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.

Questioning the evidence is now legally conflated with denial and antisemitism. More ominous, anyone who does will be socially, politically and economically ostracized and persecuted. Their reputations, careers, businesses and social standing will be ruined in every western nation, even those without formal denial laws. ‘Denial’ is a recently invented psychological term to convict a person while circumventing the investigation of all evidence that contradicts any mainstream narrative based on forensic data. It has now expanded to Climate Change denial, Covid denial, Vaccine denial, Statins denial, and more.

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


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.


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.

Spread the love

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.