TRAVESTY OF INJUSTICE AT NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS

 

MILITARY TRIBUNALS OF NUREMBERG

 Please note: In this analysis of what took place at the NUREMBERG TRIBUNALS I have not paid any attention to the ‘Holocaust’ or all the other horrific crimes that these Nazi’s were accused of. In this analysis I am only concerned with ‘LAW’ and, the due process of ‘LAW’, in the Courts. Irrespective of the crime, accused of; every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. The Nazi’s at Nuremberg did not get that fair trial. These trials today are held up to be the epitome of legal correctness. They were nothing of the sort.

 There is one very important and serious aspect of “Nuremberg” that needs proper consideration. That needs to be properly debated and explained; in, order, to put history and the records right. The “International Military Tribunals” of Nuremberg are today held up and put forward as the ‘be all and end all’ of true law and justice, and, jurisprudence; in respect to Human Rights legislation and International Conventions and Treaties. Yet, it is the very antithesis of true and just law. The International Military Tribunals of Nuremberg had nothing to do with Law. It was merely a façade, a show trial, a corrupt and an ‘expedient way’ for dealing with the Vanquished; by the Victors.

 This is the opening address at Nuremberg:

 

MONDAY 30^TH SEPTEMBER 1946

 (AFTERNOON SESSION)

JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG

MR FRANCES BIDDLE, Member of the Tribunal for the United States:

“The Law of the Charter”

The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The Law of the Charter is decisive, and binding on the Tribunal.

 The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations, but in the view of the Tribunal, as will be shown, it is the expression of international Law existing at the time of it’s creation, and to that extent is itself a contribution to international Law. The Signatory powers created this Tribunal, defined the Law it was to administer and made the regulations for proper conduct of the Trial.

 In this very first speech by Mr. Francis Biddle, two essential criterions were established:

A. The Charter is not an arbitrary exercise of power on the part of the victorious nations,

B. for which there shall be individual responsibility,

 Yet, ‘B’ is a direct contradiction of, ‘A’

If the Tribunal was not “an arbitrary power on the part of the victorious nations” then the Tribunal was required to hear all the cases, all the evidence of the entire trial, before it could be in a position to judge whether, ‘B’, is applicable.

Yet, here, before the Tribunal has even sat for a day in judgment; before it has heard any evidence at all; the Tribunal has already decided the guilt of all the accused; in its determination of, ‘B’.

‘B’ in law; in true and just law; can only be determined, in respect of each and every defendant after all the evidence has been heard.

That is why Nuremberg was and is corrupt. It was a sham from its beginning to its very end. It was merely, the ‘expedient’ way of the VICTORS dealing with the vanquished.

But, it was also a grave travesty of LAW; because at Nuremberg the entire prosecution, of every defendant, and, the judgment of every defendant, refused to accept a truthful defence. At, Nuremberg, every prosecutor and every Judge did their very utmost to, “Put Rain back in the Sky.”

 They completely erased “Nazi Germany” from the brain; and, they pretended that what had happened in Germany from the time that Hitler came to power and throughout World War II; did not happen at all. They tried to, “put the rain back in the sky”, by determining that, that “Germany” of that period, had not existed at all. Every prosecutor and every Judge completely and corruptly ignored the,

"Fuhrerprinzip"

Quote:

Today when we hear the word, "fuhrer" we mostly apply it only to Hitler. The Fuhrer, now in the vernacular means the despotic leader of Germany in WWII. The term however has a broader meaning and concept in the context of the German military and society of the day. "Fuhrer" literally, means 'leader'. There were many 'fuhrers' in Germany at the time, in fact the term is incorporated in the military rank names (e.g.oberfuhrer), to indicate the rung of leadership. Fuhrerprinzip reads literally, "fuhrer principle" and has to do with the structure of the order of obedience to authority in the Third Reich. Early in the development of the National Socialists one theme ran strong: law and order. Germany had disintegrated into a weak country from a strong Prussian military sovereignty, and the problems of a weak republic were rampant: crime, social upheaval and unemployment. But law & order meant more to the Nazis than to most: it meant a system in leadership and society in which everyone was answerable to 'orders from above' in a hierarchal arrangement. Additionally, the leader, held the responsibility of the actions and decisions of his underlings. Therefore one of the premiere moral values in ‘Third Reich Germany’ was loyalty and obedience, even above concepts of right and wrong This meant that if a person especially in a government position or military position was asked by a superior to do an unconscionable act, such as order the death or deportation of Jews, the highest moral value to the Nazis was to obey orders, even above conscience. In the thinking of the indoctrinated ‘Third Reich’ members, even if they were troubled by the decision, the responsibility for the action would rest upon their superior, and therefore, they were not accountable for moral reasoning or wrongdoing. This was one of the primary 'defences’ of the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg. And, also, of, Eichmann, on trial in Israel.

Befehlnotstand: Blind Obedience & 'Orders from Above'

The "Fuhrerprinzip" had to do with the order of leadership and is reflected in Military rank: there were under-fuhrers and over-fuhrers (uberfuhrer & oberfuhrer) even in the naming of the ranks. The concept of Befehlnotstand had more to do with the blind obedience: orders were to be obeyed at all cost, without question, and the penalty for non-obedience in many cases was death. German participants in the ‘Third Reich’ at first had difficulty with the utterly blind obedience required (although the principle was ingrained in the German family dynamic and workplace), but facing death for disobedience, the principle became a defence mechanism allowing many to commit abominable acts and pass responsibility on to their superiors, who in turn, passed culpability upwards. In the end, no one was ultimately responsible, as the leadership would claim they had no idea what was going on while the underlings claimed 'orders from above' and 'befehlnotstand'" The, oft repeated principle of "the fuhrers words have the force of law" also served to overwrite even legal concerns in immoral acts, leaving the German military and domestics barrier-free in committing unconscionable cruelty.

© 2003,5 Elizabeth Kirkley Best Phd

 

Unquote.

 

The very instant that Hitler came to power the “Fuhrerprinzip” was established. It was adopted first by the Nazi hierarchy; but it quickly was imposed on all the German military. Every sailor soldier and airman was obliged to swear the “Oath of Allegiance” to Hitler. Swearing to ‘obey’, on pain of death.

Later, in the early war years, the “Fuhrerprinzip’ applied to every German citizen as well. To disobey an order in Nazi Germany meant instant arrest and trial, concentration camp, and even death. Many a German was executed for even criticizing the regime, or expressing doubt that Germany would win the war. All of Germany was locked into the Fuhrerprinzip.

For the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg to determine and declare that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, on the very first days of the trials, was to shut one’s eyes and brain to the ‘Fuhrerprinzip’; and, to declare it did not exist at all. It, was, ‘Putting the rain back into the Sky’.

Prosecutors and Judges attempted to prove – and, convince everyone else - into believing that what had happened in Nazi Germany, had not happened at all.

The International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg was nothing but the vengeful vindictiveness of the Victorious Nations over the Vanquished.

Every defendant at Nuremberg claiming in defence that they were only obeying an order: Spoke the truth.

It was Nuremberg itself – and it’s Judges; that was, and is, the lie.

If the Nuremberg principle, that, “for which there shall be individual responsibility”, applies; then every ‘prosecutor’ and ‘Judge’ must put himself or herself into each defendants shoes. They must return to the precise moment and time when the order was given, and decide, virtually in an instant, that they will not obey.

And, they are unable to do that unless they are prepared to ‘accept’ the consequences.

In ‘hindsight’ at the Tribunal (and even today) many will claim they would disobey and accept all the consequences. But, there are none who can prove, now; that they actually would. Faced with their own death as a consequence of disobeying; few would refuse to disobey. It is only the liar and the hypocrite; that in the safety of ‘present day hindsight’; that would insist that he would.

Gordonj                                                                                                      December 5, 2013