‘The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy’ by Steven P. Remy, Reviewed by John Wear

#allywarcrimes #alliedwarcrimes #kangaroocourt #worldwar2 #wwii

WEARS WAR on the Lies, Liars & WW2

      The Malmedy trial took place from May 16 to July 16, 1946, at Dachau before a military tribunal of senior American officers operating under rules established by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.[1] American historian Steven P. Remy has written a book titled The Malmedy Massacre which disputes that the 73 German defendants in this trial were improperly convicted.

Remy states in the conclusion to his book that American interrogators did not use physical or psychological torture to obtain information at Malmedy or any other postwar trial. Remy writes:

      There is no evidence that in the North African, European, or Pacific theaters American interrogators relied on systematic forms of physical and psychological pressure to obtain information from combatants or civilians. Nor is there convincing evidence that they did so in war crimes investigations after the war.[2]

Right:  A leading example of the use of torture to obtain…

View original post 3,274 more words

3 Good Men at Nuremberg…. The American Attorneys In Pursuit of Justice

#worldwar2 #wwii #kangaroocourt #jewlies #zionistlies #alliedwarcrimes #allywarcrimes

WEARS WAR on the Lies, Liars & WW2

American Attorneys In Pursuit of Justice

The Nuremberg and later trials were organized primarily for political purposes rather than to dispense impartial justice. This article will discuss the efforts of three American attorneys to expose and correct the injustice of these trials.

germany-nuremberg-trialnuremberg

Charles F. Wennerstrum

Charles F Wennerstrumm

Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, who served as the presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals, resigned his appointment in disgust at the proceedings. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, he criticized the one-sided handling of evidence in the trials. Wennerstrum said that selection of the evidence in the trials was made by the prosecution from the large tonnage of captured German records. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.[1]

Justice Wennerstrum also said that the prosecution and staff at Nuremberg were more interested in revenge than justice. He…

View original post 2,593 more words