Greatest crime alledged at Nuremberg was ...
Yale F.Edeiken
Artiq <Z...@th.rus> wrote in article <38603df9.145522633@news-server>...
> Stephen R Gould <stephen...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <384a608b.88827288@news-server>,
> > Z...@th.rus (Artiq) wrote:
>
> >> By page count, word count and days devoted to it, the greatest
> >> crime tried at Nuremberg was the NSDAP planning to take over the
> >> country by winning elections in which they told the voters they would
> >> abolish democracy. Such a crime.
>
> >A simple open-and-shut murder case can be tried in 2 days. A complex
> >but minor fraud trial may last weeks if not months. Length is not in
> >itself a determinant of importance.
> 1) It points out it was a non-crime and something the Allies had
> done is a worse manner.
It points out that you are an ignorant liar. Your "facts" were totally
wrong.
What you claimed was charged as a crime was not charged as a crime.
What you claimed took up a major portion of the trial did not take up a
major portion of the trial.
> 2) The crimes were tailored between the end of the war and the
> trial cover the things they wished to designate as crimes. What they
> chose is what they wanted. Nothing was forced upon them.
That simply makes no sense. To begin with the crimes charged were
established by the London Accord which was negotiated BEFORE the end of the
war.
> Some day you might try reading it yourself.
Someday the criminal Giwer, who claims that the IMT never made a written
decision, might read about the trial.
For others who wish to read the truth several books are highly
recommended. They are:
Robert E. Conot, “Justice at Nuremberg” Harper & Row (1983)
Whitney Harris, “Tyranny on Trial” Southern Methodist
University
Press (1954)
Joseph Persico “Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial” Viking Press (1994)
Bradley F. Smith, “Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg” Basic Books
(1977)
Bradley F. Smith, “The Road to Nuremberg” Basic Books (1981)
Telford Taylor, “The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials” Little
Brown (1992)
G. M. Gilbert, “Nuremberg Diaries” DeCapo Press (1995)
Hillary Gaskin, “Eyewitnesses at Nuremberg” Arms and Armor Press
(1990)
Airey Neave, “On Trial at Nuremberg” Little, Brown (1978)
Read them and see why the criminal Giwer's weird rantings are so far from
the truth as to be laughable.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F.Edeiken
Artiq <Z...@th.rus> wrote in article <38614478.147185283@news-server>...
> grandwazoo <gr...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >Artiq wrote:
> >
> >> By page count, word count and days devoted to it, the greatest
> >> crime tried at Nuremberg was the NSDAP planning to take over the
> >> country by winning elections in which they told the voters they would
> >> abolish democracy. Such a crime.
> >>
> >> Please no stupid responses.
> >>
> >> In the last century in European parliamentary systems barely a
> >> handful have ever gotten 50% of the vote. That is not the way their
> >> systems work. A condemnation for not having 50%+ condemns all but that
> >> handful in the last century.
> >
> >Now there is an Idea, voting to abolish democracy.
> That was the charge. I wasn't there to create the crimes.
There was no such charge.
> > And, I thought the trial was for war crimes and atrocities.
> That was barely one quarter of it. And when you get to what is in
> all the movies today, maybe 10% of that one quarter, 2% or so. And
> then most all of it reports read into the record and not subject to
> crossexamination.
A lie. The French presented several witnesses most notably Marie
Valliante-Couturier, later a Gaullist deputy to the French assembly, who
spent two years at Auschwitz.
All witnesses about the concentration camps were in court and present for
cross-examination.
> It makes interesting reading. The most curious thing I discovered
> is that according to the assertions at Nurmeberg the Sonkerkommandos
> were all members of the SS including Sonderkommando Adolf Eichmann.
There is no such statement in the record.
Note that although the criminal Giwer makes claims like this he never
cites the record to back them up.
One reason for this is that the criminal Giwer, who claims that the IMT
never produced a written decision, has not read either the record or a good
book about the IMT trial.
RoachClip
>
> Note that although the criminal Giwer makes claims like this he never
> cites the record to back them up.
Is it necessary to? The superior races always are victorious, and such
history is written by the victors. And since he is the "superior" race,
<chuckle> he is gettin practice in for when the White Overlord comes
back.
> One reason for this is that the criminal Giwer, who claims that the IMT
> never produced a written decision, has not read either the record or a good
> book about the IMT trial.
There are no books for him to read. He must have burned them all.
roachclip-
"I hate Illinois Nazis"
Yale F.Edeiken
Artiq <Z...@th.rus> wrote in article <3886900a.166534808@news-server>...
> "Stephen R Gould" <srg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Yup, a revisionist looks at the Nuremberg transcripts and...counts page
> >numbers.
> It is important to put into perspective, given the state of
> public education, that in the 1950s extermination was in the noise.
> This is but one example.
Of meaningless babble from the criminal Giwer.
Since, if the criminal Giwer continues to post, the price of Sterno could
go through the roof, I ask him, on behalf of numerous campers to switch to
wood alcohol.
> In the interests of the changes in emphasis over the decades it
> is important to point out to the majority of the internet population
> that emphasis upon extermination did not exist for decades after the
> war ended.
Wrong. You are compeltely ignoring the subsequent Nuremberg trials.
> So pointing out what was at Nuremberg is the SAME as pointing out
> what was in the newspapers and in the public consciousness at the
> time.
Wrong. The impact of the trials was greatest when the crimes against
humanity were proved. That was the greatest interest and, quite obviously,
impressed itself on the public conscienceness.
> As skeptics it is instructive to look at this process.
It is more instructive to look at how the criminal Giwer lies.
He does so regularly.
Yale F.Edeiken
Artiq <A...@r.tiq> wrote in article <38418753.126001976@news-server>...
> alt.revisionism removed to demonstrate the scum who want to
> invite spam from SWC like Yale.
Alt.revisionism restored. It is a lie that the spam originated from SWC.
It is a lie that it still is occuring.
> Is there anyone still dumb enough to claim the holohuggers are
> not the spam inviters?
Are there people so stupid that they beleive a singlke word that the
criminal Giwer utters?
And then the criminal Giwer puts his foot in it:
> There is this SHYSTER who CREATED an allegation.
That statment is actionable as defamation.
Does your present ISP realize that you are putting them in jeopardy of a
lawsuit.
> That allegation was of drinking to excess which quite clearly is
> none other than his creation. So he is clearly violation his oath as
> an officer of the court. His oath requires him never to lie but he is
> lying in this matter so he violates his oath of office as an officer
> of the court.
That statement is actionable as defamation.
Does your present ISP realize that you are putting them in jeopardy of a
lawsuit?
> But really I do not believe he is an officer of the court as he
> has posted lies as to drinking on the internet. And no officer of the
> court would post without personal knowledge and he has none.
That statement is actionable as defamation.
Does your present ISP realize that you are putting thme in jeopardyof a
lawsuit?
> Without the least question I RICO common intent and SEVEN years
> to deal with it as a minimum.
Yhat statemetn is actionable as defamation.
Does your present ISP realize that you are puitting them in jeopardy of a
lawsuit?
> And if I do not say that he is a Jew because he says he is Jew
> and not making that profitable activity as he has and is the current
> mode of extorion and theft as did GTE Internet ...
This doesn't even make sense.
> It goes but the facts are clear and criminal.
Correct. Your statements are a continuation of the criminal conduct in
which you engaged.