- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

The Continuation of the World Wars by Other Means

1,129 words

[1]

US prosecutor Robert Jackson and Russian assistant prosecutor General Uri Pokrovsky at the Nuremberg trials.

In the words [2] of Robert Jackson, the chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, “We want to prove to Germany and to the world that the Nazi regime was as wicked and as criminal as we have always maintained.”

It will be shown here that the death the Allies rained down upon Germany during the Second World War, and the endless lies, insults, and genocidal levels of Third World immigration that Germany and the entire white world have suffered ever since, constitute one and the same attack. The propaganda lies employed to justify the war and the war itself were likewise identical.

There was nothing new here: in the First World War, the Allies, principally Britain and France, had attacked Germany not only with weapons but also with disgraceful and baseless lies: one notable example was the unfounded allegation that German soldiers had committed atrocities in Belgium, such as cutting off the hands of children. These were lies which the British government was later forced to admit to and formally apologize for.

This war was shortly followed by the even more bloody and destructive Second World War. Both wars were launched by the British Establishment; it was the British government which declared war on Germany in 1914, and again it was the British that declared war on Germany in 1939. Both wars were justified by the British Establishment through the use of atrocity propaganda, accusing the Germans of being monsters guilty of every imaginable crime, but without offering any proof.

The Nuremberg trials which followed the war were a cynical exercise in power politics. The procedural basis for this trial of the vanquished was drawn up by the victors and laid down in the London Agreement of August 1945. Millions had been killed and millions more were starving and homeless, and even the victorious nations were heavily damaged and bankrupt. It was under these conditions that the Allies set about establishing the political, legal, and moral framework for the post-1945 order that was to be imposed upon Europe: a political settlement which the United States and the Soviet Union in particular intended should last for a long time. The purpose of the Nuremberg trials was precisely to supply the legal and moral justification both for the war that the Allies had launched and for the “peace” that they intended to impose on Europe. (Note that the term “Europe” here includes Great Britain, since Britain’s fate was intimately bound up with the fate of the Continent.)

The Nuremberg trials were condemned at the time, and with very good reason as we shall see, by honorable and high-ranking American jurists and politicians. The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F. Stone, condemned [3] the trials as a “lynching party,” and US Senator Robert Taft likewise [4] called them a “perversion of justice” and said that America’s participation constituted a blot upon its honor. Taft predicted that in years to come, Europeans would condemn the United States for its role.

Why were these leading Americans moved to condemn the trial? In their attempt to “prove” their case against the defeated Germans, the Allies, cynically abusing the near-total power that they had attained over Germany at the war’s end, gave themselves rules and procedures as per the London Agreement that made a mockery of standard Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence as practiced in the US and Great Britain. In particular, consider articles 19 and 21:

Article 19: The court is not bound by the usual rules of evidence. The process shall be speedy and not be particularly formal; and the court will permit any piece of proof that it deems expedient.

Article 21: The court will not demand proof of generally known facts; this includes official documents and reports produced by any of the governments of the four victor powers.

In a nutshell, they were proclaiming that the law is what we say it is; and the truth is what we say it is.

To the disgrace of those who willingly participated in this perversion of justice, torture was employed by the western Allies (to say nothing of the Soviet Union) in order to obtain “proof” of alleged German atrocities. The most notorious of the “findings” of the Nuremberg trials was that the Germans had murdered millions of Jews at Auschwitz. This claim was first made by the Soviet government a few days after the capture of the Auschwitz camp by the Red Army in early 1945. These mass-murder claims were quickly bolstered by the British. A special unit of the British army had located Auschwitz’s former camp commandant, Rudolf Höss, and then set about torturing him, almost to the point of death, whereupon he signed a statement demanded of him which claimed that he had murdered millions of Jews at Auschwitz. The facts of the capture and torture of Rudolf Höss have been given by the British investigator, Rupert Butler, in his book Legions of Death [5], wherein he records his interviews with the men of the unit who had arrested Höss.

Articles 19 and 21 permitted this confession to be admitted as evidence, and thus “proved” the Allies’ case. Of course, in a proper court of law as conducted by civilized people, confessions obtained under duress have no probative value. We now know as a matter of fact that the allegation that the Germans murdered millions of Jews during the Second World War is without any foundation. This was confirmed when the world-recognized expert on the “Holocaust,” Professor Raul Hilberg of the University of Vermont, stated [6] under oath as an expert witness at a trial in Toronto, Canada in 1985 that there was no factual, scientific, or forensic evidence to substantiate the existence of gas chambers allegedly used to kill Jews.

These sinister lies promulgated by the Allies at Nuremberg hang like a black cloud over the peoples of Europe. To this day, these lies are enforced by law in Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, and elsewhere in Europe. The post-war political regime imposed by the Allies is still in place. All contemporary European politicians, including British politicians, completely endorse the wicked lies of the Nuremberg lynch mob; they endorse the lie that the Second World War was the “good war”; and they endorse the lie that the Germans, and by extension all Europeans, indeed all white men and women, are monsters capable of every crime imaginable.

The two World Wars and the lies used to justify them, as well as the perversion of justice enacted at Nuremberg, constitutes one and the same attack on Europe and its peoples. Lies were promulgated to promote the wars, and when they were over, the Nuremberg trials set these lies in concrete, rendering them beyond all question. To paraphrase John 8:44, the Allies were murderers from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there was no truth in them.