HOMEPAGE | DONATIONS | ARCHIVE-GERMAN| ARCHIVE-ENGLISH | GERMAN LOSSES | GERMAN HISTORY | THE MAILBOX
|
The Origins of Thought
Suppression in Germany Every decent person is of course against war criminals, such as people who send airplanes into foreign lands to drop bombs on the civilians there from a height of 50,000 feet and individuals who torture helpless prisoners. But sometimes the term "war criminal" is perversely stretched to include individuals who are not criminals and are not even involved in a war, as happened at the Nuremberg Trials. On August 8, 1945, the Allies signed the London Agreement. This legal pact mandated the prosecution of supposed "war criminals" by the International Military Tribunal. The agreement was signed by representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union - the victors of the war. The people to be tried were the losers of the war. No Allied war criminal was even considered for trial. No neutral or pro-Axis nation was allowed to have anything to say about it. Here is an article by oft-jailed dissident German historian Udo Walendy about this scandalous agreement. By Udo Walendy Since its principles are directed against Germany alone, the London Decree does not recognize "war criminals" of other nations, particularly those of the victors. The principles of "equal rights for all" and of "no laws with retroactive legal force," and also the principles of international law, according to which it is illegal to interfere in the domestic affairs of foreign states - this includes legislation and jurisdiction - are all violated by the London Decree. The decree is as follows (original text in From the Files of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg [IMT], Vol. 1, 12): The governments of Great Britain, the United States, France and the Soviet Union have reached agreement in London (according to a British White Book) as to the prosecution of the main war criminals of the European Axis. This agreement plans to set up an international military tribunal after consulting the control council for Germany concerning the case against the main war criminals, with reference to the Moscow declaration of October 30, 1943, that reserves the punishment of the main war criminals, whose deeds cannot be defined geographically, to a common decision of the governments of the Allies. The signatory states of the agreement pledge to arrest the war criminals on their own territory or by extradition for the purpose of trial. The agreement does not anticipate judgment with respect to the regulations of the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war criminals to the countries where the crimes were committed. The statutes of the International Military Tribunal representing an essential portion of the agreement consist of seven articles. In the first article (parts 1-5) the International Military Tribunal is established, and it is decided that the court will consist of a representative and deputy of each of the four signatory powers and the presence of all eight representatives and deputies is required for a quorum. The tribunal rules by a majority of the votes. In case of a parity of votes the president of the tribunal rules. The possible establishment of other tribunals is planned. The second article deals with general principles of jurisdiction. In part six it is stated that the tribunal established by the agreement mentioned in part one of the first article for passing sentence on the main war criminals of the states belonging to the European Axis has the right to try all persons who in the interest of the European Axis states have committed one of the following crimes either as individuals or as members of an organization or group: a) Crimes against peace: that is, planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an aggressive war or a war in violation of international treaties, settlements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or in a conspiracy of performing one of the acts mentioned above. In part seven of the second article it is stated that the official rank of a defendant, be it head of a state or as a responsible public servant, shall neither pass for exemption from execution nor as an extenuating circumstance. In part eight it is stated that the fact that a defendant acted on order of his government or a superior shall not be considered as exemption from punishment, but may, however, be regarded as an extenuating circumstance if the tribunal so decides. In part nine it is stated that in a
trial against an individual member of a group or
organization the tribunal (in connection with any deed the
defendant is convicted of) can declare the entire group or
organization of which the defendant was a member to be
criminal. After receiving the charge the tribunal
appropriately notifies the group or organization that the
prosecution intends to file a petition. In this case each
member of the group or organization is entitled to file a
petition to be heard on the question of the criminal
character of the group or organization. The tribunal has the
right to permit or reject the petition. If the petition is
permitted the tribunal determines how the petitioner shall
be represented and heard. In part 10 it is stated that if a group or organization has been declared criminal by the tribunal, then the competent national authority of each signatory power has the right to bring an action against any person for belonging to such a criminal group or organization before national, military or occupation courts. In such a case, the criminal character of the group or organization is taken for granted and considered beyond question. In part 11 it is stated that each person sentenced by the tribunal can be charged with a crime different from the affiliation with a criminal group or organization. In case of the conviction of the accused for such affiliation, the tribunal can impose additional penalties. In part 12 it is stated that the tribunal is entitled to proceed with the trial in the absence of the person charged with one of the crimes mentioned in part six of this decree if the accused cannot be located or if the tribunal for other reasons in the interest of justice deems it necessary to try the case in the absence of the accused. In the third article, parts 14 and 15 state that the committee for trial and prosecution of main war criminals shall stipulate that each signatory power nominate a chief prosecutor for the determination of proceedings against the main war criminals and for their prosecution, and that these chief prosecutors form a committee that passes judgment by a majority of votes. Their duties will be established. In the fourth article, part 16 states that each accused party receiving an indictment shall be provided with proper notice as to the time of the hearing in a language intelligible to him, that he is entitled to explain the actions he is charged with, that the preliminary inquiry shall be carried on in a language comprehensible to him, that he has the right to defend himself or be represented by a lawyer, and that he is entitled to produce evidence directly or through his lawyer and to cross-examine each witness for the prosecution. In the fifth article, part 18 states that the tribunal shall: a) Curtail the trial to an expeditious hearing of the charges, Part 19 states that the tribunal is not obligated to observe the rules of proof, that it shall broadly proceed in a fast and informal manner and that it will allow at its discretion any evidence that seems of value. Part 20 states that prior to hearing evidence, the tribunal may demand information about it in order to decide on its importance. Part 21 states that the tribunal shall not demand evidence for notorious facts but shall bear them in mind ex officio; included are public government records and reports of the United Nations, including the actions and documents of the committees in the different Allied countries installed for the investigation of war crimes, as well as the protocols and decisions by military or other courts of any of the United Nations. Part 24 states that witnesses of the prosecution are in the course of trial to be interrogated first and thereafter those for the defense. After this the prosecution or counsel for the defense may introduce counter-evidence deemed admissible by the tribunal. Part 29 states that if the control council for Germany, after having sentenced an accused, uncovers further evidence that could serve as a basis for a new charge, it shall report accordingly to the committee established in keeping with Part 14 of this decree, in order to take steps that seem suitable in the interest of justice. Part 30 stipulates that all legal expenses are to be covered by funds at the disposal of the control council of Germany. The agreement was subsequently joined by Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Abyssinia, Honduras, Norway, Panama, Luxembourg, Haiti, New Zealand, India, Venezuela, Uruguay and Paraguay. Conclusions The London Decree, which is nothing less than the basic de facto law of contemporary Germany, is in its entire outline a general power of attorney for the victors, clothed in juridical terms, for imposing punishment on the defeated German people, from death, imprisonment and extradition to defamation, and for establishing the "collective guilt" of the German people. When in Part 6 new types of crimes ("crime against humanity" and "crime against peace") were retroactively introduced, the wording "participation in a conspiracy" allows the prosecution of any German soldier or worker who had been fighting for Germany. The arbitrary definition of an organization of the defeated enemy as "criminal" and the penal incrimination of each member of the organization, regardless of whether or not he himself committed a crime, is a measure which future generations will condemn as itself a crime against humanity. Part 19, which releases the tribunal from any rule of evidence, and Part 21, according to which the tribunal shall not demand evidence for "self-evident" facts but bear them in mind, ex officio, not only disdain all justice, but also demonstrate that the authorities of the "civilized nations" knew which miscarriages of justice they needed to carry out the desired vengeance. If one moreover considers the use of the formula "self-evident facts" in the tribunal proceedings, the shamelessness of the new international law becomes altogether evident. The whole arrangement then was named "new natural law" set up by the "civilized and peace-loving nations" as opposed to the "unlawful Nazi state," supposedly uniquely "criminal" and supported by "criminal organizations." Incidentally, the General Assembly of the United Nations approved of the London Decree as well as the verdicts of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This characterizes the degree to which under the victorious powers the definition of natural law and the international organizations deriving from it start from unjust prerequisites and therefore can guarantee neither justice nor peace. The brainwashing of the German nation began with occupation law, and continued with professional licenses and prohibition of profession. (It should be noted that obtaining these licenses usually involved hundreds of thousands of Reichsmarks or occupation marks.) The power structure and guidelines were established - the succession policy worked like a transmission belt, transferring the views of the rulers onto the masses. Only those who agreed to "howl with the wolves," who accepted - without criticism - everything, could participate in the reconstruction of Germany. Even better was to refer eagerly and with moral indignation to the slower rethinkers, and thereby to transfer to others the inculcated portions of guilt. What kind of people came streaming into defeated Germany from the ends of the Earth? Let another pass judgment on this. Writes Kurt Ziesel: Instead of apostles of humanity, apostles of hate came to Germany, instead of genuine democrats came deceived worshippers of Communism, and began that strange kind of re-education of German people, eagerly assisted by these hasty servants of new masters and by the hyenas of misery, which appear at all catastrophes in world history... These ambitious carpetbaggers moved into positions of power without difficulty and heaped all responsibility and all blame upon the small idealists who were then dragged through the camps for years on end, who were robbed of their income and their property and were driven into misery and bitterness, while numerous opportunists, formerly under Josef Goebbels as well as other National Socialist bigwigs, then pretended to be "democratic re-educators." I must state here with emphasis that no one could or would be forced in the Third Reich to write something or to announce publicly what was not his own opinion. This is not now the case. For example, in 1945 a man in a Norwegian officer's uniform came to Germany. His name before he had fled Germany because of his Communist connections in 1933 was Herbert Frahm, his new name: Willy Brandt. This Norwegian news correspondent of the New York Overseas News Agency, which supplied the American newspapers, had furnished war-propaganda horror reports during the war about alleged happenings within the German-dominated regions, including "the 6 million destroyed Jews" tale (Die Welt - U.S. journalist H.R. Wishengrad of The New York Times). In 1942, Brandt had published a textbook for partisans called Guerrilla War, an instruction book for assassination. Finally, in his book Verbrecher und Andere Deutsche ("Criminals and Other Germans," Oslo, 1946), he commended himself with the following views as a representative of "progressive" politics: I have never been enthusiastic about death sentences, but as the way in which we live is constructed, I believe that it will be necessary to wipe out many worthless Nazi lives (pg 32) On March 26, 1957, according to press reports (Deutsche Wochenzeitung, Hanover, March 11, 1961), he was quoted as saying to the Danish daily Politiken: The German people suffer from the fact that they never had a genuine revolution. This chance existed in 1945, but the Allies spoiled it. Germany, historically seen, would have done well if, let us say, a million scoundrels and also some thousands of Kreisleiters [local leaders] had been expedited into eternity - and by their own countrymen. Willy Brandt became governing mayor of West Berlin, presiding officer of the SPD and federal chancellor. His friend, a man named Wehner, explained on October 7, 1930, in the Saxon Diet: We have the impression that one crime against the working class follows another, and the Social-Democratic treason against the workers is the systematic impediment of the struggle of the working masses by the Social-Democratic Party and the union bureaucracy. We Communists will make your lives, gentlemen, still a little more sour, so sour, in fact, that you will suffocate from it. We will see to it that we will be able to join this one-sixth of the earth [the USSR]; we will see to it that our table will be cleared of the bourgeoisie and her helpers as it has been done in the Soviet Union. These few citations make it plain at least what the attitudes were of those people who emerged during the reconstruction of postwar West Germany. But there came still quite different people into the defeated land. Anton Zischka wrote: It was dismantled "with a vengeance," and nearly exclusively by "industry officers," who in private life were experienced competitors of the Germans. (War es ein Wunder? pg 126) The political personnel reservoir of the victors in the East and West was fed from worldwide sources. Some came in foreign uniforms and acquired German passports or names, some remained in Allied secret services, some shifted from concentration camps into high positions, and some remained as writers, now equipped with surprising new mental gifts. There were also numerous professors who, like Michael Freund, had written scientific, rather tendentious books supportive of National Socialist policies, and then suddenly arrived at the surprising conclusion - and also trained their graduate students in this - that the Third Reich had been an "epileptic seizure of the German people," a "nonsensical regime equipped with the mark of Cain's surpassing foolishness" (from the foreword in the book by his graduate student W. Bernhardt, The German Armament 1934-1939). It is understandable from such hatred that all documentary forgeries, all perversions of justice, all murders and mass murders of the Allies and their auxiliaries were accepted without objections or were quietly ignored by such professors, but also by others like, for example, Prof. Walter Rofer, who states clearly that the "brown era must not be considered objectively," or professors who reject the admission of certain historical facts as "undesirable." Such closed-mindedness is indeed the foundation of their sudden, new "morality." Then, books and periodicals appeared, at first published by the occupiers themselves, and later with licenses issued to their accomplices. Finally, after four years of "reconstructive work," it was left up to each citizen to publish books, periodicals and newspapers, but in reality this proved to be extraordinarily difficult, as the existential dependency of each citizen - starting from school to the place of work - from the sources of information to the newly created "foundations of justice" remained intact And these dependencies were still further increased by the steadily growing concentration of the key decision centers such as government, the authorities, parties, unions, press-, radio-, television-, art-, and association-monopolies, and, finally, the factories. In this way, the militarily enforced "new view of the victors" of 1945 could become the "majority opinion of the German people" and could be further nourished without letup by additional public media, institutes, official and school directives, etc. Job seekers, some of whom, admittedly, did not know any different, steadily followed. The "old-line" thinkers who had not been swallowed by the chaos of war, could be defamed as "incorrigible," "radicals," "revanchists," "neo-Nazis," and often were sent quietly and without recourse into the cold. And against each honest historian, hundreds, even thousands of documentary forgeries, perjured testimonies, lying publications, "historically effective theater pieces," articles, brochures, books (many created in "dramatic freedom") and other printed materials were put in circulation, so that refuting all of them in every detail would require a lifetime of work for generations of researchers. Let us mention some of these forgeries: the numerous "key documents" about Hitler's "secret talks" (disproved by this writer in Wahrheit für Deutschland--Die Schuldfrage des Zweiten Weltkriegs, as well as Europa in Flammen 1939-1945, especially Vol. II), "secret memorial writings," Hitler's Second Book, numerous "documents" of the ADAP files, who knows how many "witness testimonies" extorted during the Nuremberg Trials, secret affairs in occupied German Eastern territories. And, finally, the many "diaries." An independent British researcher, David Irving, was: . . . horrified and depressed as a historian about the extent to which "diaries," at closer examination, turned out to be forgeries, or which revealed that they had been fabricated in many important passages - without exception always to the detriment of Hitler. Many such forgeries are known to be in official files. The history-distorting memoirs are a chapter in themselves. In any case one knows "what the public likes." It likes what is publicly supported (with money, the press, television etc). Supported is what "serves re-education" and what pleases the ruling circles as "educationally desirable for the people."
|
