Photo
 
 
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1 Article 19 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art19
 
>The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value. 
 
 
 
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 1 Article 21 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art21
 
>The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various  allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. 
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

The Einsatzgruppen Trial


Historical Background

 

The Einsatzgruppen trial was the ninth of 12 American-run trials held after the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, Germany. The trial was officially titled “The United States of America v. Otto Ohlendorf et al.” and lasted from September 29, 1947 to April 10, 1948. The court indicted 24 Einsatzgruppen leaders on three counts of criminality: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in organizations declared criminal by the IMT. Only 22 defendants were tried because one committed suicide and another had to be excluded for health reasons.[1]

 

Benjamin Ferencz, a 27-year-old Harvard-educated attorney, was appointed by Telford Taylor as chief prosecutor in the case. The prosecution’s case was based primarily on the Einsatzgruppen reports his team had discovered in Berlin. Ferencz later said about the Einsatzgruppen reports:[2]

 

“So we had the names of each town and village, the date, the number of people killed, the name of the unit, the officer in charge, and other officers. I sat down in my office with a little adding machine, and I began to count the people that were murdered in cold blood. When I reached a million, I said that’s enough for me. I flew from Berlin to Nuremberg, to see Telford Taylor, who by then was a general. And I said, we’ve got to put on another trial.”

 

Ferencz said the Einsatzgruppen trial would not have taken place if his team had not had the extraordinary luck of finding these reports.[3]

 

The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence lasted less than two days and consisted mainly of excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen reports. Ferencz and the four attorneys assisting him called no prosecution witnesses and presented no films during the trial. Thus, the Nuremberg prosecutors set out to prove by documentation alone that the defendants had participated in some of the worst crimes of the National Socialist regime.[4] Since the Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine the validity of these reports.

    

The Einsatzgruppen Reports

 

The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these reports exist today in the original—all of them are copies.[5]

 

That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers before the Allies conquered Germany.[6] The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents emerged from the Soviet occupation zone.[7]   

 

The copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports which have been produced show clear signs of postwar additions. A typical example is Einsatzgruppen Report No. 111. Peter Winter writes that this report contains not only completely garbled wording, but also a clear addition to the end of a paragraph (highlighted in italics below)[8]:

 

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives, Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and informers of the NKVD, persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses, were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members of Russian bands, armed insurgents—provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators, drifting juveniles, Jews in general.

 

Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports. Butz writes [9]:

 

They [the documents] are mimeographed and signatures are most rare and, when they occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a signature, R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November 1942. This claim occurs on page four of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s occur on the irrelevant page one. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.

 

Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate. Mattogno writes [10]:

 

For example, in the summary of the activity of Einsatzgruppe A (October 16, 1941, to January 31, 1942) the number of Jews present in Latvia at the arrival of the German troops is 70,000, but the number of Jews shot is reported as being 71,184! Furthermore, another 3,750 Jews were alive in work camps. In Lithuania, there were 153,743 Jews, of which 136,421 were allegedly shot, whereas 34,500 were taken to the ghettos at Kaunas, Wilna, and Schaulen, but the total of those two figures is 170,921 Jews!

 

The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney, Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible[11]:

 

 In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. was in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometers from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more than about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people who were being held on suspicion of resistance activity…

 

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumors about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger…

 

By the time we had finished with the figures and pointed out the repeated self-contradiction in the S.D. reports, it became probable that at least one “0” would have to be knocked off the total claimed by the S.D. and we also established that only about one-third of Ohlendorf’s activities had taken place in von Manstein’s area. It is impossible to know even the approximate number of murdered Jews, for not only was Ohlendorf lying to his superiors but as we were able to show, his company commanders were lying to him.

 

Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that Einsatzgruppe D or the German army had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent of murdering Jews.[12]

 

 

Benjamin Ferencz’s Credibility

 

Benjamin Ferencz has made statements that call into question his independence and integrity. For example, the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.[13] Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that these defense counsel’s claims were correct[14]:

 

You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, “Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.” It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.

 

In the same interview, Ferencz admits that he observed the torturing and execution of a captured Nazi at a concentration camp[15]:

 

I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?

 

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates a story concerning the interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him[16]:

 

What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape]…I said “you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!” I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said “now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…” [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said “Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.” The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.

 

Peter Winter asks the question: “Is this the sort of ‘objective’ legal person who can be relied upon to produce evidence at a major trial?”[17] The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[18] Any lawyer knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

 

 

Defendants’ Testimony

 

Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately 90,000 people. Ohlendorf’s testimony horrified the court and had a depressing effect on the defendants. Dr. Gustav M. Gilbert, the American prison psychologist, wrote that Ohlendorf’s testimony established “the inescapable reality and shame of mass murder…by the unquestionable reliability of a German official.”[19]

 

British attorney Reginald Paget, however, questioned the validity of Ohlendorf’s testimony at the IMT. Paget wrote: “Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans, also, had found him the perfect witness.”[20]

 

Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews or Gypsies killed by his Group D were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000 people had been executed by his Group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.[21]

 

Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, testified that he knew nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando while he was its leader. Haensch claimed he first learned of the murder of Jews in July 1947 when his interrogator at Nuremberg told him of the Final Solution. Haensch testified that the Einsatzgruppen reports that contradicted his testimony were inaccurate. After the trial, Haensch became so obsessed with proving his innocence that he refused to apply for parole, hoping that American officials would see their error and grant him the clemency he deserved.[22]  

 

Benjamin Ferencz claims the Einsatzgruppen reports were definitive proof that the Einsatzgruppen had mass murdered Jews. Ferencz states: “There were times when I felt outraged. For example, the day one defendant, a colonel, said: ‘What, Jews were shot? I hear that in this courtroom for the first time.’ We had the records of every day that man was out murdering, and he had the gall to say that. I was ready to jump over the bar and poke my fingers into his eyes.”[23]        

 

Michael Musmanno, the presiding judge, provided the defendants with wide latitude in their presentation of evidence in the Einsatzgruppen trial. However, Ferencz writes that Musmanno was convinced early on of the defendants’ guilt[24]:

 

The judge handed down worse sentences than I would have imposed. So he had made up his mind, early on, that he wasn’t going to be deceived. For him the question was how to sentence them. He was a devout Catholic, and he went into a monastery for a week before sentencing. He convicted all 22 people, and of these he sentenced 13 to death by hanging. During the trial, he had let everyone say whatever they wanted to say. He gave so much leeway; he was leaning over backwards to show the world that it was a fair trial. 

 

 

Conclusion 

 

Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men—including non-combat troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen—became operational soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of fighting against partisans, and in pursuit of this mission they performed numerous mass shootings.[25]

 

The official Holocaust historiography, however, claims that the Einsatzgruppen had the additional task of committing genocide against Soviet Jews. The Einsatzgruppen reports, which fall into the period from June 1941 to May 1942, are the primary proof of this alleged genocide. The Einsatzgruppen reports that have been produced are copies which show clear signs of postwar additions, inaccurate and inflated figures, and obscure signatures appearing on non-incriminating pages. Such reports would not constitute valid proof for legitimate historiography or a legitimate court of law.[26]   

 

The defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trial did not receive a fair hearing. The shootings carried out by the Einsatzgruppen were not nearly as extensive as claimed at the trial, for the numbers mentioned in the Einsatzgruppen reports cannot be objectively confirmed and in many cases are demonstrably exaggerated. These reports provide no basis in justice or fact to convict the Einsatzgruppen defendants of genocide against Soviet Jewry.[27]       

 

 

Endnotes

 

 


[1] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 1, 9-11.
[2] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pp. 14-15.
[3] Ibid., p. 14.
[4] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 179-180.
[5] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.
[6] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, p. 204.
[7] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 25
[8] Ibid., pp. 24-25.
[9] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 198.
[10] Rudolf, Germar and Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2011, p. 243.
[11] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, pp. 169-172.
[12] Ibid., p. 174.
[13] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
[14] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[17] Winter, Peter, The Six Million: Fact or Fiction?, The Revisionist Press, 2015, p. 24.
[18] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 83.
[19] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 72.
[20] Paget, Reginald T., Manstein: His Campaigns and His Trial, London: Collins, 1951, p. 171.
[21] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, ninth edition, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 202.
[22] Earl, Hilary, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 162-163.
[23] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 19.
[24] Ibid., pp. 19-20.
[25] Mattogno, Carlo and Graf, Jürgen, Treblinka: Transit Camp or Extermination Camp?, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2010, pp. 203, 205.
[26] Ibid., pp. 203-211.
[27] Ibid., pp. 208-211.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Torture and Testicle Crushing at Nuremberg

. . . by Lasha Darkmoon

Confessions at Nuremberg were obtained under torture. The grimmest of these tortures, practiced mostly by Jewish operatives on their German prisoners of war, was testicle crushing.

Nuremberg defendants(Left) German defendants at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, 1946-1949. How many of them had their testicles crushed?

 

“The Holocaust legend is built on ‘confessions’ obtained by the use of  torture.” So begins an article that has just been brought to my attention by an unknown emailer.

 

At the same time, by sheer coincidence, another correspondent has just sent me some stomach-churning details about testicle crushing. He ends his letter with these words : “This is what Jewish interrogators did to their German prisoners of war after WWII in order to get them to “sing”—i.e., to confess to crimes they never committed.”

 

I was a bit shocked by these words. To tell the truth, testicle crushing is not something I have thought about a great deal, nor do I wish to dwell too much on this distasteful subject. I am aware of course that a lot of testicle crushing went on at Nuremberg in order to wring confessions out of the prostrate Germans, but I had been unaware that American  Jews had been foremost in the ranks of these torturers.

 

Apparently, as many as three out four interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jewish—and these Jewish interrogators, I was to learn to my horror, had been by far the most sanguinary and sadistic. There was almost no level of human depravity to which these monsters were not willing to sink, including forcing their German victims to eat excrement and to have sex with disinterred corpses.

 

Yes, so this is something we ought to bear in mind when watching all those Hollywood movies celebrating the heroic deeds of the Allies in World War Two and lamenting the horrors of the Holocaust : that Jewish interrogators, working for the Americans, are known to have beaten, tortured, and crushed the testicles of German defendants before charging them with war crimes at Nuremberg. Without these confessions, obtained under extreme torture, there is no solid proof that any Jewish Holocaust took place at all. There is only legend, hearsay and “eyewitness accounts” : like those of Elie Wiesel and his kind—accounts that have turned out, in retrospect, to be based on pure fantasy, fiction, and grotesque exaggeration.

 

Proponents of the official storyline say that some of the strongest evidence that “proves” the Holocaust—i.e. the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews in gas chambers on the instructions of Hitler—consists of the supposed “confessions” of the German officials who were put on trial at Nuremberg. What they neglect to tell you is that most of these confessions were obtained under extreme torture. Indeed, according to Jewish investigator John Sack, torture was often practiced for its own sake, even when there was nothing to find out. It was practiced for sheer pleasure: because it gave the torturers a ‘high’, a feeling of sadistic omnipotence, of orgasmic euphoria.

 

It has since been openly admitted in the memoirs of the top British official, Colonel Alexander Scotland, who ran the interrogation program, that thousands of Germans were tortured by British Military Intelligence, under the direction of the Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS). This torture of German POWs occurred during the war to obtain military intelligence. After the war was over, it was used again in order to obtain confessions for convictions of “war crimes”.

 

German POWs reported that the torture techniques included deprivation of sleep, starvation, systematic beatings, ripping hair from the scalp, menacing with red-hot pokers, threatened use of electrical devices to deliver shocks, and, finally, the worst torture of all, the slow and systematic mangling of the spermatic cords of the testicles—a procedure that had their victims thrashing about and screaming like wild animals for hours.

 

The prosecutors at Nuremberg accused and convicted the Germans of murdering some 4 million people at Auschwitz. These charges were based largely upon the supposed “confessions” obtained by the torture of German officers, such as the signed “confession” by Rudolf Hössthe commandant at Auschwitz, giving details of how he had personally supervised the murder of 2.5 million jews.

 

In 1989, however, the Soviet government reduced the claim of the number killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.5 million. (See picture below). This was later reduced to 1 million.

Auch_dees

 

 

It became apparent at once that if only 1 million Jews had died at Auschwitz, as was now officially admitted, it no longer became possible to state that 2.5 million Jews had been killed there under Höss while he was a commandant there. The “confession” by Höss that 2.5 million Jews had been killed at Auschwitz  under his auspices was therefore worthless. It had been a confession clearly extracted under torture.

 

If, moreover, only 1 million Jews perished at Auschwitz instead of the 4 million originally claimed to have died there, it’s obvious that there has been an overestimate of three million dead Jews.  It is no longer possible to assert that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. That becomes a mathematical impossibility. 

 

And yet, incredibly, this mathematical impossibility is brazenly asserted to this day in every mainstream media outlet.

21_52

 

 

We are all expected to pretend that 6 million Jews minus  3 million Jews somehow equals 6 million Jews, just as Winston Smith (in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four) was expected to believe that 2 + 2  = 5. Winston Smith, you will remember, managed to believe this absurdity in the end, with the help of a little extra tuition he received via the famous “rat torture“.        

§

The startling revelation that almost all the German defendants at Nuremberg had had their testicles crushed must make us sit up and think. How can testimonies obtained under testicle crushing be regarded in any way as reliable?

 

Following reports that defendants were tortured at the Malmedy massacre trial, the US Army formed the “Simpson Commission” to investigate the alleged misconduct.  Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission. According to Van Roden’s book, American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” who were investigated by the commission—and who were subsequently put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II—”137 of these Germans were tortured by having their testicles crushed.” 

 

Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over prisoners and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking their jaws, knocking out their teeth, putting them on starvation rations, and subjecting them to solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign. Confess or face more torture!

 

It emerged that Jewish prosecutors and interrogators had obtained complete control over the US Military tribunal that was to put German officials on trial for war crimes. This is seldom mentioned, as to do so is regarded as “anti-Semitic”. To state the unvarnished truth—that 137 Germans had their testicles mangled at Nuremberg by largely Jewish interrogators in order to obtain proof for the Holocaust—is regarded as “hate speech”.

 

perl_williamLt. William Perl (pictured left) was an Austrian Jew who had emigrated to America in 1940. He was the chief interrogator of Germans accused of the Malmedy massacre. This was because he could speak fluent German; and indeed many of the interrogators at Nuremberg were German or Austrian Jews who had emigrated to America before WWII and were known as the ‘Ritchie Boys’. There were roughly 9000 of these Jews in America and they specialized in the “interrogation” of German prisoners. (See here).

 

Perl supervised the torture of the German defendants. He was an ardent and active Zionist and was assisted by other Jews in his endeavors to extract confessions by the infliction of maximum pain. Jews specalizing in torture techniques at Nuremberg included  Josef Kirschbaum, Harry Thon and Morris Ellowitz. (See here)

 

This is what Wikipedia has to say about the interrogation of Germans at Malmedy:

 

“The accusations [against the German defendants]  were mainly based on the sworn and written statements provided by the defendants in Schwäbish Hall. To counter the evidence given in the men’s sworn statements and by prosecution witnesses, the lead defense attorney, Lieutenant Colonel Willis M. Everett tried to show that the statements had been obtained by inappropriate methods.

 

Note that exquisite euphemism: “inappropriate methods”. That’s how respectable, politically correct Americans refer to confessions obtained under torture. The methods are not described as horrendously cruel. They are not described as morally indefensible. They are described as “inappropriate”.

On Sept. 25, 1945, Thomas Dodd, who was the second in command on the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, made the following observation in which he claimed that three out of four interrogators at Nuremberg were Jewish:

 

“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism,” he said. “You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge, you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish.”

 

One person who has made a close study of the Nuremberg trial archives in the original German and knows more about this subject than anyone else I know is the multilingual American scholar Carlos W. Porter who is fluent in German, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Having renounced his American citizenship in 1984, and having then relocated to Belgium with his wife and children, the Holocaust revisionist author of “Not Guilty at Nuremberg” took the trouble to write to me about the Nuremberg trials in a private communication (July 28, 2015 at 9:55 pm). Porter confirmed what I had always suspected: that most of the American interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jews, and that torture had been freely practiced against the helpless Germans on trial in order to force them to confess to non-existent crimes:

 

“You can be absolutely CERTAIN,” Carlos Porter wrote to me, “that nearly ALL the interrogators and interpreters in ALL the trials were Jewish, because the Americans stamped out the German language from all American schools during WWI, so German Jewish refugees were almost the only competent people they had. Of course, other “German-Americans” could not be trusted not to be “Nazis”, so they were stuck with the German Jews.

 

That there was a great deal of mistreatment and torture in the minor trials is absolutely certain. I reproduced a couple of accounts of torture at the Dachau trials in “War Crimes Trials and Other Essays”. But I’m sure it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Minor personnel could be tortured with impunity, and 99% of them would be afraid even to mention it. It would be hard to get away with torturing somebody like Goering though.

 

There’s a lot of literature on the subject, more all the time. The Brits appear to have been surprisingly enthusiastic torturers, whether Jewish or not.”

 

Testicle crushing, incidentally, is a tried and tested method for obtaining confessions. It was used throughout the Middle Ages and particularly in France during the French Revolution. That the Jews, a scholarly race noted for their vast erudition and academic achievements, should have mastered all the techniques of testicle crushing is therefore not surprising. Their talents for acquiring such outré information must not be underestimated.

 

Though Perl had lots of German blood on his hands, he was nevertheless allowed by the Americans to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War trials. Another Jew of note at the Nuremberg war crimes trials was Richard W. Sonnenfeldt. He was the chief interpreter for American prosecutors such as Perl. He “interrogated” some of the most notorious Nazi leaders of World War II and died in 2009, age 86, at his home in Port Washington, N.Y. (See here)

 

The Presiding Judge at Nuremberg was also—coincidence?—a Jew. His name was A.H. Rosenfeld and he was a colonel in the American army. Col. Rosenfeld cheerfully admitted to torturing German prisoners of war as a matter of policy. “We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise,” he remarked cynically. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”

 

antisemitism_Shlomo_MorelIn a recent private email to me, in response to some of my queries about torture at Nuremberg, Thomas Goodrich, acclaimed author of Hellstorm : The Death of Nazi

Germany (1944-1947), mentioned the names of four well-known Jews in the American zone whom he identified as “torturer-inquisitors” : Harry Thon, William Perl, AH Rosenfeld, and Shlomo Morel.

 

This last-named individual, Shlomo Morel (pictured right), was a particularly nasty piece of work whom Goodrich describes as follows:

 

“a vicious monster who drowned men and women in outdoor latrines, who made them eat excrement, who personally beat captives to death, and who forced women to kiss and make love with disinterred corpses.”

 

(For more grisly details, confirming all this, see here)

 

After escaping from the killing fields of Germany, where he had taken immense pleasure in dancing over mounds of corpses and shedding rivers of human blood, this cruel psychopath  “lived out his life in comfort and ease in Israel.” Yes, Israel!the final bolthole and refuge dump for many a runaway Jew fleeing the long arm of the law, a place described in a prescient comment by Adolf Hitler as early as 1925 as “a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”  (Mein Kampf, chapter 11, excerpt.)

§

Here now are some grisly details about testicle crushing that the reader may find of some interest. These distasteful details are given here only because they are relevant to our discussion. If you are of a queasy disposition and prone to easy vomiting, you are advised to skip the description and stop reading right here. Remember that all this was done to 137 Germans at Nuremberg in order to extract confessions from them with a view to establishing the “truth” about the Holocaust. Without all that testicle crushing, the Holocaust might have been much harder to prove.

 

“Standard practice [to obtain castration] in France from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution was to crush the condemned’s testicles in a vise, which burst them as mush from the scrotum, then crunch the spermatic cords with pliers. The condemned was turned upside down in order to maximize the blood flow to his brain, after which he was unable to pass out or enter a state of shock until, perhaps, the last few seconds of his ordeal.

 

The condemned was sure to vomit repeatedly with violent convulsions, even well after he had voided the contents of his stomach, but he rarely screamed except for an initial shriek, which immediately silenced, because the pain overwhelmed his ability to breathe. Most men would hang and thrash wildly during and after the crushing of each testicle, and their thrashing would renew upon the crushing of each spermatic cord.

 

This torture method (accompanied by others) was usually reserved for the crime of regicide or attempted regicide. The condemned was mercifully put to death afterwards, but his torture routinely lasted for the better part of a day, witnessed by large crowds. It is interesting to note that, whereas most crowds were instructed to jeer, mock, and ridicule the condemned, and did so even during a disemboweling, and drawing and quartering, most crowds remained silent and stared with shocked expressions as a castration was carried out in this manner.

 

Onlookers, male and female, are recorded to have vomited at the sight of the spectacle.

 

Yes, they certainly knew what they were doing at Nuremberg! They were the experts.

 _______________________________________________________

 

 

The Malmedy Trial: Denial of the Obvious




The Malmedy trial took place from May 16 to July 16, 1946 at Dachau before a military tribunal of American officers operating under rules established by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.[1] American historian Steven P. Remy has written a book titled The Malmedy Massacre which disputes that the 73 German defendants in this trial were improperly convicted.

 

Remy states in his book’s conclusion that American interrogators did not use physical or psychological pressure to obtain information at any of their postwar trials. Remy writes:[2]

 

“There is no evidence that in the North African, European, or Pacific theaters American interrogators relied on systematic forms of physical and psychological pressure to obtain information from combatants or civilians. Nor is there convincing evidence that they did so in war crimes investigations after the war.”

 

This article will document some of the physical and psychological pressure used in the Malmedy and other American-run postwar trials.

 

Improper Postwar Interrogations

Scene from the Malmedy Show Trial

 

 

Contrary to Remy’s statement, physical and psychological pressure was frequently used by interrogators in American-run postwar trials. Benjamin Ferencz, a Jewish American war crimes investigator who received a Harvard law degree in 1943, was assigned to investigate the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Dachau.[3] Ferencz admits that he used threats to obtain confessions. Ferencz relates a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel in which he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:[4]

 

“What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen (shot while trying to escape)… I said ‘you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!’ I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said ‘now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…’ (Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:) I then went to someone outside and said ‘Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.’ The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.”

 

The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[5] Any Harvard law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

 

The defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion, and deceit.[6] Ferencz admits that these defense counsel’s claims were correct:[7]

 

“You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, ‘Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.’ It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.”

 

Robert Kempner was the American chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial in which 21 German government officials were defendants. Kempner was a German Jew who had lost his job as Chief Legal Advisor of the Prussian police department because of National Socialist race laws. He was forced to emigrate first to Italy and then to the United States. Kempner was bitter about the experience and was eager to prosecute and convict German officials in government service.[8]

 

Kempner bribed German Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus to testify for the prosecution in the Ministries Trial. The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus reveals that Kempner persuaded Gaus to exchange the role of defendant for that of collaborator with the prosecution. Gaus was released from isolation, and a few days later a German newspaper reported a long handwritten declaration from Gaus in which he confessed the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s confession to the newspaper.[9] Kempner had also threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate with the prosecution.[10]

 

Attorney Charles LaFollete said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation was common knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of us who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the Germans would attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in Nuremberg.”[11]

 

Kempner also attempted to bribe German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during the Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate. Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote: “During the proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good, it suffered from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my father’s defense attorney.” Richard von Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing more than pure cynicism.[12]

 

 

Torture of Defendants

 

Allied prosecutors often used torture to help convict the defendants at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence is the confession of Rudolf Höss, the former commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at the Nuremberg trial was the most important evidence presented of a German extermination program. Höss said that more than 2.5 million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.[13] No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss’s testimony at Nuremberg are widely acknowledged to be untrue.

 

In 1983 the anti-Nazi book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler stated that Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession. The torture of Höss was exceptionally brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler finds anything wrong or immoral in Höss’s torture. Neither of them seems to understand the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss’s testimony at Nuremberg was obtained by torture, and is therefore not credible evidence in establishing a program of German genocide against European Jewry.[14]

 

Bernard Clarke was not the only Jew who tortured Germans to obtain confessions. Tuviah Friedman, for example, was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration camps. Friedman by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated that “It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”[15]

 

Joseph Kirschbaum was also accused of physical abuse at the Malmedy trial when German prisoner Otto Eichler accused Kirschbaum of beating him. A review of the medical records indicated that Eichler had received an injury, but it could not be proven that Kirschbaum had caused the injury.[16]

 

 

False and Perjured Witness Testimony

 

False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crime trials. Stephen F. Pinter served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. In a 1960 affidavit Pinter said that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to charge Germans with false and unfounded crimes. Pinter stated, “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”[17]

 

Joseph Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, later described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:[18]

 

“…the major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp cases were what came to be known as ‘professional witnesses,’ and everyone working at Dachau regarded them as such. ‘Professional,’ since they were paid for each day they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau for months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words, these witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least, have called their testimony into question...”

 

As is easily demonstrated by studying the Franz Kofler trial, these witnesses had often never laid eyes on the men against whom they were testifying! That they lied in court is clear from a close reading of the proceedings of the trials, for their testimony is frequently full of contradictions and inconsistencies.[19]

 

An embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials. U.S. investigator Joseph Kirschbaum brought a former concentration- camp inmate named Einstein into the court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel, however, foiled this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to Einstein and exclaimed, “How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into the court?”[20]

 

The use of false witnesses has been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was an ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps from 1941 to 1945. Neuhäusler wrote that in some of the American-run trials “many of the witnesses, perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with criminal records ranging from robbery to homosexuality.”[21]

 

 

Willis N. Everett, Jr.

 

American attorney Willis N. Everett, Jr. was the lead defense counsel at the Malmedy trial. Everett was convinced that the Malmedy trial had been an ethical abomination. Approximately 100 of Everett’s friends and some additional American military officers advised Everett to forget about the Malmedy case and live in the present. Everett’s sense of ethics, however, set him on a mission to obtain justice for the Malmedy defendants.[22]

 

Everett and another defense-team member prepared a 228-page critique of the investigation and trial, stating that the Malmedy convictions had been secured primarily on the basis of “illegal and fraudulently procured confessions.” The petition also argued that the trial was a travesty of justice to German soldiers since the Allies were also guilty of the same violations of international law. Everett sent this document to Lt. Col. Clio Straight’s office for inclusion in the internal review process that was mandatory before verdicts and sentences became final.[23]

 

Everett began a multipronged campaign of judicial appeal, publicity and congressional  pressure to get a retrial of the Malmedy case. Everett filed an unsuccessful petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear the Malmedy case. Everett then prepared an appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague (ICJ). Everett knew there was little chance the ICJ would accept his case since only states could be parties to cases before the ICJ. The ICJ predictably refused to hear Everett’s appeal of the Malmedy case.[24]

 

Everett made a huge personal and financial sacrifice to free the Malmedy defendants. The physical and emotional stress from the appeal process caused Everett to suffer from declining health and at least one heart attack. Everett estimated his out-of-pocket expenses to be as much as $50,000, to which must be added the income lost through his neglect of his law practice. The West German consul in Atlanta later presented Everett with a check for $5,000 as a gesture of appreciation for his inexhaustible efforts on behalf of the Malmedy defendants.[25]

 

Why did Everett make such a huge personal and financial sacrifice? Remy writes:[26]

 

“Everett also believed the army had treated him shabbily. He had been given an assignment for which he did not have the requisite experience or enough time, in his view, to prepare the case. Though he and the other defense lawyers had nonetheless mounted a vigorous defense, they lost the case, and badly. Facing the prospect of returning to his struggling Atlanta law firm and professional obscurity, he viewed a challenge to the outcome of the Malmedy trial as an opportunity for personal and professional redemption. Not least, there was the possibility of considerable financial gain, as he believed he had a story worth a great deal of money to the press.”

 

Remy provides no documentation for his contention that Everett challenged the outcome of the Malmedy trial “as an opportunity for personal and professional redemption” and “the possibility of considerable financial gain.” Everett had more to gain financially and professionally by forgetting the Malmedy trial and working full time in his law firm. Remy by his unsubstantiated statements is attempting to discredit Everett’s motives for challenging the Malmedy verdict.

 

Conclusion

 

Steven Remy writes:[27]

“The creation and perpetuation of self-serving myths about the past remains one of the most powerful cultural and political forces in the modern world. Gone unchallenged, such myths harden hearts and impede dialog and reconciliation between individuals, communities, and entire nations. They block the flow of honest and open-ended argument about the past and its significance to the present. Understanding the relationship between conflict and memory—individual and collective—will always be difficult and inconclusive. The point is to keep having the arguments.”

 

Remy is correct that we should keep having the arguments. These arguments should include the following from American attorney Warren Magee, who served as defense counsel in the Ministries Trial:[28]

 

“‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the driving force behind the prosecutions at Nuremberg. While it grieves me to say this, the prosecution staff, its lawyers, research analysts, interpreters, clerks, etc. is largely Jewish. Many are Germans who fled their country and only recently took out American citizenship. Jewish influence was even apparent at the first trial, labeled the IMT. Atrocities against Jews are always stressed above all else… With persecuted Jews in the background directing the proceedings, the trials cannot be maintained in an objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, personal grievances, and racial desires for revenge… Basic principles have been disregarded by ‘new’ Americans, many of whom have imbedded in their very beings European racial hatreds and prejudices.”

 

The arguments should also include the following from Benjamin Ferencz:[29]

 

“I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army, and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the basis for prosecutions…But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was nothing resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials. For example, they might bring in 20 or 30 people, line them up, each one with a number on a card tied around his neck. The court would consist of three officers. None of them had any legal education as far as I could make out; it was coincidental if they did. One officer was assigned as defense counsel, another as prosecutor, the senior one presiding. The prosecutor would get up and say something like this: We accuse all of you of being accomplices to crimes against humanity and war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other brutalities in the camp, between 1942 and 1943, what do you have to say for yourself? Each defendant would be given about a minute to state his case, which was usually, not guilty. One trial for instance, which lasted two minutes, convicted 10 people and sentenced them all to death. It was not my idea of a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.”

 

Ferencz states that nobody including himself protested against such procedures in these Dachau trials.[30]

 

The Malmedy trial was probably closer to a fair judicial process than Ferencz’s aforementioned description. However, the Malmedy trial was not a fair and impartial hearing. The lack of documentary evidence, the use of mock trials and interrogation methods designed to produce false confessions, military judges with little or no legal training, and unreliable eyewitness testimony assured the conviction of all 73 German defendants in the Malmedy trial.[31]

 


Notes

[1] Parker, Danny S., Hitler’s Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, Boston, Mass.: Da Capo Press, 2014, p. 148.
[2] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 279.
[3] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, p. 32.
[4] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[5] Ibid., p. 83.
[6] Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
[7] Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[8] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
[9] Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[10] Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
[11] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
[12] Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
[13] Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
[14] Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.
[15] Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.
[16] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 141.
[17] Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
[18] Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
[19] Ibid., p. 312.
[20] Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
[21] Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
[22] Weingartner, James J., A Peculiar Crusade: Willis M. Everett and the Malmedy Massacre, New York: New York University Press, 2000, pp. 119, 138.
[23] Ibid., pp. 120-122.
[24] Ibid., pp. 150, 175, 181-183.
[25] Ibid., pp. 199, 220.
[26] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 130-131.
[27] Ibid., p. 280.
[28] Ibid., p. 134.
[29] Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2017, pp. 58, 125.