#6millionlies #6million #holocaust #holohoax #worldwar2 #wwii #jewishlies #jewlies #zionistlies #gentileguilt #nationalsocialism #Nuremberg
Originally found at https://www.cwporter.com/anatliar.htm
In my book Not Guilty at Nuremberg I wrote: “Telford Taylor was incapable of repeating the simplest statement truthfully. (See IMT XX, 626, the statements of General Manstein, compared with Taylor’s ‘quotation’ from Manstein (IMT XXII, 276).”
The following are “quotations” from Taylor (Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Back Bay Books, Little Brown & Co., paperback, by arrangement with Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1992), compared with actual quotations from the Nuremberg Trial transcript (IMT).
There were 13 Nuremberg Trials. Taylor’s book is about the first one only. Even the title is a fraud. It is accurate with regards to the first trial only insofar as Taylor describes the sexual promiscuity and party atmosphere which pervaded the entire prosecution staff, including himself, but with the exception of the Russians.
Bold type is used to indicate quotations out of context, and only occasionally for emphasis.
MANSTEIN ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“We are not concerned here with the ordinary German conscript who made up the bulk of the Wehrmacht. We are concerned entirely with professional soldiers, and with the most zealous, ambitious, and able German officers in the business. Most of them chose a military career because it was in their blood; as Manstein put it, ‘they considered the glory of war as something great.’ They slaved at it and were devoted to their profession, and if they reached the status of commander-in-chief, they were, like Manstein, proud that an army had been entrusted to them.” (IMTXXII, 276.)
And again: “For some of the generals, war was ingrained. Manstein ‘considered the glory of war as something great’ ” (Anatomy, p. 531.)
WHAT MANSTEIN ACTUALLY SAID
“VON MANSTEIN: I have been a soldier for 40 years. I come from a family of soldiers and I have grown up with military conceptions.
“The example from among my nearest relatives which I had before me was Hindenburg. We young officers naturally considered the glory of war as something great, and I do not wish to deny that I was proud when during this war an army was entrusted to me. But our ideal, and that applies to my comrades too, did not lie in the conduct of war, but in the education of our youth to be honorable men and decent soldiers. Under our orders these youths went to their death by the million.
“And if I may say something personal: My eldest son died as a lieutenant in the infantry, when he was 19; two of my brothers-in-law, who grew up in my house, died as young officers; my best comrades in this war, my young adjutant and my young chauffeur, were killed. Nearly all the sons of my brothers and sisters were killed. That we, the old soldiers, should have led into war for a criminal purpose that youth of ours which was so dear to us, would far exceed any wickedness of which man could be thought capable. It is possible that a man without a family and without tradition, who is obsessed with fanatical belief in a higher mission, may go beyond the limits of human law, but we, the old soldiers, purely from a human point of view, would not have been able to do so. We could not lead our youth into crime.”(IMT XX, 626.)
RIBBENTROP ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“Joachim von Ribbentrop’s statement was angry and stupid, but it is hard to see what he could have said to better his position. ‘I am held responsible’, said he, ‘for the conduct of a foreign policy which was determined by another’. True, but not enough to mitigate the willing support of Hitler’s policies from the annexation of Austria to the eventual collapse of the Thousand Year Reich. Ribbentrop purported to ‘deplore the atrocious crimes which became known to me here’, but was silent about his full participation in the deportation of Jews from France and the other German occupied countries to the extermination camps in Eastern Europe. With a final snarl, Ribbentrop declared: ‘The only thing of which I consider myself guilty before my people – and before this Tribunal – is that my aspirations in foreign policy remained without success.’ To which the listener can only reply: ‘Thank God!’ ” (Anatomy, p. 537.)
[Note: The quotation given three lines above is incorrect: it should read: “not before this Tribunal”.]
WHAT RIBBENTROP ACTUALLY SAID
“This Trial was to be conducted for the purpose of discovering the historical truth. From the point of view of German foreign policy I can only say:
“This Trial will go down in history as a model example of how, while appealing to hitherto unknown legal formulas and the spirit of fairness, one can evade the cardinal problems of 25 years of the gravest human history.
“If the roots of our trouble lie in the Treaty of Versailles – and they do lie there – was it really to the purpose to prevent a discussion about a treaty which the intelligent men even among its authors had characterized as the source of future trouble, while the wisest were already predicting from which of the faults of Versailles a new world war would arise?
“I have devoted more than twenty years of my life to the elimination of this evil, with the result that foreign statesmen who know about this today write in their affidavits that they did not believe me. They ought to have written that in the interests of their own country they were not prepared to believe me. I am held responsible for the conduct of a foreign policy which was determined by another.I knew only this much of it, that it never concerned itself with plans of a world domination, but rather, for example, with the elimination of the consequences of Versailles and with the food problems of the German people.
“If I deny that this German foreign policy planned and prepared for a war of aggression, that is not an excuse on my part. The truth of this is proved by the strength that we developed in the course of the second World War and the fact how weak we were at the beginning of this war.
“History will believe us when I say that we would have prepared a war of aggression immeasurably better if we had actually intended one. What we intended was to look after our elementary necessities of life, in the same way that England looked after her own interests in order to make one-fifth of the world subject to her, and in the same way that the United States brought an entire continent and Russia brought the largest inland territory of the world under their hegemony. The only difference between the policies of these countries as compared with ours is that we demanded parcels of land such as Danzig and the Corridor which were taken from us against all rights, whereas the other powers are accustomed to thinking only in terms of continents.
“Before the establishment of the Charter of this Tribunal, even the signatory powers of the London Agreement must have had different views about international law and policy than they have today. When I went to see Marshal Stalin in Moscow in 1939, he did not discuss with me the possibility of a peaceful settlement of the German-Polish conflict within the framework of the Kellogg-Briand Pact; but rather he hinted that if in addition to half of Poland and the Baltic countries he did not receive Lithuania and the harbor of Libau, I might as well return home.
“In 1939 the waging of war was obviously not yet regarded as an international crime against peace, otherwise I could not explain Stalin’s telegram at the conclusion of the Polish campaign, which read, I quote:
“ ‘The friendship of Germany and the Soviet Union, based on the blood which they have shed together, has every prospect of being a firm and lasting one.’
“Here I should like to emphasize and stress the fact that even I ardently desired this friendship at that time. Of this friendship there remains today only the primary problem for Europe and the world: Will Asia dominate Europe, or will the Western Powers be able to stem or even push back the influence of the Soviets at the Elbe, at the Adriatic coast, and at the Dardanelles?
“In other words, practically speaking: Great Britain and the United States today face the same dilemma as Germany faced at the time when I was carrying on negotiations with Russia. For my country’s sake I hope with all my heart that they may be more successful in their results.
“Now what has actually been proved in this Trial about the criminal character of German foreign policy? That out of more than 300 Defense documents which were submitted 150 were rejected without cogent reasons. That the files of the enemy, and even of the Germans, were inaccessible to the Defense. That Churchill’s friendly hint to me that if Germany became too strong she would be destroyed, is declared irrelevant in judging the motives of German foreign policy before this forum. A revolution does not become more comprehensible if it is considered from the point of view of a conspiracy.
“Fate made me one of the exponents of this revolution. I deplore the atrocious crimes which became known to me here and which besmirch this revolution. But I cannot measure all of them according to puritanical standards, and the less so since I have seen that even the enemy, in spite of their total victory, was neither able nor willing to prevent atrocities of the most extensive kind.
“One can regard the theory of the conspiracy as one will, but from the point of view of the critical observer it is only a makeshift solution. Anybody who has held a decisive position in the Third Reich knows that it simply represents a historical falsehood, and the author of the Charter of this Tribunal has only proved with his invention from what background he derived his thinking.
“I might just as well assert that the signatory powers of this Charter had formed a conspiracy for the suppression of the primary needs of a highly developed, capable, and courageous nation. When I look back upon my actions and my desires, then I can conclude only this: The only thing of which I consider myself guilty before my people – not before this Tribunal – is that my aspirations in foreign policy remained without success.”(IMT XXII, 373-375.)
HESS ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“But after reading for twenty minutes or more, Hess lapsed into incoherent repetition, for example:
“ ‘However, at that time the world was confronted with an insoluble riddle, the same riddle which confronts it today with regard to the happenings in the German concentration camps. At that time the English people were confronted with an incomprehensible riddle, the same riddle which today confronts the German people with regard to the happenings in the German concentration camps.’
“That last sentence was then repeated, substituting ‘South African’ concentration camps, and then again, substituting ‘Reich Cabinet’ for ‘English people.’ ” (Anatomy, p. 536.)
WHAT HESS ACTUALLY SAID
“It is a historical fact that a monument was erected for 26,370 Boer women and children who died in British concentration camps, and who for the most part died of hunger. Many Englishmen at that time, among others, Lloyd George, protested strongly against these happenings in British concentration camps, and likewise an English eye witness, Miss Emily Hopfords [Correct name: Emily Hobhouse. This error may be due to an incorrect stenographic notation. Many of Hobhouse’s books can be purchased used, either very expensively or translated into Dutch and shipped from Capetown, from AbeBooks – C.P.].
“However, at that time the world was confronted with an insoluble riddle, the same riddle which confronts it today with regard to the happenings in the German concentration camps.
“At that time the English people were confronted with an incomprehensible riddle, the same riddle which today confronts the German people with regard to the happenings in the German concentration camps. Indeed, at that time, the British Government itself was confronted with a riddle regarding the happenings in the South African concentration camps, with the same riddle which today confronts the members of the Reich Cabinet and the other defendants, here and in other trials, regarding the happenings in the German concentration camps.” (IMT XXII, 371.)
And finally, once again:
MANSTEIN ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“I then offered in evidence the new document of November 20, 1941, signed by Manstein, which reads in part:
“ ‘Since 22 June the German people have been engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the Bolshevist system.
“ ‘This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet armed forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare… [Note deletions.]
“ ‘The Jewish-Bolshevist system must be exterminated once and for all. Never again must it encroach upon our European living space.
“ ‘The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people… [Note deletions.]
“ ‘The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevist terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings, which are mostly plotted by Jews.’
“Manstein feebly insisted that he could not remember the document, but admitted that he had signed it. His credibility was shattered…” (Anatomy, p. 520.)
[Note: The passage continues with much bragging about Taylor’s immense cleverness.]
WHAT MANSTEIN ACTUALLY SAID
“COL. TAYLOR: …I will now ask that the witness be shown a new Document 4064-PS, USA-927.
[Note: The document is a mimeograph with a mimeographed signature. There was never the slightest pretense that it bore Manstein’s original signature or that Manstein recognized it as such.]
“Will you look at this order, Witness, and tell us if this is not a document issued out of your headquarters and signed with your facsimile signature, on 20 November 1941? It is already in the record.
“VON MANSTEIN: I must first read the document thoroughly. I do not recollect this order.
“COL. TAYLOR: Is that your signature?
“VON MANSTEIN: It looks like it, but I must first of all read the order to see whether I gave it or not.
“COL. TAYLOR: The document, as indicated at the top of the page, states ‘XXX. Corps Ref. IC.’ That is the intelligence office, is it not?
“VON MANSTEIN: Yes, that is the name of the office that dealt with enemy intelligence and countering enemy espionage. It has nothing to do with Secret Service as such.
“COL. TAYLOR: And just below there is a stamp of the 72nd Division, 27 November 1941, Diary Number IC, and at the left it appears to have been issued by Army High Command XI at army headquarters, 20 November 1941. Secret. I quote:
“ ‘Since 22 June the German people have been engaged in a life-and-death struggle against the Bolshevist system.
“ ‘This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
“ ‘Behind the front too, the fighting continues. Partisan snipers dressed as civilians attack single soldiers and small units and try to disrupt our supplies by sabotage with mines and infernal machines. Bolshevists left behind keep the population freed from Bolshevism in a state of unrest by means of terror and attempt thereby to sabotage the political and economic pacification of the country. Harvests and factories are destroyed and the city population in particular is thereby ruthlessly delivered to starvation.
“ ‘Jewry constitutes the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remainder of the Red Armed Forces which is still fighting, and the Red leadership. More strongly than in Europe it holds all the key positions in the political leadership and administration, controls commerce and trades, and further forms the nucleus for all unrest and possible uprisings.
“ ‘The Jewish-Bolshevist system must be exterminated [“ausgerottet werden” – C.P.] once and for all. Never again must it encroach upon our European living space.
“ ‘The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people.
“ ‘The fight behind the lines is not yet being taken seriously enough. Active co-operation of all soldiers must be demanded in the disarming of the population, the control and arrest of all roving soldiers and civilians, and the removal of Bolshevist symbols.
“ ‘Every instance of sabotage must be punished immediately with the severest measures and all signs thereof must be reported.
“ ‘The food situation at home makes it essential that the troops should as far as possible be fed off the land and that furthermore the largest possible stocks should be placed at the disposal of the homeland. Particularly in enemy cities a large part of the population will have to go hungry. Nevertheless nothing which the homeland has sacrificed itself to contribute may, out of a misguided sense of humanity, be given to prisoners or to the population unless they are in the service of the German Wehrmacht.
“ ‘The soldier must appreciate the necessity for the harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual bearer of the Bolshevist terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings which are mostly plotted by Jews.
“ ‘It is the task of leaders of all grades to keep constantly alive the meaning of the present struggle. Support for the Bolshevist fight behind the front by way of thoughtlessness must be prevented.
“ ‘The non-Bolshevist Ukrainians, Russians, and Tartars are expected to acknowledge the New Order. The nonparticipation of numerous alleged anti-Soviet elements must give place to a definite decision in favor of active co-operation against Bolshevism. Where it does not exist it must be forced by suitable measures.
“ ‘Voluntary co-operation in the reconstruction of occupied territory is an absolute necessity for the achievement of our economic and political aims.
“ ‘It demands as a primary condition the just treatment of all non-Bolshevist sections of the population, some of whom have for years fought heroically against Bolshevism.
“ ‘The ruling of this country demands from us results, strictness with ourselves, and submergence of the individual. The bearing of every soldier is constantly under observation. It can make enemy propaganda ineffective or give it a springboard. If the soldier in the country takes from the peasant the last cow, the breeding sow, the last chicken, or the seed, then no restoration of the economy can be achieved.
“ ‘In all measures it is not the momentary success which is decisive. All measures must, therefore, be judged by their lasting effectiveness.
“ ‘Respect for religious customs, particularly those of Mohammedan Tartars, must be demanded.
“ ‘In pursuance of these concepts and other measures to be carried out by the later administration, such as the enlightenment of the population by propaganda, encouragement of personal initiative, for instance by rewards, significance must be given to extensive collaboration of the population for combating the partisans and to the development of the local Auxiliary Police.
“ ‘For the achievement of this object the following must be demanded:
“ ‘Active co-operation of soldiers in the fight against the enemy in the rear; no soldier to go about alone at night; all motor vehicles to be equipped with adequate armaments; a self-assured, but not overbearing attitude on the part of all soldiers; restraint towards prisoners and the other sex; no waste of food.
“ ‘Severest action to be taken: against despotism and self-seeking; against lawlessness and lack of discipline; against every transgression of the honor of a soldier.’
“And it appears that it is to be distributed right down to the regiments and independent battalions.
“Did you not issue that order as a result of the suggestion which came to you together with the Reichenau order? The resemblance between the two is, to say the least, striking and the date is about the same.
“VON MANSTEIN: I must say that this order escapes my memory entirely. According to the signature and particularly what is contained in the last part, I must assume that the order is genuine and has been issued by me. Whether it was given on the strength of the Reichenau order or not I cannot possibly tell you now. But I do want to point out to you that if it says here that the system must be exterminated, then that is extermination of the Bolshevik system, but not the extermination of human beings.
“I must further point out to you that nowhere is there mention of collaboration with the SD, a collaboration which, because of the lack of knowledge we had of the doings of the SD, was out of the question in this area. I must point out to you the demands which I made of my soldiers – namely, that they must not take the last cow away from the farmers, that they must respect religious customs, that they must respect the other sex and that, on the other hand, they naturally must not be careless of the danger of partisans, as unfortunately the German soldier always was. I point out to you that any wilfulness and any self-seeking is expressly prohibited, also any barbarism, any lack of discipline, and most of all any breach of the honor of a soldier.
“COL. TAYLOR: You were asked about the General Reichenau order before the Commissioner, were you not? You were asked, and I read on page… I will have to find the page, Your Honor. I have a typed copy here, Your Honor, without the final page reference.
“Were you questioned before the Commissioner as follows:
“ ‘You know the order of General Reichenau in which he stated that there should be no consideration shown to the civilian population? Did you see the order, and did it have any influence whatever on your attitude and that of your troops to the civilian population?’
“And you answered:
“ ‘We were informed of this order upon the suggestion of the Führer, but none of the other leaders were of the same opinion as Reichenau, and it was never carried out, especially in my area.’
“You had not forgotten the Reichenau order, had you?
“VON MANSTEIN: I had quite forgotten the Reichenau order until it appeared amongst the documents here, and I have no recollection especially of this order of mine. After all, that is not surprising, because that is a number of years ago, and during these years I have signed hundreds, if not thousands, of orders, and I cannot possibly remember every detail.
“COL. TAYLOR: Did you sign a lot of orders like this one? Is that why you have such difficulty remembering it?
“VON MANSTEIN: No, I certainly have not signed a lot of orders like this one, but I have signed a lot of other orders. Above all, I had to write and read a large number of reports and if I forgot this order, a fact which I admit, it is not surprising. I only know that this order, at any rate, as opposed to the Reichenau order, very strongly emphasizes the demands which I made for decent behavior on the part of my soldiers. That, after all, is the important point.
“COL. TAYLOR: You remember the Reichenau order, and you remember that it was suggested that you pass it down, and the only thing you have forgotten is that you did?
“VON MANSTEIN: No, I said that I remembered the Reichenau order only when I came here, when it was shown to me among other documents and when I was before the Commission; also that, try as I may, I did not recollect giving that order. If I had done so, I would most certainly have mentioned it, because the first part of the order is absolutely contrary to my conceptions.
“COL. TAYLOR: You think that you wrote the second part and not the first?
“VON MANSTEIN: I did not write the order at all myself. Very probably the order was shown to me in draft and then I signed it. If the first part mentions the fight against the system and the extermination of the system as well as the fight against the Jews as the supporters of the partisan movement, in the last analysis it had its proper justification. But all that has nothing to do with the fact that Jews were to be exterminated. They were to be excluded, and the system was to be removed. That is the point that matters.
“COL. TAYLOR: I think you told the Tribunal a few minutes ago that you did not even know that Jews were likely to be opposed to the new administration. It looks as if you very definitely wrote that for the attention of your soldiers, doesn’t it?
“VON MANSTEIN: No, I did not know that, and this order that Jews were to be exterminated cannot possibly recall it to my memory because it does not mention a word that the Jews were to be exterminated. It merely says that the system is to be exterminated.
“COL. TAYLOR: I call your attention to the paragraph:
“ ‘The soldier must appreciate the necessity for harsh punishment of Jewry, the spiritual supporters of the Bolshevist terror. This is also necessary in order to nip in the bud all uprisings, which are mostly plotted by Jews.’
“Now, I ask you, Witness, the Einsatzkommandos could not have liquidated Jews without the soldiers knowing something about it, could they? Is that true?
“VON MANSTEIN: That is perfectly possible, because as Ohlendorf has described it, the shootings of the Jews were camouflaged as ‘resettlement.’ The Jews were taken to desolate places and were shot and buried there, so that it is quite certain that the commanding authorities had no knowledge of that. Naturally, it is possible that some soldier or other, quite by accident, may have seen such an execution, and there is in fact evidence of it. I remember in the Russian indictment the description by an engineer who was present during such a shooting, I believe in the Ukraine in the vicinity of Zhitomir or Rovno, and described it in most horrible terms.
[Note: Manstein is referring to Document PS-2992, an affidavit by Hermann Friedrich Gräbe, read aloud in court. Gräbe never appeared personally to testify.]
“One can only ask why that man did not report it to the command post. The answer is that the fear of the SS was such that this man, instead of reporting this dirty business, kept it to himself and now comes out with it. At that time – it was not in my area, but somewhere else – had he gone to some high military command post and described these events, then I am convinced that the commander in question would have intervened; and then, of course, we would also have heard of it. But the fact is that we did not hear about it.
“COL. TAYLOR: One more question on this subject, Your Honor.
“[Turning to the witness.]
“Witness, isn’t it true that this order is very carefully drawn so that the troops would understand and, shall we say, sympathize with what the Einsatzkommandos were doing in the way of mass extermination of Jews?
“VON MANSTEIN: You mean my order?
“COL. TAYLOR: Yes.
“VON MANSTEIN: No. There can be no question that I at any time urged my troops, even between the lines, to co-operate in such methods. How could I have concluded by stressing the soldier’s honor?
“COL. TAYLOR: My Lord, the Prosecution has no further questions of this witness.
“THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.” (IMT XX, 641-646.)
[Note: That Manstein got much the better of the prosecution is apparent when one reads the testimony as a whole, including the direct examination, not reproduced here.]
KALTENBRUNNER ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“Kaltenbrunner now testified that he had no correspondence with the burgomaster of Vienna…
[Note: This is untrue. Kaltenbrunner admitted that they were close friends and corresponded frequently.]
“Amen then read to him a letter signed by hand ‘Yours Kaltenbrunner’… Amen abandoned all pretense of questioning: ‘Is it not a fact that you are simply lying about your signature on this letter in the same way that you are lying to the Tribunal about almost everything else you have given testimony about?’ Kaltenbrunner lost control and shouted ‘for a whole year I have been submitted to this insult of being called a liar.’ He spoke incoherently, saying that his mother ‘who died in 1943 was called a whore and many other things were hurled at me.’ Lawrence told Kaltenbrunner to try to restrain himself…” (Anatomy, pp. 361-362.)
WHAT KALTENBRUNNER ACTUALLY SAID
“KALTENBRUNNER: Mr. Prosecutor, for a whole year I have had to submit to this insult of being called a liar. For a whole year I have been interrogated hundreds of times both here and in London, and I have been insulted in this way and even much worse. My mother, who died in 1943, was called a whore, and many other similar things were hurled at me. This term is not new to me but I should like to state that in a matter of this kind I certainly would not tell an untruth, when I claim to be believed by this Tribunal in far more important matters.
“COL. AMEN: I am suggesting, Defendant, that when your testimony is so directly contrary to that of 20 or 30 other witnesses and even more documents, it is almost an incredible thing you should be telling the truth and that every witness and every document should be false. Do you not agree to that proposition?
“KALTENBRUNNER: No. I cannot admit that because I have had the feeling each time a document has been submitted to me today, that it could at first glance be immediately refuted by me in its most vital points. I ask, and I hope that the Tribunal will allow me, to refer to single points and to come into closer contact with individual witnesses, so that I may defend myself to the last. Throughout the preliminary interrogations your colleague has always adopted the attitude unjustly that I was refuting and opposing insignificant points. The conception of expeditious trial proceedings has been unknown to me in this form. Had he talked to me in broad lines about the ways to find out the real truth, I believe he would have sooner arrived at considerably larger and more important issues. I am perhaps the only defendant who, on receiving the Indictment and being asked, ‘Are you ready to make any further statements to the Prosecution,’ stated ‘Immediately,’ and I signed it – please produce the signature – ‘from today on after receiving the Indictment I am at the disposal of the Prosecution for any information.’ Is it not so? Please confirm it. That gentleman [pointing to an interpreter] interrogated me. I have always been ready, that is, during the last 5 months, to give information on any question, but I have not been asked any more.” (IMT XI, 348-349.)
[Note: Is this incoherent? The document, 3803-PS, is Kaltenbrunner’s “letter” to the Mayor of Vienna, SS-Brigadeführer Blaschke, dated 30 June 1944. The letter was then forwarded to the Tribunal accompanied by a “cover letter” from the succeeding Mayor, Körner (no first name given), dated 11 March 1946. Typeset versions of both letters are reproduced in Volume XXXIII 167-169 of the IMTdocument volumes. Having examined photocopies of the originals of both letters very carefully with a magnifying glass, I am absolutely certain that they were both produced on the same typewriter. If this is so, Kaltenbrunner’s “letter” would be one of the rare forgeries of an “original document” bearing an “original signature”. Since Kaltenbrunner’s “letter” purports to be an “original document”, it seems strange that its credibility should have to be shored up by a “letter” from the person claiming to have “found” it, particularly when thousands of unsigned “copies” of other documents (such as the Einsatzgruppen reports) were accepted into evidence with nothing more than a rubber stamp and signature from a Soviet army officer or official. One gets the impression the prosecution felt very uneasy about this document for some reason best known to themselves. It should be noted that we do not even know for certain who “Körner” was, or whether he actually wrote the cover letter involved.
In a real trial, Körner would appear as a witness, identify the document, and then submit to cross-examination as to the circumstances under which he found the document. The cover letter was probably produced to evade the possibility that the defence might demand his appearance as a witness, a right to which they would theoretically have been entitled had he signed an affidavit.]
[Note: Kaltenbrunner’s “letter” contains a false geographical term:
“VON SCHIRACH: I do not know of the correspondence between the Codefendant Kaltenbrunner and the mayor of Vienna. To my knowledge Camp Strasshof is not within Gau Vienna at all. It is in an altogether different Gau. The designation, ‘Vienna-Strasshof,’ is, therefore, an error. The border runs in between the two.” (IMT XIV, 416.)]
PAUL SCHMIDT ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“[Ribbentrop] told Admiral Miklos Horthy, Regent of Hungary, that ‘Jews must either be exterminated or taken to concentration camps.’
“… Far worse for his defence was his last witness, Paul Otto Schmidt, who had interpreted at many of Hitler’s conferences with foreigners and was bright and well informed. His direct testimony gave Ribbentrop no real help…” (Anatomy, p. 352.)
WHAT PAUL SCHMIDT ACTUALLY SAID
“SCHMIDT: During this conference there had been a certain difficulty, when Hitler insisted that Horthy should proceed more energetically in the Jewish question, and Horthy answered with some heat, ‘But what am I supposed to do? Shall I perhaps beat the Jews to death?’
[Note: The verb is “totschlagen”, “to kill”. “Totschlag” in law means “manslaughter” or “second-degree murder”.]
“Whereupon there was rather a lull, and the Foreign Minister then turned to Horthy and said, ‘Yes, there are only two possibilities – either that, or to intern the Jews.’ Afterwards he said to me – and this was rather exceptional – that Hitler’s demands in this connection might have gone a bit too far.” (IMT X, 203-204.)
[Note: In view of the fact that he considers Schmidt to be a credible witness, Taylor is indulging in something of a half-truth here.]
AUSCHWITZ ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“Reading de Menthon’s (de Menthon was one of the French prosecutors) many passages on Nazi war crimes forty years later reveals a jarring omission of reference to Jews and the Holocaust. In part this is due to the division of evidence, on a West-East basis, between the French and Soviet delegations… Auschwitz is mentioned, but only to observe that many of its inmates were ‘sterilized’, and that ’the most beautiful women were set apart, artificially sterilized, and then gassed.’ ” (Anatomy, p. 296.)
[Note: This bizarre hallucination is a perfect example of the atmosphere of lunacy which pervaded the entire Nuremberg Trial. What is the point of sterilizing people if you are going to gas them afterwards? But the original text is even stupider than Taylor’s “quotation”, as we shall soon see.]
WHAT THE NUREMBERG TRIAL TRANSCRIPT ACTUALLY SAYS
“At Auschwitz the most beautiful women were set apart, artificially fertilized, and then gassed.” (IMT V, 403.)
[Note: This is not a misprint in English. The same passage in the German transcript reads, on page 454, “In Auschwitz wurden die schönsten Frauen abgesondert, künstlich befruchtet [fertilized] und sodann vergast.”
Apparently the original was a bit thick – even for Taylor – so he simply faked the quotation. The point is that Taylor cannot be trusted.]
SAUCKEL ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“Determined to make this jerry-built system work, on January 6, 1943, Sauckel summoned some 800 officials to a meeting in Weimar and told them:
“ ‘Where the voluntary method fails (and experience shows that it fails [es versagt] everywhere) compulsory service takes its place…
“ ‘We are going to discard the last remnant of our soft talk about humanitarian ideals. Every additional gun which we procure brings us a moment closer to victory. It is bitter to tear people from their homes, from their children. But we did not want the war. The German child who loses his father at the front, the German wife who mourns her husband killed in battle, suffers far more. Let us disclaim every sentiment now… [Note deletion.]
“ ‘This is the iron law for the Allocation of Labour for 1943. In a few weeks from now there must no longer be any occupied territory in which compulsory service for Germany is not the most natural thing in the world.’ ” (Anatomy, p. 430.)
[Note: Not only is this quotation taken drastically out of context, but Taylor has even gotten the order of paragraphs mixed up! The third paragraph above is actually the second sentence! This is typical of Taylor’s sloppiness.
The following is my translation of the entire document, omitting the introduction only.]
WHAT SAUCKEL ACTUALLY SAID
“…1. Where voluntary recruitment fails (and experience shows that it is failing everywhere), compulsory service takes its place. That is now the Iron Law of the year 1943 in the labour service: in a few weeks, there should be no occupied territory in which compulsory service for Germany is not the most natural thing in the world. We will slough off the last dregs of our humanitarian daydreaming. Every additional cannon which we manufacture brings us one minute closer to victory! It is bitter to tear people away from their homes, from their children. But we didn’t want the war! The German child who loses his father at the front, the German woman who bewails her fallen husband, suffers much more deeply. Let us renounce all false sentimentality here.
“2. Even though I wish to come to terms with the severity of the war, I nevertheless request that under no circumstances may the German nation, the name of the Führer, my own name, or even your names, be exposed to shame. What we must do, will be done. But it will be done so that, with all severity – and I will punish pitilessly where necessary – account is taken of the principles of German correctness. We are not a perverse, bestially-inclined nation whose highest joy is to torment prisoners. With us, everything is done according to regulations, but with chivalry. This chivalry has been proven a thousand times by German soldiers. We are also guided by the recognition here that, in the long run, efficiency in production can only be demanded from foreign workers if they are satisfied with their lot. I will not tolerate men being mistreated. You must compel people to do their duty, you must cart them away under certain circumstances, but you must not commit a fault, you must not torment and play tricks; rather, I hereby make you personally responsible for ensuring the greatest possible comfort for our foreign labour recruits during transport and in their accommodation, for the purpose of bringing healthy workers to Germany, people who are able to go to work immediately.
“3. As recruitment commissioners in foreign countries, you must under no circumstances whatsoever to promise things which are not possible according to the applicable guidelines and regulations, or not practicable due to the war situation. It is much better to go up to persons liable for labour service and tell them ‘You must do this, and, in return, you will have the rights of workers working in Germany’. Anyone who works in Germany has a right to life in Germany, even if he is Bolshevik. We will watch strictly to ensure that no shame falls upon the German name in so doing. You may demand every sort of protection from me in your service territory, but not for any crimes. The name of our nation is holy. For the first time in German history, you must represent the principles of German labour for the Reich. Be conscious of this at all times.
“4. For your part, you must tell the truth about labour service in Germany at all times. You of the labour service are an advance troop of German National Socialist propaganda in foreign countries. You must learn to represent our German standpoint, the standpoint of our Führer, our people, and the Reich, in foreign countries. I wish to make you responsible, in addition to your official and professional duties, for being propagandists of the National Socialist life and faith. You must create validity and respect for the true facts.
“5. You must also spread the word in foreign countries that anyone who works properly in Germany will enjoy the best protection for his life and health. This promise must make the rounds in the occupied territories. The sick rate in the camps of Soviet workers working in Germany is less than two percent. That is unequalled! The reason for this is that the Soviet workers are cleanly and hygienically housed, and decently nourished. Carry this out, regardless of all lies. You can and must represent the concept in foreign countries that there has never been a labour service like the one in Germany!
“6. We must also spread the word, as a further promise, that everyone who works in Germany is helping to bring Europe closer to peace, and to eliminate the misery caused by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin from the world. All soldiers and all offices must cooperate in keeping this promise. Anyone who works in Germany is protecting his life, and is working to eliminate mass misery from the world.
“7. Every recruiter is obliged to take care that the recruited workers bring as much food, clothing, and, possibly, bedding, along with them as possible in any way. All useful things must be packed and brought along. We do not have these things in abundance in Germany at the present time.
“8. In no case may sick people, or people who are unable to work, be taken along to work – or children who are unable to work.
“9. The transports must be carefully prepared and cautiously carried out.
“The German labour service, I emphasize once again, must be the best life insurance for foreign peoples. This is how our propaganda should work. That which was not yet good enough, should be improved; that which was better, will be made more perfect by us. I demand this of you, not for ourselves, but for the Führer, for his soldiers, and for our beloved German people.” (Defence document Sauckel-82, IMT XLI, 226-228, translation from German.)
FIELD MARSHAL MILCH ACCORDING TO TAYLOR
“Milch floundered from forgetting to lying and ended with a flat denial that he had ever had prisoners of war shot, in the face of his own report:
[Note: It is not his own report. It is a “quotation” from a “photocopy” of unsigned “minutes” of the Central Planning Board that he had ordered the hanging of Russian officers who had tried to escape.]
“ ‘I wanted them to be hanged in the factory for the others to see.’ Milch left the witness chair utterly discredited.” (Anatomy, p. 324.)
WHAT MILCH ACTUALLY SAID
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: … Now, I am still quoting you and I want you to find the entry.
“ ‘In one case, two Russian officers took off with an airplane but crashed. I ordered that these two men be hanged at once. They were hanged or shot yesterday. I left that to the SS. I wanted them to be hanged in the factory for the others to see.’
“Do you find that?
“MILCH: I have found it, and I can only say I have never had anybody hanged nor have I even given such an order. I could not possibly have said such a thing. I had nothing to do with this question. Neither do I know of any instance where two Russian officers tried to escape by plane.” (IMT IX, 114.)
[Note: Somehow the story rings a bit differently with the added ingredient of the stolen airplane.]
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It is as follows:
“ ‘Milch: We have demanded that in the anti-aircraft artillery a certain percentage of personnel should consist of Russians. Fifty thousand in all should be brought in. Thirty thousand are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing [“eine witzige Sache” – C.P.], that Russians must work the guns…’
“What was amusing about making the Russian prisoners of war work the guns?
“MILCH: The words ‘We have demanded’ do not mean the Central Planning Board, but that Hitler made this demand.
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ‘We’ means Hitler?
“MILCH: Yes, the German Government. And I myself find it strange that prisoners of war should be made to shoot at planes of their allies. We did not like it because it meant that these men could no longer work for us. We were opposed to their being used in the anti-aircraft artillery.
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You said: ‘This is an amusing thing that the Russians must work the guns.’
“What was amusing about it?
“MILCH: What is meant by amusing [“witzig” – C.P.]? … peculiar, strange. I cannot say, however, whether this word was actually used. I have not seen the minutes.
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the rest of your contribution.
“ ‘…20,000 are still needed. Yesterday I received a letter from the Army High Command, stating: We cannot release any more men, we have not enough ourselves. Thus there is no prospect for us.’
“Whom does ‘for us’ refer to, if not to your industry requirements?
“MILCH: I consider these minutes incorrect, it has never been discussed in this manner, it must be wrong. I cannot accept the minutes as they stand. To clarify this matter I may say that the proposal was to take people out of the armaments industry and put them into anti-aircraft defense. We who were concerned with armaments did not want to release these men and were opposed to it. That was the idea of the whole thing, and the OKH declared that they did not have enough people.
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand the sense of this to be that you applied for certain workmen for the armaments industry and that the Army High Command refused to give you the men, saying that they are already employed making guns and on other work. Now, is that the sense of that, or is it not?
“MILCH: No, not quite.
“MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, just tell me what the sense of it is.
“MILCH: As far as I remember, the armaments industry was to release 50,000 Russian prisoners of war to the Air Force for anti-aircraft defense, and the armaments industry could not spare these people.” (IMT IX, 103-105.)
Note: The Germans were not bound by any treaty with the Russians. Using Russian prisoners to build emplacements or carry munitions would be entirely logical. But to imagine that they could possess the motivation or skills to man anti-aircraft guns and shoot down Allied aircraft is not just “peculiar”, it is insane.
The document in question here is an unsigned “photocopy” of extracts of stenographic notes, almost certainly retyped and mimeographed by the prosecution, i.e., probably not photocopied from the originals. They are partially reproduced at XXXVIII, 336-362 of the Nuremberg Trial document volumes. This is a very well-known document, containing many sentences commonly quoted against Milch and Sauckel.
R-124 is a typical Nuremberg trial document on several points: it is an unsigned “photocopy”, the authenticity and accuracy of which cannot be verified; it contains many statements which appear plausible, and others which appear to make little or no sense; and, most importantly, taken as a whole and translated into English, it does not really prove what the Nuremberg prosecutors thought it did.
Thus, the accusation is made that the Germans “enslaved” millions of people because there was a desperate labour shortage, and, simultaneously, that they “exterminated” millions of people who were perfectly able to work! This doesn’t make sense. It seems only natural that nations which consider it an “amusing thing” to burn millions of people to death with phosphorous, jellied gasoline, and atomic bombs – the United States and Britain – should wax indignant over crimes committed by others. Perhaps it was the Germans who brought the slaves to America.
Finite space hardly permits full discussion of Taylor’s multitudinous manipulations, distortions, deletions, misrepresentations, oversimplifications, moral pretentiousness, hypocrisy, half-truths, falsehoods, Phariseeism, superficiality, sanctimoniousness and lies.
Gas bag Taylor blowing himself up to mammoth proportions