New

Who made this violent speech in the documentary De Nuremberg à Nuremberg?

Who made this violent speech in the documentary De Nuremberg à Nuremberg?

In F. Rossif's documentary De Nuremberg à Nuremberg at some point you can hear a pretty violent and aggressive speech (begins at 25:19 and ends up at 25:44) from which I could hardly understand things like:

wir holen den Teufel aus der Hölle… und Stalin und London und Moskow und Washington… der Juda wir fallen… der Deutsche mag den Jude nicht - der Jude den Deutsche nicht… Feudalismus der Juden weg !

These words and same images are displayed twice throughout the documentary. The second instance is to be found in the second part of that documentary (Starts at 20:04).

I've been wondering for long who made this speech: someone has an idea ? And about the date of the recording ?


Nobody.

And everyone.

This is an audio-illustration of the common nazi rhetoric. Not a particular speech, more a pastiche made from original recordings. If you listen closely you will identify al least three distinct voices from at least three different speakers. As this is a montage, you will not find "the one guy that made this speech". Also compare this with the French narration that precedes these samples: That "this violent antisemitism became the only form of officially authorised pornography in the Third Reich."

This is also recognisable in the speeches ductus and diction. Search for example through some of Hitler's speeches searching for the string "jude": multiple hits. Search for "juda": zero hits. Likewise for Mein Kampf: just one time Judaslohn. He liked the "Juden" and "Judentum" - words - but not Juda.

Likewise, a search for the whole line of words as identifiable so far from the one excerpt in the question now leads right back to this question.

Therefore I would like to offer the following suggestion.

We hear little snippets of nazi speeches. Those are most likely typical, that is from Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Julius Streicher, Hermann Göring, and Robert Ley. Those were the most violent speakers in general, but Streicher and Ley in particular stand out as really screaming hysterically when it came to their antisemitic convictions.

From a rough guess I'd sort the "Amerika"-part to Goebbels, the "Jude mag den"-part to perhaps Hitler (An old review for a an educational CDROM implies that this part, only those few words, and as written, no audio to compare - might be from from Hitler: ""Der Deutsche mag den Juden nicht, der Jude den Deutschen nicht [… ]"". Note that the very next part ("… muss der Jude weg") is not in that link and also sounds different in the montage). "Juda muss fallen"-part seems to be very close to the words of Ley, for example in his Siemens-Schulungsappell from 1942 (transcript by Siemens).

The assignment of identified voices to parts is explicitly my own, probably incorrect sloppy, guesswork. The audio quality of the video in question is bad even in the narrated modern parts. But it seems really clear in using more than one snippet, cut tightly together.


What I would transcribe from what is heard by my ears on the first mention of it (2e Guerre Mondiale - De Nuremberg a Nuremberg Chapitre 1 #1 begins at 25:19 and ends up at 25:44):

[… ?] Teufel aus der Hölle… [und Stalin und London und Moskau und Washington… ??] denn Juda, Juda wird fallen… auf, auf mit euch Juden nach Amerika, [da wo ihr?] hingehört… der Deutsche mag den Juden nicht - der Jude den Deutsche nicht, infolgedessen muss der Jude weg!

But the second example is different as well: De Nuremberg à Nuremberg - 2 de 3 - partie 2 de 2 ( Starts at 20:04)

und wenn es mit Ihnen wäre… mit Ihnen wäre wir holen den Teufel aus der Hölle, und Stalin, und Moskau und London, und Washington - sie werden fallen! Denn Juda, Juda wird fallen… Auf, auf mit euch Juden nach Amerika. In das letze [den letzten Sumpf?… ?] da wo ihr hingehört.… Der Deutsche mag den Juden nicht, der Jude mag den Deutschen nicht, infolgedessen muss der Jude weg!

Note the editing error in this part, it loops the first part!

All ldots seem to indicate a break in the flow of speech - and a change in speaker.

Distinct voice change seem to be before the "Amerika" speech (my guess: Ley). Then seems to follow the Rhenish pronunciation of Amerika that sounds like Goebbels (he really loved "Amerika", and envied it). The doubling of "auf" seems also a typical element of his style and the possibility of emigration hinted at in this part indicates an early date for this speech. Then "der Jude mag" might be indeed be Hitler himself, but the "muss weg" part is different from his usual screams and just too hysterical, even for that man.

As this is quite tiring to listen to repeatedly and no freely available or searchable text on the net will incorporate all parts of this pastiche in one go anyway, I'll close this with the following guess: we can hear Ley, Goebbels and Hitler assembled together. If we can trust the documentary the parts of these speeches seem to be dated at shortly around the November 9, 1938 date, although I suspect that the first Ley-part might be even later.


Who made this violent speech in the documentary De Nuremberg à Nuremberg? - History

In October, the Ninth Independent Russian Documentary Film Festival in New York City, an event organized by forces close to Russia’s liberal, pro-imperialist opposition, screened the restored version of the 1948 documentary Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today (also simply known as Nuremberg). The film also had a one-week engagement at the Film Forum in New York in late September and early October.

The film was written and directed by Stuart Schulberg (brother of Budd Schulberg, screenwriter and future informer), who served with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Field Photographic Branch, headed by Hollywood director John Ford. It was intended to advertise the principles underlying the indictment of the Nazi criminals at the Nuremberg Trials. However, due to opposition from the American military and government, it was never shown in the US until 2010.

As the film’s press kit indicates, “Over the years, the original picture negative and sound elements were lost or destroyed. Filmmakers Sandra Schulberg [daughter of Stuart Schulberg] and Josh Waletzky made a new 35mm negative, struck from the best quality extant print, borrowed from the German National Film Archive. Not one picture frame was removed or changed in this process.”

Reflecting both the strengths and weaknesses of the main line of US Supreme Court Justice and Nuremberg lead prosecutor Robert H. Jackson’s argumentation against the Nazi criminals, the film today still stands as an important historical document.

Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today is structured around the four counts of the indictment against the two dozen Nazi defendants: the first was conspiracy the second, crimes against peace the third, war crimes and the fourth, crimes against humanity. It thus closely follows, as noted, Jackson’s arguments, placing a heavy emphasis on the Nazis preparation for the World War. Indeed, it was this count — crimes against peace or “aggressive war” as a crime — that constituted one of the most striking and ground-breaking features of the Nuremberg Trials.

The Nazi defendants in Nuremberg included Hermann Goering, the Reichsmarshall and head of the German Air Force Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior Alfred Jodl, the chief of operations for the German High Command Karl Doenitz, the commander-in-chief of the German navy Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the High Command of the Wehrmacht [German armed forces] Hans Fritzsche, from Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda, responsible for radio broadcasts in Nazi Germany Walther Funk, Minister of Economics Hans Frank, the Governor of the General Government in Poland Julius Streicher, editor-in-chief of the notorious Nazi paper Der Stürmer and Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank. (All defendants of the trials are listed here)

Nuremberg: Its Lesson for Today opens with striking footage showing the ruins in which the Nazis left Europe. It raises the one question which, according to the narrator (Liev Schreiber has re-recorded the narration), haunted the people of Europe: how could this catastrophe have occurred?

For some 40 minutes, the film attempts to answer this question, by providing ample evidence — above all, through film footage and citations from Nazi sources — of the Hitler regime’s careful preparations for war. It portrays these preparations as the result of a conspiracy by Germany’s ruling elite and details the rapid effort at secret rearmament by the Nazi regime, along with its preparation for the annexation of Austria and a good part of what was then Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile, Hitler assured the public in official proclamations that his government had no plans to go to war.

Thus, in early 1939, while preparations for the invasion of Poland later that year were well under way, Hitler hypocritically proclaimed that Polish-German friendship was one of the great achievements of recent European diplomacy. Moreover, the years preceding World War II — and, in some cases, even the first years of the war — witnessed the Nazis signing “non-aggression pacts” and neutrality agreements with almost all the countries they subsequently invaded, all without a declaration of war. This included not only Poland and the Soviet Union, but also Denmark, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia.

To substantiate the charge of war crimes, the Schulberg film contains important footage of the Nazi terror in Poland and occupied USSR, but also France and the Netherlands. As examples, it shows footage of the sieges of Soviet cities and the murder of the entire population of the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane. However, the scale of the Nazi war against the Soviet Union, which cost 27 million Soviet lives and was the single most bloody conflict in human history, is somewhat downplayed.


Israeli Intel Officer: Great Insight Into Goering's Admirable Nuremberg Testimony (Russian Talk Show)

Great talk show TV from Russia. The officer explains that Stalin insisted that Nazi war criminals receive a trial rather than be immediately executed, to the consternation of Churchill and De Gaulle.

The Nuremberg trials allowed a remarkable speech by Nazi leader Göring, who was a brilliant orator, in which he pointed out Western hypocrisy over racial war crimes: the Allies, after all, maintained their own form of racism in their colonies, and the Americans practiced segregation. Who were they to lecture Germans on racial oppression?

The wily Stalin new this would come up, and looked forward to scoring propaganda points against his hypocritical and cynical allies.

Göring’s speech so impressed the American sergeant guarding him, that he procured the poison with which Goring took his own life, avoiding the humiliation of a public hanging.

The officer (high-ranking, retired), Yakov Kedmi, then goes on to talk about how the US had no reservations of committing heinous war crimes in Vietnam, and that Colin Powell, a young major at the time, argued that war crimes trials were not needed for what happened in Vietnam.

He then goes on at some length about how and why so many high-level Nazis were protected by the US so that they would help the Americans in the impending cold war with the Soviet Union.

This is a long (11 minutes) and fascinating peak into great Russian TV. Good stuff.

Yakov Kedmi, Social Activist (Israel):

- Actually, I get angry when people talk about history and pretend to be truth-seekers, ostensibly objective, yet avoid or cover up certain facts. Talking about the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg trials were a result of a single person's will. His name was Joseph Stalin.

If it weren't for him, these trials wouldn't have taken place. You can think whatever you want of Stalin, but hushing up this fact is nothing but falsifying history. That's not how history should be studied. Whatever people say. It was his idea.

For several years. He imposed his will on the entire Soviet administration and those who didn't want the trials to take place. Because he said, "They can be killed. But they have to be tried in court." He was the first one in the world to demand a trial for them. Not representatives of the democratic US. Not the democratic UK, let France alone.

When people talk about it and don't mention this, it's dishonest from an intellectual point of view. You cannot do that. Whoever the person is.

Second. The trials didn't condemn Nazism. They condemned German Nazism. Why? And here's something to be said about the American army. In his speech, Göring - being charged with a racial approach -- said, "You're condemning a racial approach?"

He talked about the American army. He talked about antisemitism in Europe. He talked about the way other nations are treated. They didn't want the trials. Because they were colonial countries. They owned Africa. It was not in their interest. How could they have condemned racial discrimination?

Consider the way Belgians treated Africans! That's why they didn't condemn it.

And another thing happened for the same reason. Why didn't they condemn the Wehrmacht? For a simple reason. By the way, Göring, with his masterfully written speech, won himself that poison. An American sergeant who was guarding him was impressed by that speech and developed big respect for him. And he brought him the poison.

Why wasn't the Wehrmacht condemned? Because at that time, some German generals were sitting down with American and British generals and planning a war against the Soviet Union. They couldn't do it. They needed them!

Who became the head of the BND, the intelligence service founded later? Gehlen? An officer of the Abwehr's Soviet department.

- The head.

- Of the foreign eastern army.

- Not an officer, the head of the department.

- The head of the department. He was in charge of it. They needed the Wehrmacht. That's why they couldn't try it. That's why they didn't condemn it. That's why Canada accepted the biggest number of Nazi criminals. And then America.

- Not the biggest number.

- And that's why the US, not to mention the Pope and the Catholics. Mostly through Croatia, everyone was going to Latin America. And no one was paying any attention to it. All Nazi criminals.

And…

The Nuremberg trials were supposed to lay the foundation of the International Court of Justice. Who was the first one to say, "We are above the International Court?" The United States of America. They didn't need the International Court. That's why they cannot be tried.

That's another goal that wasn't achieved by these trials. They only solved the problem of German Nazism. Not of the other kinds. Other Nazisms are okay. And that's why they are okay today.

And another point. Every soldier decides for himself what is a crime against humanity. It's his decision. Shooting at a child is a crime. So is shooting at a woman. So is shooting at an unarmed man. So is killing a prisoner of war. Those are crimes. Everyone decides for himself.

But whether he'll be found guilty is another matter. It's between him and his conscience. And then it's up to court. That's another problem that wasn't solved in the Nuremberg trials. I know only one army where it's like that. It's our army.

- Israel.

- Following a criminal order makes you a war criminal. You cannot say, "I was ordered to." That's a war crime.

- Time.

- You're absolutely right. But the Israeli army took that from the Nuremberg trials.

- That's true. But that was just for two years.

- One of the officers, who back then was a major - it happened in his area of operation - said, "Whatever. There's no need for a trial." What was his name?

- I don't remember.

- I do. It was Colin Powell. He said there was no need for a trial. Back then, he and others said, "There's no need. Why? That's a common thing." But the decorations weren't stripped because of the Vietnamese, who they didn't regard as humans, but because they said, "We died and became disabled. "

And you lost the war. Because that's what you decided. No one in the US protested for the Vietnamese, for murdered women and kids, for burnt villages. They were afraid for their life.

- Yakov, how many Vietnamese did the Americans kill when they had to retreat? But we are digressing from the topic.

- What Vietnamese?

- Southern Vietnamese.

- Right. And how much did they pay to Northern Vietnam for the heinous destruction and the use of chemical weapons?

- I don't think they paid anything.

- Exactly. They didn't. That's your answer.

- But the American society figured out the Vietnamese war. There's Apocalypse Now and many other movies.

- You'll like this one better. Kelly served how much? Three and a half years? But on house arrest. That's right.

The goal of those trials was to declare the German ideology criminal, to declare aggression against other countries criminal and to define certain activities as international crimes. Like, for example, killing civilians, killing people on racial grounds, destroying cities, bombings and so on. And it's all ended. Germany was set straight in those trials. The leaders were hung.

But what wasn't talked about. In the West, private property is sacred. So it wasn't confiscated from Krupp and others. The property that kept Germany going. Factories where prisoners were working.

- Confiscated partially.

- Volkswagen now remembered under pressure. It's going to pay some small money. That didn't happen. No decision was made about what to do with former Nazis. With former SS members. What should be done with collaborationists? Nothing. What's the point in trying them?

Let every country decide for itself. France dealt with Petain on its own. Some were dealt with in Norway. So it was a partial solution. The key idea of those trials was to prevent similar phenomena in the future.

But a short time later, France, who was a part of those trials, started a war in Vietnam. Against Vietnam. Then the Korean war, it's another deal. Then the US started a war in Vietnam.

So the main goal was to prevent aggression of one country against another one. Prevent bombing civilians, destroying civilians, using unconventional methods.

All of that was forgotten in just 10 years. And it continues to this day. So they just put a comma at the defeat of Nazi Germany. Nothing more. How many Nazis were convicted? 32 thousand.

Today, in the West and in my country too, much to my shame, there is Demenyk's festival. And the man in charge of that camp, how many years did he serve? Less than 10 years, I believe. There was amnesty. He got out. He's getting a pension from the government. Everything's okay.

They found some guard in the US and pinned everything on him. Like it was said recently, they caught the biggest criminal. When he was 18, he was an accountant's assistant in a concentration camp. He's barely moving now. But we're gonna try him to prove to the whole world that we are fighting Nazism.

They turned it into a tacky comedy which is completely irrelevant. And next to that, Nazis are walking freely. SS is a criminal organization, right? But do SS member receive pensions? They do. And not only in Germany. In the Baltic states. In all the countries they've been to. What country didn't have an SS branch? They were everywhere.

So from a historical point of view, at that point in time, some things were done. But as Arkady Raikin said, "There's something. But it's not good enough."


Nuremberg Trials For Big Pharma’s Crimes Against Humanity Underway

Right now, a second Nuremberg tribunal that is in preparation, with a class action lawsuit being set up under the aegis of thousands of lawyers worldwide behind the American-German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, who is prosecuting those responsible for the Covid-19 scandal manipulated by the Davos Forum.

Targeting the Davos, Switzerland-based World Economic Forum and its devotees among global political leaders, attorney Reiner Fuellmich says they are guilty of crimes against humanity for their perpetration of COVID-response policies that led to forced shutdowns, destroyed businesses, impoverished families, broken lives and a spike in suicide rates.

In this respect, it is worth recalling that Reiner Fuellmich is the lawyer who succeeded in condemning the automobile giant Volkswagen in the case of the tampered catalytic converters. And it is this same lawyer who succeeded in condemning Deutsche Bank as a criminal enterprise.According to Reiner Fuellmich, all the frauds committed by German companies are derisory compared to the damage that the Covid-19 crisis has caused and continues to cause. This Covid-19 crisis should be renamed the “Covid-19 Scandal” and all those responsible should be prosecuted for civil damages due to manipulations and falsified test protocols. Therefore, an international network of business lawyers will plead the biggest tort case of all time, the Covid-19 fraud scandal, which has meanwhile turned into the biggest crime against humanity ever committed.

A Covid-19 commission of inquiry has been set up on the initiative of a group of German lawyers with the aim of bringing an international class action lawsuit using Anglo-Saxon law.Here is the summarized translation of the last communication of Dr. Fuellmich of 15/02/2021:

“The hearings of around 100 internationally renowned scientists, doctors, economists and lawyers, which have been conducted by the Berlin Commission of Inquiry into the Covid-19 affair since 10.07.2020, have in the meantime shown with a probability close to certainty that the Covid- 19 scandal was at no time a health issue. Rather, it was about solidifying the illegitimate power (illegitimate because it was obtained by criminal methods) of the corrupt “Davos clique” by transferring the wealth of the people to the members of the Davos clique, destroying, among other things, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. Platforms such as Amazon, Google, Uber, etc. could thus appropriate their market share and wealth.”

  1. Covid-19 as a diversionary tactic by corporate and political “elites” in order to shift market share and wealth from small and medium enterprises to global platforms such as Amazon, Google, Uber, etc.
  2. Contribution of the Audiovisual Tax to the reconstruction of a new media landscape that offers truly independent information
  3. Making regional agricultural structures secure
  4. Making a secure regional currency to prevent a new currency from coming “from above” to be allocated in the event of good behaviour.
  5. Psychological considerations of the situation: how did it come about? Actions for annulment of the approval of a vaccination, filed against the European Commission, trial in New York of the status of PCR tests, German trials, Canadian trials, Australian trials, Austrian trials, trials at the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.

“We have seen what has been confirmed time and time again: the degree of danger posed by the virus is about the same as that of seasonal flu, regardless of whether it is a new virus (wholly or partially manufactured) or whether we are simply dealing with a flu renamed “Covid-19 pandemic”.

In the meantime, Drosten’s PCR tests cannot even tell us anything about contagious infections. To make matters worse, the health and economic damage caused by anti-covid measures has been so devastating that we have to speak of a level of destruction that is historically unique. »

“The fact that health has never been an issue is particularly obvious, except that injections of genetically experimental substances disguised as “vaccinations” are now causing serious damage, including fatal consequences, on a mass scale. The world population has been used as guinea pigs for these experimental gene injections both gradually and extremely rapidly. In order to plunge the population into panic, dangerous and harmful containment measures (even according to the WHO) of compulsory, unnecessary and dangerous mask-wearing and social distancing, unnecessary and counterproductive, were introduced. The population was thus “ready” for the injections.”

More and more people, not just lawyers – and rightly so – are demanding, in addition to an immediate end to these murderous measures, is a judicial review by a truly independent international tribunal on the model of the Nuremberg trials. An example of such a demand and a moving excerpt is from a speech by the English doctor Dr. Vernon Coleman

THE STARTLING TRUTH ABOUT COVID-19 AND VITAMIN D

After World War Two, scores of suspected Nazi war criminals were prosecuted by the Allies in the Palace of Justice in the city of Nuremberg, the birth-place of the Nazi Party. The defendants were drawn not just from the military, but also from medical, judicial, administrative, industrial, and other sectors of the German war machine.

Among the industrial prisoners charged with crimes against humanity were 24 managers of IG Farben, an organization without whom, according to U.S. Chief Prosecutor Telford Taylor, the Second World War would not have been possible.

In 1925, IG Farben, Interessengemeinschaft Farben, (Association of Common Interests), became a powerful cartel of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer (the aspirin manufacturer), BASF, AGFA, and Hoechst (now known as Aventis.) By 1933, the IG Farben group had become the largest chemical and pharmaceutical corporation in the world. And even today, although it doesn’t use the name IG Farben, its companies remain the most powerful transnationals on the planet in pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and agro-chemicals.

The IG Farben cartel was crucial to the Nazi war effort by supplying synthetic fuel, rubber, and other chemicals. They also manufactured Zyklon-B, the nerve gas used to kill millions at the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau and elsewhere. The cartel, later known as the Devil’s Chemists, used unwilling inmates of the concentration camps as slave labourers and guinea pigs to test chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and vaccines. Tens of thousands died, and those who became too ill to be of any use were murdered in the gas chambers.

IG Farben worked closely with the Nazi regime and the SS and were perhaps the most important dynamic in driving the Nazi war machine, donating some 80 million Reichsmarks in return for chemical, pharmaceutical and petrochemical industries seized from occupied countries. Yet they could not have gotten to a position of such power without huge investment from John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil Company. Together with Rockefeller they set up a company called Standard IG Farben.

Although he knew it would be used for war purposes, Rockefeller was able to organize a shipment of 500 tons of tetraethyl lead to IG Farben in 1938 which the Luftwaffe needed for aviation fuel. Amazingly, a year later, with war about to break out, he supplied them with up to 20 million dollars of tetraethyl lead which directly enabled Hitler to start the War by attacking Poland and France.

Even as late as 1942 he supplied the Nazis with oil diverted through Switzerland and refuelled German submarines in the Channel Islands. When charged under the “Trading With The Enemy” Act, Rockefeller got away with a ‘slap on the wrist’ (5,000 dollar fine) when President Roosevelt abruptly halted the investigation at the behest of the War Department. (The unpatriotic Rockefeller had threatened to stop supplying the U.S. with crucial supplies of war-time oil.)

IG Farben went on to build the largest industrial complex in Europe at Auschwitz to manufacture chemicals and explosives for the German war effort. The venture was financed by Deutsche Bank to the tune of almost one billion Reichsmarks. This complex, known as IG Auschwitz, covered some 24 square kilometers including the Auschwitz concentration camp from which it drew on a huge pool of slave labour. IG Farben directors were instrumental in turning this huge complex into the largest extermination camp in human history.

On a number of occasions, when orders were given by the Allies to bomb the complex, Rockefeller used his influence through John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War (who was a former legal counselor to IG Farben), to cancel the bombing raids, much to the chagrin of some of the Allied commanders. Furthermore, not one bomb fell on IG Farben’s Headquarters back in Germany, at Frankfurt. Astounding, at a time when German industrial cities were widely bombed and pulverized, including Frankfurt itself.

At the Nuremberg Trials, 24 of the IG Farben directors and other industrialists were charged with genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Many of these unscrupulous villains would later play a key role in reinstating several IG Farben companies as huge players in the pharmaceutical/chemical industry not only in Germany but also throughout Europe and the United States. And several of these former Nazis would be pivotal in devising a pan-European trade association which has now evolved into the European Union.

Dr. Fritz ter Meer, a director of IG Farben who was directly involved in developing the nerve gas, Zyklon-B, which killed millions of Jews, was sentenced to seven years in prison but was released after four years through the intervention of Rockefeller and J.J. McCloy, then U.S. High Commissioner for Germany. An unrepentant Fritz ter Meer, guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity, returned to work in Bayer where he served as Chairman for more than 10 years, until 1961.

This same ter Meer, a convicted Nazi war criminal, went on to become one of the initiators of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962, an organization that was nurtured by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and latterly the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Codex Alimentarius, supposedly set up to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade, is in reality extremely hostile to the world’s vitamin, supplement, and natural food industries and seems determined to destroy them. Codex is controlled by Big Pharma whose only raison d’être is to promote disease and sell more pharmaceuticals.

Karl Wurster, chairman of the IG Farben company, Degesch, which manufactured the Zyklon-B nerve gas, was charged as a war criminal but was somehow acquitted. He later served as CEO of BASF of 13 years, until 1974.

Hans Globke co-authored the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Race Laws and was responsible for writing the new laws of the Greater European Reich in Nazi-occupied countries. After the War, Globke became a minister in Chancellor Konrad Adenauer’s government and served from 1949 to 1963. He was free of any parliamentary supervision and controlled the Secret Service. He was also directly involved in plotting with the oil and drug cartel on how to take over and control European markets within the newly constructed European Economic Community (EEC), fore-runner of the current European Union (EU).

Walter Hallstein was a prominent Nazi law professor who stated in 1939: One of the most important laws (in occupied European countries) is the ‘Protection Law of German Blood and Honor’. This Nazi “blood and honor” lawyer was instrumental in creating the European Union’s basic structure and became the first head of the European Commission, an executive body adroitly designed to rule Europe without any interference from democratic control. This absence of democracy is quite evident in Brussels especially today. In 1957, Chancellor Adenauer and Hallstein signed the first European Treaty in Rome.

[Much of the information here on IG Farben has come from Dr. Matthias Rath, a tireless campaigner for health freedom and the scourge of Big Pharma. Dr. Rath, under the Freedom of Information Act, has managed to obtain tens of thousands of IG Farben documents from the War Crimes Tribunal that had been kept secret for six decades and has posted them on his website. See (www.profit-over-life.org) , also (http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/) . These are incredible sites –- you’ll spend hours there! Check out articles on Codex Alimentarius, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and Dr. Rath’s series of Open Letters to the New York Times.]

The domination by the pharmaceutical industry of current medical practice and their insidious influence on government legislation is a direct legacy of IG Farben and the Nazi war criminals who ran the original cartel.

Crimes are still being committed today on such a massive scale that millions of people have died since World War Two and millions more are being poisoned daily by these monsters. It is impossible in this short article to list all the horrendous criminality of Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Biotech, and their political henchmen but the following paragraphs provide some examples of the death and mayhem they cause.

In a report authored by Dr. Gary Null, Dr. Carolyn Dean, et al, some 780,000 Americans are killed by their doctors or by the medical system each year. 106,000 of these die from properly prescribed medicine in properly prescribed doses and over two million people are hospitalised because of adverse effects from taking these FDA-approved prescription drugs.

The directors of the companies who manufacture these drugs well know the harm they cause but do all they can to keep such adverse information from the public. These gangsters are driven by greed and profit they couldn’t care less about people’s health or their lives. A good example is the scandal of Vioxx, a drug that was kept on the market even though it was known to cause heart attacks. Vioxx is believed to have killed between 50,000 and 70,000 people. Other dangerous drugs include Baycol, Bextra, Celebrex, and the list goes on…

Big Pharma is involved in rigging drug trials, ghostwriting the reports of “independent” researchers, bribing politicians, doctors, and scientists, and hiding reports unfavourable to their drugs. One particularly nasty example of collusion that appeared on NaturalNews.com was the case of Dr. Biederman of Harvard University who advocated mind-altering drugs for children while being secretly paid off 1.6 million dollars from the drug companies.

And to maintain their markets, Big Pharma is very active in suppressing vitamins, minerals, and natural health foods. They also suppress any information on natural health and are energetically assisted in this by their friends in the FDA and other government bodies. They are helped by colluding politicians who push through legislation to favor big corporations and they remain unchallenged by mainstream media who have a deeper affinity for advertising revenue than for people’s health.

Big Food poisons us with chemical additives, preservatives, colourings, flavourings, trans fats and other harmful ingredients. The effects of these deadly additives are well known and documented aspartame, MSG, sodium benzoate, potassium bromate, sodium nitrite, and thousands more. It’s no wonder most of us are sick, and we’re getting sicker.

Governments turn a blind eye to crimes of toxicity and actively promote the dumping of fluoride and chlorine in our water, the use of mercury in vaccines and in dentistry, and to a host of other criminal acts committed in the pretext of advancing public health.

Again with government complicity, Big Biotech poisons us with Genetically Modified crops in a plot to own the patents to the very food that’s nourished us for hundreds of thousands of years. GM crops pose one of the greatest threats to our health and survival on this planet. No one really knows what effects this frankenfood will have on us or future generations. GM food is currently suspected as a cause of Morgellon’s Disease.

And what kind of a warped, evil mind would invent a “terminator” seed that is designed to become sterile when the plants are harvested so that the farmer is forced to buy more seeds from these already mega-rich corporations. What if these terminator seeds infiltrated the crops across the world?

The activities of Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Biotech are well known to subscribers of NaturalNews.com and can be found by the Search facility on this website.

Now it is time to say, “Enough!”

This unmitigated evil must end. Those responsible must be stopped and made to answer for their crimes. We need to revisit Nuremberg and finish the job that was begun there some 60 years ago.

I propose compiling a record of all the people from the above-mentioned industries, mass media, politics, government regulation bodies, finance, and from wherever appropriate, and entering them in a register along with their observed crimes against humanity. This register would be presented as a prosecution document when the day of reckoning comes. These individuals are acting against the health interests of the people of this planet and must be dealt with accordingly.

When a name and a crime goes on the list, that person should be put on notice so that they can’t say they were unaware of their crime or that they were just “following orders”. This will also give them a chance to repudiate their crime and to join the ranks of the promoters of natural health and freedom of choice.

This book of records might become known as “The Nuremberg List” and widely publicized so that it quickly enters the public consciousness. Soon, the very mention of “The Nuremberg List” — unlike “Schindler’s List” which offered hope and salvation — would instill fear of liability and punishment into those who persist in poisoning their fellow man. Perhaps a respected organization like Natural News might agree to compiling such a list.

Dr. Matthias Rath has already started things rolling by instigating proceedings against some of these corporate criminals. In June, 2003, Dr. Rath’s Foundation lodged formal charges against those special interests behind the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’ at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, the Nederlands. The ICC is the premier world court for cases of genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Dr. Rath said, “We are convinced that one day soon these charges will form the basis for an international tribunal at the ICC that will shadow the scope of the Nuremberg Pharma Tribunal of 1947/48.”

Among those charged are George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other members of the Republican administration. Also cited are executives of the pharma/chemical/oil industries, mainstream media, financial institutions, and other culpable people. See more details here:

Dr. Rath should be congratulated for his efforts and assisted in every way possible.

Let this be the beginning of the end for corporate tyranny and let good health and fair play prevail on this beautiful but defiled planet of ours.


Approaches

Trial Issues

Uncover the topics related to the Nuremberg trials. Trial issues are criminal activities or subjects at issue in a trial that are addressed by a document. Usually these are prosecution charges&mdashlike crimes against humanity&mdashor a defense response. Examine some of the collection's most-accessed trial topics.

People

Access documents and transcripts related to specific people&mdashdefendants, authors, prosecutors, and more&mdashinvolved in the trials. Start with these three high-ranking officers.

  • Karl Brandt: Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation
  • Hermann Goering: General of the Air Force, chief of the war economy, Minister for Aviation
  • Heinrich Himmler: Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the Police

Evidence File Documents

Collections of documents assembled by IMT and NMT staff for possible use in the trials, evidence files provided nearly all of the documentary evidence used by the prosecution. The documents were organized into sixteen subject groups. Here are a couple of the most interesting.

  • NO:Nuremberg Organizations concerning Nazi organizations, such as the SS NMT
  • NG:Nuremberg Government concerning Nazi government agencies NMT

Justice Jackson Delivers Opening Statement at Nuremberg, November 21, 1945

On November 21, 2015, seventy years will have passed since the world stopped to listen to the opening statement of the trial against major Nazi war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in the city of Nuremberg, Germany. The Opening Address was masterfully delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson as Chief U.S. Prosecutor. Assembled in the courtroom that day were four teams of prosecutors, an international group of judges representing the Allied nations (United States, Great Britain, France and Russia), twenty-one German defendants, and dozens of officials and media representatives from across the globe. The trial began on November 20, 1945 and ended on October 1, 1946. The IMT was tasked to try twenty-three of the most important political and military leaders of the Third Reich although defendant Martin Bormann was tried in absentia, and defendant Robert Ley committed suicide within a week of the trial’s commencement.

/>"Well Stocked with Reading Matter" Credit: Edmund Duffy, The Baltimore Sun, December 7, 1945

Months before Jackson entered the courtroom of the trial at Nuremberg, he had worked through the rough draft of the opening statement to clearly articulate his acute sense of responsibility as a prosecutor and to exercise just the right tone of restraint. It was his primary objective to hold Nazi leaders, accused of the devastating crime of “aggressive war-making,” accountable within the reckonable framework of the law. To do so, it was his decision that the trial be based on documentary evidence rather than eyewitness testimony. While the decision would rely less on potentially dramatic witness testimony, it provided an irrefutable record of the Nazi’s calculated plan to annihilate all Jewish individuals from the face of the earth.

So, as Jackson stood at the podium in the courtroom of this historic trial, he formally acknowledged the bench, and then recognized “[t]he privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world …”. Jackson then brilliantly captured both the honor and the grave responsibility he felt in this single, remarkable phrase: “That four great nations flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”

Opening Statement before the International Military Tribunal

On November 21, 1945, in the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg, Germany, Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, made his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal.

Described as “the greatest trial in history” by Sir Norman Birkett, one of the British judges who presided over it, the trial against major war criminals before the IMT set a precedent for the structure of international criminal law. The formation of the IMT has influenced the world with subsequent trials from Sierra Leone to the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, The Hague, and Rwanda. International prosecutors who have attended the Jackson Center’s annual International Humanitarian Law Dialogs at Chautauqua Institution each August readily attest to the important role Jackson’s Nuremberg legacy has played in their own work to apply the rule of law to perpetrators of war crimes.

/>Justice Jackson Delivering the Opening Statement at Nuremberg Credit: United States Army Signal Corps. Katherine Fite Lincoln Papers, Harry S. Truman Library & Museum.

On the 70 th Anniversary of the greatest trial in history, it is the hope of the Jackson Center that the commemoration will mark the beginning of collaborative dialogue to address current and future conflicts, driven by the profound wisdom of Justice Jackson. In his Opening Statement, Justice Jackson chose the following words to characterize the meaning of the trial and the importance of extinguishing what helped foster the creation of the Nazis.

On November 21, 2015, seventy years will have passed since the world stopped to listen to the opening statement of the trial against major Nazi war criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at the Palace of Justice in the city of Nuremberg, Germany.


Trivia - Judgment at Nuremberg - Trivia and Fun Facts About JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG

Kramer decided to premiere Judgment at Nuremberg in Berlin in December 1961 and asked his cast to be present. Most of them attended, except for Lancaster, who said he had other pressing matters (he was widely criticized for that although he gladly promoted the film later), and Dietrich, who was still concerned about the reaction of her countrymen, many of whom still hated her deeply for her efforts on behalf of the Allies during World War II.

Kramer made the premiere of Judgment at Nuremberg into a world event, flying in more than 300 reporters from 26 countries (120 columnists, critics, and political writers from New York alone). It was one of the most expensive press junkets of all time, running $150,000. The premiere took place December 14, 1961, and reporters noted that this was shortly after the Soviets had erected the Berlin Wall and one day before Adolf Eichmann was to be sentenced in Israel for war crimes.

There was a stunned silence at the close of the Judgment at Nuremberg screening in West Berlin, followed by applause, but only from the non-German press. German critics and reporters loudly condemned Kramer for stirring up the ghosts of the past and fueling hatred against their country. He responded that truth and justice must be shown and challenged German filmmakers to make movies about the Third Reich.

"The film was totally rejected: it never did three cents' business in Germany. It played so many empty houses, it just stopped. People asked how could I, an American, try to rekindle German guilt? Well, I said that it would indeed have been better if the Germans had made it, but the fact is they didn't. So I did." – Stanley Kramer

The German press called Spencer Tracy a coward for leaving the Congress Hall, where the film was premiering in West Berlin, before the movie was over. Kramer explained it was due to illness. It may also have been due to Tracy's disgust at Montgomery Clift's drunken behavior at the event.

Maximilian Schell said there was some negative reaction to him in Germany because of his part in this film. "Also people don't like it when one of their own has success in Hollywood," he added.

Despite the controversy it caused in Germany, Judgment at Nuremberg earned more than $5 million on its initial release. The production cost $3 million.

Some gossip columnists found it ridiculous that major stars like Clift and Garland were nominated in Oscar's supporting categories. Louella Parsons said it was like "a bank president reducing himself to the title of bookkeeper in order to get a coffee break," and Sheila Graham suggested the Academy institute an award for Best Star Cameo.

When actress Nancy Walker went to see the film, she got up after Clift's scene and said to a friend accompanying her, "Let's go, David. Nobody's going to beat that."

Garland cried when Kramer telephoned her to say that he, writer Abby Mann, and fellow cast members Richard Widmark and Spencer Tracy stood and applauded after watching her performance for the first time in the rough cut.

Although Garland won neither the Academy Award nor the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress (Rita Moreno took both for West Side Story , 1961), the Globes presented her with the Cecil B. DeMille Award for services to the industry.

"If you want to see some real honest-to-goodness acting, you should come to our set. and watch Spencer Tracy and Miss Judy Garland do some real emoting for you." – Burt Lancaster to members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association during production of the film

"We cannot deny the fact, and we do not want to deny it, that the roots of the present position of our people, our country, and our city lie in this fact––that we did not prevent right from being trampled underfoot during the time of the Nazi power. Anyone who remains blind to this fact can also not properly understand the rights which are today still being withheld from our people. It will probably be difficult for us to watch and hear this film. But we will not shut our eyes to it. . I hope that world-wide discussion will be aroused by both this film and this city, and that this will contribute to the strengthening of right and justice." – West Berlin Mayor Willy Brandt at the premiere of the film, December, 14, 1961

"It was a great privilege to say those words [you wrote]. All I can say is if the lights go out now, I still win." – Spencer Tracy, in a telegram sent shortly after the premiere to screenwriter Abby Mann, who kept it hanging on his wall for years after

"I said to myself, who the hell can get any sympathy on the other [German] side after you've seen these [concentration camp] films? And you answered it because you played it with such humanity." – writer Abby Mann, talking to Maximilian Schell in 2004 about his performance as the defense attorney

Judgment at Nuremberg was the first time Nazi concentration camp footage was used in a commercial film.

With his Best Actor award for this film, Maximilian Schell became the first performer to win an Academy Award® for a role he originally played on television.

After winning his Oscar®, Schell recalled coming to the U.S. for the first time and telling a customs officer he was an actor. "Good luck," was the official's response. "I can tell him now I had it," Schell said.

Maximilian Schell made his Hollywood film debut in the World War II drama The Young Lions (1958) playing a German officer opposite Marlon Brando, who wanted to play the role of the defense attorney in Judgment at Nuremberg that won Schell his Oscar®.

Maria Schell (1926-2005) was the older sister of Maximilian and already internationally known when he appeared in Judgment at Nuremberg . In America, she had appeared in The Brothers Karamazov (1958), in a part Marilyn Monroe had hoped to play the Western remake Cimarron (1960) and on television in remakes of For Whom the Bell Tolls (1959), opposite Jason Robards, and Ninotchka (1960). Maximilian Schell said in 2004 that when he won his Academy Award® he thought he would finally be recognized for his own talents and not for being Maria Schell's little brother. However, according to him, in Germany a headline read, "Brother of Maria Schell Wins Oscar®." Schell made a documentary about his sister in 2002, My Sister Maria .

Schell also made a documentary about his Judgment at Nuremberg co-star Marlene Dietrich. The legendary actress, 83 and a reclusive invalid when Marlene (1984) was made, refused to appear on camera and is only heard on the soundtrack. The film won numerous Best Documentary awards, including ones from the New York Film Critics Circle and the National Society of Film Critics, and was nominated for an Academy Award.

Judgment at Nuremberg marked Tracy's eighth Academy Award® nomination. He would be nominated once more, for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967). He won two years in a row for Captains Courageous (1937) and Boys Town (1938), the second actor to do so the first was Luise Rainer, who won for The Great Ziegfeld (1936) and The Good Earth (1937).

Marlene Dietrich had not made a film for three years before she accepted a role in Judgment at Nuremberg . From the early 1950s until the mid-1970s, she concentrated more on her highly successful career as a cabaret and concert artist, touring the world with her show, wearing gowns designed to appear daringly sheer by Jean Louis (who did her costumes for Judgment at Nuremberg ). After this, her screen appearances were confined to a very brief cameo as herself in Paris When It Sizzles (1964) a filmed record of her concerts, I Wish You Love (1973) and her final performance, heavily veiled, in Just a Gigolo (1978), shortly after an accident and illness ended her live performance career. Dietrich soon became a recluse in her Paris apartment, where she rarely went out or had visitors, preferring to keep in touch with family, friends, and colleagues through frequent and lengthy telephone calls. Dietrich was heard but not seen on film one more time in Maximilian Schell's biographical documentary Marlene (1984). She died in her Paris apartment in 1992 at the age of 90.

In her biography of her famous mother, Maria Riva noted how Dietrich's performance in Judgment at Nuremberg was "a meticulous, brilliant recreation of her mother. How sad that her most vivid subconscious memory of her mother should be one of stoic self-aggrandizing loyalty to duty––in a black velvet suit."

Judy Garland was scheduled to appear at the London premiere, but after attending the opening in Berlin, she flew to Rome where she collapsed in the Excelsior Hotel due to exhaustion from her very heavy concert tour schedule in 1961 and a serious case of pleurisy.

Although Spencer Tracy greatly admired Montgomery Clift as an actor during the filming of Judgment at Nuremberg ("He makes most of today's young players look like bums."), he was less enthusiastic about his behavior at the Berlin premiere. As screenwriter Abby Mann later recalled, "Monty showed up stoned and drunk out of his mind, jumping on Spence's back. He freaked out in the theater, crawling on his hands and knees between the aisles and screaming out all sorts of crazy things. After Spence got up and left, it crossed my mind that seeing Monty in that advanced state of deterioration might have reminded him of his own drinking problem."

Stanley Kramer's career as a producer began in 1942 and included such films as Champion (1949) and Death of a Salesman (1951). He turned to directing with Not as a Stranger (1955) while continuing to produce, most often performing dual functions on his film projects. His final film as producer-director was The Runner Stumbles (1979). He died in 2001 at the age of 87.

Kramer once said, "If I am to be remembered for anything I have done in this profession, I would like it to be for the four films in which I directed Spencer Tracy." It was his intention to name his son after Tracy, but when the baby turned out to be a girl, he named her after Katharine Hepburn instead.

Judgment at Nuremberg was shot by Hungarian-born Ernest Laszlo, who began his career in silents and worked steadily through 1977, earning eight Academy Award nominations along the way. The first four of these were for Kramer films: Inherit the Wind (1960), Judgment at Nuremberg , It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963), and Ship of Fools (1965), which brought Laszlo his only Oscar. His final film, The Domino Principle (1977), was Kramer's penultimate production.

Composer Ernest Gold was another frequent Kramer collaborator, totaling ten films together. Gold's most famous screen work was his Academy Award-winning score for Exodus (1960).

William Shatner (TV's Star Trek , Boston Legal ), who plays Captain Byers in Judgment at Nuremberg , was one of The Brothers Karamazov (1958) opposite Maximilian Schell's sister Maria.

George Roy Hill was a young director who had achieved success in live television dramas when he was hired to direct Judgment at Nuremberg on Playhouse 90 in 1959. A few years later, Hill was given his first shot at a feature film with the Tennessee Williams adaptation Period of Adjustment (1962). He went on to become the award-winning director of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) and The Sting (1973).

PROMOTIONAL COPY: Once in a generation, a motion picture explodes into greatness.

Memorable Quotes from JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG

JUDGE DAN HAYWOOD: Hitler's gone, Goebbels is gone, Goering is gone, committed suicide before they could hang him. Now we're down to the business of judging the doctors, business men and judges. Some people think they shouldn't be judged at all. . No, I think the trials should go on, especially the trials of the German judges.

RUDOLPH PETERSEN (speaking about his forced sterilization) : Since that day I've been half I've ever been.

MADAME BERTHOLT: I have a mission with the Americans. to convince you that we are not all monsters.

HAYWOOD: The trouble with you, Colonel, is you'd like to indict the whole country. Now that might be emotionally satisfying to you, but it wouldn't be exactly practical and hardly fair.

COLONEL LAWSON: There are no Nazis in Germany, didn't you know that, Judge? The Eskimos invaded Germany and took over. That's how all those terrible things happened. It wasn't the fault of the Germans, it was the fault of those damn Eskimos!

MME. BERTHOLT: Do you think we knew of those things? Do you think we wanted to murder women and children? . We did not know!
HAYWOOD: As far as I can make out, no one in this country knew.

MME. BERTHOLT: We have to forget, if we are to go on living.

HANS ROLFE: Do you think I have enjoyed being defense counsel in this trial? There were things I had to do in that courtroom that made me cringe. Why did I do them? Because I want to leave the German people something. I want to leave them a shred of dignity. . If we allow them to discredit every German like you, we lose the right to rule ourselves forever. Do you want the Americans to stay here forever? . I could show you pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thousands and thousands of burned bodies, women and children. Is that their superior morality?

SENATOR BURKETTE: We're going to need all the help we can get [against the Soviets]. We're going to need the support of the German people.

HAYWOOD: Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.

ERNST JANNING: Judge Haywood. the reason I asked you to come: Those people, those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it, you must believe it!
HAYWOOD: Herr Janning, it "came to that" the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.

ROLFE: I'll make you a wager. . In five years, the men you sentenced to life imprisonment will be free.

END TITLE: The Nuremberg trials held in the American Zone ended July 14, 1949. There were 99 defendants sentenced to prison terms. Not one is still serving his sentence.

Trivia - Judgment at Nuremberg - Trivia and Fun Facts About JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG


COVID-19 and Crimes Against Humanity: What the Nuremberg-Hague Trials Can Teach Us

To let people die for want of food, and air now, is tantamount to the genocides that scarred forever the 20th century. The Allahabad high court was making exactly the same point.

Defendants in the dock at the Nuremberg trials. The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (at the left edge on the first row of benches). Photo: US Government, Public Domain

“The death of Covid patients just for non-supplying of oxygen to the hospitals is a criminal act and not less than a genocide…how can we let people die in this way?”

The honourable court added that it finds it “necessary to direct for immediate remedial measures to be taken by the government”.

This was a huge pronouncement, one that equates intentional massacres of civilian populations with “letting people die” of starvation, or from a lack of air. It redefines the production of death itself, beyond wars and natural disasters. By pointing to those in authority who had reneged on their responsibilities, the honourable court was also implicitly probing larger questions of leadership, political parties and the state, holding each of these accountable. The pronouncement recalls two historical trials that illuminate the larger questions our own honourable court has raised: that of “crimes against humanity” itself.

The start of the prosecution of Herman Goering, Albert Speer and other Nazi officials on November 21, 1945 at the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, Germany and the commencement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia – the first head of state to be prosecuted in this fashion – on February 11, 2002 at The Hague, Netherlands prepared a checklist for humanity: what to look out for in dictators or political parties, their mobilisation of hatred, the organisation of ethnic cleansing, the naturalisation of torture and discrimination, among others.

The opening and closing remarks of the prosecution in both cases themselves, therefore, serve as manifestos. (The full trial archives, running to 150 volumes in just the Donovan Nuremberg collection and 1800 hours of video in the case of Milosevic’s, would of course be far more disturbingly instructive.) They teach us what to watch for in political leaders and parties, to be vigilant.

The party, the cult and iconophilia

At the trials, an attempt was made to distinguish between individual and collective guilt.

The persons were tried, as both Robert H Jackson, the Chief United States Prosecutor at Nuremberg and the Milosevic prosecutor Carla Del Ponte emphasised, as individuals. Their respective nations, Germany and Serbia, were not on trial. Nor, they underscored, was their country’s population on trial. It was to be ‘personal responsibility’ in each case. Jackson stated (Jackson’s Remarks, Reports and other documents are collected in one volume, The Nürnberg Case, 1947):

The idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits crimes, is a fiction. Crimes always are committed only by persons. While it is quite proper to employ the fiction of responsibility of a state or corporation for the purpose of imposing a collective liability, it is quite intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity.

Carla Del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor at the Milosevic trial, stated:

“No state organisation is on trial here today. The indictments do not accuse an entire people of being collectively guilty of the crimes… It may be tempting to generalise when dealing with the conduct of leaders at the highest level. But that is an error that must be avoided… Collective guilt forms no part of the prosecution case.”

The trials repeatedly teach us this: in totalitarian states, or those morphing into one, the leader reconstructs the party in a way that is iconophilic towards him or her.

German Reichsmarschall, Commander of the Luftwaffe Hermann Goering during cross examination at his trial for war crimes at the Palace of Justice during the International Military Tribunal (IMT), Nuremberg, Germany, 1946. Photo: Wikipedia Commons

Here is Jackson reading the Nazi Party:

“The Nazi Party … was bound by an iron discipline into a pyramid, with the Führer, Adolf Hitler, at the top and broadening into a numerous Leadership Corps… The membership took the Party oath which in effect amounted to an abdication of personal intelligence and moral responsibility… The membership in daily practice followed its leaders with an idolatry and self-surrender more Oriental than Western.”

Thus, the Nazi Party as a party was subsumed under the leader, whose ‘iron discipline’ ensured no dissent:

“In discipline, structure, and method the Nazi Party was not adapted to the democratic process of persuasion. It was an instrument of conspiracy and of coercion.”

It was, in short, a cult rather than a party, and this is an important insight into how Parties are made to obey, irrationally, the Leader’s edicts (one notes in passing Jackson’s stereotyping of the “Oriental” penchant for idolatory!).

In the case of Milosevic, all ‘national’ ideals, notes Del Ponte, were made to serve one man’s aspirations:

“An excellent tactician, a mediocre strategist, Milosevic did nothing but pursue his ambition at the price of unspeakable suffering inflicted on those who opposed him or who represented a threat to his personal strategy for power.

Everything … everything, was an instrument in the service of his quest for power.

They were not his personal convictions, even less patriotism or honour, or even racism or xenophobia, which inspired the accused, but the quest for power, and personal power at that.”

In iconophilic political parties, national ideals are what the charismatic leader says they are, and only serve to consolidate the leader’s iron grip on the party.

The party’s organization of terror

Jackson offered a pithy account of the ‘stupendous work in organization’ of the Nazi party:

“Their … entire structure of offices and officials was dedicated to the criminal purposes and committed to the use of the criminal methods planned by these defendants and their co-conspirators… Some of its purposes would commend themselves to many good citizens, such as the demands for “profit-sharing in the great industries,” “generous development of provision for old age,” “creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class,” “a land reform suitable to our national requirements,” and “raising the standard of health.”

Jackson underscored that the entire party apparatus built on a certain appeal:

It also made a strong appeal to that sort of nationalism which in ourselves we call patriotism and in our rivals chauvinism.

By pretending to serve a national cause, the party imposed limitations on freedoms:

The forecast of religious persecution was clothed in the language of religious liberty, for the Nazi program stated, “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State.” But, it continues with the limitation, “so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race.”

The excuse of nationalism was trotted out to produce a war machine:

it started the work of making war less offensive to the masses of the people.

The party claims all its actions are in the national interest, where ‘national interest’ is defined by ignoring historical contexts of intercultural existence.

The Nazi Party had several organizational levels:

[It] had its own secret police, its security units, its intelligence and espionage division, its raiding forces, and its youth forces. It established elaborate administrative mechanisms to identify and liquidate spies and informers, to manage concentration camps, to operate death vans, and to finance the whole movement.

It is multi-layered, with specific tasks and focus-groups for each layer, and made possible the efficient brutality of the Nazi state:

They terrorized and silenced democratic opposition and were able at length to combine with political opportunists, militarists, industrialists, monarchists, and political reactionaries.

The various cadres undertook the implementation of the party’s ideological war against specific targets across the nation-state, whether this was the industrialist community or the youth. Jackson concluded his comments on the party’s role:

The Government, the Party formations indicted before you as criminal organizations, the Secret State Police, the Army, private and semi-public associations, and “spontaneous” mobs that were carefully inspired from official sources, were all agencies that were concerned in this persecution

It was not just the ‘central’ office, but its minions, even ‘private and semi-public associations’ down the hierarchy, that terrorized the country, carrying out the vision of the cult and its leader. The party unleashes an army of minions to do its bidding, the grassroot level organisation enables it, through coercive measures, including moral policing, to establish a reign of terror.

The nature of the witness

Nuremberg relied extensively on documentary evidence to indict the captured Nazis. For instance, the handwritten diary of Alfred Jodl documented detailed plans by Germany against individual nations: Austria (titled ‘Case Otto’), Czechoslovakia (titled ‘Case Green’) and others.

This emphasis on documentation as material witness to the events was a radical shift in the way trials were to be held:

We will not ask you to convict these men on the testimony of their foes. There is no count in the Indictment that cannot be proved by books and records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers… We will show you their own films. You will see their own conduct and hear their own voices as these defendants re-enact for you, from the screen, some of the events in the course of the conspiracy.

Del Ponte made the horrifying and yet simple point about Milosevic:

Many victims cannot come before you because they did not survive. Nor is it possible, in the proof of crimes on such a scale as involved in the indictment, to bring all the surviving witnesses to give evidence in court.

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic opens his defense case at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague, July 5, 2004. Photo: Reuters/Bas Czerwinski/pool

Rather than the perhaps emotional and subjective testimony of the survivors, Nuremberg’s Jackson unusually chose to trust the supposedly objective material record of Nazi planning and process.

Today, speeches, tweets, pamphlets, videos by citizen journalists of political gatherings, and social media enunciations by politicians : civil society would be wise to archive these because victims do not often live to tell the tale. Texts produced by demagogues and party leaders must be read closely, for they are not abstract ideals but action plans.

Trials and pedagogy

Jackson believed that the Nuremberg was for posterity:

“We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.”

“the law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.”

For Del Ponte too, the Milosevic trial addressed questions for humanity itself:

“These crimes touch every one of us, wherever we live, because they offend against our deepest principle of human rights and human dignity.”

According to Jackson, the Nazis had dripped so much poison into the country that the forces they set in motion remain:

“these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust…They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making …They have so identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive.”

Jackson is implying that we must learn from Nazi criminals and those like them, that we should watch the work of the parties, that we must exercise eternal vigilance against the loss of freedoms and the work of ‘spontaneous mobs’ and party cadres. For, there are early signs of how the party and ‘its’ state would operate, slowly normalising discrimination and oppression:

“The persecution policy against the Jews commenced with nonviolent measures, such as disfranchisement and discriminations against their religion, and the placing of impediments in the way of success in economic life. It moved rapidly to organized mass violence against them, physical isolation in ghettos, deportation, forced labor, mass starvation, and extermination.”

Early signs, if ignored, lead to increasingly violent actions against specific communities, as the Nazi record indicates.

Producing death

Nazi Germany was a state whose leader, under the pretext of national welfare, terrorised and exterminated people. German efficiency was devoted to mass murder and Nazi politics like that of Milosevic’s, blinded by devotion to the Great Leader, was a necropolitics.

Philosophers such as Achille Mbembe argue that modern politics is often a necropolitics, a ‘production’ of death. But the forms of production of death are innovative: let us not assume that all leaders set out to exterminate populations through the army. Genocides of large populations can also be ‘achieved’ differently.

In the Ukraine during 1932-33, thanks to Josef Stalin’s policies in taking away all their grains and blockade of food movement into the region, 6 million died from starvation in the ‘Holodomor’ (‘killing by starvation’). Numerous calls have been issued since the late 1990s for the Holodomor to be termed a genocide.

“Can’t one terrorize without killing? And does killing necessarily mean putting to death? Isn’t it also “letting die,” “not wanting to know that one is letting others die” – hundreds of millions of human beings, from hunger, AIDS, lack of medical treatment, and so on – also be part of a “more or less” conscious and deliberate terrorist strategy?”

To let people die for want of food, and air now, is tantamount, says Jacques Derrida, to the genocides that scarred forever the 20th century. The Allahabad high court, while affixing responsibility for the deaths, like in the historical trials above, was making exactly the same point.

The two trials are manifestoes for our time. An attention to what was said and proved therein are salutary lessons in what to look for, and what to read, in the signs around us.


12 Best Nazi Movies of All Time

With the rise of Nazi ideology, the world witnessed its darkest times. From a country being completely engulfed by the satanic war crimes to countless people dying under the belief of &ldquopurity&rdquo, it&rsquos no secret that the devil itself had descended onto the Earth.

While there is no way that such dark times can be comprehended by our imagination, various filmmakers have tried to pen down the thoughts of humanity in this horrendous era. While some have been able to comprehend and spawn inspirational cinematic creations, others have failed to do so. However, these films have showcased the age of Nazism with cinematic beauty. These films do not necessarily reinvent the event of Holocaust, as there is a separate list for that, but produce the artwork commenting upon war, death, loss and sadness. It&rsquos imperative to understand that while some movies might be superior cinematically, the ranking is based on their observation and induction of Nazi themes and not the pure cinematic allegories. So, without further ado, here is the list of top movies Nazi movies ever. You can watch some of these Nazi movies on Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.

12. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Directed by veteran director Stanley Kramer, &lsquoJudgment at Nuremberg&rsquo portrays a fictionalized version of the Judges&rsquo Trial of 1947, which was one of the twelve U.S. military tribunals during the Subsequent Nuremberg trials. The film is led by the brilliant performances of the leading cast and Kramer&rsquos direction elevated the film&rsquos courtroom atmosphere. The film balances the humanistic and philosophical ideas of the director and the authoritarian aura of a courtroom drama. The films intrinsic take on the subject matter and exceptional performances by the cast immense critical success, with the film winning several prestigious awards, including 2 Academy Awards, 2 Golden Globes and an induction in the American Film Institute&rsquos &ldquotenth best film in the courtroom drama genre&rdquo.

11. Mephisto (1981)

The first Hungarian film to win the award for &lsquoBest Foreign Language Film&rdquo at the Academy Awards, &lsquoMephisto&rsquo follows a German stage actor, who finds unexpected success and mixed blessings in the popularity of his performance in a Faustian play as the Nazis take power in pre-WWII Germany. As his associates and friends flee or are ground under by the Nazi terror, the popularity of his character supersedes his own existence until he finds that his best performance is keeping up appearances for his Nazi patrons. The film resonates with inspiration and innovation. Directed by István Szabó, &lsquoMephitso&rsquo is a comment on the Nazi exploits which had an influence on the human psyche. With a cohesive screenplay written by trio Péter Dobai, Klaus Mann and István Szabó, and a commanding cinematography by Lajos Koltai and an echoing background score by Zdenko Tamassy.

10. Life Is Beautiful (1997)

A distinctive take on the Nazi concentration camp, &lsquoLife Is Beautiful&rsquo or &lsquoLa vita è bella&rsquo is an Italian comedy-drama traces the lives of a Jewish librarian and his son who upon getting apprehended by the Nazis, uses humour to protect his son from the dangers around their camp. Directed by Roberto Benigni, the film explores the themes of willpower, fantasy and innocence in one of the most torturous times of human history. Starring the director himself as the caring libertarian Guido Orefice, the film is spearheaded by his comedic sensibilities.

The narrative set alongside Benigni, is written by Vincenzo Cerami, which is adapted from Rubino Romeo Salmonì&rsquos &lsquoIn the End, I Beat Hitler&rsquo with absolute dexterity. Adding to the art is Nicola Piovani&rsquos stunning music which complements the witty comedic timing and the grief which seeps through the glacial demise. Tonino Delli Colli&rsquos vivid cinematography captures the little intricacies of the concentration camp settings with commendable technique and vision.

9. The Great Dictator (1940)

A part of Charlie Chaplin&rsquos transition into sound films, &lsquoThe Great Dictator&rsquo brought together stinging satire and parody to the genre of &ldquoNazi films&rdquo. Produced during a time when the Holocaust&rsquos atrocities were yet to be scrutinised, the film did receive several criticisms for Chaplin&rsquos seemingly comical take on the subject matter. However, the 1940 flick stings with political allegory and satire which comments upon the strict regime and inhumanity which seeped through the vein of the country. Essaying the roles of a Jewish barber in the ghetto and Adenoid Hynkel, Dictator of Tomania which is a parody of Germany and Adolf Hitler, the film traces their identities and interweaves it with Chaplin&rsquos point-on comedy. A critical and commercial success, the film is considered as one of the most important works of satire went on to be selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry.

8. Au revoir les enfants (1987)

An autobiographical film, &lsquoAu revoir les enfants&rsquo follows the bond two students share at a boarding school in Nazi-occupied France when one gets to know that the other is a Jew hiding from the Nazi soldiers. Directed and written by Louis Malle, the film explores the harrowing realities of the regime and the innocence which is torn apart by the political propaganda. Starring Gaspard Manesse as Julien Quentin and Raphaël Fejtö as Jean Kippelstein, the 1987 flick perfectly captures the childlike bliss and undying friendship in the horrors of war.

The descriptive cinematography by Renato Berta captures the polluted administration and the poisoned academic institutions which were governed by the unscrupulous Nazi government. The film&rsquos innovative and heartening take on youth and friendship was a critical and commercial success. With the articulate screenplay published by the esteemed &ldquoGallimard&rdquo and the film winning 7 César Awards, &lsquoAu revoir les enfants&rsquo went on to cement itself as one of the most important movies about Nazism.

7. Downfall (2004)

Starring Bruno Ganz as Adolf Hitler, &lsquoDownfall&rsquo or &lsquoDer Untergang&rsquo traces the memories of Alexandra Maria Lara&rsquos Traudl Junge, the final secretary for Adolf Hitler who tells of the dictator&rsquos final days in his Berlin bunker at the end of WWII. Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, the film adapts novels &lsquoInside Hitler&rsquos Bunker&rsquo (1945) written by Joachim Fest and &lsquoUntil the Final Hour&rsquo (1947) written by Traudl Junge and Melissa Müller into the cinematic representation. A literal take on the title, the film is conceived from the perspective of Junge, who expresses her shame and guilt of admiring Hilter in her youth. Written by Screenplay by Bernd Eichinger, the film bases itself on the characters rather than exclusively catering to the plot or the narrative. This did come at a cost though, with several critics of film magazines and newspapers questioning the director&rsquos choice of showcasing Hitler&rsquos &ldquohumane&rdquo side.

The film is comfortably established on the firm shoulders of actor Bruno Ganz, whose research work and studies on the dictator&rsquos lifestyle, speech and body language paid off in a stunning performance. The innovative take on the horrifying tyrant earned the film a gamut of praise from researchers, biographers and film critics.

6. Das Boot (1981)

A German war film, written and directed by Wolfgang Petersen, &lsquoDas Boot&rsquo chronicles the tumultuous World War II through the fictional story of U-96 and its crew. Personifying fear, exhilaration, sadness and power, Peterson masterfully portrays a sense of claustrophobia and time liquidity. Brimming with technical brilliance, the movie is completely enmeshed in the ideology of war, destruction and melancholy. The World War background allows the horrific reality to creep in the veins of the viewers and the fictitious story helps the director mould their emotional moral foundation.

While the film wasn&rsquot an instant financial success, it went on to gain the critical claps and earned six Academy Award nominations, a BAFTA Award and DGA Award. Through the passage of time, Petersen&rsquos nifty work seasoned as one of the greatest films of all time.

5. Casablanca (1942)

Cited as being one of the greatest movies in world cinema, &lsquoCasablanca&rsquo, set during contemporary World War II, focuses on American expatriate Rick Blaine, essayed by Humphrey Bogart, who must choose between his love for a woman and helping her and her husband, a Czech Resistance leader, escape from the Vichy-controlled city of Casablanca to continue his fight against the Nazis. The film resonates with inspiration and redemption. Directed by Michael Curtiz, &lsquoCasablanca&rsquo is characterized by sociological concepts, and analyses social class, race, sacrifice and many others. With a cohesive screenplay written by trio Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein and Howard Koch, the film is adapted from &lsquoEverybody Comes to Rick&rsquos&rsquo written by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison. Adding to the film&rsquos iconic status are the masterful cinematography by Arthur Edeson and an echoing background score by Max Steiner.

With 3 Academy Awards and gamut of memorable character, moments and visuals, &lsquoCasablanca&rsquo went on to redefine the art and establish itself as one of the greatest creations of world cinema.

4. Army of Shadows (1969)

Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, &lsquoArmy of Shadows&rsquo or &lsquoL&rsquoarmée des ombres&rsquo traces the lives of underground resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied France. Shot as a documentary, the film portrays the intertwining stories of several members of the French resistance. Defying any sort of genre categorization, the film infuses a thriller, a spy story and a heroic journey. While the film portrays its characters as heroic, the film presents a bleak, unromantic view of the Resistance. While the measured approach of perceiving Nazi-occupied France could&rsquove been annoyingly tedious, the film&rsquos unabashed take on the Nazi abuses elevated it to a commendable piece of art.

With such a brazen approach came enormous criticism though. French critics denounced the film for its perceived glorification of Charles de Gaulle, and as a result, it completely failed at the box-office and did not get a worldwide release. However, in the mid-1990s &ldquoCahiers du cinema&rdquo published a reappraisal of the film, leading to its restoration and re-release in 2006. It ultimately redeemed itself and has since been adulated as one of the best works in world cinema.

3. The Pianist (2002)

It requires a level of wizardry to amalgamate the warmth of music and the horrors of Nazi exploits. Roman Polanski is a wizard. A biographical drama, &lsquoThe Pianist&rsquo follows the story of Polish Jewish musician Władysław Szpilman, essayed by Adrien Brody, and his struggles to survive the destruction of the Warsaw ghetto of World War II. Based on the memoir of the aforementioned pianist, the film sets the art with war in parallel and showcases the haunting reality. Adapted by writer Ronald Harwood, the screenplay is a poetic beauty. The melancholic aura acts as a character and lays the foundation for Szpilman&rsquos artistic creations and the tragedy which seeped through Germany.

Complementing the director and writer are Wojciech Kilar, whose background score sent chills down the spine and Paweł Edelman&rsquos cinematography which personified the fear of humanity with poignancy. The film received ginormous critical praise, with it winning the &ldquoPalme d&rsquoOr&rdquo at the Cannes Film Festival, 3 Academy Awards for &ldquoBest Actor in a Leading Role&rdquo, &ldquoBest Director&rdquo and &ldquoBest Writing, Adapted Screenplay&rdquo, 2 BAFTA Awards for &ldquoBest Film&rdquo and &ldquoBest Direction&rdquo, and 7 French Césars, including &ldquoBest Picture&rdquo, &ldquoBest Director&rdquo and &ldquoBest Actor&rdquo, to name a few.

2. Shoah (1985)

A French documentary, &lsquoShoah&rsquo presents director Claude Lanzmann&rsquos interviews with survivors, witnesses and perpetrators during visits to German Holocaust sites across Poland, including extermination camps. What makes this such an important film documenting the Nazi atrocities is the atmosphere of personal interaction Lanzmann created between his work and the audience. The 1985 documentary cerebrally presents the trauma the Holocaust survivors went through and how their lives were influenced and governed by it.

The cinematography team consisting Dominique Chapuis, Jimmy Glasberg, Phil Gries and William Lubtchansky does a remarkable job in focussing on the interviewees rather than the interviewer and captures their emotions and sentiments. However, Lanzmann&rsquos efforts catapulted the film into a sensation with his brilliant research skills. The director not only manages to capture the survivors, but also the men responsible for this destruction. The collective efforts of the team earned the flick immense praise, with some even calling it as &ldquothe greatest documentary about contemporary history ever made&rdquo. The film was hailed as a masterpiece by several respected critics such as Richard Brody, François Mitterrand and Roger Ebert, to name a few.

1. Schindler&rsquos List (1993)

The Nazi regime has been documented as one most atrocious, torturous and heart-breaking time of the human history. However, the struggle was not just about the political propaganda. It was about the inner tussle of standing up against such a horrifying reality, and Steven Spielberg struck the chord with elegance and eloquence.

Starring Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler, the film chronicles his historic feat of saving the lives of more than a thousand mostly Polish-Jewish refugees from the Holocaust by employing them in his factories during World War II. Complementing Neeson&rsquos heartening performance is the haunting discourse by Ralph Fiennes as SS officer Amon Göth, and the unflinching support by Ben Kingsley as Schindler&rsquos Jewish accountant Itzhak Stern.

Based on Thomas Keneally&rsquos novel &lsquoSchindler&rsquos Ark&rsquo (1982), the film bases its foundation the artistically masterful collaboration between the director and the screenwriter Steven Zaillian. The articulate narrative discourse of the decaying humanity is set in parallel with Schindler&rsquos humanistic journey from an opportunistic businessman to a heroic figure. Perfecting the coherent screenplay is Janusz Kamiński&rsquos expressive cinematography which perfectly set the contextual undertones of the director&rsquos vision. With the entire film shot in black and white, the melancholic connotations are uplifted by the historical accuracy. The entire effort is brought to literal representation by John Williams&rsquo evocative background score.


"The Grave Responsibility of Justice": Justice Robert H. Jackson's Opening Statement at Nuremberg

Top Image: Justice Jackson Delivering the Opening Statement at Nuremberg. Courtesy of the US Army Signal Corps. Katherine Fite Lincoln Papers, Harry S. Truman Library & Museum.

Wednesday, November 21, 1945 marked the second day in the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT), more commonly known today as the Nuremberg Trials. For the first time in history, military, economic, and political leaders identified as Major Offenders would be held to account for the actions of their government and military and its crimes against humanity and peace. Beginning the proceedings in the Palace of Justice on this, the second day of a trial that would not end for 293 subsequent days, was the opening statement for the prosecution delivered by American Supreme Court Justice and US Chief of Counsel, Justice Robert H. Jackson. Jackson’s opening statement, consisting of nearly 25,000 words and taking nearly three-and-a-half hours to read, remains one of the most famous and influential oratories in the canon of international law and criminal jurisprudence.

Appointed by President Truman and taking a leave of absence from the bench of the US Supreme Court, Associate Justice Jackson, along with other members of the IMT, labored for many months over the summer and fall of 1945 in an attempt to codify the legal precedents required to try individual members of the Nazi regime. Building off the framework of statements and declarations from the 1943 Moscow and 1945 Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, the task facing Jackson and the IMT remained a daunting one. All of the Allies agreed that Nazi Germany must be punished for the unprecedented nature of its crimes. However, it was also agreed that a predetermined ‘show trial’ was to be avoided to dispel as much as possible the idea of a vindictive victor’s justice. As such, each of the 22 Nazi defendants present at Nuremberg stood accused of one or more of the following four new categories of crimes outlined by Jackson and the IMT: “Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace,” “Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace,” “Participating in war crimes,” and “Crimes against humanity.”

Justice Jackson Delivering the Opening Statement at Nuremberg. Courtesy of the US Army Signal Corps. Katherine Fite Lincoln Papers, Harry S. Truman Library & Museum.

Just as the IMT strove to define the new legal landscape, Jackson spent months drafting his opening statement which not only introduced these new concepts of international law to the Nuremberg court, but also indicated to a worldwide audience that justice for the victims of Nazi aggression would be served. In his statement, Jackson’s tone was analytical, deliberate, and extraordinarily thorough. Jackson’s tone matched the basis of the argument for the prosecution which chose to rely on documentary evidence, eschewing possibly volatile eyewitness testimony. Despite his dispassionate approach, Jackson began by acknowledging that he well understood the momentous nature of the trial both for himself and for world leaders to come.

"The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."

Speaking of the defendants, “twenty-odd broken men…their fate of little consequence to the world,” Jackson focused on the actions of the Nazi leaders rather than their identities. The defendants embodied and signified all of the evils of Nazism which must be extinguished lest they arise again in the future.

"What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds, of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life…. Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men in whom those forces now precariously survive."

Justice Jackson Delivering the Opening Statement at Nuremberg. Courtesy of the US Army Signal Corps. Katherine Fite Lincoln Papers, Harry S. Truman Library & Museum.

For more than three hours, Jackson relentlessly made his argument, condemning the Nazi regime and its actions as criminal from the very moment of their inception to the arrival of their defeat. Albert Speer, the Nazi Minister of Armaments and War Production, was both impressed by Jackson’s “grand, devastating address,” but also comforted somewhat “from one sentence in it which accused the defendants of guilt for the regime's crimes, but not the German people.” At the conclusion of his statement, Jackson was honest in his assessment of human history, but also hopeful in his appraisal for humanity’s future.

"Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have “leave to live by no man’s leave, underneath the law."

Chief American prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson delivers the opening speech of the American prosecution at the International Military Tribunal trial of war criminals at Nuremberg. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Gerald (Gerd) Schwab.

Seventy-five-years later, Justice Jackson’s opening statement at Nuremberg remains one of the most significant and one of the most often cited affirmations on the role and responsibility of international law and human rights. Jackson’s opening statement continues to serve as a foundation for the course of international law and international criminal trials to the present day.


Watch the video: Die kleinen Nazis - Das Dilemma der Entnazifizierung (January 2022).

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos