Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

by Tell the Truth

  Without exaggeration, it can probably be stated that the average Allied soldier of the period was simply a citizen of his country who had been quasi-pressed into military service. Not so, the officials, however dressed, that followed the troops, once danger had been removed. These people were appointed to begin the planned and systematic oppression of the vanquished, according to the victor’s historical tendency to retaliation, through which German soldiers were intimidated by torture and German civilians brainwashed by propaganda. How much personal incentives of revenge played a part need not be left to conjecture. “Out of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews.” (Louis Marschalko, Special Correspondent)

  The drive to convict German leaders even before the trial began was probably instituted by Jacob Robinson (1889–1977), “jurist, politician, diplomat, and Holocaust researcher. Although Orthodox, Robinson’s father, David, was an early Zionist. Between 1910 and 1914, Robinson studied law at Warsaw University, graduating with the equivalent of a doctorate. Robinson moved to Kaunas, practiced as a lawyer, and was elected to the Second Lithuanian Parliament in 1923 as one of seven Jewish MPs. Robinson was the leader of both the Jewish faction and the entire Minorities Bloc in parliament. The Minorities Treaties formulated in Versailles in 1919 had made the question of minority rights in Eastern Europe an international issue. Robinson’s commitment to defending and promoting Jewish interests was, therefore, not restricted to Lithuania. He represented Jewish minorities at the European Nationalities Congress (1925–1933), counseled the Committee of Jewish Delegations, took part in attempts to establish a World Jewish Congress..Robinson left Lithuania in May 1940 and reached the United States with his family in December of that year. In February 1941, he founded the Institute of Jewish Affairs (IJA), the research arm of the American and World Jewish Congress, which he directed until 1947. The IJA’s main topics of research were the fate of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe; the question of reparation and indemnification; the legal basis for prosecuting Nazi criminals; and the promotion of the concept of human rights as a means for defending the rights of Jews. In 1945, Robinson advised U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert H. Jackson in Nuremberg and codrafted the “Jewish case” presented to the International Military Tribunal. In 1946, he counseled chief prosecutor Telford Taylor on the Flick Case in Nuremberg. That same year, Robinson worked for the United Nations as an expert consultant to the team creating and establishing the Commission of Human Rights. In 1947 Robinson became legal adviser to the Jewish Agency at the UN and from 1948 to 1957 he was legal counsel to Israel’s delegation. Thanks to his previous experience, Robinson was instrumental in developing the Israeli diplomatic service. In 1952, he drafted the reparations agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). His brother Nehemiah (1898–1964) was also a brilliant lawyer. He was Jacob’s close partner and successor as director of the IJA, and drafted the agreements between the FRG and the Claims Conference as well as the FRG’s Indemnification Law.” (The Yivo Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, Omry Kaplan-Feuereisen) (Author’s italics)

  The Nurember Trials were held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946. The Nuremberg judgments were based on four counts of indictment, conceived immediately prior to the trials (8 August 1945) and designed to serve the prosecution and to exclude any recourse to a normal defense according to what is usually termed a fair trial (Nuremberg Principle V: “Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”) These were blatant “ex post facto” laws or laws created after a supposed infraction. The Latin definition: Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali “ translates as [There exists] no crime [and] no punishment without a pre-existing penal law [appertaining]”), “a basic maxim in continental European legal thinking. It was written by Paul Johann Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach as part of the Bavarian Criminal Code in 1813.” (Wikipedia)

  Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts;

  Crimes against Peace;

  War Crimes;

  Crimes against Humanity. Nuremberg Principles, August 8, 1945

  CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL

  AUGUST 8, 1945

  [Signatories: USA, USSR, Britain, France]

  [excerpts]

  ARTICLE VI

  [excerpt]

  The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

  (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 populations, before or during the war; or prosecutions 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.

  As was pre-eminently the case during the Dachau trials, so also at the Nürnberg trials, there was the unmistakable and poorly concealed expression that what drove the authorities charged with the arraignment, in which Jewish representatives were dominant, was not the investigation of the truth, but by virtue of blind hatred and evident revenge, the extermination of as many of their adversaries as possible. The God who had deluded the victors had opened the eyes of the defeated, ours. If this hatred is not checked, the ranks of the graves of blamelessly condemned Germans as well will increase. June 1, 1948, signed, Oswald Pohl (SS-General) (Metapedia)

  A film that was never finished due partly to delays and the existence of the other films was Memory of the Camps. According to Sidney Bernstein, chief of PWD (Psychological Warfare Division), the object of the film was to:

  ...shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people – and not just the Nazis and SS – bore responsibility. (PBS Story)

  This oppression continues to the present day.

  And we in Germany have not enjoyed full sovereignty at any time since May 8, 1945 (Finance Minister Schäuble, speech at European Banking Congress, November 18, 2011 in Frankfurt).

  ***

  Rumour has it that every incoming German administration must sign a letter of submission to the U.S. (“Kanzlerakte”).

  ***

  The letter which appeared in 1996 in support of this claim is most probably a forgery, but a reliable author (retired Major-GeneralKomossa) as well as a renowned, Jewish-German, centre-left politician seem to confirm the authenticity of this procedure. (Egon Bahr, “Lebenslüge der Bundesrepublik,” Junge Freiheit, October 14, 2011)

  ***

  “Those who make the decisions have not been elected, and those who have been elected have nothing to say.” (Horst Seehofer, leader of CSU, May 20, 2010)

  ***

  ...The secret treaty of May 21, 1949 was classified as “strictly confidential” by the federal intelligence service. In it were stipulated the fundamental restrictions of the victors regarding the independence of the federal repu
blic until 2099, which hardly anyone knows today. According to these, “the Allies” restrictions over the media concerning German newspapers and broadcasting media” were imposed until 2099. Furthermore, by order of the Allies it was ruled that each German federal chancellor, before completion of his oath of office had to sign the so-called “Kanzlerakte” (chancellor’s document). In addition, the gold reserves of the federal republic remained impounded by the Allies. Despite this, a limited sovereignty was returned to the Federal Republic of Germany, but it was indeed only limited. Just enough as was necessary to justify the deployment of German military units...

  Some people believe that Germany, after military capitulation (The German Reich did not capitulate), never regained its status as a country at all but became a company (“GmbH” or Ltd., a company with limited liability), on August 29, 1990, or shortly after the reunification. They deduce this from the following offical information:

  Imprint of the Federal Republic of Germany – Finance Agency Ltd.: The Finance Agency of the Federal Republic of Germany is an enterprise of the Federal Republic, founded in late 2000, with its headquarters in Frankurt/Main. Its only shareholder is the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry of Finance. The “Federal Republic of Germany – Finance Agency Ltd.,” in its monetary and capital transactions, acts only in the name and on the account of the Federal Republic of Germany or its special assets. (...) The “Federal Republic of Germany – Finance Agency Ltd.” is a company with limited liability and is entered in the trading Registry at the district court of Frankfurt/Main under the number HRB 51411.

  The discrepancy between the dates August 29, 1990 and “late 2000” is explained thus:

  The enterprise originated on September 19, 2000 through the alteration of the company agreement of August 29, 1990 from the Berlin Equipment and Systems Liquidating Company Ltd., or The German Finance Agency (German: Deutsche Finanzagentur) is a financial services company owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. The company was formed on September 19, 2000 amendment to the statutes of August 29, 1990 from the Berlin based CVU Systemhaus Abwicklungsgesellschaft mbH. (Wikipedia)

  The partnership agreement between the Finance Agency Ltd. and the Federal Republic of August 2009 was signed by Caio Koch-Weser (a Jew), a secretary of state at the finance ministry, previously a vice-president of the World Bank, later “adviser” to CEO Ackermann at the Deutsche Bank. Koch-Weser is also a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Affairs (a quick check of ECFR members reveals many of the usual suspects) and on the board of the Bertelsmann Foundation. (It is not the intention to bore the reader with excessive information, but simply to draw attention to the appearance of familiar names.)

  The earlier date may most innocently be explained as the need after reunification to create a federal agency solely assigned to manage the enormous costs associated with taking over the assets of the earlier DDR. However this does not explain the ten-year difference between the founding dates given. If there is some dissimulation in this account, it is insignificant compared to -- although perhaps not unallied with-- the proven deception by the German government under Helmut Kohl regarding the return of East Germany’s property confiscated between 1945 and 1949, to its original owners after reunification. Needless to say, this just restitution should have been a logical consequence of reunification. Instead, this property was absorbed into the Federal Republic.

  Constanze Paffrath wrote her highly praised doctoral dissertation on this subject and published her findings in her book “Macht und Eigentum” (“Power and Property,” 2004). She discovered that Kohl’s assertion before parliament that the conditions of reunification in the treaty negotiated with Gorbachev would have been contravened if restitution had occurred was a lie (“die Kohl Lüge,” www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe_uqTr9bn4).

  The contention that ownership of DDR property, once returned to the Federal Republic, could have mattered to the bankrupt Soviet Union and its likewise bankrupt satellites (the real reason for the collapse of the DDR, not the people’s protests) is obviously absurd, as Gorbachev himself later asserted, but it was accepted by German parliamentarians. Dr. Paffrath proves that this official re-confiscation, estimated at 600 billion DM, was used to help cover the cost of reunification and to allow Kohl’s party, the CDU, to win the last Volkskammer (East German) election (March 18, 1990), with the promise that reunification would not mean higher taxes. Subsequently, a so-called “solidarity surcharge” tax of 7, 5% was imposed on West Germans. Many cases exist of West Germans, some with former companies in the East, who planned to re-open these and thus to contribute, often in their home towns, in an integral manner to the recovery of the eastern part of the country. Others see Germany as a trust of the Allies, an NGO, or unregistered economic club, according to §54 BGB. Any state liability is excluded:

  Probably the most accurate analysis of Germany’s political status is that of parliamentarian, constitutional expert and judge Dr.Carlo Schmid:

  This organization of a state-like entity can certainly extend very far. However, what differentiates the construct from genuine democratically legitimated statehood is that it is fundamentally nothing but the organizational form of a modality of foreign domination; for the self-organization taking place despite insufficient freedom presupposes the recognition of foreign power as superior and of greater legitimacy. (September 8, 1948, to the parliamentary council in Bonn)

  Carlo Schmid also said:

  We have time and again stated that Germany consists of the entire territory which the Weimar constitution established as German national territory in its time. (October 12, 1948)

  We are in the process, in Bonn, of discussing and deciding the Basic Law on the basis of which the organization of German national jurisdiction in West Germany will rest. However, we should, in reflecting about this fact, never forget that this Basic Law will only apply within the framework of the Statute of Occupation. This Occupation Statute will under all circumstances act as a kind of superior constitution....We do not therefore know what will be contained in this Statute of Occupation. However, there have been reports in the media from which we must conclude that it will be much more extensive than we had expected...

  Under these circumstances the question arises whether it still makes any sense to resolve a constitution and to distribute it among the German people for ratification. To establish a constitution and on its basis to call into being a government can surely only make sense when parliament and government can assume genuine accountability...How much latitude do we have? One may only assume responsibility according to the measure in which one is free to decide. If this measure is very small, one does not have to summon the apparatus of a constitution to determine the governmental organs which must fulfil it.

  The full 12-minute recording in which Hermann Schäfer (FDP) and Carlo Schmid (SPD) express their opinions about the legal state of occupied Germany must be listened to carefully, if one is to understand Germany’s post-war development and status today.

  No peace treaty has yet been signed between Germany and the Allies of WWII; Germany is still categorized as an “enemy state.” The Reich itself did not surrender and never ceased to exist. The Federal Republic of Germany is not the legal successor of the German Reich, so there can never be a peace treaty with the Federal Republic of Germany:

  There is no central Government or authority in Germany capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order, the administration of the country and compliance with the requirements of the victorious Powers. [...]The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany. (The A
merican Journal of International Law, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jul., 1945), pp. 171-178)

  ***

  For occupational purposes, Germany will be divided into three zones, within her borders of December 31st 1937, to each of which one of the three powers will be assigned, as well as a special zone for Berlin, which is governed by the joint occupation of the three powers (London Protocol of December 12th, 1944; extension to France did not take place until the Yalta Conference in February 1945.)

  ***

  The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) is the constitutional law of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was approved on 8 May 1949 in Bonn, and, with the signature of the western Allies of World War II on 12 May, came into effect on 23 May. Its original field of application (German: Geltungsbereich) comprised the states of the Trizone that were initially included in the then West German Federal Republic of Germany, but not West Berlin. (Wikipedia)

  ***

  On April 10, 1949, the Western Allies had drawn up the occupation statute and had it conveyed to the Parliamentary Council. Officially announced on May 12, it reserved a number of sovereign rights, like foreign policy and external trade, for the Allied authoritites. Any amendment to the West German Constitution was subject to Allied permission, specific laws could be rejected, and the military governors could take over all governmental power in times of crisis. Those reservations were to be executed by the Allied High Commission established on June 20 as the supreme state power. On November 22, 1949, Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the Petersberg Agreement, according to which it was recognized that the sovereignty of West Germany remained limited. The Agreement, however, extended the rights of the German Government vis-a-vis the powers provided for in the original version of the Occupation Statute.