How Jews Discredited the Validity of the Allied War-Crimes Trials and Buried the Real Story of WWII
Asked why the Americans didn’t just kill the German war criminals. Ferencz replied: “…we don’t do that. We’ll give them a fair trial.” Robert Kempner stated that Nuremberg was “the greatest history seminar ever held.” In reality, Germans did not receive fair trials, and the trials they did receive played a major role in establishing the fraudulent Holocaust story.
Jews Discredit Allied War-Crimes Trials
The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, the 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT), and numerous other 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.
This article documents some of the Jewish attorneys, investigators and witnesses whose 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.
Benjamin Ferencz, a Jewish American war-crimes investigator, was born in Transylvania and grew up in New York City before earning his law degree from Harvard. He was assigned to investigate the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Dachau after the war.
Ferencz states in an interview that he did not have a high opinion of the Dachau war-crimes trials conducted by the U.S. Army:
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 further states that nobody including himself protested against these procedures in the Dachau trials. Ferencz later said concerning the military trials at Dachau:
“Did I think it was unjust? Not really. They were in the camp; they saw what happened…But I was sort of disgusted.”
The defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial and later trials at 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. Benjamin Ferencz admits 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.
Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates 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.
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. Any Harvard-law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.
Robert Kempner was the American Chief Prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg 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.
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.
Many people became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of Friedrich Gaus, for example, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate. 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.”
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.
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.”
Torture of Witnesses
Jews often used torture to help convict the German 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 IMT 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. 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.
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 the torture of Höss. 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.
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.”
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. One 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.
In addition to torturing defendants into making confessions, some defendants did not live to see the beginning of their trials. For example, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, adamantly denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers in his pre-trial interrogations at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. 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 said that the ingestion of an odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as a cause of death.
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 Fritz 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 in his jail. Conveniently, the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Germany began almost immediately after Baer’s death. With Baer’s death the prosecutors at the trial were able to obtain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas-chamber myth and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.
False Witness Testimony
False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crimes 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.”
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.”
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?”
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.”
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.
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.”
Jewish Prosecutorial Role in Trials
A Russian asked Benjamin Ferencz why the Americans didn’t just kill the German war criminals. Ferencz replied: “…we don’t do that. We’ll give them a fair trial.” Robert Kempner stated that the Nuremberg and other trials resulted in “the greatest history seminar ever held.” In reality, Germans did not receive fair trials after World War II, and the trials they did receive played a major role in establishing the fraudulent Holocaust story.
Jews played a crucial role in organizing the IMT at Nuremberg. Nahum Goldmann, a former president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), stated in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of WJC officials. Goldmann said that only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The WJC also played an important but less obvious role in the day-to-day proceedings in the trial.
Two Jewish U.S. Army officers also 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. 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 Nuremberg NMT Trials.
This Jewish influence caused the Allies to give special attention to the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews. Chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, for example, declared in his opening address to the Nuremberg Tribunal:
“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.”
British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed Jackson’s words in his final address to the IMT. Based on Jewish influence, numerous other Holocaust-related trials were later held in West Germany, Israel and the United States, including the highly-publicized trials in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann and John Demjanjuk.
Jewish influence in Germany has resulted in a defendant being assumed to be guilty merely for being in a German concentration camp during the war. For example, after being acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court, John Demjanjuk was charged again on the grounds that he had been a guard named Ivan Demjanjuk at the Sobibor camp in Poland. On May 11, 2009, Demjanjuk was deported from Cleveland to be tried in Germany. Demjanjuk was convicted by a German criminal court as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at Sobibor and sentenced to five years in prison. No evidence was presented at Demjanjuk’s trial linking him to specific crimes. Demjanjuk died in Germany before his appeal could be heard by a German appellate court.
This new line of German thinking is breathtaking in its unfairness. It incorrectly assumes that some German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of exterminating Jews when, in fact, none of them was. Moreover, this German law finds a person guilty merely for being at any camp. People can be found guilty of a crime even when no evidence is presented that they committed a crime. Jewish groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center have been prosecuting and convicting other elderly German guards under this line of German legal thinking.
The IMT and later Allied-run war-crimes trials were a travesty of justice organized by Jews who wanted to demonize and convict Germans of murder. These Allied-run trials were politically motivated proceedings that falsely accused Germans of conducting a policy of genocide against European Jewry.
 Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crime Trials Changed the Course of History, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 140.
 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.
 Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.
 Lowe, Keith, The Fear and the Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017, p. 198.
 Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
 Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
 Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
 Ibid., p. 83.
 Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
 Ibid., pp. 97-98.
 Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
 Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
 Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
 Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, p. 169.
 Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Staeglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.
 Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
 Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
 Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
 Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
 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.
 “The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
 Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 16.
 Bazyler, Michael, Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law: A Quest for Justice in a Post-Holocaust World, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 106.
 Goldmann, Nahum, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann: Sixty Years of Jewish Life, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp. 216-217.
 Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 170.
 Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 10-13.
 Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.
 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.
 Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.
 The Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2013, p. 9A.