This trial which is now to begin, is unique in the annals of jurisprudence.
These were the words with which Sir Geoffrey Lawrence aptly convened the first-ever international war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945. By ‘unique’ Sir Lawrence did not mean that the proceedings would mark a precedent in case law or any organic application of existing law; rather, this was an announcement that the trials which were to follow were based in pure legal positivism, the artifice of a revolutionary court.
But this brings me to the point of my essay: I do not here, no matter the volume of exculpatory evidence, endeavor to vindicate the dictatorship which obtained in 1930s Germany as altogether sound or guiltless of crimes against individuals who lived within its orbits; for the statism of National Socialism, like all statist regimes in some measure, was tyrannical. Neither need I here plead the Germans’ case for war nor eulogize that great nation. My objective is limited only to proving that the Nuremberg Trials were not the inauguration of Theonomy, but the mockery and abnegation thereof.
Rivers of ink have been spilt in the wake of World War II in aims of justifying the oceans of blood which preceded them in that global catastrophe. Usually not toward greater explication of fact and detail so much as reinforcement and perpetuation of the Judeo-humanist narrative. The lion’s share of that literature is divided among three major areas of emphasis: warfare and counterintelligence tactics, for the military buff; biographies of the major players such as FDR, Churchill, Stalin, and various generals, for the politically-minded; and, of course, retrospectives on what is termed “the Holocaust” forming the moral substrate to the whole. That last subgenre is to the modern mind the post facto causus belli. I say it was after the fact because much of the received lore, though conceived in advance, had been codified in the minds of Christians only well after the event, and constitutes an entirely different apologetic for the conflict in retrospect than what was promulgated in the run-up to war. Prior to the war, the average American G.I. had no concept of “fighting to save the Jews,” nor punishing the Germans for their border and deportation policies. The German Reich had, after all, patterned their codes in such matters largely after American policy such as the then-operational Bracero program; and less than ten years after Nuremberg, America asserted all the stronger our right to deport alien groups in Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback. This prerogative of border enforcement was understood as the cornerstone of national defense throughout all Christendom past, including the forgoing Israelite republic. No, what our men were told in the run-up to war was that they were going to enforce the borders of all the European countries against German invasion! Our troops saw themselves as fighting to defend national borders. Our Joes were also told that they were going to liberate Germany and greater Europe from the tyranny brought by a revolutionary coup against the European people worldwide. John Smith from Texas believed he was fighting for the liberation of European Christendom, not the Jews.
Truth be told – and I’m far from the first to mention this – on account of the great similarity between America and Germany at the time, absent the wording, we are often hard-pressed to distinguish American from German propaganda posters in both world wars.
This profound similarity between Americans and Germans is no doubt attributable in great measure to the fact that America’s primary ethnic component is German. So we naturally felt, with Yockey, that Europe was the “home-soil of the West”1 and that Germany was our sister nation by faith and blood. Kuyper likewise attests to Americans of this kinship:
By virtue of our common origin, you may call us bone of your bone,–we feel that you are flesh of our flesh, and . . . you will never forget that the historic cradle of your wondrous youth stood in our Old Europe, and was most gently rocked in my once mighty Fatherland.2
In the decades since the war, however, the propaganda had shifted from an emphasis on freeing Europe from socialist tyranny (stilted as those arguments were) to a justification for decapitalizing the German nation (via the Morgenthau Plan), decimating and demoralizing the citizens (the Lindemann Plan), and forcing multiculturalism on Europe (the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan) in order to avenge the Jews (the Kaufman Plan). Seven decades after the fact and a step further removed from Christian society, the anti-Christian coalition of Gentile humanists and Jews is growing more candid about these motives, because they feel it is now safe to publicly revel in the overthrow of European Christendom, the genocide of the German people, and the extinction of all Whites as the waymarks of “progress” along the road to the Humanist eschaton.
White Christian America could be coaxed into war against her elder sister Germany only by the most cunning programming. But in recent days, as Christendom falls further into eclipse, all the suspicions of conservatives are being confirmed and publicly affirmed as the need for subterfuge dissipates; those who plotted toward the overthrow of Christendom are free now to speak with greater candor because their secularization of society has resulted in the majority coming to share in the anti-Christian worldview of the Talmudists. So it is that the one-time clandestine conspiracy has gone mainstream – the public merger of American capitalism, Anglo-Fabianism and cultural Marxism.
Pursuant of that end, all religious, political, and cultural discussion in the modern world has come to ostensibly hinge upon reductio ad Hitlerum. As the new winds of propaganda move public sentiment, Godwin’s law has cultured its own subset – reductio ad holocaustium – even in matters as unrelated as weather. No, really. At present the scam of anthropogenic climate change is granted not by virtue of evidence, but by shaming skeptics for their similitude to “Holocaust deniers.” That is to say, any disagreement with or reservations about the deranged agenda of the Comintern is deemed Hitlerism, and thereby the zenith of evil. Traditional Christianity, seen through this paradigm, is an entirely contraband worldview requiring philo-Semitic theological revolution, whose continuance otherwise will, of necessity, precipitate another “Holocaust.” According to the Rabbis, even if Nazism and Christianity aren’t exactly the same thing, they very nearly are. Indeed, Christianity is the worse of the two, as it has the longer track record of opposing Jewish interests, and the rise of a nationalist Germany could occur only in the context of a traditional Christian worldview. So long as the Christian faith persists on earth it will do as it has always done – declare Christ’s absolute reign over the nations, reifying the blood-and-soil societies of limited jurisdictions and sovereignties under God. The Christian position historically and biblically undergirds and demands nationalism. Though Jewish Zionism embraces nationalism for the Jews, they deny it to everyone else, most particularly with respect to the Japhetic nations, because White Christian nationalism is, as the Jews (and more importantly, the subverted churches) see it, the definition of Nazism and the epitome of evil. For all the philo-Semitic dissembling of Alienists, our modern churches refuse to see the solar cross or the fylfot, or swastika, as what they are – another historic crux embraced of Christians as far back as the Roman catacombs. But the Jews do see this. They regard the swastika as nothing but another Christian Cross.
Programmed from without by a holistic PR campaign, the political exigencies orchestrated by cultural subversives in church and state, or plain old cowardice, and in whatever synergy these factors have blent, the churches have since convinced themselves that they can have it both ways: they believe they can repudiate Christendom and Christ’s Lordship over the nations for the sake of Christ’s enemies, but still keep Christianity.
Having now embraced both Allied propaganda and the broader implications of cultural Marxism as the new default lenses of Christianity, neo-Christians have since emblematized Nuremberg as the ultimate anecdote and vindication of higher law. It is not hyperbole to say they now see the judicial resolve there as Theonomy applied, a veritable case-law extension of the canon. In fact, they tend to hold to the Allied narrative more fervently than they do to the doctrine which they claim to have predicated it. I say that because their theology undergoes refurbishment far more frequently and casually than their civil doctrine of WWII. Even if they try on new theologies like hats, flipping from Reformed to New Perspectivism to Romanism to Jewish, the Allied propaganda remains sacrosanct to them. Perhaps Arendt was onto something when she wrote of “the banality of evil.”
Granted, the pretext of Theonomic Common Law was consciously raised in the proceedings at Nuremberg when U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson made the following opening remarks on November 21, 1945: “The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, ‘under God and the law.’” The English were no less keen to affirm the same pretext for the Tribunal’s authority as Sir Hartley Shawcross, Chief Prosecutor of the UK, went on to assert: “Ultimately the rights of men, as all men are made in the image of God, are fundamental.”
The sum of understanding which the average “informed Christian” has of the Nuremberg Trials today is that the Allies drew on Higher Law to repudiate the Germans’ lateral law: “we were only following orders” and “whatever we did was not wrong in the context of our culture” is no defense.
Admittedly, if this were a true characterization of those trials, we would agree with the neo-Christians – but this isn’t at all what happened. First, we must object to the insinuation that Germany had suddenly become a Christless stronghold of social Darwinism: while the Third Reich was a statist enterprise, the National Socialist Party’s rise in the Beer Hall Putsch was predicated explicitly upon higher law, and what was understood as a mandate from heaven to overrule an immoral state on behalf of a Christian people. Beyond this, the National Socialist Party platform held to a clearer statement of higher law than either the Democrats or Republicans in America at the time, declaring Christianity the official religion of the German nation. Hitler was elected Reichschancellor of Germany upon this Christian Weltanschauung. In truth, the German Church nigh categorically attributed the mass revival of the faith in 1930s Germany to Hitler’s outlawing pornography, sodomy, prostitution, anti-Christian literature, and many other vices which had proliferated under the Jewish domination of the Weimar era. German Christianity was on a rapid upward advance indeed under Hitler’s family-restoration policies.
Conversely, while paying lip service to higher law, the Allies nonetheless denied its content completely. Everyone at the time – especially Christian jurists – knew the Theonomic-sounding prefaces at Nuremberg to be calculated posturing, a facade to persuade Christendom that their condemnation of Christian Germany was upon some moral high ground. U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Dean of Columbia Law School, Harlan F. Stone, typified the Christian opposition to Nuremberg in the States:
[Justice Robert] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. . . . I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.3
Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas echoed the same:
I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg Trials were unprincipled. . . . Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.4
Many, such as presiding judge Charles Wennerstrum, were dismayed at what appeared candidly as the replacement of law with an anti-Christian vendetta at Nuremberg:
If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here.
Obviously, the victor in any war is not the best judge of the war crime guilt . . . The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions . . .
The whole atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed . . . Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices . . .
Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defence had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.
Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made available to the defence for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested vigorously. Gen. Taylor tried out of court to call a meeting of the presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious officer of the court seeking full justice.
Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners for more than 2½ years and repeated interrogations without presence of counsel.
The lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied . . .5
The trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that they lost the war to tough conquerors.6
Of course, the likelihood that the German defendants were driven to self-incriminating testimony unto a kangaroo court purely from the passage of time in a comfortable confinement is exceedingly low. They were tortured. Freda Utley attests to the brutal physical tortures suffered, not by the Nuremberg defendants, but by the defendants of the Malmedy massacre trial at Dachau:
Beatings and brutal kickings; knocking-out of teeth and breaking of jaws; mock trials; solitary confinement; torture with burning splinters; the use of investigators pretending to be priests; starvation; and promises of acquittal. Speaking to the Chester Pike Rotary Club on December 14, 1948, Judge van Roden said: “All but two of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedures with our American investigators.”7
While Utley does not attest to the same brutalities suffered by the Nuremberg accused, she yet wrote of the mental anguish suffered, along with likely physical torture at the hands of the Soviets:
It was often possible to get the testimony required from a witness by keeping him in prison for two or three years in terrible anxiety for the fate of his family, left unprovided for, or by threatening him with being arraigned as a war criminal himself if he refused to testify against the accused.
In some cases [was] the threat of handing over an un-co-operative witness to the Russians. This practice was dramatically revealed in the trial of Baron von Weizsäcker and other German Foreign Office officials, in the fall of 1948.8
Senator Robert Taft addressed the legal theory most poignantly:
It is completely alien to the American tradition of law to prosecute men for criminal acts which were not declared to be so until long after the fact. The Nuremberg Trials will for ever remain a blot on the escutcheon of American jurisprudence.9
Even those who did battle against the Germans, such as General Patton, were taken aback by what was seen as lawless “Semitic revenge against all Germans” in total disregard of “Anglo-Saxon conscience,”10 maintaining, “I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is semitic.”11
Moreover, even some prominent Jewish legal minds took exception, such as in the case of Milton Konvitz:
The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.12
Far from any Christian nomology, the legal theory employed at Nuremberg was described by conservative thinkers as everything from “lynch law” and “bastard law” to “Semitic revenge.”
(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
Charge a: ‘Crimes against peace’ may at first sound legitimate to those grown up in the shadow of euphemisms such as a “war on poverty,” a “war on terror,” and a “war on crime,” but you can only wage war on concepts conceptually, not literally. You can no more shoot peace than you can the Pythagorean theorem. And unlike with people, when one trespasses against a concept, the victim (peace in this case) cannot testify against her assailant, and no one can conduct any forensic analysis of the body. It is an intentionally amorphous and unquantifiable claim regarding an ethereal abstraction.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t crimes without human victims, because there are. The first table of the Decalogue, after all, lists crimes against God. But this is the strict bifurcation of Christian law exactly, breaking down all offenses either as crimes against men or crimes against God. Nuremberg spoke in terms outside these categories entirely.
Albeit, in the most mundane sense, we might take ‘crimes against peace’ as just a theatrical euphemism for ‘planning and prosecuting war,’ but this is no more tangible. To weave new metaphysical categories of crime whole cloth? And based upon the conjuring of conceptual golems from elemental states of being (such as ‘peace’) to stand in for victims? That is to depart from Christian Law entirely in deference to quasi-Gnosticism – or more specifically, as the context will at length demonstrate, Talmudism.
Not to mention that if this charge encompasses the planning and prosecution of aggressive wars every one of the Allied states represented had done likewise a hundred times over not just in their past, but up through the war in question. For we recall Germany’s motive for the annexation of Danzig was to alleviate the sufferings of the historically German city at the hands of the Soviets and Poles waging war upon the people there. Had not the British, Americans, French, and the the Soviets ‘planned’ war together – a conspiracy – against Germany? Even Jackson, the leading American prosecutor, acknowledged in brief this profound hypocrisy, that the Allies
have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for reconstruction work]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic states based on no title except conquest.13
His pangs of conscience for the crimes committed by U.S. Allies ring rather hollow in consideration of the fact that Jackson omits any mention of America’s saturation bombings of civilians, use of white phosphorous on women and children, calculated extermination of German refugees, or the express arrangement by the American government for millions of German slaves to be shipped to Russia where they would undoubtedly be worked to death.14 But Jackson would own none of this.
However, this tu quoque argument was raised by the defense redundantly at trial:
Jackson: “Well, those preparations were preparations for armed occupation of the Rhineland, were they not?”
Goering: “No, that is altogether wrong. If Germany had become involved in a war, no matter from which side, let us assume from the east, then mobilization measures would have had to be carried out for security reasons throughout the Reich in this event, even in the demilitarized Rhineland; but not for the purpose of occupation, of liberating the Rhineland.”
Jackson: “You mean the preparations were not military preparations?”
Goering: “Those were general preparations for mobilization, such as any country makes, and not for the purpose of the occupation of the Rhineland.”
Jackson: “But were of a character which had to be kept entirely secret from foreign powers?”
Goering: “I do not think I can recall reading beforehand the publication of the mobilization preparations of the United States.”15
This exchange stirred a chorus of laughter throughout the court, flustering Jackson visibly. Knowing that the Reichsmarschall had laid bare the farce of the trial with one casual retort, the chief prosecutor continued on, stammering in frustrated embarrassment:
Well, I respectfully submit to the tribunal that this witness is not being responsive, and has not been in his examination!
As the low laughter in the court continued, Jackson’s embarrassment gave way to rage:
. . . this witness, it seems to me, is adopting, and has adopted, in the witness box and in the dock, an arrogant and contemptuous attitude toward the tribunal which is giving him the trial which he never gave a living soul, or dead ones either!
Popular retrospectives such as the docudrama, Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial, actually attempt to portray this parley and the resultant outburst by Jackson as somehow vindicating the Allies. But consider what actually transpired in that exchange: because Goering dared make obvious the one-sided unlawfulness of the trial and its premises, the prosecution let slip the pretenses of lawful procedure and simply denied that the defendant had any right to a trial at all. As far as Jackson was concerned, Goering’s daring to defend himself upon bulwarks of Christian procedure was all the reason the tribunal needed to lay aside consideration of that defense. Reminding the court of the overt injustice that the prosecution would accuse German officials of crimes not applicable in principle to the Allied powers evoked not the expected dismissal of charges, but just the opposite – rage and categorical condemnation. Imagine being in the defendant’s shoes just then: after having proven the hypocrisy and irrationality of the accusation, utterly confounding the narrative of his accusers, and reducing the prosecution to stammering tantrums, he was only condemned the more. Any facade of legality was completely shattered. Goering was staring into nothing but blind hatred and murderous vengeance absent any semblance of genuine justice.
If this newly minted “law” against “conspiracy” toward war – tactical preparations made by all countries in case of conflict – is granted as legitimate, such an obvious circumstance of unclean hands on the part of plaintiffs and judges representing the Allied powers at Nuremberg should have resulted in the recusal of all concerned. This would have been the Christian application of law as Jesus commanded, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone” (John 8:7). Meaning that those involved in substantial immorality related to the lawsuit cannot execute the law impartially or bring charges against another without equally condemning themselves, and must therefore recuse themselves.
In Germany’s case, the ‘aggressive war’ toward which she was principally accused of conspiring was the Anschluss Österreichs: by name, the annexation of Austria, and by concept, extending to the German city of Danzig in Poland, the Sudetenland, and corridors lost to Germany in the Versailles Treaty. Whether or not that action was contrary to the terms of the Versailles Treaty, which robbed Germany of her historic territories and enslaved many German communities to the Soviets, it was perfectly harmonious with what had previously been accepted as “a cardinal principle” of international law: self-determination. (This central principle of international law had even been affirmed by the Allied governments as recently as the 1941 Atlantic Charter and assumed throughout the Scripture from the Table of Nations to the Great Commission.) The territories in question were not “invaded” by Germany, but according to the self-determination of the inhabitants of those lands, liberated. In fact, both Austria and Danzig had, since 1918, pled for German annexation to rescue them from the ravages of Bolshevik terror. In such places the German ‘invaders’ were met with the cheers of exuberant crowds saluting and throwing flowers. Contrary to Allied propaganda, it was Germany who maintained the international law when other states would not. Germany stood up to the warring aggressor which had sanctioned and conducted the systematized murder of some 58,000 ethnic Germans in the Danzig corridor alone, whereas the Allies colluded with and protected the criminals.
To comprehend the import of these happenings, they might be compared to the scenario of a man defending the children of his murdered brother from their father’s killer only to be put on trial for ‘conspiracy’ against the murderer. At which trial the kinsman-defender finds the murderer himself to preside over the case as his judge and the prosecutor is none other than the murderer’s accomplices. By what frame of reference, and by what moral code, could such proceedings be counted as justice? Certainly nothing adjacent to Christianity or God’s Law. As H.B. Clark summarized Christian due process:
It is an ancient doctrine — the observance of which is “essential to the very concept of justice” — that everyone is entitled to a fair trial of his cause. No matter how reprehensible his conduct may appear to have been, he has that right, for it is elementary that all men — whether they themselves be just or unjust [Matt. 5:45], or whether they be rich or poor, — stand equally before a court, enjoying the equal protection of the law and receiving justice upon the same terms. Doubtless a judge ought not to give judgment until he has “examined the truth” of the matter [Ecclesiasticus 11:7], for though he decide justly he cannot be considered just if he decides without hearing both sides [Ex. 22:9]. Nor is a trial fair if it is dominated by a mob, as the trial of Jesus appears to have been.16
The Nuremberg tribunal not only failed to meet this bar of biblical due process, but vigorously repudiated it. In Karl Dönitz’s defense attorney Otto Kranzbühler’s words, “If legislator, judge, and prosecutor are one and the same person, this fact alone will be enough to entertain powerful misgivings as to the outcome of their activity.”17 It is essentially the same thing as one being ‘judge, jury, and executioner.” It flies in the face of the most rudimentary separation of powers and judicature held sacrosanct by Christendom for more than a thousand years. It contradicts directly the Actonian maxim that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is the implicit denial of original sin. It trades in the Trinitarian view of man and law for the humanist Monad.
Yes, Germany also went on to occupy Holland, Denmark, Norway, and France in what all parties recognize as tactical expediencies. The occupation of Holland, for instance, came only in response to intelligence intercepts confirming that the Allies were moving to invade Holland first to capture the Dutch airfields – strategic necessities for Germany if the Reich was to hamper the saturation bombing of non-combatant German women and children, and to retain retaliatory strike capability against Britain. Therefore the Germans’ action on the Dutch was defensive and wholly forced by the Allies. This was merely a deferral to the principle of force majeure against a coalition which proved, time and again, to lack any moral restraint expected of Christian men. But Germany – the least culpable entity involved – was alone attributed the blame.
As Allied lore has it, the Anschluss was merely a series of tactical maneuvers to establish a platform from which Germany would launch a war against the whole world. Really. Thus comes the sad chestnut, “If Joe hadn’t gone over there to lick the Nazis you’d be speaking German now, bub.” Yes, the British and American governments drown our soldiers in rhetoric about some plot of global domination by the little country of Germany. But this is absurd on its face. This spurious notion that Germany was waging “aggressive war” in aims of world conquest is contravened by their very organizing concept – nationalism. Because nationalism is communally based in the Golden Rule, coordinate to the “live and let live” ideal and the proximate opposite of international empire. In fact, it was that very threat – the budding Socialist Internationale aggressing upon their nation and all others – which the Germans intended to arrest in their assertion of national sovereignty.
Far more importantly, nationalism just happens to be the divinely established social organization of humanity throughout Scripture, from the forced separation of the Cainites from the Sethites (Gen. 4:11-26), to the Noahic prophecy over the races established in his sons (Gen.9:25-27), to the Table of Nations (Gen. 10), to the divine enforcement of the Table of Nations (Gen. 11:1-9), to God’s promise to make Abraham a great nation (Gen. 12:1-3), to the divine condemnation of the Canaanite nations (Deut. 7:1ff.), to God’s segregation of the Israelite nation from the Egyptian (Gen. 46:34; 47:6, 27; Ex. 8:22), to the national covenant at Sinai (Ex. 20), to the national insularity codes throughout the Pentateuch (e.g. Deut. 23:1-8), to the nationalist overtures of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea, to God’s condemnation of the Babylon empire through the prophet Daniel, to the national restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah, to Christ’s having come first to minister to national Israel (Matt. 10:6; 15:24), to His murder at the hands of the international order of the day (the Roman Empire), to the nation of Israel’s contractual rejection of Christ (Matt. 27:25), to the covenant’s passing to the nations in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), to Paul’s disclosure that God separated the nations so that they might grope for Him, seek Him, and find Him (Acts 17:26-27), to the millennium and the eternal state beyond wherein all the nations continue as nations forever (Dan. 7:13-14; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 15:4). All of which Vos famously summarized:
Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.
Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme [of Babel]. . . . [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfilment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.18
This is precisely why Germany was scapegoated – because she dared reprise, in some degree, the God-ordained social order in the face of the rising Leviathan of the Communist Internationale.
This is why the accusations of aggression and plots of world domination leveled against “the Hun” are so inverted: the NWO audaciously imputed to the nationalist state the imperial ambitions of internationalism – the very thing they were opposing! The guilt of international ‘conspiracy’ was laid to the account of the entity least guilty, and by those most guilty. Where the Allies colluded against their own people in the bid for global humanist government, Germany, albeit a totalitarian regime, asserted the sovereignty of the nations – a concept hallowed throughout all the great documents of Christendom prior from the Declaration of Arbroath to the Declaration of Independence.
This projection and attribution of guilt upon the parties least deserving by those most deserving is endemic to humanism – the reorientation of the ethics from divine proclamation to human appetite and from divine organization of society along organic lines to the artificial reorganization of society along abstract ideological lines – an inversion of good and evil. So reoriented, judicial guilt is no longer affixed to criminals, but rather imputed to the innocent. Inasmuch as man inherently seeks atonement, that reorientation of perspective always results in the establishment of false proxies for guilt. At Nuremberg that proxy was the German nation. But today this dynamic is everywhere in the Western world: if a Norwegian girl is raped by an Arab, she bears the culpability by having enticed him, even if unwittingly. If Blacks in America are engaged in continual murder and mayhem against each other, and against Whites, it is said to be the fault of White Society. White racism made them do it. Truly, these sorts of inverted imputations of guilt, though ubiquitous now, were at the time of the trials, still revolutionary to English and American thought; albeit, these new lenses had already been institutionalized among the Soviets and the French before them. Nonetheless, as law, everyone recognized the new codes brought to bear at Nuremberg for ad hoc humanism.
Charge b: This was essentially a gratuitous charge with no quantifiable meaning. But the Germans would be convicted under this amorphous premise against war, nonetheless. And that in spite of conducting themselves with far more restraint in war than the Allies.
Charge c: While God’s Law provides clear controls for the prosecution of war known to Christendom from at least the time of St. Augustine as just war theory, and violation of these tenets may well be referred to as ‘war crimes,’ that is not the sense in which the Allies invoked the term. The Allied appeal to jus in bello in the form of ‘crimes against humanity’ was couched in what is known as international humanitarian law which, though influenced by some biblical texts, cites the Koran, the Mahabharata, and myriad heathen sources just as prominently and, therefore, is a patchwork quilt stitched under the unified assumption of religious and ethical relativism. The fact that such a presupposition of relativism undermines any assumption of nomological objectivity was completely lost on the jurists at Nuremberg, it seems. But it certainly shouldn’t be lost on Christians. It was under this rubric of humanist law that Julius Streicher would hang at Nuremberg, convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’ for writing things which the tribunal concluded “incited race hatred.” But no party at trial deigned to deny the truthfulness or accuracy of any of his work. So much for the Anglo-Saxon pretensions of free political speech, or the preeminence of truth. Streicher was executed, then, for thinking thoughts and publishing facts deemed inconvenient to Jews.
If ‘crimes against humanity’ were there defined as ‘murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecution on political, racial, or religious grounds,’ not only does the biblical tu quoque defense (John 8:7) totally debilitate the adjudication of every Allied power, but as it pertains to ‘inhumane acts against civilian populations’, it gets no worse than the overt terror bombings committed by the Allies against the Germans.
While indicting the Germans whose military code of conduct expressly forbade mistreatment of non-combatants, prisoners, and POWs, the Allies’ Handbook of Instruction on How to Conduct Irregular Warfare directed our soldiers, Brits in particular, to treat German prisoners of all stripes in barbaric fashion:
[E]very soldier must be a potential gangster and must be prepared to adopt their methods whenever necessary.
In the past we as a nation have not looked upon gangsters and their methods with favour; the time has now come when we are compelled to adopt some of their methods. . . .
Remember you are not a wrestler trying to render your enemy helpless, you have to kill.
And remember you are out to kill, not to hold him down until the referee has finished counting. . . .
In finishing off an opponent use him as a weapon as it were, beating his head on the curb or any convenient stone.
Do not forget that good weapons are often lying about ready at hand. A bottle with the bottom smashed off is more effective than a naked hand in gouging an opponent’s face. . . . The vulnerable parts of the enemy are the heart, spine and privates. Kick him or knee him as hard as you can in the fork. While he is doubled up in pain get him on the ground and stamp his head in.19
The booklet included diagrams to instruct our soldiers on how to rig ‘death slings’ to effect slow, languishing strangulation of German prisoners. Is this the Theonomy we are supposed to laud in the actions of ‘the Greatest Generation’s’ actions against Germany?
How about the fact that while the prosecution called the Germans’ insistence on Arbeit macht frei – demanding work of those who would have a share in wartime rations – “inhuman,” the Allies imposed the identical policy on post-war German civilians? It isn’t only that said action was hypocritical in the extreme, but that they executed the German command for it. Lest we forget, the principle of Arbeit macht frei originates not with Hitler but with St. Paul: “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10). Yes, the Allies denounced the command of the Apostle as ‘inhuman.’
So too does the nature of the evidence itself defuse the charge against the Germans:
The powers and procedure to be followed by the American Nuremberg Tribunals [following the single International Military Tribunal trial] were laid down in United States Military Government Ordinance Number Seven. This ordinance specifically states that American rules of evidence are not to be applied by the judges. Hearsay and double hearsay evidence is permitted, and it is left entirely to the discretion of the judges whether or not the defense be permitted to question the authenticity or probative value of evidence. . . .
The Judges were also given the right to be informed beforehand of any evidence to be presented by the defense, and could refuse to allow it if they did not consider it “relevant.” Considering the close proximity in which the judges and prosecutors lived in the small closed American community in Nuremberg, this proviso was taken by the Germans to mean that the prosecution would always be informed beforehand of the defense’s evidence. The assumption that the judges and the prosecutors had an identity of interest was justified in at least one trial by the spectacle of the prosecutors shaking hands with the judges and congratulating them on their verdict.
The defense counsel were in any case in a very weak position. The accused had all spent a long period in prison before being brought to trial and their papers had been seized and searched by a large American staff. Whatever was useful came into the hands of the prosecution, while the defense lawyers had the utmost difficulty in securing any documents. Only in the last trial, that of Baron von Weizsäcker and other Foreign Office officials, was the defense allowed to peruse the files of captured documents in the possession of Military Government, and even in this case only a few weeks were allowed in comparison with the years during which the prosecution had prepared its case. . . .
The accused, weakened by long imprisonment and insufficient food before being brought to trial, had to rely for the most part on their memories, instead of upon documents, for their defense.20
The ransacking of all available German documentation was total. William Shirer recounts “hundreds of thousands” of captured documents amounting to volumes upon volumes,21 and yet the defense lawyers had only weeks to access these, and that only for one American trial of the twelve.22
Whatever records could plausibly be used by the defense were obfuscated, and some not even to be found:
In contrast to the defence the prosecution was able to obtain anything they thought necessary from anywhere in the world. They could provide documentary proof of numerous details and cross-connections about which the defence generally had no inkling, since, contrary to what one might have supposed from the statements of [U.S. officers] Storey and Coogan, the defence was generally allowed access only to incriminating material. Defence counsel had no opportunity to make their own selection of exonerating material.
When they asked the prosecution for documents quoted, they had not infrequently ‘disappeared’. Prosecution documents were made available to them only in an inadequate number of copies. They were often provided too late, in no sequence, untranslated and with parts of a series missing.23 Documents asked for by the defence had invariably first to be submitted to the prosecution, which decided whether they should be translated; in certain definitively decisive cases this inevitably imposed considerable restrictions on the defence, since, under the Charter, only ‘relevant’ passages needed to be translated and that only ‘in general terms’.24 . . .
Thousands of documents which seemed likely possibly to incriminate the Allies and exonerate the defendants suddenly disappeared. Since documents in Nuremberg were under the care of officers,25 they could be removed from the safes only by officers, and they were under command of Colonel Burton C. Andrus, the Prison Commandant. At an early stage Karl Dönitz, the ex-Grand Admiral and Hitler’s successor, began to suspect that Andrus had withdrawn documents from circulation and sent them to the United States.26 . . .
There is much evidence that documents were confiscated, concealed from the defence or even stolen in 1945.27
Of the remaining evidence actually employed by the prosecution, Justice Jackson regarded the Hossbach Memorandum as the silver bullet in the case. Shirer likewise regarded it as the ultimate statement of Hitler’s plots, and his “last will and testament.”28 But even this central document has been regarded as evidentially worthless, if not fraudulent, by admittedly “Germanophobic” historian A.J.P. Taylor:
I was taken in by the Hossbach Memorandum. Though I doubted whether it was as important as most writers made out, I still thought that it must have some importance for every writer to make so much of it. I was wrong; and the critics were right who pointed back to 1986, though they did not apparently realise that, by doing this, they were discrediting the Hossbach memorandum. I had better discredit this “official record”, as one historian has called it, a little further. The points are technical and may seem trivial to the general reader. Nevertheless scholars usually and rightly attach important to such technicalities. In modern practice, an official record demands three things. First, a secretary must attend to take notes which he writes up afterwards in orderly form. Then his draft must be submitted to the participants for correction and approval. Finally, the record must be placed in the official files. None of this took place in regard to the meeting on 5 November 1937, except that Hossbach attended. He took no notes. Five days later he wrote an account of the meeting from memory in longhand. He twice offered to show the manuscript to Hitler, who replied that he was too busy to read it. This was curiously casual treatment for what is supposed to be his “last will and testament”. Blomberg may have looked at the manuscript. The others did not know it existed. The only certificate of authenticity attached to it was the signature of Hossbach himself. One other man saw the manuscript: Beck, chief of the general staff, the most sceptical among German generals of Hitler’s ideas. He wrote an answer to Hitler’s arguments on 12 November 1937; and this answer was later presented as the beginning of the German “resistance”. It has even been suggested that Hossbach wrote the memorandum in order to provoke the answer.
These are speculations. At the time, no one attached importance to the meeting. Hossbach left the staff soon afterwards. His manuscript was put in a file with other miscellaneous papers, and forgotten. In 1943 a German officer, Count Kirchbach, looked through the file, and copied the manuscript for the department of military history. After the war, the Americans found Kirchbach’s copy, and copied it in their turn for the prosecution at Nuremberg. Both Hossbach and Kirchbach thought that this copy was shorter than the original. In particular, according to Kirchbach, the original contained criticisms by Neurath, Blomberg, and Fritsch of Hitler’s argument — criticisms which have now fallen out. Maybe the Americans “edited” the document; maybe Kirchbach, like other Germans, was trying to shift all the blame on to Hitler. There are no means of knowing. Hossbach’s original and Kirchbach’s copy have both disappeared. All that survives is a copy, perhaps shortened, perhaps “edited”, of a copy of an unauthenticated draft. . . . It contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments. Even at Nuremberg the Hossbach memorandum was not produced in order to prove Hitler’s war guilt. That was taken for granted. What it “proved”, in its final concocted form, was that those accused at Nuremberg — Goering, Rader, and Neurath — had sat by and approved of Hitler’s aggressive plans. It had to be assumed that the plans were aggressive in order to prove the guilt of the accused.29
Of course, if a document such as the Hossbach Memorandum ever found its way into evidence in a conventional court, or in the assumption of Christian common law procedure, it would be immediately dismissed as unsubstantiable hearsay. And if a judge were slow to rule it out, the defense counsel would certainly object to such incredulous documentation. But this didn’t happen, because under the ad hoc procedure of Nuremberg, the burden of proof was applied to the defense rather than the prosecution. Meaning that if the prosecution admitted a document as ‘proof’ it was effectively unimpeachable. After which, the only option left to the defendants was to deny any knowledge of things contained in said documents.
This memorandum was cited in the IMT trial on November 26, 1945, to “destroy any possible doubt concerning the Nazis’ premeditation of their Crimes against Peace,” then quoted in full. Thus the Allies’ probative pillar could be tenuously construed as consistent with a German conspiracy toward European or world domination and ‘Crimes Against Peace’ on the part of the German High Command only if one assumes the existence of such a campaign from the outset and eisegetically imposes it upon the text. Otherwise it communicates nothing in itself toward such ends. That is, even if it were accepted as an authentic document, the Hossbach Memorandum is a cipher which proves nothing.
Another unprecedented matter: affidavits accusing the German leaders of the most outrageous crimes – many of them filed anonymously or pseudonymously – were accepted at trial as established facts, and against their validity the defendants were forbidden to object. Neither was any cross-examination of said affiants allowed the Germans. The authors of those testimonies were arbitrarily exempted from cross-examination and never had to appear in court, thus depriving the defendants their hallowed right to face their accusers. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, among others, when put on the spot about his testimony conflicting with the documents, asserted directly that he could refute the claims made therein if only he were allowed to cross-examine the affiants.
Q. Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said the gas chamber killings were done on general or special orders of Kaltenbrunner.
A. Show me one of those men or any one of those orders. It is utterly impossible.
Q. The testimony of one of the high officials was that most orders initiated with Himmler, the killings could not happen without order of Hitler or without knowledge of Himmler but practically all of the orders came out through Kaltenbrunner.
A. Entirely impossible.30
When Kaltenbrunner pressed his right to know and face his accuser, the prosecutor simply skipped to another unnamed accusation. Facing one’s accuser with the option of cross-examination is a fundamental right in Anglo-Saxon and Christian law. This is necessarily implied in Theonomic procedure as every witness is held subject to counter-prosecution for perjury:
If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deut. 19:16-21)
We then see that, according to God’s Law, a human accuser shielded from cross-examination is not regarded a lawful witness. Anonymous accusations or accusers granted some immunity to the penology of perjury outlined in Deuteronomy 19 above do not in any way constitute a legitimate witness. And in the absence of lawful accusers, there can be no adjudication of crime. For after Jesus cross-examined certain witnesses, they fled for fear of being prosecuted themselves, after which we read, “When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” (John 8:10-11).
If so for the woman accused of adultery, how much more so for the men accused of amorphous and previously unknown categories of crime by self-contradictory hearsay? Failing to meet the bar of a biblical witness, theirs is a false witness subject to the penalty which they designed to bring upon others. Namely, the death penalty.
Even the substance of the allegations in those affidavits would by the absurdity of the claims themselves preclude them from serious consideration. For instance, many included fantastical stories of things like the Germans processing Jewish skin for the making of “saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, and ladies’ handbags,” Jewish fat being rendered into soap, and a trade in shrunken Jewish heads as trophies kept by German officers. All of which, though accepted as facts upon which men were indicted, convicted, and executed at Nuremberg, have since been so thoroughly debunked that no serious historian will still admit them as real. And it isn’t as if the claims were difficult to substantiate at the time. Even by the forensic science of the 1940s, distinguishing between human skin and animal hides was easy enough, and no human fat was ever found in German-manufactured soap.
How preposterous a narrative that is – that the Germans who, we were told, were obsessed with hygiene and purity, and supposedly reviled everything about the Jews, would actually bathe in Jewish fat? How could anyone buy that? Claims such as these do not approach the credibility of a Sunday comic strip.
The enormity of such lies and malicious evidence-tampering only speaks to the lack of legitimate case for the Allies. The propaganda had to be over the top in order to persuade Germany’s sister nations of her absolute barbarism. Those hoping to drive Christendom to internecine war had to convince the kindred nations that there was just cause for their fratricide. Only the most outrageous claims could begin to approach such a justification.
But couldn’t these absurdities have been dispelled at trial by witnesses for the defense? Theoretically, yes, but in actuality, no. Even in the rare instance that a witness dared come forward on behalf of the defense, he was subject to arrest and prosecution alongside the High Command. Which effectively amounted to a disallowance of the defendants calling witnesses.
Naturally, witnesses whose release from imprisonment depended on the favor of the United States Military Government were reluctant to give any testimony contrary to the desires of the prosecution. Moreover, even those not in custody were frightened by the close connection between the prosecution and the denazification authorities.31
Yes, witness-corroboration of the German side was effectively treated as a crime. To substantiate the German narrative was practically construed as collusion in the “conspiracy.” So to testify on behalf of the defense was to risk indictment for oneself.
The allegations of an extermination campaign against the Jews in the work camps were met at trial with the same rejoinder today by a growing assemblage of forensic experts: logistically speaking, the “Holocaust” is an impossibility. We see this in the pro-Allies documentary series Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial: after having been shown a film compilation of the purported camp atrocities, Hess leans over to Goering and says, “I don’t believe it.” The narrator adds, “When this film was shown it had a profound effect upon the defendants. There was utter quiet in the courtroom. There was no more talking among themselves. For the first time the defendants realized that they were involved – had been involved – in an utterly criminal enterprise and they were going to have to answer for the consequences.” Immediately after this the scene cuts and we find ourselves in a private debriefing of Reichsmarschall Goering in his cell wherein he says,
I still can’t grasp those things. Do you suppose that if anyone came to see me and said, “Look, they’re making freezing experiments with human guinea pigs or that they were forcing people to dig graves and shoot them by the thousands,” I would have said, Oh, come off it! That’s fantastical nonsense! I mean, if a couple zeros had been left off those figures, I might have thought it conceivable, but that’s the damnable thing – it doesn’t seem possible!
At which point, his interrogator Gilbert interjects, “Don’t you feel responsible in any way?” And Goering replies: “Look, I will tell them that I was prepared to go to war, to restore Germany’s power, but I must defend myself on one point concerning my honor: I never ordered the carrying out of any of those atrocities!”
Most notably, the Katyn Forest massacre attributed to the Germans at trial, was subsequently proven to have been the work of the Soviets. This was known at trial not only by the Soviet government, but by the Americans as well. This is the definition of a frame-up, and a conspiracy.
What’s more, this logistical impossibility of the Judeocide on the part of the Germans was confirmed by the Red Cross, who oversaw treatment of prisoners in the camps to ensure humane detention practices as defined by the foregoing Geneva Conventions. This is chronicled extensively in the Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities during the Second World War (September 1, 1939 – June 30, 1947), contained in three volumes. Volume III, Chapter 7 covers “Detained and Deported Citizens,” and distinguishes between (1) civilian internees proper (i.e. civilians residing in belligerent territory at the war’s outset) and (2) civilian “detainees” or “deported civilians,” which specifically includes “persecuted Germans, who were mainly Jewish.” The entire chapter is devoted to the internment of this latter category and therefore reports precisely upon the condition of all the Jewish internment camps. The ICRC then splits this report into the different countries or regions, and under “Bohemia and Moravia” (current Czech Republic), the camp at Theresienstadt is described as a “privileged ghetto” holding “40,000 Jews deported from various countries.”32 It continues to relate the details of the Red Cross’s interaction with German authorities and of the sending of parcels to detainees, including certain assurances that, when the camps could not be visited in person, the parcels were still for the benefit of the detainees:
The ICRC was, of course, unable to verify that the whole of these relief goods were handed over to the consignees; in any case, this risk did not deter the senders. When parcels were confiscated in certain camps, the Committee soon had knowledge of the fact, and at once suspended the despatch of further supplies; this happened in the case of Mauthausen. In general, the relief scheme worked well and was occasionally even aided in some degree by the camp commandants. Information from escaped detainees and letters from the concentration camps provided very useful evidence. For instance, a detainee at Oranienburg notified the ICRC regularly of the exact number of parcels distributed, or stolen. There is, at any rate, no doubt that the parcels saved thousands of lives. As one of the men wrote: “Your parcels were inestimable; in some cases the arrival of a single parcel gave new life to those on whom starvation had nearly finished its work”.33
Despite communicating so frequently and extensively with the German political authorities and some of the internees themselves, and despite spanning their relief work across several years, the ICRC reports zero evidence whatsoever of any extermination machinations in these camps to which they were precisely tasked to relieve with humanitarian assistance. On the contrary, the German authorities had varying levels of willingness to accept this aid, contrasting markedly with the Bolshevik-controlled camps.34
Besides discrediting the exterminationist myth with deafening silence, the ICRC also explains the sorry state of all these camps at the time of their “liberation”:
In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1, 1945, in reply to a request of October 2, 1944, that individual and collective relief parcels could be despatched to French and Belgian detainees. In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the SS Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorized to stay in each camp, on condition that he undertook not to leave it before the end of the war. For the first time, therefore, the concentration camps were open to the Committee. . . .
Suffice it to say that road convoys at once left for Germany. . . .35
Yes, Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner, executed for gas-chamber exterminations, was “decisive” in providing Red Cross relief to the camps he oversaw. And if the Germans somehow masked their audacious genocidal schemes from the Red Cross over the previous years, they now opened wide the gates to this relief and had a delegate reside in each camp. Yet we once more find the exhaustive ICRC coverage on German concentration camp relief to be utterly silent as to any extermination efforts. But the inspection reports of the Red Cross, that third and much more neutral party, were not accepted by the Nuremberg Tribunal. The affidavits of anonymous accusers were laughably deemed of greater weight than the certified reports of the neutral international agency whose very purpose was to provide humanitarian safeguard against wartime abuses. By this point it is clear: those who self-identify by the oxymoronic title of “Judeo-Christians” simply cannot face the facts of the matter. Even those who fancy themselves Theonomists have come to embrace this new hybrid Christianity otherwise poignantly labelled “Holocaustianity.”
To understand the meaning of Nuremberg, one must come to grips with a certain Jewish prolegomenon: in the words of historian Robert Conot, Jewish Lt. Colonel Murray Bernays, brother-in-law of Edward Bernays,36 the famed “father of public relations,” and a pioneer of propaganda in his own right, was “the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg.” Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial.37 He argued further that all Germans involved in any Nazi organizations, whether the SS, Gestapo, or NSDAP itself, should be charged as “coconspirators” through simple association.
Edward Bernays – nephew of Sigmund Freud – had, alongside Walter Lippmann, occupied precisely this same role of propaganda minister during WWI. He had won his acclaim as the foremost pioneer of propaganda and even authored the benchmark work by that same title, Propaganda. Therein it opens:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.38
Nuremberg was Act II of a morality play crafted by and carried out by the Talmudic founding fathers of the new word-magic of psychological manipulation known as Propaganda. By their legerdemain they would do the seemingly impossible – they would psychologically manipulate Christendom into condemning and supplanting God’s Law in the name of an ethical system inherently hostile to Christianity. And this alien nomology would, as it were, assume the place of the Christian law, impersonating Christian Theonomy.
This brings us to the matter of the symbolism. It is generally admitted that the location of the trials in Nuremberg was symbolic. It was a ceremonial nullification of the Nuremberg laws which had been, as the nomenclature suggests, issued and promulgated by the German leadership from Nuremberg. These restorationist codes were of special offense to the Jews because they restrained the notorious proclivities of the Jews so that they could no longer prey upon young German girls, nor subjugate the people of their host nation. Thus was the first law entitled “Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour.” Far from revolutionary, these codes were precisely counter-revolution. Thus Matthew Arnold can portray the thoughts of Heinrich Heine,
a young man of genius, born at Hamburg, and with all the culture of Germany, but by race a Jew; with warm sympathies for France, whose revolution had given to his race the rights of citizenship. . . .
The party of change, the would-be remodellers of the old traditional European order, the invokers of reason against custom, the representatives of the modern spirit in every sphere where it is applicable, regarded themselves, with the robust self-confidence natural to reformer, as a chosen people, as children of the light. They regarded their adversaries as humdrum people, slaves to routine, enemies to the light; stupid and oppressive, but at the same time very strong. This explains the love which Heine, that Paladin of the modern spirit, has for France; it explains the preference which he gives to France over Germany: “The French,” he says, “are the chosen people of the new religion, its first gospels and dogmas have been drawn up in their language; Paris is the new Jerusalem, and the Rhine is the Jordan which divides the consecrated land of freedom from the land of the Philistines.39
The Nuremberg laws were understood as the re-exertion of Christian law as it existed prior to the secular, rationalist revolutions of the 1770s and 1840s. For more than a millennium and a half prior to the French Revolution, Jews were regarded as alien sojourners in all Christian lands. Per the biblical insularity codes, as people of foreign ethnicity professing a foreign god, they had no right to land in Christian realms, nor any right to ascend to positions of authority in church or state, nor any right to marry into any European nation.
On that last point of intermarriage, even our Oxford English Dictionary footnotes that the term adultery was from earliest Christian history “extended in Scripture, to unchastity generally; and by various theologians opprobriously used of any marriages of which they disapproved, as of a widower, a nun, a Christian with a Jewess, etc.”40
Which is to say that any pretensions of marriage between a Christian (historically synonymous with European) and a Jew was comprehended by Christendom as adultery (adulteration), and therefore contrary to God’s Law. And while Rudolph Hess in particular was tried and convicted of “Crimes Against Humanity” for his hand in drafting or, rather, reviving these laws, America would maintain her laws against miscegenation until 1967 – two full decades after having condemned the German leadership for drafting laws much in keeping with our own.
So we see that the Allied characterization of the Nuremberg laws as a ‘Crime Against Humanity’ was but another repudiation of traditional Christian law in deference to the artifice known as ‘Human Rights,’ and in spite of the glaring procedural circumstance of unclean hands. Not only did the tribunal assert a theory of law foreign to Christianity, but this new positive law presupposed the legitimacy of clear double standards. What was deemed illegal and unethical for the Germans was still presumed licit and moral for Americans, at least for another twenty years.
Jewish rabbis’ interpretation of the Nuremberg executions provides us with another layer of symbolism:
Moments before [Julius] Streicher was hanged in the early hours of October 16th 1946, Newsweek reported: “He stared at the witnesses facing the gallows and shouted ‘Purimfest, 1946.’” . . .
Streicher was obviously familiar with Megillat Esther, which tells of the attempted genocide Haman planned, and how, when his plans were thwarted and they were defeated, Haman and his ten sons were hanged. . . . Amazingly, Streicher saw the historic link between the Nazi genocide and the attempted genocide of Haman, who, like the Nazis, also intended to wipe out every Jew – man, woman and child.
But there is an even deeper irony, which Streicher was certainly not aware of. Megillat Esther lists the names of Haman’s ten sons and according to the Halachah, three of the letters in these names are written in smaller font than the rest of the text – a tav, ashin and a zayin – and one letter is written in larger font – a vav. What do these unusually sized letters signify?
For generations different explanations have been offered. In the 20th century, however, another amazing meaning was discovered. The large vav is numerically 6, corresponding to the sixth millennium; the small tav, shin and zayin are numerically 707; together, these numbers refers to the 707th year of the sixth millennium – in other words, the Jewish year 5707, which corresponds to 1946, the year in which these ten high-ranking Nazis were hanged. Thus, the unusually sized letters – vav, tav, shin and zayin – found in the names of Haman’s ten sons allude to the year of the execution of these ten Nazi war criminals. What is further fascinating is that they were sentenced on the 1st of October, in the days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur of 1946, and hanged on the 16th of October, which that year came out on Hoshana Rabbah, which, according to the Zohar, is the day that judgment of the world is finalized.
Here then, is the distinctly Jewish ritual which displaced Christian Law. Though the book of Esther is accepted as part of the Christian canon, orthodox Christians have never conceived of that text or the conduct of its characters as prescriptive law. Theonomy does not hold that any feature of the Jews’ interaction with their enemies holds normative any more than Esther’s seeking to become a concubine to a heathen king in order to infiltrate and subvert a foreign government provides Christian women a moral template for their lives. Indeed, any woman who patterned her life after the exploits of Esther would be subject to excommunication by the church as well as lawful execution by the magistrate.
But following the ritual reenactment of the hanging of Haman’s children, the Allies would proceed further after the pattern of the violent revolution of Esther chapter 9. Therein Queen Esther, in her revanchism, called for the slaughter of over 75,000 of “those who hated the Jews.” Not only does abstract ‘hatred’ not rise to the level of capital crime according to biblical law, but the Scripture prescribes no judicial penalty for ‘hate’ whatever; and this means Esther’s and Mordecai’s actions amounted to mass murder. But in keeping with the Talmudic observance of Purim, and “for fear of the Jews,” the Allies complied.
Even Chief Prosecutor Jackson’s conscience intermittently faltered at the chutzpah of his advisors, and on more than one occasion he objected, “If we want to shoot Germans as a matter of policy, let it be done as such, but don’t hide the deed behind a court. If you are determined to execute a man in any case, there is no occasion for a trial; the world yields no respect to courts that are merely organized to convict.”41
Nuremberg has been called a show trial as much for being a legal charade as for its Hollywood-driven propaganda value, but it was a show trial in another and greater sense – in that the outcome was entirely predetermined according to a script: a crafted outline of Talmudic vengeance and ritual sacrifice. Though it were a hallowed tenet of Christian law held in common by all the Allied nations, save the Bolsheviks, that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the jurists of Nuremberg brushed this axiom aside as a trifle. A show trial indeed, this fact reduced the entire affair to so much kabuki stagecraft. Actors reciting the lines from a pre-written script.
Francis Parker Yockey was so disillusioned by the supplantation of Western law for Talmudic ritual he saw at the Nuremberg Trials that he would go on to write,
Not only Europe, but also the American People, lost the War. Since the Revolution of 1933, this People has been working, producing, and exporting. It has given its treasures and the lives of hundreds of thousands of its sons; it has blindly obeyed Culturally alien leaders not of its choosing, and in obedience to them it has curtailed its standard of life and parted with its soul — and in return it has received nothing of any kind, spiritual or material. Nor is its time of sacrifices over. It will continue to pay for the Second World War, which it lost, for many a year. In America’s cup of “victory,” there was poison for the soul of America.42
This poisoning of the American soul which resulted from the two alien-orchestrated civil wars of Christendom and the transvaluation of law at Nuremberg is the exact thrust of this essay: where Higher Law was previously conceived to be consonant with Biblical Law, Nuremberg redefined the Higher Law on the premises of relativistic Human Rights undergirded by Talmudism, which is to say, anti-Christianity. But the West was seduced into adultery with this foreign worldview, mingling with it so as to form a new hybrid Christianity. And the resulting mules have proven quite sterile. The last half-century has proven beyond all doubt that they cannot perpetuate Christendom.
Irving concludes his review of the Trials:
What was the balance-sheet of Nuremberg? It was established there that the German attack on Poland was an aggression pure and simple. The defence thesis that the war against Russia was essentially a preventive war – which has now been conceded by Russian historians after fifty years’ delay – was rejected by the Tribunal. Rather less convincingly the Tribunal also rejected the defence arguments that the German invasion of Norway in April 1940 was also essentially preventive in character – the British having refused to open their own secret files on this affair. Less well known is the important fact that the Tribunal was unable to describe the German wars against either Britain or France as wars of aggression. Every allegation levelled against Germany’s conduct of submarine warfare was also dismissed as unfounded during the trial. ‘For obvious reasons no serious allegations were raised against Germany’s aerial warfare,’ said defence lawyer Otto Kranzbühler delicately, while reluctant to break the taboo imposed by the Allies on Germany’s historians on this awkward topic. Thus there was no mention in either the indictment or the judgement of the German V-weapons or the Luftwaffe’s aerial attacks on Rotterdam, Coventry, Warsaw, and London. Scarcely less momentous for the German people was the judges’ confirmation that the liquidation operations in Germany were generally unknown to the public, which meant that there could be no talk of a collective guilt for those crimes.
The world saw Nuremberg as the old-fashioned practice of the victors putting the vanquished to the sword, behind a façade of retroactive law and elegant speeches. As the years passed this view was entrenched by the absence of similar trials where aggressive war was clearly established. The Soviet Union planned an aggressive campaign against South Korea, but as the New York Times was to comment in 1951: ‘A powerful aggressor, if undefeated in war, cannot and will not be punished.’
When the armed forces of Britain, France, and Israel conspired together and launched their attack on Egypt in 1956, Rudolph Hess’ lawyer Alfred Seidl inquired of the British Foreign Office whether the British prime minister Eden was to be brought before any tribunal to account for himself. The tragic truth was that Nuremberg had set no real precedent in international law. A resolution presented in 1946 to the United Nations Organisation relating to the codification of the principles established at Nuremberg was referring to the organisation’s International Law Committee, and buried without ceremony.43
In this sense, Nuremberg was a flash in the pan, laying no precedents of procedure. Because the procedures employed there were so irrational as to be of no functional use at law, and because they transparently indicted the leadership of the victor nations more so than those vanquished.
However, despite the retirement of the procedures, the ripples of consequence could not be arrested. They continue eddying out in widening orbits, affecting matters more and more remote. To quote Mr. Irving once more,
Teutonic sagas relate that after the great battle with the Mongols on the Lechfeld plain, where the armies of two different worlds had clashed in violent and bloody massacre, the spirits of the fallen warriors had continued the struggle for three more days above the clouds. So it had been in Nuremberg too: where the city’s face bore the terrible scars of the mortal struggle between Germany and her enemies which had ended in May 1945, the ghosts had continued the struggle for sixteen more months.44
While the trials are long behind us, and though they were sold to us as the purest ethical triumph and the settlement of all question, the justice long deferred has directly resulted in the providential chastenings which society simply cannot long bear. The irrationality and miscarriage of justice in those proceedings has plunged the West into moral chaos. For the entailments of both world wars – the civil rights movement, the fall of the color line, the sexual revolution, the orchestrated invasion of of all Euro-stock countries by the denizens of the third world, Social Justice Warriors, the pro-Sodomy movement, Roe v. Wade, the establishment of a one-world government in the UN under the unimpeachable control of Zionist banking houses, and the internal collapse of every Christian denomination – all of these are necessary entailments of the principles of Nuremberg. The ethereal battle does indeed rage above the clouds in the planes of concept. There the spirits of Humanism, Gnosticism, and Talmudism are still contending against the Spirit of the West – the Holy Spirit of God.
Consonant with Christ’s rebukes of the Jews and those who follow them in Matthew 15, He rebukes the neo-churchmen of Holocaustianity. Quoting the prophet Isaiah against the ad hoc Scripture-nullifications of Pharisaic accretions, Jesus says, “in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (v. 9). Yet He consoles the faithful, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch” (vv. 13-14).
Christ’s words here explain why Alienists and “Judeo-Christians” cannot comprehend present circumstance as the logical recompense for the brothers’ wars emblematized in the Nuremberg Trials: simply, because they are blind. And He consoles us not to be frustrated at their blindness, for it serves a great purpose, causing them, at length, to fall into a ditch.
Albeit, if we lay aside all the accusations later proven false, as well as those known to be false at the time of arraignment, and the complete disregard of theonomic procedure, there were some solvent principles invoked at Nuremberg – that the state isn’t the arbiter of ethics and that men have a subsidiary responsibility to keep the Higher Law regardless of fiat law. But these were entirely undermined by the defiance of biblical due process and institutionalized perjury, and nullified by the fact that every one of the Allied accuser-states dismissed said principles in their own wartime and peacetime operation. Worse than dismissing them, they refused to ever adopt them for themselves. So whatever allusions to Higher Law were invoked, the real legal trends which emerged in American policy since, in Field Marshal B.L. Montgomery’s words, “have made the waging of unsuccessful war a crime, for which the generals of the defeated side would be tried and then hanged.”45 Which is to say, ‘might makes right’ totalitarianism: the very ethos which we were told the Allies denounced in the German state.
Our prayer of solace, then, is that if we can do as Christ admonishes – to ‘leave them alone’ so that the ‘Judeo-Christians’ might suffer the recompense of their false and self-damning principles – the remnant is not dragged down into the ditch with them. Lord, open our eyes, and let the blind swiftly fall.
Editor’s Note: F&H takes no official position on the extent of Jewish genocide in WWII, and all authors speak for themselves on this issue. We believe that open debate should be allowed and explicitly disavow the religious doctrines of the Nazi Party, a subject we have covered before.
- Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium, pp. 574, 576 ↩
- Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism, p. 2 ↩
- Qtd. in Saunders, Le Roy, Le Roy, eds., The Rule of Law, p. 104 ↩
- Qtd. in Roza Pati, Due Process and International Terrorism: An International Legal Analysis, p. 132, n. 602. Pati’s original citation is H.K. Thompson, Jr. & Henry Strutz, eds., Dönitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal (1983). ↩
- Richard Harwood, Nuremberg and Other War Crimes Trials,p. 39f. ↩
- “Charles F. Wennerstrum, 96; Served on Iowa’s High Court,” New York Times, June 6, 1986 ↩
- Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, p. 186 ↩
- Ibid., p. 171f. ↩
- Qtd. in F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare from Sarajevo to Hiroshima, p. 229f. ↩
- George Patton, Diary on 9/15/1945, qtd. in Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, p. 751 ↩
- George Patton, Letter to Beatrice on 9/14/1945, qtd. in Martin Blumenson, The Patton Papers: 1940-1945, p. 750 ↩
- Milton Konvitz, “Will Nuremberg Serve Justice?” ↩
- Robert Jackson, letter to President Harry S. Truman, qtd. in Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, p. 68. Brackets are Conot’s. ↩
- “And it was agreed at Potsdam that the victors were entitled to exact reparations in kind in the form of forced labor — a provision taken full advantage of by the Russians who have held millions of prisoners of war as slave laborers and conscripted men and women in their zone to work in chain gangs or concentration camps.” Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, p. 15 ↩
- Roger Manvell and Heinrich Frankell, Goering: The Rise and Fall of the Notorious Nazi Leader, this page. Also see these minutes. ↩
- H.B. Clark, Biblical Law, p. 280f., §437 ↩
- Otto Kranzbühler, Rückblick auf Nürnberg (“Review of Nuremberg”), transcription of a 1949 lecture delivered at Göttingen University. Qtd. in David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, p. 177 ↩
- Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments, p. 60 ↩
- Eugene Davidson, The Trial of the Germans, p. 383, and David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, p. 169 ↩
- Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, p. 169f. ↩
- William J. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. ix ↩
- Freda Utley, in the above block quote, attests that Baron von Weizsäcker was tried in the final trial of the twelve, but it was the eleventh. This mistake, immaterial to her and our point, is probably from seeing Weizsäcker’s trial as the twelfth total trial, comprehending the first IMT trial and the twelve subsequent American trials in one group of thirteen. ↩
- Maser here cites “personal information from Otto Kranzbühler, 6 March 1972.” ↩
- Maser here cites IMT Vol. IX, p. 1 and IMT Vol. X, p. 182. See also Speer: Inside the Third Reich, p. 514. ↩
- Maser here cites “personal information from Karl Dönitz,” ↩
- Maser here cites “letter from Karl Dönitz, 6 April 1974.” ↩
- Werner Maser, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial, pp. 97-98. ↩
- William J. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 270 ↩
- A.J.P. Taylor, Origins of the Second World War (1961), pp. xxii – xxiv. An entire but less reader-friendly version is accessible here (see p. 7). ↩
- Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, “Red Series,” Supplement B, p. 1299 ↩
- Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance, p. 171 ↩
- Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its activities during the Second World War, Volume III: Relief Activities, Chapter 7, p. 75. See also the favorable description of Theresienstadt in 1944 and 1945 in Volume I: General Activities, p. 642f. ↩
- Ibid., p. 80f. ↩
- Ibid., p. 62 ↩
- Ibid., p. 83f. ↩
- They have a common surname despite being in-laws because Murray Cohen took the last name of his wife, Edward’s sister: see Susan Henry, Anonymous in Their Own Names, p. 1 ↩
- Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, pp. 10-13 ↩
- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda, p. 9 (PDF p. 4) ↩
- Matthew Arnold, Heinrich Heine, pp. 11, 13-14 ↩
- See also William Smith and Samuel Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, p. 30, which states that “all marriage between Jew and Christian is to be treated as adultery, a law preserved by Justinian.” ↩
- “War Crimes,” editorial from LIFE Magazine, May 28, 1945, p. 34 ↩
- Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium, p. 577 ↩
- David Irving, Nuremberg, The Last Battle, p. 451f. ↩
- Ibid., p. 399 ↩
- Qtd. in Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation, p. 432 ↩