge. (A "short, fat student leader" had delivered an
anti-Semitic speech.)

Schirach was supposed to have received Einsatzgruppen reports at his
office as Gauleiter of Vienna. These documents are photocopies of
"true copies" on plain paper without headings or signature, prepared
by unknown persons, and found buried in a salt mine (II 157 <<185>>)
by the Russians (IV 245 <<273>>, VIII 293-301 <<324-332>>). Katyn is
listed as a German crime (NMT IX 96-117, Trial of Otto Ohlendorf).

The Germans are supposed to have killed 22,000,000 people (XXII 238
<<270>>), or 12,000,000 (XXII 312 <<356>>), after which the bodies
were burned and the documents were buried. Documents are combustible
and bodies are not.

Schirach and Streicher were both taken in by a "photocopy" of a Hitler
document in which he "confessed" to mass killings (XIV 432 <<476>>;
XII 321 <<349>>). Since Hitler was a genius (X 600 <<671-672>>, and
since geniuses do not kill millions of people with Diesel exhaust and
insecticides which take 24 hours to kill moths (Document NI-9912), it
appears that the significance of this document has been overrated. In
fact, it is typical Hitler: full of violent language, but short of
factual content. Nor is it certain that Hitler was of sound mind in
1945 (IX 92 <<107>>). The Hitler 'confession' is a "certified"
photocopy (Striecher Defense Document 9, XLI 547).


Seyss-Inquart is an example of the manner in which perfectly legal
actions were charged as "crimes" when undertaken by Germans, while
identical actions, or actions criminal under the Tribunal's own
Statute (such as the Dresden bombings, illegal under Article 6(b),
XXII 471, 475 <<535, 540>>), were treated as the minor inconveniences
of a great crusade to eradicate evil.

Under international law, occupation governments are allowed to
legislate as they see fit (a right claimed by the Tribunal itself,
XXII 461 <<523>>, but contradicted at XXII 497 <<565-565>> and
obedience to their authority is required. They are allowed to
conscript labour within certian limits, to confiscate government
property, levy taxes to cover the costs of occupation, and are not
required to tolerate armed resistence, striking, publication of
hostile newspapers, or to employ local officials who will not follow
orders. Initialling documents or passing on orders are not crimes
under international law. Seyss-Inquart prevented much unnecessary
destruction at the end of the war which would have been illegal (XV
610-668 <<664-726>>; XVI 1-113 <<7-128>>; XIX 46-111 <<55-125>>).

As Reichskommissar for Holland, Seyss-Inquart passed on orders to
execute resistence members after conviction for acts of sabotage or
armed resistence, illegal under The Hague Convention. The executions
were carried out after renewed acts of sabotage occurred. This was
called "execution of hostages". The word "hostage", however, is
incorrect (XII 95-96 <<108>>, XVIII 17-19 <<25-27>>, XXI 526 <<581>>,
535 <<590>>).

For a discussion of international law from the prosecution point of
view, conceding the legality of these actions, see V 537 <<603-604>>.
It was conceded by the prosecution that resistence members may be shot
(V 405 <<455-456>>).

The Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 18 October 1907
contains an all-participation clause (Art. 2); belligerants violating
the convention may be required to pay compensation (Art. 3); prohibits
bombardments "by whatever means" of undefended cities, cultural
monuments (Art. 23). Not ratified by Bulgaria, Greece, Italy,
Yugoslavia. Ratified by Czarist Russia.


Albert Speer was convicted of conspiring to enslave millions of people
for work in German armaments industries, where they were forced to
sleep in urinals (Document D-288, Affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jager) and
were tortured in mass-produced torture boxes disguised as clothes
lockers (Documents USA-894), the bizarre "disguise" being intended to
permit the introduction of perfectly ordinary objects as proof of

Regarding this charge, Speer said,

   "I consider this affidavit a lie... it is not possible to drag the
   German people in the dirt in such a way" (XVI 543 <<594>>).

Speer was the kind of man who is successful under any system. He
always claimed he knew nothing about "exterminations", but said he
would have heard about it if prisoners had been cremated using atomic
bombs (a Robert Jackson hallucination, XVI 529-530 <<580>>).

Speer claimed to have plotted to assassinate Hitler using a highly
sophisticated nerve gas (XVI 494-495 <<542-544>>). The plot failed
because the gas could only be produced at high temperatures (XVI 529

Actually, Zyklon presents a similar problem, in that the liquid must
evaporate, and does so slowly unless heated. German technical wizardry
and industrial advancement in general renders ridiculous any notion of
a "Holocaust" using insecticide or Diesel exhaust. It would be more
difficult to "drag the German people in the dirt" if it were not for
people like Albert Speer. (XVI 430-588 <<475-645>>); XIX 177-216


Streicher was hanged for 'incitement to race hatred', a crime which is
becoming more popular. The Streicher case is remarkable in that
nations which preach separation of church and state and freedom of
speech and press should conspire with Jews and Communists to hang a
man for expressing opinions which were not alleged to have been

One of Streicher's crimes was the publication of a 'ritual murder'
supplement in his anti-Semitic newspaper, Der Sthrmer. It was
expressly admitted by the prosecution that his illustrations were
authentic (V 103 <<119>>) and that the article was referenced
correctly. Among Streicher's references was at least one recognised
scholar, Dr. Erich Bischof of Leipzig, and modern legal proceedings
(IX 696-700 <<767-771>>). It was felt that to investigate the validity
of these references would have unduly prolonged the trial, so the
article was not alleged to have been untrue. Rather, an act of mental
telepathy was performed, and Streicher was hanged for his alleged
metnal processes and motivation.

Another Streicher crime was calling the Old Testament "a horrible
criminal romance . . . this 'holy book' abounds in murder, incest,
fraud, theft and indecency". No evidence was introduced to rebut this
view (V 96 <<112>>).

Streicher is famous as a 'pornographer', 'sex pervert' and 'swindler'.
The 'pornography collection', upon further examination, turned out to
be the Sturmer archive of Judaica (XII 409 <<445>>). The 'sex pervert'
charge, heavily emphasized by the Russians, had as its origin the
so-called Goering Report, a Party disciplinary proceeding brought by
one of Streicher's many enemies. This charge was dropped at Nuremberg
and stricken from the record; Streicher was told he need not answer
any questions related to this accusation (XII 330, 339 <<359, 369>>).

The 'property swindle' was also drawn from the Goering Report, and
related to a single case, involving the Mars Works. The man
responsible for the accusations contained in the report was, by some
coincidence, the man responsible for the purchase (V 106 <<123>>). The
report states that the shares were returned, and that the money that
Streicher had paid for them, 5000 Reichsmarks, was returned to
Streicher after the investigation.

Streicher gave his business managers full power of attorney to do as
they liked, saying "Do not worry me with business matters There are
other things more important than money". Streicher claimed his
newspaper was published in a rented house until the end of the war. It
was not a Party newspaper, and Streicher had nothing to do with the

One of Streicher's employees appeared as a witness and stated,
"Whoever knows Herr Streicher as I do, knows that Herr Streicher has
never taken anything from a Jew" (XII 385-386 <<420>>).

Streicher's second wife, Adele Streicher, appeared and stated, "I
consider it quite impossible that Julius Streicher acquired shares
that way. I believe that he does not even know what a share looks
like" (XII 391 <<426>>).

It was not alleged at Nuremberg that Streicher wrote all his own
articles and publications. "Trau keinem Fuchs auf gruner Heid, und
keinem Jud' bei seinem Eid", translated by the prosecution as "Don't
Trust a Fox Whatever You Do, Nor Yet the Oath of any Jew" (XXXVIII
129) took its title from Martin Luther. 'Der Giftpilz', (The Poisonous
Fungus) was written by one of Streicher's editors, inspired by a
famous child molester case, that of the Jewish industrialist, Louis
Schloss (XII 335 <<364-365>>).

Schloss was later murdered in Dachau, which became another 'Nazi
atrocity'. In the prosecution discussion of the Schloss murder, it is
never mentioned that he was a sexual attacker of children; instead it
was implied that Schloss was killed for being Jewish, and for no other
reason (Document 664-PS, XXVI 174-187).

No causal nexus was ever shown between Streicher, Frank or Rosenberg's
anti-Semitic beliefs and the commission of any crime; nor was it
proven that the crime involved (i.e., the so-called "Holocaust") was
ever even committed. This was assumed, and Streicher's writings were
assumed to have helped 'cause' it.

Streicher made several 'highly improper' remarks which were stricken
from the record, and for which he was admonished, with the consent of
his attorney, Dr Marx. One of these remarks has been deleted after the
fifth paragraph of page 310 of volume XII of the typeset transcript
<>, but may be found on pages 8494-5
of the mimeographed transcript. Streicher said:

   "If I might finish now with a description of my own life, it will
   be with the description of an experience which will show you,
   gentlemen, of the Tribunal, that without the government's wanting
   it, things may happen which are not human, not according to the
   principles of humanity.
   "Gentlemen, I was arrested, and during my internment I experienced
   things such as we, the Gestapo, have been accused of. For four
   days I was without clothes in a cell. I was burned; I was thrown
   on the floor; and an iron chain was put upon me. I had to kiss the
   feet of Negroes who spit in my face. Two coloured men and a white
   officer spit in my mouth, and when I didn't open it any more, they
   opened it with a wooden stick, and when I asked for water I was
   led to the latrine and I was ordered to drink from there.
   "In Wiesbaden, gentlemen, a doctor took pity, and I state here a
   Jewish director of the hospital acted correctly. I state here, in
   order not to be misunderstood, the Jewish officers who are
   guarding us here in prison have acted correctly, and doctors who
   also treat me have even been considerate. And you may see from
   this statement the contrast from that prison until this moment."

Another 'improper remark' has been deleted after the first paragraph
on page 349 of volume XII <>, and appears in the
mimeographed transcript on page 8549:

   "So as to avoid a misunderstanding, I have to say that I was
   beaten in Freising so much and for days without clothes that I
   have lost forty per cent of my hearing capacity and people are
   laughing when I ask. I can't help it that I was treated like that.
   Therefore, I ask to hear the question again."

To which Lt. Col. Griffith-Jones replied:

   "I can show it to you and we'll repeat the question as loud as you
   want it."

Since this was a matter within Streicher's personal knowledge, and not
hearsay, it is difficult to see why the remarks were stricken, while
hearsay favourable to the prosecution was retained (indeed, the
prosecution case consists of little else beside oral and written
hearsay). If the prosecution did not believe Streicher's testimony
that he had been tortured, they were free to cross-examine him for
inconsistencies and to show that he was lying; instead, he was simply
admonished, and the passages stricken. So much for truth, justice, and
a fair trial.

Streicher claimed that his demands for the 'extermination' of Jewry
were mostly brought about by the bombing raids and calls for
extermination of the German people from the other side;

   "If in America an author called Erich Kauffman can publicly demand
   that all men in Germany capable of fathering children should be
   sterilised, for the purpose of exterminating the German people,
   then I say, eye for eye and tooth for tooth. This is a theoretical
   literary matter." (XII 366 <<398-399>>). (V 91-119 <<106-137>>;
   XII 305-416 <<332-453>>; XVIII 190-220 <<211-245>>).

A note from the author:

This version of Not Guilty at Nuremberg contains the American page
numbers followed by the German page numbers in <>. I feel
that this is essential because only the German text of the Nuremberg
Trial transcript is available to the public in book form. Some of
these page numbers are almost impossible to find, even if you know
what you are looking for. All references have been checked in English
and German. Certain minor errors have been corrected.

All page numbers are absolutely uniform: I have used the "copy"
function to transfer them from one text to another, to ensure that
there is not a dash in one text, and a comma in another. There are no
differences in the pagination of the document volumes (XXII - LXII).

The German translation will be printed by Books Unlimited, 20 Madeira
Place, Brighton, East Sussex BN2 1TN, England for mass distribution in

The Spanish may or may not be printed by Ediciones Ojeda, Apartado
9169, E-08006 Barcelona, Spain. The Spanish text MAY be freely
reproduced WITH PRIOR NOTICE to Ediciones Ojeda, to save them the
printing costs.

The French translation may or may not be printed by Russel Granata of
Box 2145 Palos Verdes, CA 90274 USA.

The Portuguese may or may not be printed by S.E. Castan of Rua Volta
Pires 300 Conj. 4 Porto Alegre RS Brasil.

Personally, I oppose any copyright on this material, but I understand
that some people may wish to cover their printing costs. I have never
taken out a copyright on this material, or accepted a penny for it.

The text initially began as a series of corrections to NUREMBERG AND
OTHER WAR CRIMES TRIALS by Richard Harwood (David McCalden), and
follows approximately the same format.

All texts are dedicated to Reinhold Elstner in addition to the persons

Carlos W. Porter

6 March 1996

By the same author MADE IN RUSSIA - THE HOLOCAUST, edited by Carlos W.
Porter. Photocopy reproductions from the Nuremberg Trial transcripts:
human soap, human hair socks, executions with steam and electricity,
cremation with atomic bomb, pedal-driven brain bashing machines, trees
as murder weapons, Katyn, etc. Note: This lengthy work will soon be
made available at this Website thanks to the hard work and
determination of many individuals.

Word-for-word quotations and references from war crimes trials:
Japanese human liver vitamin pills, Japanese gall bladder and pancreas
soup, gas chamber at Dachau, human skin coats, chemistry of the
Holocaust; with background material on international law, Jewish
history, etc.

This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.

Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!

* 28800 bps (26 lines with V.34)...........(503) 232-9202 * 14400 bps (28
lines with V.32bis)......(503) 232-6566 * 9600- bps (29 lines with
V.32)............(503) 232-5783

Access through the Internet: telnet

Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

CODOH can be reached at:
Post Office Box 3267
Visalia CA 93278


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.