Jews Control Postwar Holocaust Trials

[yankeedoodle]

Jews Control Postwar Holocaust Trials

by John Wear
http://www.wearswar.com/2025/03/17/jews-control-postwar-holocaust-trials/

The genocide of European Jewry has been given legitimacy by the numerous trials conducted by the Allies after World War II. The first trial held in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1946, officially known as the International Military Tribunal (IMT), is by far the most important of these trials. The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France tried the most prominent surviving German leaders as war criminals in this trial. In addition, the United States government alone conducted 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT) from 1946 to 1949. Similar trials were also conducted in other locations by Great Britain, West Germany, the United States, and Israel, including the highly-publicized trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann.

The IMT and later Allied-run war-crimes trials are repeatedly cited as proof of the Holocaust story. For example, Jewish American judge Norbert Ehrenfreund wrote:

"Germans of the 21st century know what happened during the Nazi era because they learn about it in school, through television programs and various other sources. And this information did not arise from rumor or questionable hearsay. Nor was it a fabrication of the Jewish people, as suggested by some anti-Semitic factions. Proof of the Holocaust was based on the record of solid evidence produced at the [Nuremberg] trial."1

However, the IMT and later Allied-run trials were politically motivated proceedings that falsely accused Germans of conducting a policy of genocide against European Jewry. They were a travesty of justice organized by Jews who wanted to demonize and convict Germans of genocide. This chapter documents that Jews and Jewish groups controlled and abused these Allied-run postwar trials.

Jews Control Nuremberg Trials
The mostly Jewish control of the Nuremberg trials is indicated by Nahum Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox. Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), admitted that the idea of the Nuremberg Tribunal and German reparations originated with WJC officials. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.2 Also, the WJC made sure that Germany's alleged extermination of European Jewry was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants would be punished for their involvement in Germany's extermination process.3

Two Jewish U.S. Army officers played key roles in the Nuremberg trials. Lt. Col. Murray Bernays, a prominent New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to put the defeated German leaders on trial.4 Col. David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, was head of the U.S. government's War Crimes Branch from February 1946 until April 1947. Marcus was made head of the War Crimes Branch primarily in order "to take over the mammoth task of selecting hundreds of judges, prosecutors and lawyers" for the NMT trials.5

Allied prosecutors gave special attention to the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews at the IMT. For example, chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson declared in his opening address at the IMT: "The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews...It is my purpose to show a plan and design to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people...The avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole...History does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty."6

Sir Hartley Shawcross, the chief British prosecutor at the IMT, echoed Justice Jackson's sentiments in his final address to the Tribunal: "There is one group to which the method of annihilation was applied on a scale so immense that it is my duty to refer separately to the evidence. I mean the extermination of the Jews. If there was no other crime against these men, this one alone, in which all of them were implicated, would suffice. History holds no parallel to these horrors."7

Shawcross also stated in his closing address that "more than 6 million" Jews were killed by the Germans, and that "...murder [was] conducted like some mass production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Majdanek and Oranienburg."8

Numerous observers spoke of the predominance of Jews at the IMT. For example, American prosecutor Thomas Dodd wrote to his wife on September 20, 1945, about the prosecution staff at the IMT:

"You know better than anyone how I hate race or religious prejudice. You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel toward those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge—you will understand when I tell you that this staff is about 75% Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial—for their own sake. For—mark this well—the charge 'a war for the Jews' is still being made and in the post-war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge."9

Some U.S. Congressmen also denounced the Jewish-controlled Nuremberg trials. For example, Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi declared: "As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany is a disgrace to the United States...A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States."10

U.S. Sen. Robert A. Taft courageously denounced the Nuremberg trials in an October 1946 speech: "The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice." Taft went on to state:

"About this whole judgment there is a spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the 11 men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of the trials—government policy and not justice—with little relationship to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come."11

Gen. George Patton was also opposed to the war crimes trials. In a letter to his wife, he wrote: "I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POWs to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death."12

Nevertheless, many defenders of the Holocaust story maintain that the 42-volume Trial of the Major War Criminals (The Blue Series) supplies a massive compilation of damning evidence against Germany's National Socialist regime. In his book Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Carlos Porter confronts the evidence directly by reproducing page after page from the Blue Series. Porter shows that many of the charges made at the IMT are so bizarre that most defenders of the Holocaust story have long since let them lapse. In addition to killing Jews in homicidal gas chambers, the Germans at Nuremberg were accused of:

–building special electrical appliances to zap inmates to death with mass electrical shocks;13

–killing 20,000 Jews in a village near Auschwitz with an atomic bomb;14

–forcing prisoners to climb trees and then killing the prisoners by cutting down the trees;15

–killing 840,000 Russian prisoners at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp using a pedal-driven brain-bashing machine, and then burning the bodies in four mobile crematories;16

–torturing and executing people at the Yanov camp in Russia in time to music created by a special orchestra selected from among the prisoners, and then shooting every member of the orchestra;17

–grinding the bones of 200 people at one time as described in documents and photographs that have disappeared;18

–making lampshades, handbags, driving gloves for SS officers, book bindings, saddles, house slippers, etc. out of human skin;19

–killing prisoners and concentration camp inmates for everything from having soiled underwear to having armpit hair;20 and

–steaming people to death like lobsters in steam chambers at Treblinka.21

After this incredible survey of Nuremberg atrocity evidence, Carlos Porter provides numerous examples of improper prosecution tactics at Nuremberg. The defendants at Nuremberg were rarely able to confront their accusers, since affidavits from witnesses who had been deposed months before sufficed. The prosecution made it difficult for the defense lawyers to have timely access to the documents introduced into evidence by the prosecution. Also, photocopies and transcripts were usually submitted into evidence instead of the original German documents, which in many cases seemed to have disappeared. Finally, the defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case. The defense had no right to review the tons of remaining documents that might help them defend their clients.22

It is also notable that Dr. Hans Laternser, the defense counsel for the General Staff and the O.K.W., submitted no fewer than 3,186 affidavits during the IMT sworn to by key German witnesses. None of these affidavits was ever published in the IMT Blue Series.23

Jews Torture Rudolf Höss
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss was the star witness at the IMT. Frustrated by their inability to locate Höss, the British decided to intimidate his wife and their five children. On March 7, 1945, Jewish British Cpt. Howard Harvey Alexander arrested Höss's wife Hedwig and interrogated her in a prison cell, but she refused to reveal her husband's hiding place. Alexander then interrogated Höss's children, all minors (3 to 16 years old), who had been left behind alone on their farm. Not getting the answers he wanted, Alexander jailed them as well. Hedwig, however, still would not talk.24

Since their tactics of imprisonment and intimidation had failed, the British soldiers decided to use a new approach. A noisy old steam train was driven past the rear of the prison. Alexander burst into Hedwig's cell and informed her that this train was about to take her young son to Siberia, and that she would never see him again. Waiting a few moments to let his message sink in, Alexander told Hedwig that she could prevent her son's deportation if she told him where her husband was living and under what alias. Alexander left Hedwig sitting on her cot with a piece of paper and a pencil. When Alexander returned 10 minutes later, Hedwig had written a note with Höss's location and his alias.25

A group of about 25 men were sent the night of March 11, 1946 to arrest Höss. Many of them were German Jews such as Alexander. Some had kept their original names, such as Kuditsch and Wiener; others had taken on British-sounding names, like Roberts, Cresswell and Shiffers. There were also English-born soldiers from Jewish families, such as Bernard Clarke and Karl Abrahams. Most of these men were enraged and eager to take out their revenge on Höss.26

In 1983, the anti-National Socialist book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler documented that Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession. The torture of Höss was exceptionally brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler finds anything wrong or immoral in the torture of Höss. Neither of them seems to understand the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss's confession was obtained by torture.27

Moritz von Schirmeister, a former associate of Joseph Goebbels, also confirmed that Höss's confession was obtained by torture. At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister sat in the backseat of a car together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit. He remembered Höss's following statement:

"On the things he is accused of, he told me: 'Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed 2 and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was 5 million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.'"28

British Pvt. Ken Jones confirmed that the British used sleep deprivation to break Höss. Jones stated:

"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance. When Höss was taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities."29

On April 15, 1946, Höss appeared in court at the IMT. Ernst Kaltenbrunner's defense lawyer, Dr. Kurt Kauffmann, asked Höss a series of questions designed to prove that Kaltenbrunner had never visited Auschwitz. Höss affirmed that Kaltenbrunner had never visited Auschwitz, and that Kaltenbrunner didn't order the execution of Jews at this camp.30

U.S. prosecutor Col. John Amen next started reading from an affidavit Höss had signed on April 5, 1946 in front of American prosecutor Whitney Harris. Höss's testimony at the IMT was probably the most important and striking evidence presented there of a German extermination program. Höss in his testimony said that more than 2 and a half million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.31 No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss's testimony at the IMT are widely acknowledged not to be true.

Höss's testimony, however, was reported around the world. A New York Times article described it as the "crushing climax to the case." The Times in Britain said of Höss's signed testimony: "Its dreadful implications must surpass any document ever penned."32 Höss was regarded as the star prosecution witness at the IMT, and his testimony became the framework for the official Holocaust story.

The defendants at Nuremberg were often shocked by the evidence presented to substantiate the alleged genocide of European Jewry. For example, Hans Frank, the wartime governor of German-ruled Poland, testified that he had not known of a program of mass killings against the Jews during the war. However, when asked if he had participated in the annihilation of the Jews, Hans Frank stated: "I say yes...particularly after hearing the testimony of the witness Höss, my conscience does not allow me to throw the responsibility on these minor people... A thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased."33 This last sentence has been repeatedly quoted in books and articles about the National Socialist period. It does not prove that Germany had a program of genocide against the Jews. It only shows that Hans Frank believed the false testimony from Rudolf Höss that had been criminally obtained through torture.

Contrary to what is often claimed or insinuated, none of the defendants at the IMT stated that they knew anything of an extermination plan of Jews during the war. Hermann Göring, Hans Frank, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Albert Speer, Gen. Alfred Jodl, and the other IMT defendants all denied knowing anything of an extermination policy against European Jewry. While such testimony is often dismissed as lying, the categorical and consistent nature of their testimony, sometimes by men who assumed they would be hanged, suggests that they are telling the truth.34

Jews Torture Other German Witnesses
Jews tortured and intimidated other German defendants and witnesses. Jewish prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz admitted in an interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions:

"You know how I got witness statements? I'd go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I'd say, 'Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.' It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid."35

In the same interview, Ferencz admitted to being an observer of the torture and murder of a captured SS man:

"I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"36

Benjamin Ferencz, who enjoyed an international reputation as a world peace advocate, further related a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explained that he took out his pistol to intimidate him:

"What do you do when he thinks he's still in charge? I've got to show him that I'm in charge. All I've got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape] ...I said 'you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!' I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said 'now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I'm gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don't have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it...' [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said 'Major, I got this affidavit, but I'm not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.' The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it."37

The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.38 Any Harvard-law graduate such as Ferencz knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

Many of the investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. Joseph Halow, a Dachau trial court reporter, quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.39

Tuviah Friedman was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration camps. Friedman said he beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated that "It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy."40

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn cited the case of Jupp Aschenbrenner, a German who had been tortured into signing a statement admitting that he had worked on wartime gas vans during the war. Aschenbrenner was finally able in 1954 to prove that at the time he was in Munich studying to become an electric welder.41

Oswald Pohl, who was not imprisoned until May 1946, was tied to a chair during his interrogation by American and British officials. Pohl was beaten unconscious, kicked, and generally maltreated until he was prepared to incriminate IMT defendant Walter Funk in writing.42

Pohl, who was later hanged on June 7, 1951, described the nature of the postwar trials of German leaders:

"It was obvious during the Dachau trials, and it also came out unmistakenly and only poorly disguised during the Nuremberg trials, that the prosecution authorities, among whom Jews predominated, were driven by blind hatred and obvious lust for revenge. Their goal was not the search for truth but rather the annihilation of as many adversaries as possible."43

Jewish American Lt. Paul Guth sometimes used clever means to obtain signed statements from Mauthausen trial defendants. Guth employed to stunning effect techniques he had learned while training both at Camp Ritchie in Maryland and the 21st Army Group Intelligence Center in Devizes, England. Rather than intimidate, Guth often used flattery or the promise of better treatment to obtain written confessions from the defendants. As Guth later explained "...The prospect of clemency is a powerful inducement."44

Defense witnesses at the Mauthausen trial repeatedly testified to improper interrogation techniques used by the prosecution. Defendant Viktor Zoller, the former adjutant to Mauthausen commandant Franz Ziereis, testified that Paul Guth said, "I received special permission and can have you shot immediately if I want to." When Zoller refused to sign a confession, Guth acted as if he was going to shoot Zoller. Zoller still refused to sign the confession and wrote: "I won't say another word even though the court might think I am a criminal who refused to talk."45

Defendant Georg Goessl testified that Guth told him to add the words "and were injected by myself" to his statement. If Goessl did not write down what Guth dictated, Guth visually demonstrated to Goessl that he would be hanged. Goessl testified that he then signed the false statement and planned to clear up the matter in court.46

Defendant Willy Frey testified that the prosecution witnesses had never seen him before and wouldn't be able to identify him if he didn't have a number hanging around his neck. Frey testified that he had been severely beaten in Mossburg by an American officer. Frey signed his false confession only because he was afraid that he would be beaten again.47

Defendant Johannes Grimm also testified that he signed a false statement that Lt. Guth had dictated to Dr. Ernst Leiss. When asked why he signed this false statement, Grimm replied: "I already described my mental condition on that day. I had memories of the previous interrogations. My left cheekbone was broken and four of my teeth were knocked out...." Grimm further testified, "The only superior I had to obey was Lt. Guth telling me to write this sentence."48

American defense attorney Lt. Patrick W. McMahon, in his closing argument at the Mauthausen trial, said there was grave doubt that the defendants' statements were freely given. Further, the striking similarity of the language made it obvious that the statements contained only language desired by the interrogators. McMahon cited numerous examples in which defendants used similar language to say crimes committed at Mauthausen could not be ascribed to any one leader. McMahon also cited several examples where similar language was used in the defendants' statements regarding shootings of inmates in Mauthausen to prevent further escapes.49

Some German defendants were also prevented from living to see the beginning of their trials. For example, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, conveniently died before the beginning of his trial in Frankfurt, Germany. He was arrested in December of 1960 in the vicinity of Hamburg. Baer during his pretrial questioning adamantly refused to confirm the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau during World War II.

Baer died in June 1963 under mysterious circumstances while being held in pretrial custody. An autopsy performed on Baer at the Frankfurt-am-Main University School of Medicine stated that the ingestion of an odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as the cause of his death. There was no further probe into the cause of Baer's death, and chief public prosecutor Fritz Bauer ordered his body cremated. Conveniently, the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Germany began shortly after Baer's death. The statements Baer made during his pretrial interrogations were not read into the trial record. With Baer's death the prosecutors at the Auschwitz Trial were able to attain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas chamber myth and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.50

It has been widely known ever since the illegal abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina that the Israeli Mossad has immense capabilities. Given the fact that chief public prosecutor Bauer was a Zionist Jew, which should have precluded him from heading the pretrial investigation, it is quite possible that the forces of international Jewry were able to murder Baer while he was in jail. If anyone knew the truth about the gas chamber allegation, it was Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz. Baer's untimely death prevented him from giving testimony that would have contradicted the official Holocaust narrative. Baer's death was certainly a relief for the promoters of the Auschwitz Trial.51


Endnotes

1␂ Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crimes Trials Changed the Course of History, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 140.

2␂ Goldmann, Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, pp. 122-123.

3␂ World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion, New York: 1948, pp. 141, 264-267.

4␂ Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 10-13.

5␂ Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, CA: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.

6␂ Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (11 vols.), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt., 1946-1948. (The "red series") / NC&A, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.

7␂ International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, 42 Vols. Nuremberg: 1947-1949. (The "blue series") / IMT, Vol. 19, p. 501.

8␂ Ibid, p. 434.

9␂ Dodd, Christopher J., Letters from Nuremberg: My Father's Narrative of a Quest for Justice, New York: Crown Publishing, 2007, pp. 135-136.

10␂ Congressional Record-House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, Nov. 28, 1947, p. 10938.

11␂ Delivered at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day, Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47.

12␂ Blumenson, Martin, (ed.), The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, p. 750.

13␂ IMT, Vol., 7, p. 576.

14␂ IMT, Vol. 16, p. 529.

15␂ IMT, Vol. 7, p. 582.

16␂ IMT, Vol. 7, p. 586.

17␂ IMT, Vol. 7, p. 451.

18␂ IMT, Vol. 7, pp. 549-550.

19␂ IMT, Vol. 5, p. 171.

20␂ IMT, Vol. 7, pp. 434-435.

21␂ IMT, Vol. 32, pp. 153-158; this document had been prepared by the Polish government.

22␂ Porter, Carlos Whitlock, Made in Russia: The Holocaust, Historical Review Press, 1988.

23␂ Irving, David, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, London: Focal Point Publications, 1996, p. 166.

24␂ Mattogno, Carlo, Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 18.

25␂ Ibid., pp. 18-19.

26␂ Ibid., p. 19.

27␂ Faurisson, Robert, "How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.

28␂ Mattogno, Carlo, Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 16.

29␂ Ibid., pp. 16-17.

30␂ Harding, Thomas, Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013, p. 257.

31␂ Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.

32␂ Harding, Thomas, Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2013, pp. 259-260.

33␂ Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 368.

34␂ Weber, Mark, "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 197-199.

35␂ Brzezinski, Matthew, "Giving Hitler Hell", The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.

36␂ Ibid.

37␂ Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.

38␂ Ibid., p. 83.

39␂ Halow, Joseph, "Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of Franz Kofler et al.," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 1989-1990, pp. 459-460. See also Bower, Tom, Blind Eye to Murder, Warner Books, 1997, pp. 304, 310, 313.

40␂ Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.

41␂ Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, The Gulag Archipelago I-II, New York: Harper & Row, 1974, p. 112 (note 15).

42␂ Maser, Werner, Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1979, p. 100.

43␂ Weber, Mark, "The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust," The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 192-193.

44␂ Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 104-106.

45␂ Greene, Joshua M., Justice at Dachau: The Trials of an American Prosecutor, New York: Broadway Books, 2003, pp. 179-180.

46␂ Ibid., pp. 184-187.

47␂ Ibid., pp. 201-204.

48␂ Ibid., pp. 205-210.

49␂ Ibid., p. 218.

50␂ Stäglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach, CA: 1990, pp. 238-239.

51␂ Ibid.