I’d like to begin this article with a quote from the late Robert Faurisson:
Today there is no longer a single “historian” of “the Holocaust” who makes it his business to prove the reality of “the Holocaust” and its magical gas chambers. All of them do like Saul Friedländer in his latest book (L’Allemagne nazie et les juifs / Les années d’extermination, Seuil, 2008): they leave it as understood that it all existed. With them history becomes axiomatic, although their axioms aren’t even drawn up. These new historians proceed with such self-assurance that the reader, taken aback, doesn’t realize the trick being played on him: the smooth talkers go on endlessly about an event whose reality they haven’t established in the first place. And so it is that the customer, believing that he’s bought some goods, has actually bought the smooth talk of the one giving him the sales pitch.
Powerful institutions have assured the populace that the official Holocaust narrative is an established fact of history. They claim that it was established by documentary evidence, survivor and eyewitness testimonies, physical evidence, and legal proceedings. While I have addressed all the items on this list (click the hyperlinks for examples), I do not have a series dedicated to this topic. Time to remedy that. As you might have guessed from the title, I will begin with the legal proceedings.
What the Holocaust narrative boils down to is an accusation that during WW2 Germany committed some of the most hideous crimes in human history. Even so, we have been taught that Western justice allows criminals accused of even the worst crimes a fair trial—they are innocent until proven guilty. The accused are allowed to mount a proper defense and be judged by their peers.
The first trail against the Germans was the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (IMT). It was also the first international tribunal to prosecute high-level political and military leaders for atrocities committed in the name of a state. Therefore, the IMT was able to make up the rules on how the court should operate and, as you will see, they took full advantage of this freedom to the detriment of justice and the German people. I have written much about the IMT, so regular readers will have to bear with the repetition.
The IMT took all notions of fair trials and threw them out the window. The Germans were not tried or judged by their peers, rather their wartime enemies—the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. CoDoH has a great article with quotes about the IMT. This one from American Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D, sums up the injustice quite nicely:
[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.
The Honorable Justice Learned Hand, who served a federal district and appellate judge for more than fifty years, made this prescient statement:
I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future.
The IMT wrote a few cheat codes for themselves that would guarantee the outcome they desired. They can be found in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. I will be going through some of the articles to illustrate how the court was stacked against the Germans from the start. I am just a layperson pointing out the obvious. If there are any law experts out there, I’d love to hear your assessment.
Article 6, pictured below, details the crimes with which the Germans were charged. Read through them and think of how many of these the Allies also committed. In reality, there wasn’t a single charge against Germany of which at least one of the four prosecuting powers was not itself guilty. Being the victor of a war does not automatically make that side the “good guys.” Both side should have to answer for their actions.
Article 8 established that just following orders wasn’t an excuse. This was one of the many precedents that future trials against the Germans adopted. However, this was never applied to the Sonderkommando, who were “just following orders” to help the Germans with the alleged mass murder of their fellow Jews.
Article 16 is pretending that they gave the defendants a fair shot, but what very important thing is missing from this list? That would be the right for the defense to call witnesses to the stand. While the defense was able to call witnesses in practice, since it was not granted as a right, the Tribunal could have control over what witnesses the defense brought in. This is mostly likely why none of the Jews that claimed to be Sonderkommando were called to the stand. If the IMT was truly a fair trial, the defense lawyers should have been given the chance to grill the Sonderkommando about the alleged murder weapons. Regular readers will already know that having the Sonderkommando questioned in this way would have been disastrous for the prosecution as the claimed operation of the alleged homicidal gas chambers does not stand up to scrutiny. This isn’t the main reason the Germans couldn’t mount a proper defense. We will get to that shortly.
Articles 19 and 20 gave the tribunal officials free reign to use whatever they wanted as evidence.
Now we have arrived at the article that made it impossible for the Germans to properly defend themselves. Article 21 gave judicial notice, which means accepting as true without formal proof, to official government reports pertaining to the Germans. All the stuff about homicidal gas chambers and death camps were in these reports. Thus, if a German defendant tried to say there were no gas chambers they would have been in contempt of court.
What happened to Rudolf Hess is an example of someone being punished for not going along with the shot. Even though Hess was incarcerated by the Allies after being captured during a peace mission in May of 1941, which was before the alleged mass extermination began, he received a life a sentence in maximum security prison. This is because he did not cede to the criminal allegations and was loyal to Hitler until the end. To learn about his inspiring and heartbreaking story you can read my dramatization of it here.
Article 21 alone would have made the IMT nothing more than a show trial, but when you put everything together, the Nuremberg courtroom is arguably the biggest abortion of justice to have the audacity to call itself a fair court of law. 199 defendants were tried, 161 of those were convicted, and 37 were sentenced to death. All without due process. To this day, prestigious institutions still present the IMT as legitimate and a historical event to be revered, when in reality the IMT defiled the traditional Western ideals of justice.
But it doesn’t end with the IMT. There were many other trails against the Germans which I will cover in part two. Stay tuned!