.

.
Library of Professor Richard A. Macksey in Baltimore

POSTS BY SUBJECT

Labels

Showing posts with label Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

The Irish Savant : Nuremberg




Nuremberg

Today Ireland goes to the polls in a General Election. As can be imagined, every possible topic was exhaustively debated during the campaign. Except for one, the most important one. To wit, the mudslide Immivasion  of Europe. Woe betide the candidate who raises such an indelicate subject. Should - let our minds run riot for a moment here - a candidate suggest a race-based system of citizenship the ensuing explosion of outrage would be cosmic. As would the offender's punishment.

"What he suggests directly replicates the notorious Nuremberg Laws of the Nazis, laws used to render Germany's Jews non-citizens and virtually non-humans'.  
Drag in  a Holocau$t™ survivor from central casting for added effect and the offender will be lead to his fate: permanent obscurity at best, jail time at worst. And I must concede the validity of the charge because those infamous Nuremberg Laws clearly state that  
"only those of our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman."  The Laws also prohibited German Jews from marrying or having sexual relations with 'persons of German or related blood'.

These laws were inspired to a considerable degree by the writings of Julius Streicher, an old comrade of Hitler and publisher of Der Sturmer magazine. Even from an early age Streicher had an uncanny insight into the destructive Jewish 'state-within-a-state' machinations that took me a lifetime to stumble on. And he didn't hold back, producing a stream of vitriolic and inflammatory comment month after month. Despite the immense popularity of Der Sturmer (it had offices in many other European countries) he never served in the German Government and in fact for much of the war was under house arrest arising from internal political differences

Despite this he was convicted at the post-war Nuremberg kangaroo courts trials. Given that he had had no official power, nor had ever engaged in any personal violence against Jews, what could they nail him for? Well, Julius was condemned by his own words. 'My goal was not to harm Jews but to enlighten Gentiles - to put them on guard.'  (Could be the banner for this blog!). And given that he'd done such an effective job he was hanged - or more correctly strangled with a short rope - shortly after the Show Trials had ended. As you can imagine Jews played a central role in the whole charade - as they had previously done in the Soviet Union.  Their roles included that of Chief Prosecutor, judges, the director of the execution process and the hangman himself. The latter devising a gruesome variation whereby the condemned men were slowly strangled rather than being instantly killed.

I digressed a bit here because there's a really interesting sting in the tail regarding the Nazi Nuremberg Hate Laws. (oy vey, the sufferink!!). Here's Julius addressing the Kangaroo Court at his trial. 
 
 "I  have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood  must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my  articles I have repeatedly emphasised the fact that the Jews should  serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for  themselves "the law of Moses, which says, 'If you come into a foreign  land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.' And that,  Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.  These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after  centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many  Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That  was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial  laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and  civilisations have perished.

And there's living proof of that today in Israel. "The Prime Minister's Office confirmed that many Jews from the [USSR]....can be required to bring DNA confirmation of Jewish heritage in order to be allowed immigrate as a Jew." The Telegraph tells us that 'because they [the would-be immigrants] had only a Jewish father or married into the faith almost 350,000 of them are not recognised as Jewish in their adopted homeland."

No surprise that chutzpah is a Jewish word.
 

Friday, April 28, 2017

Lasha Darkmoon : German Victims : How the Allied Victors of WWII tortured and killed their German prisoners

German Victims : How the Allied Victors of WWII tortured and killed their German prisoners


This terrifying article will make you ask the forbidden question:  
“Did the victors of WWII deserve to win?”
By Thomas Goodrich
An edited abridgement by Lasha Darkmoon with notes and comments
Piranesi, Nightmare Prison
“Staffed and run by Jews, the prisons were little better than torture chambers.”
— Thomas Goodrich

Part 1: Vai Victis! — Woe to the Vanquished!

Moments after arrival at the prison camp, prisoners were made horrifyingly aware of their fate. John Sack, himself a Jew, reports on one camp run by twenty-six-year-old Shlomo Morel.
“I was at Auschwitz,” Shlomo proclaimed, lying to the Germans but, even more, to himself, psyching himself up like a fighter the night of the championship, filling himself with hate for the Germans around him. “I was at Auschwitz for six long years, and I swore that if I got out, I’d pay all you Nazis back!”
Note by Lasha Darkmoon: Shlomo Morel, psychopathic torturer and killer of German prisoners of war, later took refuge in Israel where he was held in high honor and remained beyond the reach of international law. Here now is this Jewish war criminal in 1945, age 26, commandant of a German prisoner of war camp where torture was practiced for its own sake:  
Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s chest.
The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off. Cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that.
No one was singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice.
The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!” “Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans alone.
Some were quite fixed. Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night . . .  and the next and the next. Those who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.
And so, with the once mighty German Army now disarmed and enslaved in May, 1945, and with their leaders either dead or awaiting trial for so-called “war crimes,” the old men, women and children who remained in the dismembered Reich found themselves utterly at the mercy of the victors.
Unfortunately for these survivors, never in the history of the world was mercy in shorter supply.

§

Because their knowledge of the language and culture was superb, most of the intelligence officers accompanying US and British forces into the Reich after WWII were Jewish refugees who had fled Germany in the late 1930s. Although their American and English “aides” were hardly better, the fact that many of these people became interrogators, examiners and screeners, with old scores to settle, insured that no German would be shown any mercy.
One man opposed to the vengeance-minded program of these Americanized Jews was General George Patton.
“Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and [Bernard] Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working,” wrote the general in private. “I am frankly opposed to this war-criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic. I can’t see how Americans can sink so low.”
Soon after occupation, all adult Germans were compelled to register at the nearest Allied headquarters and complete a lengthy questionnaire on their past activities. While many nervous citizens were detained then and there, most returned home, convinced that at long last the terrible ordeal was over. For millions, however, the trial had but begun.
Few German adults, Nazi or not, escaped the dreaded knock on the door. Far from being dangerous fascists, Freddy and Lali Horstmann were actually well-known anti-Nazis. Lali Horstmann records her encounter with a Russian commissar from the Russian Zone.
LD: Since a disproportionate number of Russian commissars were Jews, especially those working for the cheka and other security services, this particular officer was probably Jewish.
“I am sorry to bother you,” he began, “but I am simply carrying out my orders. Until when did you work for the Foreign Office?”
“Till 1933,” my husband answered.
“Then you need fear nothing,” Androff said. “We accuse you of nothing, but we want you to accompany us to the headquarters of the NKVD, the secret police, so that we can take down what you said in a protocol, and ask you a few questions about the working of the Foreign Office.”
We were stunned for a moment; then I started forward, asking if I could come along with them. “Impossible,” the interpreter smiled. My heart raced. Would Freddy answer satisfactorily? Could he stand the excitement? What sort of accommodation would they give him?
“Don’t worry, your husband has nothing to fear,” Androff continued. “He will have a heated room. Give him a blanket for the night, but quickly, we must leave.”
There was a feeling of sharp tension, putting the soldier on his guard, as though he were expecting an attack from one of us. I took first the soldier, then the interpreter, by their hands and begged them to be kind to Freddy, repeating myself in the bustle and scraping of feet that drowned my words.
There was a banging of doors. A cold wind blew in. I felt Freddy kiss me.
I never saw him again.

§

“We were wakened by the sound of tires screeching, engines stopping abruptly, orders yelled, general din, and a hammering on the window shutters. Then the intruders broke through the door, and we saw Americans with rifles who stood in front of our bed and shone lights at us. None of them spoke German, but their gestures said: ‘Get dressed, come with us immediately.’ This was my fourth arrest.”
So wrote Leni Riefenstahl, a talented young woman who was perhaps the world’s greatest film-maker.
Because her epic documentaries—Triumph of the Will and Olympia—seemed paeans to not only Germany, but National Socialism, and because of her close relationship with an admiring Adolf Hitler, Leni was of more than passing interest to the Allies. Though false rumors also hinted that the attractive, one-time actress was also a “mistress of the devil”—that she and Hitler were lovers.
“Neither my husband nor my mother nor any of my three assistants had ever joined the Nazi Party, nor had any of us been politically active,” said the confused young woman. “No charges had ever been filed against us, yet we were at the mercy of the Allies and had no legal protection of any kind.”
“We were never free from torments [in the American prison]. For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings, but it was impossible. The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming — all through the night. But even worse were the yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals.”
Soon after Leni’s fourth arrest, came a fifth.
The jeep raced along the autobahns until, a few hours later, I was brought to the Salzburg Prison. There an elderly prison matron rudely pushed me into the cell, kicking me so hard that I fell to the ground. Then the door was locked. There were two other women in the dark, barren room, and one of them, on her knees, slid about the floor, jabbering confusedly; then she began to scream, her limbs writhing hysterically. She seemed to have lost her mind. The other woman crouched on her bunk, weeping to herself.
x_9a366b8dAs Leni Riefelstahl (pictured) and others quickly discovered, the “softening up” process began soon after arrival at an Allied prison.
When Ernst von Salomon, his Jewish girl friend and fellow prisoners reached an American holding pen near Munich, the men were promptly led into a room and brutally beaten by military police.
With his teeth knocked out and blood spurting from his mouth, von Salomon moaned to a gum-chewing officer, “You are no gentlemen.” The remark brought only a roar of laughter from the attackers. “No, no, no!” the GIs grinned. “We are Mississippi boys!”
In another room, military policemen raped the women at will while leering soldiers watched from windows. After such savage treatment, the feelings of despair only intensified once the captives were crammed into cells.
“The people had been standing there for three days, waiting to be interrogated,” remembered a German physician ordered to treat prisoners in the Soviet Zone. “At the sight of us a pandemonium broke out which left me helpless. As far as I could gather, the usual senseless questions were being reiterated: Why were they there, and for how long? They had no water and hardly anything to eat. They wanted to be let out more often than once a day. A great many of them have dysentery so badly that they can no longer get up.”
“Young Poles made fun of us,” said a woman from her cell in the same zone. “They threw bricks through the windows, paper bags with sand, and skins of hares filled with excrement. We did not dare to move or offer resistance, but huddled together in the farthest corner, in order not to be hit, which could not always be avoided. . . . We were never free from torments.”
“For hours on end I rolled about on my bed, trying to forget my surroundings,” recalled Leni Riefenstahl, “but it was impossible. The mentally disturbed woman kept screaming—all through the night. But even worse were the yells and shrieks of men from the courtyard, men who were being beaten, screaming like animals. I subsequently found out that a company of SS men was being interrogated.
They came for me the next morning, and I was taken to a padded cell where I had to strip naked, and a woman examined every square inch of my body. Then I had to get dressed and go down to the courtyard, where many men were standing, apparently prisoners, and I was the only woman.
We had to line up before an American guard who spoke German. The prisoners stood to attention, so I tried to do the same, and then an American came who spoke fluent German. He pushed a few people together, then halted at the first in our line.
“Were you in the Party?”
The prisoner hesitated for a moment, then said, “Yes.” He was slugged in the face and spat blood.
The American went on to the next in line.
“Were you in the Party?”
The man hesitated.
“Yes or no?”
“Yes.”
And he too got punched so hard in the face that the blood ran out of his mouth. However, like the first man, he didn’t dare resist.
They didn’t even instinctively raise their hands to protect themselves. They did nothing. They put up with the blows like dogs.
The next man was asked: “Were you in the Party?”
Silence.
“Well?”
“No,” he yelled, so no punch.
From then on nobody admitted that he had been in the Party and I was not even asked.
As the above case illustrated, there often was no rhyme or reason to the examinations. All seemed designed to force from the victim what the inquisitor wanted to hear, whether true or false. Additionally, most such “interrogations” were structured to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible. One prisoner explained:
“The purpose of these interrogations is not to worm out of the people what they knew—which would be uninteresting anyway—but to extort from them special statements. The methods resorted to are extremely primitive. People are beaten up until they confess to having been members of the Nazi Party. The authorities simply assume that, basically, everybody has belonged to the Party. Many people die during and after these interrogations, while others, who admit at once their party membership, are treated more leniently.”
“A young commissar, who was a great hater of the Germans, cross-examined me,” said Gertrude Schulz. “When he put the question: ‘Frauenwerk [Women’s Labor Service]?’ I answered in the negative. Thereupon he became so enraged, that he beat me with a stick, until I was black and blue. I received about 15 blows … on my left upper arm, on my back and on my thigh. I collapsed and, as in the case of the first cross-examination, I had to sign the questionnaire.”
“Both officers who took our testimony were former German Jews,” reminisced a member of the women’s SS, Anna Fest. While vicious dogs snarled nearby, one of the officers screamed questions and accusations at Anna. If the answers were not those desired, “he kicked me in the back and the other hit me.”
They kept saying we must have been armed, have had pistols and so on. But we had no weapons, none of us. I had no pistol. I couldn’t say, just so they’d leave me in peace, ‘Yes, we had pistols.’ The same thing would happen to the next person to testify. The terrible thing was, the German men had to watch. That was a horrible, horrible experience. That must have been terrible for them. When I went outside, several of them stood there with tears running down their cheeks. What could they have done? They could do nothing.
Not surprisingly, with beatings, rape, torture, and death facing them, few victims failed to “confess” and most gladly inked their name to any scrap of paper shown them. Some, like Anna, tried to resist. Such recalcitrance was almost always of short duration, however. Generally, after enduring blackened eyes, broken bones, electric shock to breasts—or, in the case of men, smashed testicles—only those who died during torture failed to sign confessions.
Alone, surrounded by sadistic hate, utterly bereft of law, many victims understandably escaped by taking their own lives. Like tiny islands in a vast sea of evil, however, miracles did occur. As he limped painfully back to his prison cell, one Wehrmacht officer reflected on the insults, beatings, and tortures he had endured and contemplated suicide.
I could not see properly in the semi-darkness and missed my open cell door. A kick in the back and I was sprawling on the floor. As I raised myself I said to myself I could not, should not accept this humiliation. I sat on my bunk. I had hidden a razor blade that would serve to open my veins. Then I looked at the New Testament and found these words in the Gospel of St. John: “Without me ye can do nothing.”
Yes. You can mangle this poor body—I looked down at the running sores on my legs—but myself, my honor, God’s image that is in me, you cannot touch. This body is only a shell, not my real self. Without Him, without the Lord, my Lord, ye can do nothing. New strength seemed to rise in me.
I was pondering over what seemed to me a miracle when the heavy lock turned in the cell door. A very young American soldier came in, put his finger to his lips to warn me not to speak. “I saw it,” he said. “Here are baked potatoes.” He pulled the potatoes out of his pocket and gave them to me, and then went out, locking the door behind him.

§

Horrific as de-Nazification was in the British, French and, especially the American Zone, it was nothing compared to what took place in Poland, behind Soviet lines.
In hundreds of concentration camps sponsored by an apparatus called the “Office of State Security,” thousands of Germans—male and female, old and young, high and low, Nazi and non–Nazi, SS, Wehrmacht, Volkssturm, Hitler Youth, all—were rounded up and imprisoned.
While those with blond hair, blue eyes and handsome features were first to go, anyone who spoke German would do.
AMERICAN TORTURE PEN:
Americamn-e1429032295979
A forerunner of Abu Ghraib
“Staffed and run by Jews, with help from Poles, Czechs, Russians, and other concentration camp survivors, the prisons were little better than torture chambers where dying was a thing to be prolonged, not hastened.” — Thomas Goodrich
=============

hqdefault
“Kill the Germans! Kill the Germans! KILL! . . . 
There is nothing more amusing to us than a heap of German corpses!”
Ilya Ehrenberg (pictured), Stalin’s Jewish war propagandist 
 

Part 2: The Slaughterhouse That Was Germany

This is how the Jewish war criminal, Shlomo Morel,  treated his German prisoners of war at an American death camp in Germany after WWII:
“Schweine!” Shlomo cried. He threw down his rubber club, grabbed a wooden stool, and, a leg in his fist, started beating a German’s head. Without thinking, the man raised his arms, and Shlomo, enraged that the man would try to evade his just punishment, cried, “Sonofawhore!” and slammed the stool against the man’s chest.
The man dropped his arms, and Shlomo started hitting his now undefended head when snap! the leg of the stool split off, and, cursing the German birchwood, he grabbed another stool and hit the German with that. No one was singing now, but Shlomo, shouting, didn’t notice.
The other guards called out, “Blond!” “Black!” “Short!” “Tall!” and as each of these terrified people came up, they wielded their clubs upon him. The brawl went on till eleven o’clock, when the sweat-drenched invaders cried, “Pigs! We will fix you up!” and left the Germans alone.
Some were quite fixed…. Shlomo and his subordinates had killed them.
The next night it was more of the same . . . and the next night, and the next, and the next. Those who survived the “welcoming committees” at this and other camps were flung back into their pens.
“I was put with 30 women into a cell, which was intended to accommodate one person,” Gerlinde Winkler recalled. “The narrow space, into which we were rammed, was unbearable and our legs were all entangled together. . . . The women, ill with dysentery, were only allowed to go out once a day, in order to relieve themselves. A bucket without a cover was pushed into the cell with the remark: ‘Here you have one, you German sows.’
The stink was insupportable, and we were not allowed to open the little window.”
“The air in the cells became dense, the smell of the excrement filled it, the heat was like in Calcutta, and the flies made the ceiling black,” wrote John Sack. “I’m choking, the Germans thought, and one even took the community razor blade and, in despair, cut his throat open with it.”
When the wretched inmates were at last pried from their hellish tombs, it was only for interrogation. Sack, Jewish author of An Eye for an Eye : The Story of Jews who sought Revenge for the Holocaust, continues:
As many as eight interrogators, almost all Jews, stood around any one German saying, “Were you in the Nazi Party?” Sometimes a German said, “Yes,” and the boys shouted, “Du schwein! You pig!” and beat him and broke his arm, perhaps, before sending him to his cell. . . . But usually a German said, “No,” and the boys … told him, “You’re lying. You were a Nazi.”
“No, I never was.”
“You’re lying! We know about you!”
“No, I really wasn’t—”
“Du lugst! You’re lying!” they cried, hitting the obstinate man. “You better admit it! Or you’ll get a longer sentence! Now! Were you in the Nazi Party?”
“No!”the German often said, and the [Jewish] boys had to beat him and beat him until he was really crying, “I was a Nazi! Yes!”
But sometimes a German wouldn’t confess. One such hard case was a fifty-year-old….
“Were you in the Party?”
“No, I wasn’t in it.”
“How many people work for you?”
“In the high season, thirty-five.”
“You must have been in the Party,” the boy deduced.
He asked for the German’s wallet, where he found a fishing license with the stamp of the German Anglers Association. Studying it, he told the German, “It’s stamped by the Party.”
“It’s not,” said the German.
He’d lost his left arm in World War I and was using his right arm to gesture with, and, to the boy, he may have seemed to be Heiling Hitler. The boy became violent.
He grabbed the man’s collar, hit the man’s head against the wall, hit it against it ten times more, threw the man’s body onto the floor, and, in his boots, jumped on the man’s cringing chest.
A half dozen other interrogators, almost all Jews, pushed the man onto a couch, pulled off his trousers, and hit him with hard rubber clubs and hard rubber hoses full of stones.
The sweat started running down the Jews’ arms, and the blood down the man’s naked legs.
“Warst du in der Partei?”
“Nein!”
“Warst du in der Partei?”
“Nein!” the German screamed—screamed, till the [Jewish] boys had to go to Shlomo’s kitchen for a wooden spoon and to use it to cram some rags in the German’s mouth. Then they resumed beating him. . . . The more the man contradicted them, the more they hated him for it.
After undergoing similar sessions on a regular basis, the victim was brought back for the eighth time.
By now, the man was half unconscious due to his many concussions, and he wasn’t thinking clearly. The boys worked on him with rubber and oak-wood clubs and said, “Do you still say you weren’t in the Party?”
“No! I didn’t say I wasn’t in the Party!”
“You didn’t?”
“No!” said the punch drunk man. “I never said it!”
“You were in the Party?”
“Yes!”
The boys stopped beating him. They practically sighed, as if their ordeal were over now. They lit up cigarettes….
“Scram,” one said to the German. The man stood up, and he had his hand on the doorknob when one of the boys impulsively hit the back of his head, and he fell to the floor, unconscious.
Aufstehen, du Deutsches schwein! Stand up, you German pig!” the [Jewish] boys said, kicking him till he stood up and collapsed again. Two boys carried him to his cell and dropped him in a corner….
Of course, the boys would beat up the Germans for “Yes”es as well as “No”s. In Glatz, the Jewish commandant asked a German policeman, “Were you in the Party?”
“Of course! I was obliged to be!”
“Lie down,” the commandant said, and six weeks later the [Jewish] boys were still whipping the German’s feet.
Some torture sessions lacked even the pretense of an examination. Remembered Eva Reimann:
My cell door opened. The guard, who, because of the foul smell, held a handkerchief to his nose, cried, “Reimann Eva! Come!” I was led to a first-floor room.
He shouted at me, “Take off your shoes!”
I took them off.
“Lie down!”
I lay down.
He took a thick bamboo stick, and he beat the soles of my feet. I screamed, since the pain was very great. . . . The stick whistled down on me. A blow on my mouth tore my lower lip, and my teeth started bleeding violently. He beat my feet again. The pain was unbearable….
The door opened suddenly, and, smiling obligingly, a cigarette in his mouth, in came the chief of the Office, named Sternnagel. In faultless German he asked me, “What’s wrong here? Why do you let yourself be beaten? You just have to sign this document. Or should we jam your fingers in the door, until the bones are broken. . . ?
A man picked me up by the ankles, raised me eight inches above the floor, and let me fall. My hands were tied, and my head hit hard. . . . I lay in a bloody puddle.
Someone cried, “Stand up!” I tried to, and, with unspeakable pain, I succeeded.
A man with a pistol came in, held it to my left temple, and said, “Will you now confess?”
I told him, “Please shoot me.” Yes, I hoped to be freed from all his tortures. I begged him, “Please pull the trigger.”
After barely surviving his “interrogation,” one fourteen-year-old German boy prisoner of war was taken to the camp infirmary. “My body was green, but my legs were fire red,” the boy said. “My wounds were bound with toilet paper, and I had to change the toilet paper every day. I was in the perfect place to watch what went on….
All the patients were being beaten in their beds. They were dying everywhere: in their beds, in the washroom, on the toilet. At night, I had to step over the dead, as if that were normal to do.”
When the supply of victims ran low, it was a simple matter to find more. John Sack continues:
One day, a German in pitch-black pants, the SS’s color, showed up in Lola’s prison. He’d been spotted near the city square by a Pole who’d said, “Fascist! You’re wearing black!”
At that, the German had bolted off, but the Pole chased him a mile to the Church of Saints Peter and Paul, tackled him by a gold mosaic, hit him, kicked him, and took him to Lola’s prison. Some guards, all girls, then seized the incriminating evidence: the man’s black pants, pulling them off so aggressively that one of the tendons tore. The man screamed, but the girls said, “Shut up!” and they didn’t recognize that the pants were part of a boy scout uniform.
The “man” was [only] fourteen years old.
The “girls” [female camp guards working for the Americans, probably Jewish women] decided to torture him with fire. They held down the German boy, put out their cigarettes on him, and, using gasoline, set his curly black hair afire.
At the larger prison camps, Germans died by the hundreds daily.
“You pigs!” the commandant then cried, and he beat the Germans with their stools, often killing them. At dawn many days, a Jewish guard cried, “Eins! Zwei! Drei! Vier!” and marched the Germans into the woods outside their camp. “Halt! Get your shovels! Dig!” the guard cried, and, when the Germans had dug a big grave, he put a picture of Hitler in. “Now cry!” the guard said. “And sing All the Dogs Are Barking!” and all the Germans moaned,
All the dogs are barking,
All the dogs are barking,
Just the little hot-dogs,
Aren’t barking at all.
The guard then cried, “Get undressed!” and, when the Germans were naked, he beat them, poured liquid manure on them, or, catching a toad, shoved the fat thing down a German’s throat. The German was soon dead.
Utterly unhinged by years of persecution, by the loss of homes and loved ones, for the camp operators, no torture, no sadism, no bestiality, seemed too monstrous to inflict on those now in their power.
Some Germans were forced to crawl on all fours and eat their own excrement as well as that of others. Many were drowned in open latrines. Hundreds were herded into buildings and burned to death or sealed in caskets and buried alive.
Near Lamsdorf, German women were forced to disinter bodies from a Polish burial site.
According to John Sack:
The women did, and they started to suffer nausea as the bodies, black as the stuff in a gutter, appeared. The faces were rotten, the flesh was glue, but the guards—who had often seemed psychopathic, making a German woman drink urine, drink blood, and eat a man’s excrement, inserting an oily five-mark bill in a woman’s vagina, putting a match to it—shouted at the women . . . “Lie down with them!”
The women [lay down], and the guards shouted, “Hug them!” “Kiss them!” “Make love with them!” and, with their rifles, pushed on the backs of the women’s heads until their eyes, noses and mouths were deep in the Polish faces’ slime. The women who clamped their lips couldn’t scream, and the women who screamed had to taste something vile.
Spitting, retching, the women at last stood up, the wet tendrils still on their chins, fingers, clothes, the wet seeping into the fibers, the stink like a mist around them as they marched back to Lamsdorf. There were no showers there, and the corpses had all had typhus apparently. and sixty-four women died.
Not surprisingly, the mortality rate at the concentration camps was staggering and relatively few survived. At one prison of eight thousand, a mere 1,500 lived to reach home. And of those “lucky” individuals who did leave with their lives, few could any longer be called human.
When a smattering of accounts began to leak from Poland of the unspeakable crimes being committed by the Allied forces, many in the West were stunned. “One would expect that after the horrors in Nazi concentration camps, nothing like that could ever happen again,” muttered one US senator, who then reported on beatings, torture and “brains splashed on the ceiling.”
“Is this what our soldiers died for?” echoed a Briton in the House of Commons.
Added Winston Churchill: “Enormous numbers [of Germans] are utterly unaccounted for. It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain.”
While Churchill and others in the West were expressing shock and surprise over the sadistic slaughter taking place in the Soviet Zone, precious little was said about the “tragedy on a prodigious scale” that was transpiring in their own backyard.
Lasha Darkmoon comments :
The “Allied Forces” who were responsible for all these war crimes consisted of four countries :  America, Britain, the Soviet Union and France. Of these four, it is indisputable that the Soviet Union was responsible for the most horrendous atrocities, including the mass rape of 2 million German women at the instigation of Stalin’s Jewish war propagandist Ilya Ehrenberg who advised the Soviet troops: “Use force and break the racial pride of these German women! Take them as your lawful booty! Kill!” (See here)
Was Stalin aware that his troops were raping German women of all ages in their hundreds of thousands and putting them to death with the most horrific tortures, such as nailing them to barn doors and thrusting telephone receivers up their bleeding, gang-raped vaginas? Of course, though Stalin apologists like to pretend that their hero, who had his spies and informants just about everywhere, was blissfully ignorant of all these appalling war crimes committed by his soldiers.
Stalin’s easy-going attitude to the mass rape and murder of German women was revealed in an unofficial, off-the-cuff comment he made to Yugoslav politician Milovan Djilas who had complained to him about Red Army rapes in Yugoslavia.
“Understand it ,” Stalin is reported to have said cynically, “that if a soldier who has crossed thousands of kilometres through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle.” On another occasion, when told that Red Army soldiers had sexually maltreated some German women, he said dismissively: “We lecture our soldiers too much; let them have their initiative.”
As for the Americans and Brits, though their war crimes (including rape and torture) were far more muted than those of the Soviet Union, any pretence that they were unaware of what Uncle Joe and his Asiatic hordes were up to in Germany, can be dismissed as arrant nonsense. Churchill’s expression of concern for the horrors of the war that were leaking out of Germany, and his sly attempt to suggest that the Soviets were the only culprits—”It is not impossible that tragedy on a prodigious scale is unfolding itself behind the Iron Curtain“—has to be the ultimate in sanctimonious hypocrisy. This, remember, was the blood-bespattered Destroyer of Dresden speaking, the carpet bomber of German cities full of fleeing and terrified German civilians. [LD] 

(Thomas Goodrich continues)
Among the millions imprisoned by the Allies were thousands of Germans accused of having a direct or indirect hand in war crimes. Because the victorious powers demanded swift and severe punishment, Allied prosecutors were urged to get the most damning indictments in as little time as possible. Unfortunately for the accused, their captors seemed determined to inflict as much pain as possible in the process.
“[W]e were thrown into small cells stark naked,” Hans Schmidt later wrote. “The cells in which three or four persons were incarcerated were six and a half by ten feet in size and had no windows or ventilation.”
When we went to the lavatory we had to run through a lane of Americans who struck us with straps, brooms, cudgels, buckets, belts, and pistol holders to make us fall down. Our head, eyes, body, belly, and genitals were violently injured. A man stood inside the lavatory to beat us and spit on us. We returned to our cells through the same ordeal. The temperature in the cells was 140 Fahrenheit or more.
During the first three days we were given only one cup of water and a small slice of bread. During the first days we perspired all the time, then perspiration stopped. We were kept standing chained back to back for hours. We suffered terribly from thirst, blood stagnation and mortification of the hands. From time to time water was poured on the almost red-hot radiators, filling the cells with steam, so that we could hardly breathe. During all this time the cells were in darkness, except when the American soldiers entered and switched on electric bulbs … which forced us to close our eyes.
Our thirst became more and more cruel, so that our lips cracked, our tongues were stiff, and we eventually became apathetic, or raved, or collapsed.
After enduring this torture for several days, we were given a small blanket to cover our nakedness, and driven to the courtyard outside. The uneven soil was covered with pebbles and slag and we were again beaten and finally driven back on our smashed and bleeding feet.
While out of breath, burning cigarettes were pushed into our mouths, and each of us was forced to eat three or four of them. Meanwhile the American soldiers continued to hit us on eyes, head, and ears. Back in our cells we were pushed against burning radiators, so that our skin was blistered.
For thirteen days and nights we received the same treatment, tortured by heat and thirst. When we begged for water, our guards mocked us. When we fainted we were revived by being drenched with cold water. There was dirt everywhere and we were never allowed to wash, our inflamed eyes gave us terrible pain, we fainted continuously.
Every twenty minutes or so our cell doors were opened and the soldiers insulted and hit us. Whenever the doors were opened we had to stand still with our backs to the door. Two plates of food, spiced with salt, pepper, and mustard to make us thirstier, were given us daily. We ate in the dark on the floor. The thirst was the most terrible of all our tortures and we could not sleep.
In this condition I was brought to trial.
During the Nazi war crimes trials and hearings, almost any method that would obtain a “confession” was employed. Eager to implicate high-ranking German officers in the Malmedy Massacre, [Jewish] American investigator Harry Thon ordered Wehrmacht sergeant Willi Schafer to write out an incriminating affidavit:
Next morning Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read my report, tore it up, swore at me and hit me. After threatening to have me killed unless I wrote what he wanted, he left. A few minutes later the door of my cell opened.
A black hood, encrusted with blood, was put over my head and face and I was led to another room.
In view of Mr. Thon’s threat the black cap had a crushing effect on my spirits. Four men of my company accused me, although later they admitted to having borne false testimony. Nevertheless I still refused to incriminate myself.
Thereupon, Mr Thon said that if I continued to refuse, this would be taken as proof of my Nazi opinions, and my death was then certain. He said I would have no chance against four witnesses, and advised me for my own good to make a statement—after which I would be set free. I still refused. I told Mr. Thon that although my memory was good, I was unable to recall any of the occurrences he wished me to write about and which, to the best of my knowledge, had never occurred.
Mr Thon left but returned in a little while with Lieutenant William Perl [another American Jew] who abused me, and told Mr Thon that, should I not write what was required within half an hour, I should be left to my fate. Lieutenant Perl made it clear to me that I had the alternative of writing and going free or not writing and dying.
I decided for life.
perl_williamLasha Darkmoon comments:
Lt. William R. Perl (pictured) was another Jew in an American uniform noted for the delight he took in torturing German prisoners of war. Perl was also a good friend and associate of the Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of the murderous Irgun terrorist organization in Israel.
Though Perl had lots of German blood on his hands, he was nevertheless allowed by the Americans to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War trials.
The Presiding Judge at that trial was his fellow Jew, Col. AH Rosenfeld, who cheerfully admitted to torturing German prisoners of war as a matter of policy. [LD]
§
Another Landser [= low-ranking German soldier] who was  unable to resist the pressure was Joachim Hoffman:
[W]hen taken for a hearing a black hood was placed over my head. The guards who took me to my hearing often struck or kicked me. I was twice thrown down the stairs and was hurt so much that blood ran out of my mouth and nose. At the hearing, when I told the officers about the ill treatment I had suffered, they only laughed. I was beaten and the black cap pulled over my face whenever I could not answer the questions put to me, or gave answers not pleasing to the officers. I was beaten and several times kicked in the genitals.
Understandably, after several such sessions, even the strongest German prisoners of war signed papers incriminating themselves and others.
“If you confess you will go free,” nineteen-year-old Siegfried Jaenckel was told. “You need only to say you had an order from your superiors. But if you won’t speak, you will be hung.”
Despite the mental and physical abuse, young Jaenckel held out as long as he could:
“I was beaten and I heard the cries of the men being tortured in adjoining cells, and whenever I was taken for a hearing I trembled with fear. Subjected to such duress, I eventually gave in and signed the long statement dictated to me.”
Far from being isolated or extreme cases, such methods of extorting confessions were the rule rather than the exception. American jurist Edward van Roden was to tell historian Freda Utley about the horrors being practiced in Germany by the Americans and their mostly Jewish interrogators:
Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal. Judge van Roden said: “All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.”
He told of one German who had had lighted matchsticks forced under his fingernails by the American investigators to extort a confession, and had appeared at his trial with his fingers still bandaged from the atrocity. (See
In addition to testimony given under torture, those who might have spoken in defense of the accused were prevented. Moreover, hired “witnesses” were paid by the Americans to parrot the prosecution’s charges.
When criticism such as Utley’s and van Roden’s surfaced, and even as victims were being hung by the hundreds, those responsible defended their methods.
“We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise,” laughed one Jewish “interrogator,” Colonel AH Rosenfeld. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”
THE NUREMBERG WAR TRIALS
117984d1403125470-artify-paddington-bear-special-o-nuremberg-trials-facebook-655x327
“It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”

KEY TEXTS: BACKGROUND READING

(Selected by Lasha Darkmoon)
—  Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm : The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947  (2014)
—  Thomas Goodrich, Rape Hate — Sex and Violence in War and Peace (2015)
—  JA Sexton and Lasha Darkmoon, Hellstorm, The Devil’s Cauldron: The Mass Rape of German Women by the Red Army and its Allies
—  Mark Weber, Part 2 of “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust”, On Torture at Nuremberg
—  Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (2009)
—  Mark Weber (book review of above), “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two.” (IHR: 2007).http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html 
—  James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944–1950 (2007)
—  James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II (2011)
—  Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest : The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People  (1992)
—  John Sack, An Eye For An Eye : The Story of Jews who sought Revenge for the Holocaust (2000)
See also : Address by John Sack at IHR conference “Behind An Eye for an Eye : Revenge, Hate and History” (May 2000) http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-9_Sack.html
—  Alfred-Maurice de Zayas,  A Terrible Revenge : The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (2006)
—  Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth Of German Villainy (2012)

=======================

Lasha Darkmoon : Torture and Testicle Crushing at Nuremberg

Torture and Testicle Crushing at Nuremberg

. . . by Lasha Darkmoon

Confessions at Nuremberg were obtained under torture. The grimmest of these tortures, practiced mostly by Jewish operatives on their German prisoners of war, was testicle crushing.
Nuremberg defendants(Left) German defendants at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials, 1946-1949. How many of them had their testicles crushed?
“The Holocaust legend is built on ‘confessions’ obtained by the use of  torture.” So begins an article that has just been brought to my attention by an unknown emailer.
At the same time, by sheer coincidence, another correspondent has just sent me some stomach-churning details about testicle crushing. He ends his letter with these words : “This is what Jewish interrogators did to their German prisoners of war after WWII in order to get them to “sing”—i.e., to confess to crimes they never committed.”
I was a bit shocked by these words. To tell the truth, testicle crushing is not something I have thought about a great deal, nor do I wish to dwell too much on this distasteful subject. I am aware of course that a lot of testicle crushing went on at Nuremberg in order to wring confessions out of the prostrate Germans, but I had been unaware that American  Jews had been foremost in the ranks of these torturers.
Apparently, as many as three out four interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jewish—and these Jewish interrogators, I was to learn to my horror, had been by far the most sanguinary and sadistic. There was almost no level of human depravity to which these monsters were not willing to sink, including forcing their German victims to eat excrement and to have sex with disinterred corpses.  (See below)
Yes, so this is something we ought to bear in mind when watching all those Hollywood movies celebrating the heroic deeds of the Allies in World War Two and lamenting the horrors of the Holocaust : that Jewish interrogators, working for the Americans, are known to have beaten, tortured, and crushed the testicles of German defendants before charging them with war crimes at Nuremberg. Without these confessions, obtained under extreme torture, there is no solid proof that any Jewish Holocaust took place at all. There is only legend, hearsay and “eyewitness accounts” : like those of Elie Wiesel and his kind—accounts that have turned out, in retrospect, to be based on pure fantasy, fiction, and grotesque exaggeration.
Proponents of the official storyline say that some of the strongest evidence that “proves” the Holocaust—i.e. the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews in gas chambers on the instructions of Hitler—consists of the supposed “confessions” of the German officials who were put on trial at Nuremberg. What they neglect to tell you is that most of these confessions were obtained under extreme torture. Indeed, according to Jewish investigator John Sack, torture was often practiced for its own sake, even when there was nothing to find out. It was practiced for sheer pleasure: because it gave the torturers a ‘high’, a feeling of sadistic omnipotence, of orgasmic euphoria.
It has since been openly admitted in the memoirs of the top British official, Colonel Alexander Scotland, who ran the interrogation program, that thousands of Germans were tortured by British Military Intelligence, under the direction of the Prisoner of War Interrogation Section (PWIS). This torture of German POWs occurred during the war to obtain military intelligence. After the war was over, it was used again in order to obtain confessions for convictions of “war crimes”.
German POWs reported that the torture techniques included deprivation of sleep, starvation, systematic beatings, ripping hair from the scalp, menacing with red-hot pokers, threatened use of electrical devices to deliver shocks, and, finally, the worst torture of all, the slow and systematic mangling of the spermatic cords of the testicles—a procedure that had their victims thrashing about and screaming like wild animals for hours.
The prosecutors at Nuremberg accused and convicted the Germans of murdering some 4 million people at Auschwitz. These charges were based largely upon the supposed “confessions” obtained by the torture of German officers, such as the signed “confession” by Rudolf Hössthe commandant at Auschwitz, giving details of how he had personally supervised the murder of 2.5 million jews.
In 1989, however, the Soviet government reduced the claim of the number killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1.5 million. (See picture below). This was later reduced to 1 million.

Auch_dees

It became apparent at once that if only 1 million Jews had died at Auschwitz, as was now officially admitted, it no longer became possible to state that 2.5 million Jews had been killed there under Höss while he was a commandant there. The “confession” by Höss that 2.5 million Jews had been killed at Auschwitz  under his auspices was therefore worthless. It had been a confession clearly extracted under torture.
If, moreover, only 1 million Jews perished at Auschwitz instead of the 4 million originally claimed to have died there, it’s obvious that there has been an overestimate of three million dead Jews.  It is no longer possible to assert that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. That becomes a mathematical impossibility. 
And yet, incredibly, this mathematical impossibility is brazenly asserted to this day in every mainstream media outlet.
21_52
We are all expected to pretend that 6 million Jews minus  3 million Jews somehow equals 6 million Jews, just as Winston Smith (in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four) was expected to believe that 2 + 2  = 5. Winston Smith, you will remember, managed to believe this absurdity in the end, with the help of a little extra tuition he received via the famous “rat torture“.        
§
The startling revelation that almost all the German defendants at Nuremberg had had their testicles crushed must make us sit up and think. How can testimonies obtained under testicle crushing be regarded in any way as reliable?
Following reports that defendants were tortured at the Malmedy massacre trial, the US Army formed the “Simpson Commission” to investigate the alleged misconduct.  Judge Edward L. Van Roden was part of this commission. According to Van Roden’s book, American Atrocities in Germany, out of 139 cases of treatment of alleged German “war criminals” who were investigated by the commission—and who were subsequently put on trial by the American Military Tribunal in Dachau after World War II—”137 of these Germans were tortured by having their testicles crushed.” 
Other methods used by the American interrogators included brutal beatings, placing a hood over prisoners and punching them in the face with brass knuckles, breaking their jaws, knocking out their teeth, putting them on starvation rations, and subjecting them to solitary confinement. The prisoners were then presented with prepared statements to sign. Confess or face more torture!
It emerged that Jewish prosecutors and interrogators had obtained complete control over the US Military tribunal that was to put German officials on trial for war crimes. This is seldom mentioned, as to do so is regarded as “anti-Semitic”. To state the unvarnished truth—that 137 Germans had their testicles mangled at Nuremberg by largely Jewish interrogators in order to obtain proof for the Holocaust—is regarded as “hate speech”.
perl_williamLt. William Perl (pictured left) was an Austrian Jew who had emigrated to America in 1940. He was the chief interrogator of Germans accused of the Malmedy massacre. This was because he could speak fluent German; and indeed many of the interrogators at Nuremberg were German or Austrian Jews who had emigrated to America before WWII and were known as the ‘Ritchie Boys’. There were roughly 9000 of these Jews in America and they specialized in the “interrogation” of German prisoners. (See here).
Perl supervised the torture of the German defendants. He was an ardent and active Zionist and was assisted by other Jews in his endeavors to extract confessions by the infliction of maximum pain. Jews specalizing in torture techniques at Nuremberg included  Josef Kirschbaum, Harry Thon and Morris Ellowitz. (See here)
This is what Wikipedia has to say about the interrogation of Germans at Malmedy:
“The accusations [against the German defendants]  were mainly based on the sworn and written statements provided by the defendants in Schwäbish Hall. To counter the evidence given in the men’s sworn statements and by prosecution witnesses, the lead defense attorney, Lieutenant Colonel Willis M. Everett tried to show that the statements had been obtained by inappropriate methods.
Note that exquisite euphemism: “inappropriate methods”. That’s how respectable, politically correct Americans refer to confessions obtained under torture. The methods are not described as horrendously cruel. They are not described as morally indefensible. They are described as “inappropriate”.
On Sept. 25, 1945, Thomas Dodd, who was the second in command on the American prosecution team at Nuremberg, made the following observation in which he claimed that three out of four interrogators at Nuremberg were Jewish:
“You know how I have despised anti-Semitism,” he said. “You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge, you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about seventy-five percent Jewish.”
One person who has made a close study of the Nuremberg trial archives in the original German and knows more about this subject than anyone else I know is the multilingual American scholar Carlos W. Porter who is fluent in German, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. Having renounced his American citizenship in 1984, and having then relocated to Belgium with his wife and children, the Holocaust revisionist author of “Not Guilty at Nuremberg” took the trouble to write to me about the Nuremberg trials in a private communication (July 28, 2015 at 9:55 pm). Porter confirmed what I had always suspected: that most of the American interrogators at Nuremberg had been Jews, and that torture had been freely practiced against the helpless Germans on trial in order to force them to confess to non-existent crimes:
“You can be absolutely CERTAIN,” Carlos Porter wrote to me, “that nearly ALL the interrogators and interpreters in ALL the trials were Jewish, because the Americans stamped out the German language from all American schools during WWI, so German Jewish refugees were almost the only competent people they had. Of course, other “German-Americans” could not be trusted not to be “Nazis”, so they were stuck with the German Jews.
That there was a great deal of mistreatment and torture in the minor trials is absolutely certain. I reproduced a couple of accounts of torture at the Dachau trials in “War Crimes Trials and Other Essays”. But I’m sure it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Minor personnel could be tortured with impunity, and 99% of them would be afraid even to mention it. It would be hard to get away with torturing somebody like Goering though.
There’s a lot of literature on the subject, more all the time. The Brits appear to have been surprisingly enthusiastic torturers, whether Jewish or not.”
Testicle crushing, incidentally, is a tried and tested method for obtaining confessions. It was used throughout the Middle Ages and particularly in France during the French Revolution. That the Jews, a scholarly race noted for their vast erudition and academic achievements, should have mastered all the techniques of testicle crushing is therefore not surprising. Their talents for acquiring such outré information must not be underestimated.
Though Perl had lots of German blood on his hands, he was nevertheless allowed by the Americans to serve as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg War trials. Another Jew of note at the Nuremberg war crimes trials was Richard W. Sonnenfeldt. He was the chief interpreter for American prosecutors such as Perl. He “interrogated” some of the most notorious Nazi leaders of World War II and died in 2009, age 86, at his home in Port Washington, N.Y. (See here)
The Presiding Judge at Nuremberg was also—coincidence?—a Jew. His name was A.H. Rosenfeld and he was a colonel in the American army. Col. Rosenfeld cheerfully admitted to torturing German prisoners of war as a matter of policy. “We couldn’t have made those birds talk otherwise,” he remarked cynically. “It was a trick, and it worked like a charm.”
antisemitism_Shlomo_MorelIn a recent private email to me, in response to some of my queries about torture at Nuremberg, Thomas Goodrich, acclaimed author of Hellstorm : The Death of Nazi Germany (1944-1947), mentioned the names of four well-known Jews in the American zone whom he identified as “torturer-inquisitors” : Harry Thon, William Perl, AH Rosenfeld, and Shlomo Morel.
This last-named individual, Shlomo Morel (pictured right), was a particularly nasty piece of work whom Goodrich describes as follows:
“a vicious monster who drowned men and women in outdoor latrines, who made them eat excrement, who personally beat captives to death, and who forced women to kiss and make love with disinterred corpses.”
(For more grisly details, confirming all this, see here)
After escaping from the killing fields of Germany, where he had taken immense pleasure in dancing over mounds of corpses and shedding rivers of human blood, this cruel psychopath  “lived out his life in comfort and ease in Israel.” Yes, Israel!the final bolthole and refuge dump for many a runaway Jew fleeing the long arm of the law, a place described in a prescient comment by Adolf Hitler as early as 1925 as “a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”  (Mein Kampf, chapter 11, excerpt.)
§
Here now are some grisly details about testicle crushing that the reader may find of some interest. These distasteful details are given here only because they are relevant to our discussion. If you are of a queasy disposition and prone to easy vomiting, you are advised to skip the description and stop reading right here. Remember that all this was done to 137 Germans at Nuremberg in order to extract confessions from them with a view to establishing the “truth” about the Holocaust. Without all that testicle crushing, the Holocaust might have been much harder to prove.
“Standard practice [to obtain castration] in France from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution was to crush the condemned’s testicles in a vise, which burst them as mush from the scrotum, then crunch the spermatic cords with pliers. The condemned was turned upside down in order to maximize the blood flow to his brain, after which he was unable to pass out or enter a state of shock until, perhaps, the last few seconds of his ordeal.
The condemned was sure to vomit repeatedly with violent convulsions, even well after he had voided the contents of his stomach, but he rarely screamed except for an initial shriek, which immediately silenced, because the pain overwhelmed his ability to breathe. Most men would hang and thrash wildly during and after the crushing of each testicle, and their thrashing would renew upon the crushing of each spermatic cord.
This torture method (accompanied by others) was usually reserved for the crime of regicide or attempted regicide. The condemned was mercifully put to death afterwards, but his torture routinely lasted for the better part of a day, witnessed by large crowds. It is interesting to note that, whereas most crowds were instructed to jeer, mock, and ridicule the condemned, and did so even during a disemboweling, and drawing and quartering, most crowds remained silent and stared with shocked expressions as a castration was carried out in this manner.
Onlookers, male and female, are recorded to have vomited at the sight of the spectacle. (See here and here)
Yes, they certainly knew what they were doing at Nuremberg! They were the experts.
Let Thomas Goodrich have the last word:
“A true history of the War can never be written since most of the participants are now dead and those yet living would never admit to their crimes. I am sure that the crimes committed against Germany that we KNOW of are just the beginning.” 
— Private email to this writer

Key Texts : Selected background reading

—  Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm : The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947
—  Mark Weber, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review (Vol. 12, No. 2), Summer 1992. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
—  Mark Weber, Part 2 of “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust”, On Torture at Nuremberg
—  Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (2009)
—  Mark Weber (book review of above), “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two.” (IHR: 2007). http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html 
—  James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944–1950 (2007)
—  James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II (2011)
—  Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest : The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People  (1992)
—  John Sack, An Eye For An Eye : The Story of Jews who sought Revenge for the Holocaust (2000)
See also : Address by John Sack at IHR conference “Behind An Eye for an Eye : Revenge, Hate and History” (May 2000) http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n1p-9_Sack.html
—  Alfred-Maurice de Zayas,  A Terrible Revenge : The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (2006)
—  Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth Of German Villainy (2012)

 https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/torture-and-testicle-crushing-at-nuremberg/
=====================

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

J. Bellinger - Death Sentence:The Case of Willy Frey

Death Sentence:The Case of Willy Frey

By Joseph P. Bellinger

Willy Frey was 22 years old when he was placed on trial by the allies for his alleged participation in a 'common design' to murder or abuse inmates at Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria. The Presiding Judge at the trial was A. H. Rosenfeld, whose rulings in nearly every instance favored the prosecution. The prosecuting attorney on behalf of the United States was the insufferable egotist William Denson, who, like George Bush, believed he was on a divine mission from God to personally rid the world of real or imaginary 'Nazis.' His assistant, a Jew named Paul Guth, served as Denson's chief interrogator and was commissioned to extract self-incriminating 'confessions' from the accused by any means necessary. Torture, deceit and beatings were all part of the process. Witnesses for the prosecution were offered inducements to testify by means of financial rewards and there was no end to those who were ready, willing and able to testify merely for the sake of extracting revenge against their erstwhile guards and overseers.

More often than not, the accusers bore distinctive Jewish surnames. All witnesses for the prosecution consulted at great length with the prosecution team before taking the stand. The accused were compelled to wear large placards around their necks bearing numbers in bold black print so that they could more easily be 'identified' by their accusers. Although the counsel for the defense persistently complained about this unsubtle, highly irregular and prejudicial procedure, the panel of judges comprising the 'tribunal,' always ruled against them.

It would seem that Willy was born under a bad sign. Both of his parents died while he was still young and, having no other relatives to provide for him, he was subsequently forced to try and support himself by working as a common laborer. Unable to continue with his scholastic studies, Willy had to drop out of school after having just completed the eighth grade.

At the age of seventeen, Willy was imprisoned by the Nazis and the SS and charged with 'sabotage to the State,' and was shifted from one concentration camp to another. Willy explained the circumstances of his arrest as follows:

"I had friends in the Socialist Democratic movement. A month before I was to be drafted into the SS, I tried to get away because my friends said that National Socialism was planning for war and that would throw Germany into the abyss. I cut open the vein in my left hand."

At his trial Willy explained that the mayor of the town in which he lived, tried to force him to join the SS because "the community had no money and could not support me."

Former Kapo [Hans] Schmeling testified against Willy and declared that the youngster had beaten prisoners to death in April 1945. Willy was asked to respond to these accusations by his defence attorney:

"Willy, do you remember the testimony of the witness Schmeling?"

"Schmeling said that in April 1945, I beat up prisoners to death in the tent camp."

"What do you have to say to that?"

"I wasn't in Mauthausen then. I don't know where that tent camp was."

Do you remember the testimony of the witness Marsalek?"

"Marsalek said that I was room eldest in block twenty-four and that I quieted people down in the evening by beating them."

"What do you have to say about that?"

"It's true that I was in block twenty-four-but he wants to make me responsible for the things he did."

"What was your position in the camp?"

"A regular prisoner."

"Were you ever made a kapo or block leader?"

"No. Those were older people who had been in that camp longer."

"Did you ever beat any prisoner?"

"Well, if somebody stole my bread I beat him. And he beat me. I couldn't let them steal my bread. We beat each other. That was in every camp."

"How many camps have you been in, Willy?"

"Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz, and Mauthausen."

"Did the prisoners fight among themselves in those camps?"

"Yes. They stole food and clothing and shoes, anything they could get hold of."

"Do you remember the testimony of the witness Lefkowitz?"

"I remember. He said I made a head count in the forest camp and put people in groups of five, and a young girl wasn't standing properly so I beat her until the blood was running down her head and she fell down."

"What do you have to say to that?"

"Prisoners had nothing to do with the head count. That was a matter for the block leaders. And I'll tell you now that if I didn't have this number hanging around my neck, these witnesses wouldn't identify me because they have never seen me before. They were told my number before they came into court. They didn't look at my face. They only looked at my number. It's a funny thing, too, that when we first got our charge sheets, not a single one of the prosecution witnesses knew me. No one ever stopped me or called me over. But after Lieutenant GUTH put us together in the bunker, all of a sudden everyone calls me "The Kapo."


"Willy, I hand you prosecution's exhibit 133. Why did you put these things down if they were not true?"

"I was afraid that if I said no, I would be beaten again."

"Had you been beaten before?"

"Yes, in Mossburg. Severely. An American officer put a pistol on my chest and said he would shoot me."

At this point the chief prosecutor, Denson, jumps to his feet and protests: "I object to any further testimony along this line unless it has some connection to this case."

The president of the tribunal, Rosenfeld, sustained the objection.

Denson rose to cross examine the witness:

"What is the name of the officer who interrogated you here in Dachau?"

"Lieutenant Conn," replied Frey, pointing to an officer seated in the courtroom.

"You received no mistreatment here at the hands of Lieutenant Conn, did you?"

"No, but the court really cannot have any impression of what spiritual condition I was in at that time."

Denson snapped back, "We are not asking you at this time about your 'spiritual condition,' Willy. At the time you signed the statement, you knew the difference between true and not true, did you not?"

"I didn't know anything," replied Willy lethargically.

When asked about his subscription into the SS, Willy turned and asked the presiding judge to speak freely.


"I was imprisoned by the Nazis and the SS when I was seventeen for sabotage to the state. I don't understand how I can be accused of being one of them, [pointing to the other defendants] in any 'common design.' I wouldn't kill any prisoners. Witness Schmeling was a worse beater. He was the worst kapo in camp. And he wants to make prisoners who were in the camp only a few days responsible for the evil things he did. As soon as the Americans came in, Schmeling hid at once so the prisoners wouldn't catch him because they would have killed him, too. And the witness Marsalek? I hold him responsible for German prisoners who were killed after the liberation. He went through the barracks with the first camp clerk and picked out prisoners and kapos and block eldests who behaved badly toward the prisoners-and he had them killed either through shooting or beating to death. But he knew I wasn't bad and he told the Russians who wanted to pick me up, 'Leave Frey alone. He came from Auschwitz. He hasn't got anything to do with Mauthausen.' Those two Jews, Ziegelmann and Lefkowitz? I never saw them in my life, and they were probably in the same position as I was. And they probably had very little school too, because they couldn't even spell their names when the defense counsel asked them to. It's a funny thing when bums like that can say, 'Yes, this guy beat this other guy to death,' and they don't even know me. I will say again, if the court would have left out the numbers, I wouldn't have been recognized and I wouldn't have been identified. To make me out as if I was worse than the Gauleiter - it's not true. I never beat a prisoner, and I never beat a prisoner to death. I ran away from a dead body when I saw one. That is all."

Willy Frey never got an even break in his life. Orphaned at a young age, with little more than an elementary school education, driven to attempt suicide, arrested by the SS and incarcerated in some of the worst of the concentrations camps until he finally ended up in Mauthausen, where he is subsequently denounced by other inmates. Held in allied custody for four years, tortured and beaten into signing a false confession, he is placed on trial in a kangaroo court which charges him as 'participating in a common design' to commit murder against unspecified, unidentified persons. Accused of beating other prisoners, Willy's only option was to tell the truth as he experienced it, admitting that he only beat others when they tried to steal his food. In camps like Auschwitz and Mauthausen, to steal another inmate's food was considered by all inmates alike to be a crime akin to murder, and those who were caught stealing food were invariably killed by their fellow prisoners.

For the court that sat in judgment of Willy Frey, his sentence was a foregone conclusion: He was sentenced to death. Sentence was carried out on 28 May, 1947.

Witness Credibility Meter


Hans Marsalek, a former inmate and professional 'witness, who assisted the allies in obtaining the 'death bed confession' of former Mauthausen commander Franz Ziereis, who was shot in the back while 'attempting to escape." Prior to 1938 Marsalek undertook work on behalf of 'communist victims' of Nazi 'persecution,' whilst ignoring the victims who suffered as a result of communist terror. When ordered to report for duty in the Wehrmacht, Marsalek fled to Prague in 1938. Marsalek claims he was a pacifist opposed to all war, but rushed to join the Czechoslovakian army to fight against his countrymen. Whilst in Czechoslovakia, he expanded his contacts with the communist underground and served as a courier for a Soviet agent named Slanzl, "who was in Prague on a certain assignment."

Slanzl sent him to Vienna to recruit agents willing to carry out acts of subversion and sabotage on behalf of the Soviet Union.

He and Slanzl worked together and carried out 'various missions' which he declines to enumerate. Marsalek's job was to deliver various instructions to communist cells in Austria. He soon entered into Vienna illegally and set to work recruiting two men in the German Wehrmacht whom he knew to be communists.

Unable to establish contact, Marsalek was arrested by the Gestapo on 28 October 1941 and taken to the local prison where he was interrogated. On 9 September, 1942, he was transferred to Mauthausen in Southern Austria where he was given an easy desk job as camp secretary.

Marsalek's account of his activities during those years is remarkably polished, having been obviously well-rehearsed and memorized by rote.

Prior to liberation, when the SS staff fled, the entire camp was plunged into chaos, and all the inmates refused to life a finger to help the disabled, sick or dying. According to Marsalek, "from this point on no inmate was ready to do anything more for the others....the sick weren't getting any more care. Of course they were still being treated by the physicians, but the orderlies weren't doing anything to help...Everything was filthy, infested with lice and bedbugs, soiled with excrement...and nobody wanted to cook anymore."

No longer under the supervision of the SS, the camp dissolved into anarchy.

Marsalek and the other camp secretaries, cognizant of the danger of epidemics such as typhus and cholera, went about "organizing the living conditions in Barracks 1-24" until the Americans arrived on 7 May, 1945.

On the 27 May a courier arrived at the doors of Mauthausen, dressed in full communist regalia, and approached Marsalek and ordered him to report to Vienna and work on behalf of the Communists. Marsalek enthusiastically accepted the commission. On his final day at Mauthausen, Marsalek reclaimed all his personal property which had been held in SS trust since his arrival at the camp in 1942!

On the very same day, the Communist Marsalek was promoted from former prisoner to police officer in Vienna. His unwavering commitment to Communism never faltered.

After some period of time, he was reassigned to the Ministry of the Interior to 'set up the Mauthausen Memorial' in 1964. Marsalek freely concedes that he falsified the numbers of prisoners on the plague which adorns the entrance to the camp.

He participated in the preparation of a Mauthausen 'guidebook' and organized public rallies for political purposes. He declines to comment in respect to his participation in the Mauthausen trial, where his sworn testimony led to numerous death sentences for the accused.

Marsalek has since been beatified and canonized by exterminationists. In a recent interview he continues to parrot the old communist themes, focusing on the alleged persecution of homosexuals and the heroism of feminists in resisting the Nazis. A sample of his testimony may be heard at:


http://www.mauthausen-memorial.at/

-Hans Marsalek


Notable quote: "For a long time I didn't notice that I had become a part of this death machinery."



Chronology of Hans Marsalek

1914 born in Vienna (Austria) by parents of Czech descent; grows up in a modest social democratic milieu, attends the Czech school in Vienna, afterwards apprenticeship as type setter, member of the "Socialist Workers Youth"

1936-1938 joins the resistance movement of the "Rote Hilfe" against the authoritarian corporative "Ständestaat"

1938 after his conscription to the "Wehrmacht" escape to Prague, where he is actively working for the social democratic organisation of emigrants

from 1940 joins the communist-Czech resistance movement in Prague and Vienna

October 1941 arrested in Prague, imprisonment in several prisons in Vienna

September 1942 transferred to KZ Mauthausen; after a few weeks in several working commandos he becomes "Schreiber" (office clerk) in the "Lagerschreibstube"

from May 1944 "Lagerschreiber II" of the main camp Mauthausen

May 1945 after the liberation return to Vienna where he joins the police force (until 1963), entrusted primarily with the investigation concerning neo-Nazi activities

from 1946 takes an essential part in the founding and preservation of the Mauthausen Memorial; marries Anni Vavak (died 1959), a survivor of KZ Ravensbrück

from 1952 founding member of the International Mauthausen Committee

1964-1976 head of the memorial and museum Mauthausen within the ministry of the Interior married with Hilda Zinsler, as of 2000 he was still living in Vienna (Austria)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Carlos Porter - Creative Justice: Conviction Without Accusation - The Case of Schoepp and Gretsch

Creative Justice: Conviction Without Accusation - The Case of Schoepp and Gretsch

By Carlos Porter

In war crimes trials, "conspiracy", "design", and "plan", are used sometimes synonymously, and sometimes not. The doctrine of conspiracy was borrowed from American state and lower Federal Court decisions, particularly Marino vs. US, 91 Fed. 2d. 691, Circuit Court of Appeals. The rest of the world, of course, was not placed on notice to obey these decisions. In 1945, conspiracy was a concept unknown to international law. An example of the unfairness of this doctrine in practice is provided by the case of Schoepp and Gretsch, in the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss, Dachau, Nov. 15 Dec. 13, 1945, M1175 National Archives, beginning on microfilm page 000691.

DEFENSE: I would like to make a statement to the court relative to the defendants of Schoepp and Gretsch. There has been no evidence against either of these men, either by the prosecution or by any witness for the defense. Therefore, they have nothing that they have to defend. But they ask me to say to the court that they throw themselves on the court, if there are any questions that any member of the court would like to ask them. They have nothing to hide, and it would be up to the court to ask them any questions they might have.

PROSECUTION: May it please the court... whether or not there is any evidence before the court as to the criminality and culpability with respect to Schoepp and Gretsch, it is a matter which this court has already decided, in their rulings on the motion for a directed verdict of not guilty. It may be the position of the defense counsel that there is no evidence, but I think it is grossly improper to put the court into the position of asking the accused to be put on the stand. I think it is highly improper for the defense counsel to ask the court to reveal their attitude by putting them in the position of asking the accused Schoepp and Gretsch to take the stand. I think that that is an election which should be made by the accused themselves, after they have conferred with counsel, and it is certainly improper to ask this court whether or not they have any questions that they want to ask the accused at this time.

DEFENSE: May it please the court, that isn't the point at all. These men have nothing to say on the stand, but they don't want the court to get the impression that they are refusing to take the stand, or refusing to answer any questions. They are merely throwing themselves on the court, with these words: "I have nothing to hide". There is no point in their taking the stand. I wouldn't know what to ask them. The prosecution has not brought one thing out against them. There is nothing for them to defend. But they don't want the court to get the idea they are hiding anything, and for that reason they open themselves to the request of the court. There is nothing improper about that. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that these men are guilty of what they are charged with. There has been no evidence brought out against them. The prosecution takes the position that the burden is on them to prove that they are innocent.

PROSECUTION: The answer to that is that these men are charged with acting in pursuance of a common design to subject these prisoners to killings, beatings, tortures, starvation, abuses, and indignities. We have shown by our case that these men were guards, and as such they acted in pursuance of a common design to subject these people to the beatings, killings, starvation, and so forth, as charged in the particulars. I again say that it is entirely up to the accused, with the advice of their counsel, to either take the stand or remain silent, as they see fit, but to try to put this court into the position of making an election, or even attempting to disclose their opinion as to their guilt or innocence at this time, is grossly improper.

PRESIDENT: The defense will proceed with their case.

DEFENSE: Do I understand, Sir, that the court desires them to take the stand?

PRESIDENT: The court is not going to express itself one way or the other. We have already passed on your motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, at the conclusion of the prosecution's case. You can proceed with your case in any way you think best.

ALBIN GRETSCH, one of the accused, was then called to the stand by the defense as a witness in his own behalf, and testified through the interpreter as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION:Questions by the defense:

Q: What is your name?

A. Albin Gretsch.

Q: How old are you?

A: Forty six years.

Q: Where were you born?

A: Augsburg.

Q: Did you ever participate in a common design to murder or to mistreat any prisoners, or any persons?

A: No.

DEFENSE: No further questions (!)

On cross,the prosecution showed that he was a guard, that he had a gun, and that there were bullets in that gun. On redirect, the defense showed that he never fired a shot. Gretsch was convicted of "aiding and abetting in a common design".

JOHANN SCHOEPP, one of the accused, was called to the stand by the defense as a witness in his own behalf, and testified through the interpreter as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION:Questions by the defense:

Q: What is your name?

A: Johann Schoepp.

Q: How old are you?

A. Thirty four and half years.

Q: Where were you born?

A: In Alcen, Rumania.

Q: Are you a Rumanian citizen?

A: Yes.

DEFENSE: No further questions (!)

On cross, the prosecution showed that he was a reserve guard on a transport. On redirect, the defense showed he had no gun, no orders, nothing to do, and was a conscript assigned to the German Army from the Rumanian Army. He was convicted of "aiding and abetting in a common design".

EXCERPTS FROM PROSECUTION SUMMATION, beginning on microfilm page 000857)

PROSECUTION (Lt. Col. Denson)...The case has been long. This court has heard the oral testimony of over 170 witnesses...I would like to call the court's attention and wish to emphasize the fact that the offense with which these 40 men stand charged is not killing, beating, and torturing these prisoners but the offense is aiding, abetting, encouraging and participating in a common design to kill, to beat, to torture, and to subject these persons to starvation.

Note that there is no mention of a gas chamber. That accusation was dropped before trial, but reintroduced into evidence at Nuremberg, even though it was known to be false.

It may be, because of the testimony submitted here, that this court may be inclined to determine the guilt or innocence of these forty men by the number of men they killed, or by the number of men they beat, or the number they tortured. That is not the test that is to be applied in this case... We are not trying these men for specific acts of misconduct. We are trying these men for participation in this common design... as a matter of fact, this case could have been established without showing that a single man over in that dock at any time killed a man. It would be sufficient, may it please the court, to show that there was in fact a common design, and that these individuals participated in it, and that the purpose of this common design was the killings, the beatings, and the tortures and the subjection to starvation... The evidence before this court demonstrates beyond all peradventure of a doubt the existence of this common design. It is not contended, nor is it necessary to sustain, the charges that this common design had its origin in Dachau, nor was it first conceived in January 1942...

Note that the word "conspiracy" is avoided at all times, apparently to give the prosecution more leeway than allowed in conspiracy cases. It was never revealed where the "design" originated, who made it, when and where, whether it was in writing or oral, or who was present.

EXCERPTS FROM JUDGMENT: 13 December 1945

PRESIDENT: The evidence presented to this court convinced it beyond any doubt that the Dachau Concentration Camp subjected its inmates to killings, beatings, tortures, indignities, and starvation to an extent and to a degree that necessitates the indictment of everyone, high and low, who had anything to do with the conduct and the operation of the camp. This court reiterates that, although appointed by a conquering nation as a military government court in a conquered land, it sits in judgment under international law and under such laws of humanity and customs of human behavior that is recognized by civilized people. Many of the acts committed at Camp Dachau had clearly the sanction of the high officials of the then customs of the German government itself. It is the view of this court that when a sovereign state sets itself up above reasonably recognized and constituted law or is willing to transcend readily recognizeable constituted customs of human and decent treatment of persons, the individuals effecting such policies of their state must be held responsible for their part in the violation of international law and the customs and laws of humanity.

Note that no references are given to any provisions of any laws constituting the legality of the court, the trial, or the crimes of the defendants.

The accused and counsel will stand. The accused will present themselves individually in the order in which they are numbered before the bench.

Thirty six of the forty defendants were sentenced to be hanged, two to life imprisonment, and Schoepp and Gretsch to ten years. Appeal was permitted as to sentence, but not as to the merits of the case. Twenty eight of the defendants were actually hanged. Most of the rest were released in the 1950s.