Preface: Many people invoke the Nuremberg Trials when they wish to make a point about bringing righteous justice to some corrupt situation or other. For example, during the Covid-19 plandemic and the roll-out of the bio-weapon disguised as “safe and effective” vaccines, many well-meaning truth-seekers said we needed Nuremberg 2.0, to deal with the perpetrators. This is troublesome, because it serves to reinforce the lie that the Nuremberg trials were anything but a politically motivated travesty of justice.
We republish this article by John Wear to set the record straight about those Nuremberg trials. The original article can be found here. Within that original article, there are links to other articles on John Wear’s website, related to contents within this article. We encourage you to visit the wearswar.com website.
Evidence Jews Controlled Allied-Run Postwar Trials
The genocide of European Jewry has been given legitimacy by the numerous trials conducted by the Allies after the Second World War. The first trial held in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1946, officially known as the International Military Tribunal (IMT), is by far the most important of these trials. The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France tried the most prominent surviving German leaders as war criminals in this trial. In addition, the United States government alone conducted 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT) from 1946 to 1949. Similar trials were also conducted in other locations by Great Britain, West Germany, the United States, and Israel, including the highly-publicized trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann.
This article documents that Jews and Jewish groups controlled these Allied-run postwar trials. Their words and actions prove that the Allied-run war-crimes trials were politically motivated proceedings which failed to produce credible evidence of the so-called Holocaust.
Jews Control Nuremberg Trials
The mostly Jewish control of the Nuremberg trials is indicated by Nahum Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox. Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), admitted that the idea of the Nuremberg Tribunal and German reparations originated with WJC officials. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.1 Also, the WJC made sure that Germany’s extermination of European Jewry was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants would be punished for their involvement in Germany’s extermination process.2
Two Jewish U.S. Army officers played key roles in the Nuremberg trials. Lt. Col. Murray Bernays, a prominent New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to put the defeated German leaders on trial.3 Col. David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, was head of the U.S. government’s War Crimes Branch from February 1946 until April 1947. Marcus was made head of the War Crimes Branch primarily in order “to take over the mammoth task of selecting hundreds of judges, prosecutors and lawyers” for the NMT trials.4
Allied prosecutors gave special attention to the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews at the IMT. For example, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared in his opening address at the IMT: “The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews…It is my purpose to show a plan and design to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people…The avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole…History does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty.”5
Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief British prosecutor at the IMT, echoed Justice Jackson’s sentiments in his final address to the Tribunal: “There is one group to which the method of annihilation was applied on a scale so immense that it is my duty to refer separately to the evidence. I mean the extermination of the Jews. If there was no other crime against these men, this one alone, in which all of them were implicated, would suffice. History holds no parallel to these horrors.”6
Shawcross also stated in his closing address that “more than 6 million” Jews were killed by the Germans, and that “…murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Majdanek and Oranienburg.”7
Numerous observers spoke of the predominance of Jews at the IMT. For example, American prosecutor Thomas Dodd wrote to his wife on September 20, 1945, about the prosecution staff at the IMT:
“You know better than anyone how I hate race or religious prejudice. You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. 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 75% Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial—for their own sake. For—mark this well—the charge “a war for the Jews” is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge.”8
Some U.S. Congressmen also denounced the Nuremberg trials. For example, Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi declared: “As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany is a disgrace to the United States…A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.”9
Gen. George Patton was also opposed to the war crimes trials. In a letter to his wife, he wrote: “I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POWs to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death.”10
Jews Torture Rudolf Höss
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was the star witness at the IMT. Frustrated by their inability to locate Höss, the British decided to intimidate his wife and their five children. On March 7, 1945, Jewish British Cpt. Howard Harvey Alexander arrested Höss’s wife Hedwig and interrogated her in a prison cell, but she refused to reveal her husband’s hiding place. Alexander then interrogated Höss’s children, all minors (3 to 16 years old), who had been left behind alone on their farm. Not getting the answers he wanted, Alexander jailed them as well. Hedwig, however, still would not talk.11
Since their tactics of imprisonment and intimidation had failed, the British soldiers decided to use a new approach. A noisy old steam train was driven past the rear of the prison. Alexander burst into Hedwig’s cell and informed her that this train was about to take her son to Siberia, and that she would never see him again. Waiting a few moments to let his message sink in, Alexander told Hedwig that she could prevent her son’s deportation if she told him where her husband was living and under what alias. Alexander left Hedwig sitting on her cot with a piece of paper and a pencil. When Alexander returned 10 minutes later, Hedwig had written a note with Höss’s location and his alias.12
A group of about 25 men were sent the night of March 11, 1946 to arrest Höss. Many of them were German Jews such as Alexander. Some had kept their original names, such as Kuditsch and Wiener; others had taken on British-sounding names, like Roberts, Cresswell and Shiffers. There were also English-born soldiers from Jewish families, such as Bernard Clarke and Karl Abrahams. Virtually all of these men were enraged and eager to take out their revenge on Höss.13
In 1983, the anti-National Socialist book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler documented that 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 the torture of Höss. Neither of them seems to understand the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss’s confession was obtained by torture.14
Moritz von Schirmeister, a former associate of Joseph Goebbels, confirmed that Höss’s confession was obtained by torture. At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister sat in the backseat of a car together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit. He remembered Höss’s following statement:
“On the things he is accused of, he told me: ‘Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.’”15
British Pvt. Ken Jones confirmed that the British used sleep deprivation to break Höss. Jones stated:
We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance. When Höss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities.16
On April 15, 1946, Höss appeared in court at the IMT. Ernst Kaltenbrunner’s defense lawyer, Dr. Kurt Kauffmann, asked Höss a series of questions designed to prove that Kaltenbrunner had never visited Auschwitz. Höss affirmed that Kaltenbrunner had never visited Auschwitz, and that Kaltenbrunner didn’t ordered the execution of Jews at this camp.17
U.S. prosecutor Col. John Amen next started reading from an affidavit Höss had signed in front of American prosecutor Whitney Harris on April 5, 1946. Höss’s testimony at the IMT was probably the most important and striking evidence presented there of a German extermination program. Höss in his testimony said that more than two and a half million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.18 No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss’s testimony at the IMT are widely acknowledged to be untrue.
Höss’s testimony, however, was reported around the world. A New York Times article described it as the “crushing climax to the case.” The Times in Britain said of Höss’s signed testimony: “Its dreadful implications must surpass any document ever penned.”19 Höss was regarded as the star prosecution witness at the IMT, and his testimony became the framework for the official Holocaust story.
Jews Torture Other Witnesses
Jews tortured other German defendants and witnesses. Jewish prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz admitted in an interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions:
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.20
In the same interview, Ferencz admitted to being an observer of the torture and murder of a captured SS man:
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?21
Benjamin Ferencz, who enjoyed an international reputation as a world peace advocate, further related a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explained that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:
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.22
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.23 Any Harvard-law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.
Many of the investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. Joseph Halow, a Dachau trial court reporter, quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.24
Tuviah Friedman was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration camps. Friedman said he 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.”25
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a German who had been tortured into signing a statement admitting that he had worked on wartime gas vans during the war. Aschenbrenner was finally able in 1954 to prove that at the time he was in Munich studying to become an electric welder.26
Oswald Pohl, who was not imprisoned until May 1946, was tied to a chair during his interrogation by American and British officials. Pohl was beaten unconscious, kicked, and generally maltreated until he was prepared to incriminate IMT defendant Walter Funk in writing.27
Pohl, who was later hanged on June 7, 1951, described the nature of the postwar trials of German leaders:
It was obvious during the Dachau trials, and it also came out unmistakenly and only poorly disguised during the Nuremberg trials, that the prosecution authorities, among whom Jews predominated, were driven by blind hatred and obvious lust for revenge. Their goal was not the search for truth but rather the annihilation of as many adversaries as possible.28
Some German defendants also did not live to see the beginning of their trials. For example, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, conveniently died before the beginning of his trial in Frankfurt, Germany. He was arrested in December of 1960 in the vicinity of Hamburg. Baer during his pretrial questioning adamantly refused to confirm the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz during World War II.
Baer died in June 1963 under mysterious circumstances while being held in pretrial custody. An autopsy performed on Baer at the Frankfurt-am-Main University School of Medicine stated that the ingestion of an odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as the cause of his death. There was no further probe into the cause of Baer’s death, and Chief Public Prosecutor Fritz Bauer ordered his body cremated. Conveniently, the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Germany began shortly after Baer’s death. The statements Baer made during his pretrial interrogations were not read into the trial record. With Baer’s death the prosecutors at the Auschwitz trial were able to attain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas chamber myth and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.29
It has been widely known ever since the illegal abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina that the Israeli Mossad has immense capabilities. Given the fact that Chief Public Prosecutor Bauer was a Zionist Jew, which should have precluded him from heading the pretrial investigation, it is quite possible that the forces of international Jewry were able to murder Baer while he was in jail. If anyone knew the truth about the gas chamber allegation, it was Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz. Baer’s untimely death prevented him from giving testimony that would have contradicted the official Holocaust narrative. Baer’s death was certainly a relief for the promoters of the Auschwitz trial.30
Improper Trial Procedures
Numerous Americans reported improper trial procedures at the Allied-run war-crimes trials. For example, Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, who served as the presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals, resigned his appointment in disgust at the proceedings. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, he criticized the one-sided handling of evidence in the trials. Wennerstrum said that selection of the evidence in the trials was made by the prosecution from the large tonnage of captured German records. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.31
Justice Wennerstrum also said that the prosecution and staff at Nuremberg were more interested in revenge than justice. He stated: “The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions…The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.”32
Wennerstrum stated: “The entire atmosphere is unwholesome…Lawyers, clerks, interpreters, and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices…If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here…The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident.” The lack of an appeal process in the Nuremberg cases left Wennerstrum “with a feeling that justice has been denied.”33
American attorney Willis N. Everett, Jr. was assigned to defend the 74 German defendants accused of the Malmédy incident. The trial took place from May 16 to July 16, 1946, before a military tribunal of senior American officers operating under rules established by the IMT.34
Everett and his defense staff of lawyers, interpreters and stenographers divided into several teams to interview the defendants. Everett wrote to his family of the experience:
Several defendants today said they thought they had had a trial…a Col. sat on the Court and his defense counsel rushed the proceedings through and he was to be hanged the next day so he might as well write up a confession and clear some of his fellows seeing he would be hanged…another kind of court had black curtains…The Lt. Col. sat as judge at a black-draped table which had a white cross on it and the only light was two candles on either end. He was tried and witnesses brought in and he was sentenced to death, but he would have to write down in his own handwriting a complete confession. Then the beatings and hang-man’s rope, black hood, eye gougers which they claimed would be used on them unless they confessed. Not a one yet wrote out his statement but each stated that the prosecution dictated their statements and they said it made no difference anyway as they would die the next day. So, on and on it goes with each one of the defendants. The story of each must have some truth because they have each been in solitary confinement.35
Robert Kempner, the American Chief Prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg in which 21 German government officials were defendants, is a good example of Jewish misconduct at the American-run trials. Kempner was a German Jew who had lost his job as Chief Legal Advisor of the Prussian Police Department. He was forced to emigrate to Italy and then to the United States because of National Socialist race laws. Kempner was bitter about the experience and was eager to prosecute and convict German officials in government service.36
Kempner bribed Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus, a leading official from the German foreign office, 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 a prosecution collaborator. Gaus was released from isolation two days after his interrogation. A few days later a German newspaper reported a lengthy handwritten declaration from Gaus in which Gaus confessed the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s accusation to the newspaper.37
Many people became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of Friedrich Gaus, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate.38 American 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.”39
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 but pure cynicism.40
Dr. Arthur Butz concludes that “there are excellent grounds, based on the public record, for believing that Kempner abused the power he had at the military tribunals, and produced ‘evidence’ by improper methods involving threats and various forms of coercion.”41
Jewish False Witness Testimony
False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crimes trials. 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:
“[T]he 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.”42
Stephen F. Pinter, who served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American-run trials at Dachau, confirmed Halow’s statement. 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.”43
An embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials. Jewish U.S. investigator Josef 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?”44
False Jewish-eyewitness testimony has often been used to attempt to convict innocent defendants. For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk by forging documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the five Jewish eyewitness accounts were not credible, and that Demjanjuk was innocent.45
Another example of false Jewish testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by Simon Wiesenthal that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal action. Eleven Jews testified under oath during the trial that Walus had murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded regarding Walus’s trial that “…in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”46
Federal district judge Norman C. Roettger, Jr., ruled in a 1978 case in Florida that all six Jewish eyewitnesses who had testified to direct atrocities and shootings at Treblinka by Ukrainian-born defendant Feodor Fedorenko had wrongly identified the accused. The judge found that these Jewish eyewitnesses had been misled by Israeli authorities.47
Conclusion
The IMT and later Allied-run war-crimes trials are repeatedly cited as proof of the Holocaust story. For example, Jewish American judge Norbert Ehrenfreund wrote:
Germans of the 21st century know what happened during the Nazi era because they learn about it in school, through television programs and various other sources. And this information did not arise from rumor or questionable hearsay. Nor was it a fabrication of the Jewish people, as suggested by some anti-Semitic factions. Proof of the Holocaust was based on the record of solid evidence produced at the [Nuremberg] trial.48
However, the IMT and later Allied-run trials were politically motivated proceedings that falsely accused Germans of conducting a policy of genocide against European Jewry. They were a travesty of justice organized by Jews who wanted to demonize and convict Germans of genocide.
Endnotes
1 Goldmann, Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, pp. 122-123.
2 World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion, New York: 1948, pp. 141, 264-267.
3 Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 10-13.
4 Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, CA: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.
5 Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (11 vols.), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt., 1946-1948. (The “red series”) / NC&A, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.
6 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, 42 Vols. Nuremberg: 1947-1949. (The “blue series”) / IMT, Vol. 19, p. 501.
7 Ibid, p. 434.
8 Dodd, Christopher J., Letters from Nuremberg: My Father’s Narrative of a Quest for Justice, New York: Crown Publishing, 2007, pp. 135-136.
9 Congressional Record-House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, Nov. 28, 1947, p. 10938.
10 Blumenson, Martin, (ed.), The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, p. 750.
11 Mattogno, Carlo, Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 18.
12 Ibid., pp. 18-19.
13 Ibid., p. 19.
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 Mattogno, Carlo, Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 16.
16 Ibid., pp. 16-17.
17 Harding, Thomas, Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013, p. 257.
18 Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
19 Harding, Thomas, Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013, pp. 259-260.
20 Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
21 Ibid.
22 Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
23 Ibid., p. 83.
24 Halow, Joseph, “Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of Franz Kofler et al.,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 1989-1990, p. 459. See also Bower, Tom, Blind Eye to Murder, Warner Books, 1997, pp. 304, 310, 313.
xxv Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.
xxvi Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, The Gulag Archipelago I-II, New York: Harper & Row, 1974, p. 112 (note 15).
xxvii Maser, Werner, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1979, p. 100.
xxviii Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 192-193.
xxix Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA: 1990, pp. 238-239.
xxx Ibid.
xxxi Foust, Hal, “Nazi Trial Judge Rips Injustice,” Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1-2.
xxxii Ibid.
xxxiii Ibid.
xxxiv Parker, Danny S., Hitler’s Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper, Boston, MA: Da Capo Press, 2014, p. 148.
xxxv Weingartner, James J., A Peculiar Crusade: Willis M. Everett and the Malmedy Massacre, New York: New York University Press, 2000, pp. 42-43.
xxxvi Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
xxxvii Ibid., pp. 97-98.
xxxviii Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
xxxix Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
xl Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
xli Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, CA: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, p. 169.
xlii Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
xliii Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
xliv Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
xlv An excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel, Yoram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible”: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk, Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.
xlvi “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
xlvii Letter by former OSI director Walter J. Rockler, National Law Journal, Dec. 8, 1980, p. 14.; See also: B. Amouyal, “Treblinka witnesses were discredited,” Jerusalem Post — International Edition, Week ending April 5, 1986.
xlviii Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crime Trials Changed the Course of History, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 140.
13 Responses
Hedwig Höß wurde im März 1946 festgenommen und im Gefängnis in Heide durch einen Nazijäger und Juden Hanns Alexander verhört. Ihre Kinder befanden sich bei ihr. Erst als Frau Höß vor die brutale Aussicht gestellt wurde, daß ihr Sohn Klaus nach Sibirien verschleppt würde, gab sie den Aufenthalt ihres Mannes preis. Die Tochter Görings war 7 Jahre alt, und wurde ganz allein unter “entsetzlicher Angst” ins Zuchthaus Straubing verbracht. Dann kam sie zu ihrer Mutter Emmy in ein geheimes US-Lager, das sich in Bad Mondorf befand. Edda blieb knapp 5 Monate interniert. Die zum Kriegsende 15jährige Tochter Gudrun Himmler sagte aus, die Briten hätten ihnen Nahrung und Wasser vorenthalten, mit Vergewaltigung gedroht und mit Ausweisung nach Rußland. Gudrun kam mit ihrer Mutter Margarete in verschiedene Internierungslager der Alliierten, wo sie bis November 1946 festgehalten wurde. Ilse Heß wurde am 03.06.1946 verhaftet. Aus dem Internierungslager Augsburg-Göggingen wurde sie am 24.03.1948 entlassen. Insgesamt befanden sich in dieser Zeit 400.000 Deutsche in Internierung. Die Lager wurden sofort weiterbenutzt.
Translation of Hilken’s comment, by Deepl translator:
Hedwig Höß was arrested in March 1946 and interrogated at the prison in Heide by the Nazi hunter and Jew Hanns Alexander. Her children were with her. It was only when Mrs. Höß was confronted with the brutal prospect that her son Klaus would be deported to Siberia that she revealed her husband’s whereabouts.
Göring’s daughter was 7 years old and was taken all alone, in “terrible fear,” to the Straubing prison. She was then sent to join her mother, Emmy, in a secret U.S. camp located in Bad Mondorf. Edda remained interned for just under 5 months.
Gudrun Himmler, who was 15 years old at the end of the war, testified that the British had deprived them of food and water, threatened them with rape, and threatened to deport them to Russia. Gudrun was sent with her mother Margarete to various Allied internment camps, where she was held until November 1946.
Ilse Hess was arrested on June 3, 1946. She was released from the Augsburg-Göggingen internment camp on March 24, 1948. A total of 400,000 Germans were in internment during this period. The camps continued to be used immediately thereafter.
Gabriel Bach, geboren 1927 in Deutschland, war im Eichmann-Prozeß 1961 der Stellvertretende Chefankläger. Sein Ziel war, den Nachweis zu führen, daß Eichmann die Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus vertrat und darum kein bloßer Befehlsempfänger war. Auch unterstützte er die Todesstrafe und sorgte für eine baldige Hinrichtung Eichmanns. Es gibt in dem einstündigen Vortrag kaum Fakten, die von dem Vortragenden Gabriel Bach zum Prozeß preisgegeben werden, nur anekdotische Belege für die moralische Verwerflichkeit eines Eichmann. Die wenigen Tatsachen lassen sich rasch zusammenfassen. In der Vorbereitung auf den Eichmann-Prozeß als Ankläger habe Bach die Höß-Autobiografie von 1947 gelesen. “Die deutsche Regierung war ungeheuer kooperativ. Die haben uns alle Akten zur Verfügung gestellt, von allen Ministerien, von SA und SS und der Armee.” Demnach ist anzunehmen, daß die Verantwortlichen, besonders Ex-Bundeskanzler Konrad Adenauer, sein Innen- und Justizminister nicht auf Auslieferung nach Deutschland drängten, denn Eichmann war Deutscher und nicht Israeli. Sein Verfahren hätte in Deutschland stattfinden müssen. Geheimnisverrat durch Weitergabe von Akten ist eine Straftat, ist Landesverrat oder Spionage. Ein Rechtshilfeabkommen gab es damals nicht. Die Weitergabe von Akten erfüllt möglicherweise den Straftatbestand von Hochverrat und Gefährdung des demokratischen Rechtsstaates. Die Einrichtung eines Sondergerichts ist nach unserer Rechtslage strafbar, da mit dem Rechtsstaatsprinzip unvereinbar. Die polnische Regierung verfügte hinsichtlich des Eichmann-Prozesses, daß niemand mit den Israeli zusammenarbeiten dürfe und bei Zuwiderhandlung Strafe folge. Die anonym eingegangenen Hinweise aus Polen wären aber reichlich gewesen und nach Plausbilitätsprüfung wären diese auch verwendet worden. Ist das eine angemessene Verwertung von anonymen Anzeigen? Gabriel Bach: “Das Strafverfahren gegen Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avRBSR7pCjY
Translation of Hilken’s comment:
Gabriel Bach, born in Germany in 1927, was the Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Eichmann trial in 1961. His aim was to prove that Eichmann espoused the ideology of National Socialism and was therefore not merely following orders. He also supported the death penalty and ensured that Eichmann was executed swiftly. In the one-hour lecture, there are hardly any facts about the trial revealed by the speaker, Gabriel Bach; only anecdotal evidence of Eichmann’s moral reprehensibility. The few facts can be summarised quickly. Whilst preparing for the Eichmann trial as a prosecutor, Bach had read Höß’s 1947 autobiography. “The German government was incredibly cooperative. They made all the files available to us, from all the ministries, from the SA and SS and the army.” It can therefore be assumed that those in charge, particularly former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, did not press his Minister of the Interior and Minister of Justice for Eichmann’s extradition to Germany, as Eichmann was German and not Israeli. His trial should have taken place in Germany. Betrayal of state secrets through the disclosure of files is a criminal offence; it constitutes treason or espionage. There was no mutual legal assistance agreement at the time. The disclosure of files may constitute the criminal offence of high treason and endangerment of the democratic constitutional state. The establishment of a special court is punishable under our legal system, as it is incompatible with the principle of the rule of law. The Polish government decreed, with regard to the Eichmann trial, that no one was permitted to cooperate with the Israelis and that any violation would result in punishment. However, the anonymous tips received from Poland would have been plentiful and, following a plausibility check, would also have been used. Is this an appropriate use of anonymous reports? Gabriel Bach: “The criminal proceedings against Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avRBSR7pCjY
Wenn man sich fragt, warum Adolf Eichmann und nicht anderen ehemaligen Nationalsozialisten, die in Südamerika waren, der Prozeß gemacht wurde, kommt man auf zwei Aspekte. Das eine ist der Auschwitz-Komplex. Hier erspare ich mir als Deutsche jegliche Stellungnahme. Da hätten die Juden auch Mengele fangen können. Der zweite Grund ist verborgener, das Haavara-Abklommen von 1933. Mahmud Abbas hat in seiner Doktorarbeit weitgehende Anklagen gegen die Zionisten veröffentlicht. Sie können im Internet gefunden werden. Die Äußerungen von Abbas werden als Lügen behandelt. Ich kann über ihren Wahrheitsgehalt nicht urteilen. Die Zionisten hatten ein großes Interesse, daß gut ausgebildete deutsche Juden nach Palästina auswanderten. Die Nationalsozialisten hatten im Rahmen der Endlösung das Ziel, dies zu fördern. So gründete man eine Treuhand. Deutsche vermögende Juden zahlten ihr Kapital dort vor er Auswanderung ein. Es wurde in der Form von deutschen Gütern nach Palästina verbracht. Dort wurden die Waren verkauft und jeder Einzahler erhielt seinen Auszahlungsbetrag. Die Hauptverhandler auf jüdischer Seite waren Georg Landauer und Siegfried Moses von der Zionistischen Vereinigung für Deutschland, Eliezer Sigfried Hoofien von der Anglo-Palestine Bank und Vertreter der Jewish Agency for Palestine. Adolf Eichmann war im Reichssicherheitshauptamt der zentrale Koordinator. Der Mossad arbeitete eng mit der Gestapo zusammen. Im Zeitraum 1933 bis 1936 kamen nach der Machtübernahme Adolf Hitlers bereits 164.000 Juden legal nach Palästina, neben weiteren illegalen Flüchtlingen. Ich kann die Zahlen nicht überprüfen, aber die KI nennt 50.000 österreichische Juden, in Jerusalem habe man sogar von 150.000 jüdischen Emigranten gesprochen, die durch Eichmanns Bemühung auswanderten. Sicherlich war es auf Seiten der deutschen Juden meist nicht freiwillig, aber hochwillkommen für Nationalsozialisten und Zionisten. Inwieweit gemeinschaftlich “Druck” ausgeübt wurde, ist mir nicht bekannt. Seit 1957 beauftragte Eichmann Sassen damit, Tonbandprotokolle anzufertigen, sie sollten zu seinen Memoiren werden. Auch gab es zum Life Magazine direkte Kontakte. In diesen Aufzeichnungen von Sassen finden sich Angaben zur Zusammenarbeit Eichmanns mit der Haganah und deren Agenten Feivel Polkes. Es ging dabei um die Freilassung und Ausweisung dieser Untergrundagenten. Es wird vermutet, das war der Beginn der Veröffentlichungen zur Zusammenarbeit Eichmanns mit den Zionisten. Man wird davon ausgehen dürfen, daß es mit der Kontaktaufnahme zu Life ein offenes Geheimnis war. Der gut informierte Mossad wird das auch gewußt und weitergegeben haben. Gegenüber seinem Anwalt Robert Servatius soll Eichmann vermutet haben, dies wäre der Grund für seine Entführung gewesen: „Ich werde verurteilt, weil ich die Auswanderung betrieb”. Die Verteidigung basierte auf dem Befehlsnotstand. Strafverteidiger Servatius argumentierte übrigens, daß das israelische Gericht nicht zuständig sei, da die zur Last gelegten Verbrechen nicht in Israel und nicht gegen Israeli begangen wurden. Er forderte eine Auslieferung an die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Auch sei das Gesetz völkerrechtswidrig, nachdem Nationalsozialisten als Verbrecher abgeurteilt würden. Eine Kostenübernahme seiner Anwaltshonorare sei von der Bundesrepublik abgelehnt worden. Israel habe die Honorare gezahlt. Man mag auch daraus ersehen, daß die deutsche Bundesregierung unter Konrad Adenauer keinen Finger für Eichmann als Staatsbürger und rührte. Eichmann konnte diesbezüglich auf keine Schutz- und Abwehrrechte seines Staates hoffen und auf keine Einstandsansprüche gegenüber Israel. Ich kann nicht erkennen, wo hier die Rechtsstaatlichkeit blieb?
Translation of Hilken’s comment:
When one asks why Adolf Eichmann—and not other former Nazis who were in South America—was put on trial, two factors come to mind. The first is the Auschwitz complex. As a German, I will refrain from commenting on this. The Jews could just as easily have captured Mengele. The second reason is more hidden: the Haavara Agreement of 1933. In his doctoral thesis, Mahmoud Abbas published extensive accusations against the Zionists. They can be found on the internet. Abbas’s statements are dismissed as lies. I cannot judge their veracity. The Zionists had a strong interest in well-educated German Jews emigrating to Palestine. As part of the Final Solution, the National Socialists aimed to promote this. Thus, a trust fund was established. Wealthy German Jews deposited their capital there before emigrating. It was transported to Palestine in the form of German goods. There, the goods were sold, and each depositor received their payout. The chief negotiators on the Jewish side were Georg Landauer and Siegfried Moses of the Zionist Association for Germany, Eliezer Sigfried Hoofien of the Anglo-Palestine Bank, and representatives of the Jewish Agency for Palestine. Adolf Eichmann served as the central coordinator at the Reich Security Main Office. The Mossad worked closely with the Gestapo. Between 1933 and 1936, following Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, 164,000 Jews had already arrived legally in Palestine, in addition to other illegal refugees. I cannot verify the figures, but the AI cites 50,000 Austrian Jews; in Jerusalem, there was even talk of 150,000 Jewish emigrants who left thanks to Eichmann’s efforts. Certainly, for most German Jews, this was not voluntary, but it was highly welcomed by the Nazis and Zionists. To what extent collective “pressure” was exerted, I do not know. Starting in 1957, Eichmann commissioned Sassen to make audio recordings; these were intended to become his memoirs. There were also direct contacts with Life Magazine. These recordings by Sassen contain details regarding Eichmann’s collaboration with the Haganah and its agent Feivel Polkes. The matter at hand was the release and deportation of these underground agents. It is presumed that this marked the beginning of the publications regarding Eichmann’s collaboration with the Zionists. One may assume that establishing contact with Life was an open secret. The well-informed Mossad would have known this and passed it on. Eichmann is said to have suggested to his lawyer, Robert Servatius, that this was the reason for his abduction: “I am being convicted because I was facilitating emigration.” The defense was based on the doctrine of necessity. Defense attorney Servatius argued, incidentally, that the Israeli court lacked jurisdiction, since the crimes charged were not committed in Israel and were not directed against Israelis. He demanded extradition to the Federal Republic of Germany. He also contended that the law was contrary to international law, as it treated National Socialists as criminals. The Federal Republic of Germany had refused to cover his legal fees. Israel had paid the fees. One can also infer from this that the German federal government under Konrad Adenauer did not lift a finger for Eichmann as a citizen. In this regard, Eichmann could not hope for any rights of protection or defense from his own state, nor could he claim any right of recourse against Israel. I cannot see where the rule of law was in this case?
Im Nürnberger Ärzteprozeß kam es zu folgenden juristischen Abnormitäten. Hochgradige Voreingenommenheit des Gerichtes ergibt sich aus folgendem: Zeugen wurden vom Gericht nur nach Belastendem befragt. Zeugen der Anklage wurden niemals auf Glaubwürdigkeit geprüft. Von 2829 Dokumenten wurde nicht ein entlastender Satz vom Gericht zur Notiz genommen. Beweismittel der Verteidigung wurden nur belastend zur Kenntnis genommen. Die Verteidigung wurde stark behindert. Nicht Beweise, sondern Vermutungen vom Gericht zählten. Entlastende Aussagen wurden übergangen oder für unglaubwürdig erklärt. Urkunden wurden durch Herausreißen von Seiten manipuliert. Mildernde Umstände wurden nicht erwogen. Zeugen wurden bedroht und eingeschüchtert und gefügig gemacht. Die Verurteilung von Ärzten erfolgte auch wegen Euthanasie-Morden. Schauen wir mal, was wir an einigen Beispielen zum Thema herausfinden können.
Kommen wir zunächst zu den globalen Netzwerken und ihrer Versessenheit, die Weltbevölkerung durch Krieg, Hunger, Gift und Krankheit zu dezimieren – wie beispielsweise durch Impfungen, die moderne Blutvergiftung. Die Namen Rockefeller und Gates stehen mit anderen für Bevölkerungskontrolle und Eugenik. Oder wie das der Multimillionär Warren Buffet erläuterte, der Klassenkrieg sei real, und seine Klasse der Superreichen werde diesen Kampf gewinnen. Die Rockefeller Stiftung hat früh Projekte zur Eugenik und Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens gefördert. Im Jahr 1924 war Hans Harmsen Stipendiat Rockefellers und blieb zeitlebens dessen Schützling, ein deutscher Sozialhygieniker und Bevölkerungswissenschaftler. Rockefeller hat also diese Forschung ausgegliedert ins Ausland, weil sie in den USA nicht legal gewesen wäre. Harmsen befürwortete die Zwangssterilisation und Unterbringung in geschlossenen Heimen von Behinderten in der Weimarer Republik und im Nationalsozialismus. Er leitete die “Fachkonferenz für Eugenik” und wirkte am “Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses” 1934 mit. Harmsen setzte auch nach dem Krieg seine steile Karriere fort, erhielt hohe Auszeichnungen, u.a. der Ärztekammer und das Bundesverdienstkreuz, beriet auch die Bundesregierungen. 1946 wurde Harmsen noch unter britischer Besatzung Professor und Institutsleiter des Hygiene-Institutes an der Universitätsklinik Hamburg-Eppendorf. Er war Mitgründer, Präsident und Ehrenpräsident von Planned Parenthood (Pro Familia) in Deutschland. Investigative Journalisten beschuldigten Planned Parenthood des Handels mit Feten. Das bekennende Opfer von rituellem und satanischem Mißbrauch Anneke Lucas, auf die ich gleich weiter zu sprechen komme, beschuldigte Planned Parenthood sogar des Handels mit lebend Geborenen nach Abtreibungen. Beide Vorwürfe wurden juristisch nicht aufgearbeitet, so daß diese Behauptungen derzeit im Raum stehen und keine Rechtskraft haben. Margret Sanger als Gründerin von Planned Parenthood war eine Freundin von Harmsen und eine Sprecherin für den KKK. Auch sie trat neben dem Recht auf freie Sexualität (Promiskuität) und Abtreibung für Zwangssterilisation und Eugenik ein. Wir können ganz allgemein davon ausgehen, daß sexuelle Perversionen die Fortpflanzung ausbremsen und zur Agenda der Bevölkerungsreduktion und der Antifamilien-Politik zu zählen wären. Alles buchstabiert sich als Todeskult.
Hans Harmsen arbeitete nach Angaben von Anneke Lucas noch als 73jähriger für ein geheimes Projekt Rockefellers zur Bewußtseinskontrolle mittels Konditionierung und Folter. Sie befand sich in einem Programm für die unter Lebensgefahr gewonnenen paranormalen Fähigkeiten zum Ausspionieren berühmter Männer mit pädophilen Neigungen, auf die sie angesetzt wurde, etwa den Ex-Kanzler der BRD Kurt Kiesinger. Binnen kurzer Zeit brachte Harmsen sie unter Folter und Würgen mit den eigenen Händen in mehrere todesnahe Umstände und dazu, diese erstaunlichen parapsychologischen Fähigkeiten zu entwickeln, etwa am Gesicht eines Mannes intuitiv zu erkennen, welche sexuelle Perversion er bevorzuge, aber auch seine psychische Verletzlichkeit zu durchschauen und seinen Geist so zu manipulieren, daß er sich in sie verliebe. Harmsen habe in einer Villa in Nähe des Heidelberger Schlosses und in dessen Pulverturm für Rockefeller auch mit anderen Kindern vergleichbar “gearbeitet”. Er sei kein Mensch mehr gewesen – ein reiner völlig gefühlloser Sadist, doch in einer staunenswerten Präzision. Lucas kam ursprünglich aus einem Pädophilen-Netzwert in Belgien, das von der Politik über die Geschäftswelt ins Königshaus gereicht habe, und wurde Rockefeller bei dem damaligen Bilderberg-Treffen 1972 zugeführt. Es ging bei diesen Netzwerken um globale Erpressungsringe. Ähnlich wie wir diese heute bei Epstein finden. Harmsen habe sie methodisch und hocheffizient “trainiert” und konditioniert. Sie behauptet, daß David Rockefeller pädophil war, nicht aber der ihm in der Machthierarchie übergeordnete Satanist Evelyn de Rothschild. Rothschild habe die pädophile Ausbeutung im Elitenetzwerk von Anneke 1972, als sie neunjährig war, und als persönliche Sklavin für Rockefeller freigegeben. Anneke Lucas spricht von einem globalen Netzwerk von Satanisten, oft 33 Grad Freimaurern, die hier involviert seien. Wir wissen von Epstein, daß er sich als Agent der Rothschilds ausgab und ein Wissenschaftskoordinator war für Projekte, mit denen das Große Geld sich bereicherte. Seine pädophilen Aktivitäten treten letztlich dahinter zurück, auch wenn sie besonders grausam waren. Die Vorarbeiten von Harmsens ausgefeilten und höchst wirkungsvollem Programm führt Lucas auf die 30er Jahre in Deutschland zurück. Später wäre durch Operation Paperclip u.a. diese Forschung in das Commenwealth exportiert worden. Ich gehe davon aus, daß Lucas nicht wußte, daß Harmsen ein Rockefeller-Stipendiat war. Seine Anfänge gehen ja wie eben herausgestellt zurück in die 20er Jahre.
Translation of Hilken’s article:
The following legal irregularities occurred during the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial. The court’s high degree of bias is evident from the following: witnesses were questioned by the court solely on matters incriminating the defence. Prosecution witnesses were never assessed for credibility. Out of 2,829 documents, not a single exculpatory sentence was taken into account by the court. Evidence presented by the defence was only considered insofar as it was incriminating. The defence was severely hampered. It was not evidence but the court’s assumptions that counted. Exculpatory statements were ignored or declared implausible. Documents were tampered with by pages being torn out. Mitigating circumstances were not taken into account. Witnesses were threatened, intimidated and coerced into compliance. Doctors were also convicted of euthanasia-related murders. Let us see what we can uncover on this subject through a few examples.
Let us first turn to the global networks and their obsession with decimating the world’s population through war, famine, poison and disease – such as through vaccinations, the modern form of blood poisoning. The names Rockefeller and Gates, along with others, are synonymous with population control and eugenics. Or, as the multimillionaire Warren Buffett explained, the class war is real, and his class of the super-rich will win this battle. The Rockefeller Foundation funded projects on eugenics and the extermination of ‘life unworthy of life’ from an early stage. In 1924, Hans Harmsen was a Rockefeller fellow and remained his protégé throughout his life; he was a German social hygienist and demographer. Rockefeller therefore outsourced this research abroad because it would not have been legal in the USA. Harmsen advocated the forced sterilisation and institutionalisation of people with disabilities in the Weimar Republic and under National Socialism. He chaired the ‘Expert Conference on Eugenics’ and was involved in drafting the ‘Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases’ in 1934. Harmsen continued his meteoric career even after the war, receiving high honours, including awards from the Medical Association and the Federal Cross of Merit, and also acted as an adviser to federal governments. In 1946, whilst the country was still under British occupation, Harmsen became a professor and director of the Institute of Hygiene at the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf. He was a co-founder, president and honorary president of Planned Parenthood (Pro Familia) in Germany. Investigative journalists accused Planned Parenthood of trafficking in foetuses. Anneke Lucas, a self-proclaimed victim of ritual and satanic abuse – whom I shall discuss in more detail shortly – even accused Planned Parenthood of trafficking in live-born infants following abortions. Neither of these allegations has been legally investigated, meaning that these claims currently remain unaddressed and have no legal standing. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a friend of Harmsen’s and a spokesperson for the KKK. She, too, advocated not only for the right to sexual freedom (promiscuity) and abortion, but also for forced sterilisation and eugenics. We can generally assume that sexual perversions hinder reproduction and should be counted among the agenda of population reduction and anti-family policies. All of this amounts to a cult of death.
According to Anneke Lucas, Hans Harmsen was still working, at the age of 73, on a secret Rockefeller project for mind control through conditioning and torture.
She was part of a programme utilising paranormal abilities—acquired under life-threatening circumstances—to spy on prominent men with paedophilic tendencies whom she had been assigned to monitor, such as the former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Kurt Kiesinger. Within a short space of time, Harmsen subjected her to torture and strangulation with his own hands, bringing her to the brink of death on several occasions and causing her to develop these astonishing parapsychological abilities – such as intuitively recognising from a man’s face which sexual perversion he favoured, but also seeing through his psychological vulnerability and manipulating his mind in such a way that he fell in love with her. Harmsen is said to have “worked” in a similar manner with other children for Rockefeller in a villa near Heidelberg Castle and in its Powder Tower. He was no longer human – a pure, utterly unfeeling sadist, yet one of astonishing precision. Lucas originally came from a paedophile network in Belgium, which extended from the political sphere through the business world to the royal family, and was introduced to Rockefeller at the Bilderberg meeting in 1972. These networks were global blackmail rings, similar to those we see today in the Epstein case. Harmsen is said to have ‘trained’ and conditioned her methodically and with great efficiency. She claims that David Rockefeller was a paedophile, but not the Satanist Evelyn de Rothschild, who ranked above him in the hierarchy of power. Rothschild is said to have authorised the paedophile exploitation within the elite network in 1972, when Anneke was nine years old, and to have made her a personal slave for Rockefeller. Anneke Lucas speaks of a global network of Satanists, often 33rd-degree Freemasons, who were involved in this. We know from Epstein that he posed as an agent of the Rothschilds and was a scientific coordinator for projects through which the ‘Big Money’ enriched itself. His paedophile activities ultimately take a back seat to this, even though they were particularly cruel. Lucas traces the groundwork for Harmsen’s sophisticated and highly effective programme back to the 1930s in Germany. Later, through Operation Paperclip, this research, amongst other things, would have been exported to the Commonwealth. I assume that Lucas did not know that Harmsen was a Rockefeller fellow. After all, as has just been pointed out, his early career dates back to the 1920s.
Julius Sebastian Streicher gab während des Nürnberger Prozesses folgende Erklärung vor Gericht ab: “Ich war vier Tage entkleidet in einer Zelle. Ich wurde mit Zigaretten auf meine Brustwarzen gebrannt, auf den Nabel. Ich wurde mit der Peitsche auf den Geschlechtsteil geschlagen. Ich wurde auf den Boden geworfen. Eine eiserne Kette wurde auf mich gelegt. Ich sollte die Füße von Negern küssen. Man spuckte mir in das Gesicht. Man spuckte mir, zwei Neger und zwei Weiße, in den Mund, und als ich ihn nicht mehr öffnete, wurde er geöffnet mit einem Holzstab. Und als ich um Wasser bat, wurde in das Kloset geführt. Man befahl mir, aus der Urinschale zu trinken. In Wiesbaden, meine Herren, hat sich ein Arzt erbarmt, und ich gestehe hier, ein jüdischer Direktor eines Gefängnisses hat sich dort korrekt benommen.” Er habe dies während seiner Haft zur Anzeige gebracht, aber ihm wäre kein Ergebnis zu Ohren gekommen. Vier Tage lang wäre er in einer eiskalten Zelle in Freising nackt und mit einer Eisenfessel gehalten worden. Man habe ihn gedemütigt und mißhandelt, aber er habe kein Wort der Klage oder des Schmerzes geäußert. Falls die betroffenen Amerikaner, vor allem war es Juden und einige Schwarze, und ihre Vorgesetzten behaupten wollten, das sei gelogen, mögen sie doch endlich die Untersuchungsergebnisse ihrer Militärgerichtsbarkeit präsentieren. Streicher war vor allem Publizist. Er ist wohl der einzige Publizist der Weltgeschichte, der wegen eines nachträglich erfundenen Verbrechens, das es in Gesetzesform zum angeblichen Tatzeitpunkt überhaupt nicht gab, hingerichtet wurde. Die Alliierten waren außerstande, einen professionellen Henker zu bestellen. Alle am Strang hingerichteten zappelten lange, wurden langsam qualvoll erdrosselt, starben nicht durch Genickbruch, bei Wilhelm Keitel dauerte es 28 Minuten, bei Julius Streicher war der Vorgang besonders schauerlich, er zappelte, stöhnte, gurgelte. Möge Gott dieser Deutschen besonders gnädig sein.
Translation of Hilken’s comment:
During the Nuremberg Trials, Julius Sebastian Streicher made the following statement in court: “I was kept naked in a cell for four days. Cigarettes were burnt against my nipples and my navel. I was whipped on my genitals. I was thrown to the floor. An iron chain was placed around me. I was forced to kiss the feet of black men. They spat in my face. Two Black men and two white men spat into my mouth, and when I refused to open it any longer, it was forced open with a wooden stick. And when I asked for water, I was led to the toilet. I was ordered to drink from the urine bowl. In Wiesbaden, gentlemen, a doctor took pity on me, and I confess here that a Jewish prison governor behaved correctly there.” He had reported this whilst in custody, but had heard nothing of any outcome. For four days, he had been held naked and in iron shackles in a freezing-cold cell in Freising. He had been humiliated and mistreated, but had uttered not a word of complaint or pain. If the Americans concerned – primarily Jews and a few Black people – and their superiors wish to claim that this is a lie, let them at last present the findings of their military judicial investigations. Streicher was, above all, a journalist. He is probably the only journalist in world history to have been executed for a crime invented after the event, one which did not even exist in statutory form at the alleged time of the offence. The Allies were unable to appoint a professional executioner. All those hanged writhed for a long time, were slowly and agonisingly strangled, and did not die from a broken neck; in Wilhelm Keitel’s case it took 28 minutes; in Julius Streicher’s case the process was particularly gruesome – he writhed, groaned and gurgled. May God be especially merciful to these Germans.
This story makes me weep! There are no words…
Monika, zum Trost sei eine Einschätzung aus teils sehr alten christlichen Quellen und Prophetien gegeben. Gott hat sein Heiliges Volk in Zeiten des Glaubensabfalls oft in tiefe Krisen gestürzt und gedemütigt, um es danach umso mehr an sein Herz zu ziehen. Uns allen steht eine spirituelle Wende bevor, eine neue Ausgießung des Heiligen Geistes. Gott hat Deutschland nicht aufgegeben. Im Gegenteil werden wir in dieser Neuen Zeit eine Führungsrolle innehalten. Gott liebt demütige Menschen, die gelitten haben und wie er ihr Kreuz klaglos getragen haben. Ich glaube, die böse Seite weiß das ganz genau. Darum sind Deutschlands Prüfungen seit mehr als 100 Jahren so hart.
Thank you so much for this moving comment, dear Hilken.
Translation: Monika, by way of comfort, here is an insight drawn from Christian sources and prophecies, some of which are very ancient. In times of apostasy, God has often plunged His holy people into deep crises and humbled them, only to draw them all the closer to His heart afterwards. A spiritual turning point lies ahead for us all – a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit. God has not abandoned Germany. On the contrary, we shall play a leading role in this New Age. God loves humble people who have suffered and, like Him, have borne their cross without complaint. I believe the forces of evil know this all too well. That is why Germany’s trials have been so severe for more than 100 years.