What does everyone think of the Nuremberg Trials-Did they prove Nazi guilt?

[dafydd]

I don't know much about Streicher, but I understand he was a schoolteacher and public speaker. He published a newspaper as well.

What makes him "one of the most disgusting human beings who ever lived"?

His actions as a Nazi. He was a human cesspool. Read some history.

 

[Revdude]

His actions as a Nazi. He was a human cesspool. Read some history.

Okay.
I went to the Wikipedia entry for Streicher here.
// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

It is fairly thorough in its description of his life.
While he clearly dislikes Jews, I see nothing that indicates he wants them physically harmed in any way. As far as his diatribes in Der Sturmer, I believe that Germany at the time still had freedom of speech laws.

A quick search of life during the Weimar period turns up this.
w w w. ukapologetics.net/weimar.html

An expose of the most disgusting perverted lifestyle ever brought upon an historically conservative culture. German citizens were reeling in their Great Depression, so obviously they had no part in the creation of this lifestyle.
That leaves Germany's Jews.

Here is another:

w w w. salon.com/sex/feature/2000/11/22/weimar/print.html

A snapshot of Berlin between the world wars includes nudist magazines devoted entirely to children; glittering cabaret shows parading acres of sweaty, perfumed female flesh; and an endless supply of cafes, bars and private clubs catering to gay men, transvestites, lesbians and sadomasochists.

Inflation is so rampant that the local paper currency is good only for toilet paper. Cocaine, morphine and opium are peddled on every street corner. And more than 120,000 desperate women and girls of every age and stripe sell their bodies for a pittance, including mother-daughter prostitution teams and brazen streetwalkers well into the third trimester of pregnancy.

Such was the glory that was Weimar Berlin, a burg American writer Ben Hecht called the "prime breeding ground of evil." Most are familiar with its reputation as a crime-ridden sewer of frenetic debauchery through period classics such as Fritz Lang's "M" and Josef von Sternberg's "The Blue Angel," stage productions of Brecht's "The Threepenny Opera" or screenings of Bob Fosse's lurid, leggy movie musical, "Cabaret." However, very few of our assumptions about that decadent interwar wonderland are based on actual documentation of Berlin's whorish past. And most of it has been filtered through the arid prose of academia.

Now with Mel Gordon's new tome, "Voluptuous Panic: The Erotic World of Weimar Berlin," connoisseurs of carnal excess have the next best thing to a time machine with which to visit that era of blissfully morbid hedonism.

....​

It is this hedonistic lifestyle and everything associated with it promoted by Germany's Jews that Streicher appears to be writing against
Is that correct or am I missing something?

 

[TSR]

Didn't say it *was*, said it could be.
Reasonable doubt exists.
So back to my question to dudalb.

What evidence are you talking about, that was so convincing to you?

.
No, *reasonable* doubt does not exist.

By your standard, no conviction would ever stand because there is *always* the possibility that evidence has been "manipulated."

It's up to *you* to show that it actually *was*, or your tautology is meaningless.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has admitted to the murder, but he *could* have been coerced. And yes, there is a recording of my client talking about committing the murder, but that *could* have been a clever impersonator. And yes, we've been shown that the supposed victim has not been seen since the time of the supposed murder, but they *could* just have chosen to never contact their family again" does not cause doubt to *reasonable* people.

But then, the concept of reason is foreign to deniers, otherwise they wouldn't *be* deniers.
.

 

[TSR]

As far as his diatribes in Der Sturmer, I believe that Germany at the time still had freedom of speech laws.

.
And like so many of your beliefs, this one is wrong.
.

German citizens were reeling in their Great Depression, so obviously they had no part in the creation of this lifestyle.
That leaves Germany's Jews.

.
No, it is not obvious. Got any, you know, evidence that the Jews "created" this lifestyle?

And let me ask you: who were the majority of the ... practitioners of this lifestyle?


Were they threatened or coerced in any way to get up out of their houses and go the cabarets, or purchase that erotica?
.

Such was the glory that was Weimar Berlin, a burg American writer Ben Hecht called the "prime breeding ground of evil." Most are familiar with its reputation as a crime-ridden sewer of frenetic debauchery through period classics such as Fritz Lang's "M" and Josef von Sternberg's "The Blue Angel," stage productions of Brecht's "The Threepenny Opera" or screenings of Bob Fosse's lurid, leggy movie musical, "Cabaret." However, very few of our assumptions about that decadent interwar wonderland are based on actual documentation of Berlin's whorish past. And most of it has been filtered through the arid prose of academia.

It is this hedonistic lifestyle and everything associated with it promoted by Germany's Jews that Streicher appears to be writing against
Is that correct or am I missing something?

.
You mean, other than the fact that Lang and Brecht were both Roman Catholic, and that "Cabaret" wasn't even made until 1972 so could not have possibly influenced Streicher (and besides, was a musical and then movie about the *Nazi* era)?

No, it is not correct -- or at the least you have failed to demonstrate why these films, these cabarets or these play constitute an establishment of a "lifestyle" by Germany's Jews, nor (even if you had) even tried to justify that this establishment (which I remind you *must* have been supported by many
run-of-the-mill Germans) makes it okay to kill all German Jews, as Streicher advocated on more than one occasion. Hint: read the wiki entry on Der Stürmer.
.

 

[Revdude]

.
No, *reasonable* doubt does not exist.

By your standard, no conviction would ever stand because there is *always* the possibility that evidence has been "manipulated."

It's up to *you* to show that it actually *was*, or your tautology is meaningless.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has admitted to the murder, but he *could* have been coerced. And yes, there is a recording of my client talking about committing the murder, but that *could* have been a clever impersonator. And yes, we've been shown that the supposed victim has not been seen since the time of the supposed murder, but they *could* just have chosen to never contact their family again" does not cause doubt to *reasonable* people.

But then, the concept of reason is foreign to deniers, otherwise they wouldn't *be* deniers.
.

Oh, but you are mistaken my young Jedi.
Reasonable doubt does exist because of the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case. It can not be compared to other cases as you so cunningly try to do.
Why?
Well for one, the vindictive nature of the prosecution.
The fact (as offered by 9-11 Investigator) that the Jews played a more than significant role in the proceedings.

How about the torture of the prisoners?

Another fact is that the entire process was referred to as a sham and lynching party by the highest ranking members of the US Congress and even the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, who symbolically refused to swear in the prosecution team.

In other words the entire thing stunk to high heaven.
But you believers don't seem to care about a little justice when dealing with evil Nazi's do you.

 

[tsig]

Didn't say it *was*, said it could be.
Reasonable doubt exists.
So back to my question to dudalb.

What evidence are you talking about, that was so convincing to you?

Nice backhand there but you can't reverse the burden of proof that easily.

 

[Revdude]

.
And like so many of your beliefs, this one is h t t p : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings"]wrong.
I'll give you this one, but the burning of books by predominantly Jewish authors does not represent the population as a whole. Granted, the Nazi's censored pretty much anything said or written against the regime, but I believe that this had more to do with pro-communist elements and seditious writings.

No, it is not obvious. Got any, you know, evidence that the Jews "created" this lifestyle?

Lets look at what Hitler himself said about this very topic.
As quoted from Mein Kampf page 42.

Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people. That they were water-shy was obvious on looking at them and, unfortunately, very often also when not looking at them at all. The odour of those people in caftans often used to make me feel ill. Beyond that there were the unkempt clothes and the ignoble exterior.

All these details were certainly not attractive; but the revolting feature was that beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race.

What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life, into the mystery of which I penetrated little by little. Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.

In my eyes the charge against Judaism became a grave one the moment I discovered the Jewish activities in the Press, in art, in literature and the theatre. All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions. Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago.

And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. Naturally, the lower the moral and intellectual level of such an author of artistic products the more inexhaustible his fecundity. Sometimes it went so far that one of these fellows, acting like a sewage pump, would shoot his filth directly in the face of other members of the human race. In this connection we must remember there is no limit to the number of such people. One ought to realize that for one, Goethe, Nature may bring into existence ten thousand such despoilers who act as the worst kind of germ-carriers in poisoning human souls. It was a terrible thought, and yet it could not be avoided, that the greater number of the Jews seemed specially destined by Nature to play this shameful part.

And is it for this reason that they can be called the chosen people?

I began then to investigate carefully the names of all the fabricators of these unclean products in public cultural life. The result of that inquiry was still more disfavourable to the attitude which I had hitherto held in regard to the Jews. Though my feelings might rebel a thousand time, reason now had to draw its own conclusions.

The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent of the nation--that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to examine my favourite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind.

The deeper my soundings went the lesser grew my respect for that Press which I formerly admired. Its style became still more repellent and I was forced to reject its ideas as entirely shallow and superficial. To claim that in the presentation of facts and views its attitude was impartial seemed to me to contain more falsehood than truth. The writers were--Jews.

Thousands of details that I had scarcely noticed before seemed to me now to deserve attention. I began to grasp and understand things which I had formerly looked at in a different light.

I saw the Liberal policy of that Press in another light. Its dignified tone in replying to the attacks of its adversaries and its dead silence in other cases now became clear to me as part of a cunning and despicable way of deceiving the readers. Its brilliant theatrical criticisms always praised the Jewish authors and its adverse, criticism was reserved exclusively for the Germans.

And let me ask you: who were the majority of the ... practitioners of this lifestyle?
See above quote

Were they threatened or coerced in any way to get up out of their houses and go the cabarets, or purchase that erotica?

Threatened or coerced?
This was the Jewish inspired lifestyle and nightlife in Weimar Berlin, why would they be forced?

You mean, other than the fact that Lang and Brecht were both Roman Catholic, and that "Cabaret" wasn't even made until 1972 so could not have possibly influenced Streicher (and besides, was a musical and then movie about the *Nazi* era)?

w w w .imdb.com/title/tt0068327/
Cabaret (1972) Story about a female girlie club entertainer in Weimar Republic era Berlin who romances two men while the Nazi Party rises to power around them.

No, it is not correct -- or at the least you have failed to demonstrate why these films, these cabarets or these play constitute an establishment of a "lifestyle" by Germany's Jews, nor (even if you had) even tried to justify that this establishment (which I remind you *must* have been supported by many run-of-the-mill Germans) makes it okay to kill all German Jews, as Streicher advocated on more than one occasion. Hint: read the wiki entry on Der Stürmer.
.

Read up on the Weimar era and the hedonist lifestyle promoted in Berlin which sprung up in the twenties. It was this very thing that helped sweep Hitler into power. The Jews controlled the professions and government positions. Germans played a very insignificant part in this because of the extreme unemployment and ongoing Depression brought on by the Versailles reparations.

Read about the role of women in the Weimar Berlin here.
This will give you some idea of what transpired.
h t t p : / / w w w .jolique.com/gender/cabaret.htm

How The Jews Prompted A German Backlash
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2007-2010
h t t p : // w w w.realzionistnews.com/?p=40

From the article

SOCIAL MORES BEGAN TO DECLINE owing to Jewish dominance of the media and the arts, promoting sexual perversity and pornography. A leading artist of the time was the Jew and Spartacist communist, George Grosz, known for his pornographic paintings.

The middle class thus turned their voting habits towards Germany’s National Socialist Party whose platform was to bolster Germany against the moral decline caused by influential Jews. By 1932 there were twenty times as many Jewish government officials in Germany’s Weimer Republic as had existed before 1919. Zionists of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine.

In September of 1933, Dr. Manfred Reifer, a well known leader of the German Jews wrote in the Jewish magazine Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung:

—— “Whilst large sections of the German nation are struggling for the preservation of their race, we Jews fill Germany with our vociferations. We supply the press with articles on the subject of its Christmas and Easter. We ridicule the highest ideals of the German nation and profane the matters which it holds sacred.” ——

 

[TSR]

Oh, but you are mistaken my young Jedi.
Reasonable doubt does exist because of the unique circumstances surrounding this particular case. It can not be compared to other cases as you so cunningly try to do.
Why?
Well for one, the vindictive nature of the prosecution.
The fact (as offered by 9-11 Investigator) that the Jews played a more than significant role in the proceedings.

.
And this "fact" is significant .... why?


Can you demonstrate a *single* defendant who was demonstrably a victim of this supposed 'vindictiveness'?
.

How about the torture of the prisoners?

.
How about "never happened?"
.

Another fact is that the entire process was referred to as a sham and lynching party by the highest ranking members of the US Congress and even the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, who symbolically refused to swear in the prosecution team.

.
No, this is another denier lie.
.

In other words the entire thing stunk to high heaven.
But you believers don't seem to care about a little justice when dealing with evil Nazi's do you.

.
And you deniers don't see to care about a little historical truth for your arguments.


And when your lies are pointed out -- like your "reasonable doubt" argument because evidence "could have been" manipulated -- you simply pretend that the argument was never advanced and change the subject.

Now, either show another case, in any jurisdiction, in which the "coulda" defense secured an acquittal, or admit that it was bullsh*t to even make the claim.

Or use the standard denier tactic of "run away, like the brave aryan warrior you are."
.

 

[TSR]

Learn how to use to quote function.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

And tell us, what, exactly, was seditious about most of the books burned. Do you even know which ones they were?

Read up on the Weimar era and the hedonist lifestyle promoted in Berlin which sprung up in the twenties. It was this very thing that helped sweep Hitler into power. The Jews controlled the professions and government positions. Germans played a very insignificant part in this because of the extreme unemployment and ongoing Depression brought on by the Versailles reparations.

.
You got any, you know, *evidence* that professions related to the "lifestyle" you're whining about were "controlled" by Jews, or that they "controlled" any governmental positions?
.

Read about the role of women in the Weimar Berlin here.
This will give you some idea of what transpired.
h t t p : / / w w w .jolique.com/gender/cabaret.htm

.
Gee, a quick scan of that article shows that Jew or Jewish doesn't even appear.

How does this help your assertion that Jews as a group were the cause, again?
.

How The Jews Prompted A German Backlash
By Brother Nathanael Kapner, Copyright 2007-2010
h t t p : // w w w.realzionistnews.com/?p=40[/b]
From the article

.
Remind me again -- what original research does Kapner cite in support of his assertions?

And since Grosz left Germany in '33, and wasn't even Jewish, we've got another own goal.

So once again, all we have is your (and others') bald *assertion* that it the "lifestyle" was Jewish inspired or controlled, and your own several examples only include *one* actual, you know, Jew.

As to Cabaret, it was ultimately based on the book "Goodbye to Berlin" by Christopher Isherwood, which highlights the groups of people who would be most at risk from Nazi intimidation. That's rather the whole point of all derivative works.

As to Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung, it was a *newspaper*, not a magazine, and since you obviously have never read it, you're simply parroting lies told you by other deniers (never a good idea) -- or you could prove me wrong by citing the exact date and page you read this on.



No?





Didn't think so.
.

 

[dudalb]

Just want to make clear that I think Streicher was a Human Cesspool, and that he did advocate violent persecution of the Jews, and he should have been locked up as unfit for society; I just don't think the Tribunal proved that he had a direct role in ordering and carrying out the Holocaust, if that makes it clear.

 

[dudalb]

Learn how to use to quote function.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

And tell us, what, exactly, was seditious about most of the books burned. Do you even know which ones they were?


.
You got any, you know, *evidence* that professions related to the "lifestyle" you're whining about were "controlled" by Jews, or that they "controlled" any governmental positions?
.

.
Gee, a quick scan of that article shows that Jew or Jewish doesn't even appear.

How does this help your assertion that Jews as a group were the cause, again?
.

.
Remind me again -- what original research does Kapner cite in support of his assertions?

And since Grosz left Germany in '33, and wasn't even Jewish, we've got another own goal.

So once again, all we have is your (and others') bald *assertion* that it the "lifestyle" was Jewish inspired or controlled, and your own several examples only include *one* actual, you know, Jew.

As to Cabaret, it was ultimately based on the book "Goodbye to Berlin" by Christopher Isherwood, which highlights the groups of people who would be most at risk from Nazi intimidation. That's rather the whole point of all derivative works.

As to Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung, it was a *newspaper*, not a magazine, and since you obviously have never read it, you're simply parroting lies told you by other deniers (never a good idea) -- or you could prove me wrong by citing the exact date and page you read this on.



No?





Didn't think so.
.

IMHO, "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" from Cabaret is the single most terryfying musical number ever staged.

And when it comes to "that lifestyle", I suggest that Revdude read about Ernest Rohm and some of his friends in the SA. Talk about Hypocrisy......

 

[Revdude]

Learn how to use to quote function.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

And tell us, what, exactly, was seditious about most of the books burned. Do you even know which ones they were?


.
You got any, you know, *evidence* that professions related to the "lifestyle" you're whining about were "controlled" by Jews, or that they "controlled" any governmental positions?
.

.
Gee, a quick scan of that article shows that Jew or Jewish doesn't even appear.

How does this help your assertion that Jews as a group were the cause, again?
.

.
Remind me again -- what original research does Kapner cite in support of his assertions?

And since Grosz left Germany in '33, and wasn't even Jewish, we've got another own goal.

So once again, all we have is your (and others') bald *assertion* that it the "lifestyle" was Jewish inspired or controlled, and your own several examples only include *one* actual, you know, Jew.

As to Cabaret, it was ultimately based on the book "Goodbye to Berlin" by Christopher Isherwood, which highlights the groups of people who would be most at risk from Nazi intimidation. That's rather the whole point of all derivative works.

As to Czernowitzer Allegemeine Zeitung, it was a *newspaper*, not a magazine, and since you obviously have never read it, you're simply parroting lies told you by other deniers (never a good idea) -- or you could prove me wrong by citing the exact date and page you read this on.



No?





Didn't think so.
.

You know, I don't mind going back and forth with believers on the Holocaust.
But I am not going to sit here and be called names.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal attack

We're done pal.

 

[Revdude]

IMHO, "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" from Cabaret is the single most terryfying musical number ever staged.

And when it comes to "that lifestyle", I suggest that Revdude read about Ernest Rohm and some of his friends in the SA. Talk about Hypocrisy......

What are you talking about?
Rohm and the SA?

How do you equate Rohm (who may or may not have been gay) with what was going on in Berlin?

You lost me.

 

[Revdude]

Just want to make clear that I think Streicher was a Human Cesspool, and that he did advocate violent persecution of the Jews, and he should have been locked up as unfit for society; I just don't think the Tribunal proved that he had a direct role in ordering and carrying out the Holocaust, if that makes it clear.

That's fair enough.
You are entitled to your opinion.

 

[TSR]

You know, I don't mind going back and forth with believers on the Holocaust.
But I am not going to sit here and be called names.

Edited by kmortis: 

removed personal attack

We're done pal.

.
It's not calling names to correctly describe demonstrated behaviour.

Edited by kmortis: 

removed personal attack

But nice way to avoid answering the questions put you.

Would someone else edit the "offending" term from my post and ask the same questions again?


Let's see how many excuses we can make Rev come up with not to answer.

Edited by kmortis: 

removed response to personal attack

Hmmmmn. Who was it that was *just* b*tching about name calling?
.

 

[dafydd]

The fact (as offered by 9-11 Investigator) that the Jews played a more than significant role in the proceedings.
.

If our resident Hitler groupie said it then it is not a fact.

 

[dafydd]

What are you talking about?
Rohm and the SA?

How do you equate Rohm (who may or may not have been gay) with what was going on in Berlin?

You lost me.

deleted

 

[Revdude]

Just want to make clear that I think Streicher was a Human Cesspool, and that he did advocate violent persecution of the Jews, and he should have been locked up as unfit for society; I just don't think the Tribunal proved that he had a direct role in ordering and carrying out the Holocaust, if that makes it clear.

I've read a little more on Streicher today.
I agree he was very outspoken against the Jews.
I'll even go so far as to say he tried to incite the masses against them.

I think the question then becomes, has anyone ever acted against the Jews as a result of having been inspired by what Streicher said or wrote?
If so, then yes, Streicher may be guilty of some form of incitement if such laws existed at the time, but he certainly was not guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, which was the charge at Nuremberg.

Here is the definition of the Crimes Against Humanity charge as stated at the Nuremberg Tribunal offered here. h t t p : // w w w.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/nuremberg-trials

Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions 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.

If Streicher himself never committed any of these acts, nor has anyone committed them admittedly from his influence how can he be guilty?

 

[dafydd]

I've read a little more on Streicher today.
I agree he was very outspoken against the Jews.
I'll even go so far as to say he tried to incite the masses against them.

I think the question then becomes, has anyone ever acted against the Jews as a result of having been inspired by what Streicher said or wrote?
If so, then yes, Streicher may be guilty of some form of incitement if such laws existed at the time, but he certainly was not guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, which was the charge at Nuremberg.

Here is the definition of the Crimes Against Humanity charge as stated at the Nuremberg Tribunal offered here. h t t p : // w w w.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/nuremberg-trials


If Streicher himself never committed any of these acts, nor has anyone committed them admittedly from his influence how can he be guilty?

You cannot be serious.

 

[Revdude]

You cannot be serious.

A little more substantial answer please.
I am serious.
I've never read of anyone harming a Jew because Streicher's newspaper said to.
Streicher himself, was out of political life by 1935 and his only friend within the Party was Hitler himself.

If this is true, how exactly is Streicher guilty of Crimes Against Humanity?
If I am mistaken, give me a link to something I can learn from.