Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Härtle — part 2

Part 1

In the previous installment, Stalin has proposed before Churchill and Roosevelt at the Teheran Conference in November 1943 that at least 50,000 German “war-criminals” must be executed by firing-squad after the war.

8160507_orig

Churchill Protests

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Härtle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

The war’s icy gust suddenly blows through the besottedly peaceful banquet. Churchill blushes deep red. With a jolt his rotund body shoots up; he gasps for breath. Is it his speech-impediment or his brandy-laden tongue that stops him? Then he bellows into the hall: “Such a course of action stands in stark opposition to the British concept of justice!”

As suddenly as he had risen, he slumps back into his chair.

All gazes turn to Stalin. Malevolently he smirks, twirling his black moustache under his heavy nose, then dismisses Churchill with a questioning glance. Was it brandy, acting, or what? The Generalissimo of the Red Army reaches for his vodka-glass, stands stiffly, and again says:

“50,000 must be shot!”

This is a voice that tolerates no contradiction. Churchill hesitates, but raises himself with difficulty and restates, haltingly but calmly:

“The English people will never allow such mass-murder! I quite resolutely reject summarily handing over anyone, Nazi or not, to an execution-squad without a regular, lawful trial.”

His protest seems to be unconvincing. Was this revulsion genuine? The Western intentions for revenge had already been established since the “Third Inter-Allied Conference” of 13 January 1941 in Saint James’ Palace in London. At that time of course one might invoke the Hague Convention, which now, after the war-pact between western democracy and eastern dictatorship, could no longer have jurisdiction. In 1941 it was resolved:

The chief war-aims of the Allies include the punishment of those responsible for these crimes, regardless of whether the particular parties ordered the deeds, committed them themselves, or somehow contributed to them. We are determine to make sure

a) that the guilty and responsible parties, of whatever nationality they may be, having been discovered, be handed over for judgment and condemned;

b) that the pronounced sentences be carried out.

The will for revenge in a guise of legality was even more pointedly expressed on 7 May 1942. That was the occasion of the founding of the “Inter-Allied Commission for War-Crimes,” which was supposed to gather incriminating evidence and to draw up lists of “war-criminals” – consisting only of Germans, of course, not of Italians and Japanese.

Stalin knows about these plans. Just a few days earlier in Moscow, on 1 November 1943, the conference for Allied revenge-justice had been successfully concluded. It ended with the highly promising declaration:

Those whose hands are not yet stained with the blood of innocents may want to avoid joining the ranks of the guilty, since the three Allied powers will pursue them to the most distant hiding-places of the Earth, and summon their accusers so that justice may take its course.

The American Under-Secretary of State Cordell Hull, the British Foreign Minister Eden, and the Soviet Foreign Commissar Molotov determined the text. “The Big Three” signed the document: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin.

Part 3

Source: National-Socialist Worldview

Shylock as Judge, by Heinrich Härtle — part 1

Foreword

Pic43-Tehran

From Freispruch für Deutschland (1965)
by Heinrich Härtle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

In Teheran at the end of November 1943 the dry Crimean wine flows; it sets the prevailing mood. The “Big Three,” Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, appear in the best mood. In keeping with the Russian custom, the hours-long evening meal spans twenty courses, interrupted again and again with toasts.

The war and its victims are so far away! On one front, extending from the Black Sea to the Arctic, millions of Russian soldiers at the same time freeze, starve, fight, and die.

Generalissimo Stalin today raises his vodka-glass more often than usual; his black, piercing eyes seem to have lost their gloomy mistrust as he stands for the first toast: “I would like to offer a toast to the splendid weather that we are enjoying!”

They drink to this with amusement; the English and American guests eagerly try to comport themselves in the most “Russian” manner possible.

Roosevelt drinks without regard for his physician’s warnings, aswim in relaxed feelings.

Somewhere in North Africa, in Europe, and in Asia, American soldiers, whose destiny he never shared, fight, bleed, and fall.

Winston Churchill also cannot resist the boisterous mood. He had arrived fairly sullen and could not suppress some biting comments about his Soviet “comrades.” Instead of Crimean wine Stalin orders for Churchill, in accord with his wish, champagne, vodka, and his beloved brandy. He drinks often and precipitately; the ruddiness in his massive visage intensifies from glass to glass as he listens smiling broadly to Stalin’s indecent jokes.

Somewhere English soldiers are fighting and dying on the Mediterranean, in Asia, in Europe, in the air-war over Germany. Somewhere English civilians tremble and die under the retaliatory strikes of the Luftwaffe.

Churchill has waged war his entire life, but rarely exposed himself to the hardships of life on the front. All of that now is infinitely distant, and old and new cares are washed away with brandy.

Stalin rises yet again: “I would like to offer a toast to the future deliveries of war-materiel!”

Roosevelt and Churchill and their retinues display cheerful countenances to the hellish game. Keep smiling! Again and again: stand up and toast, drink, sit, eat; stand up and toast again. Toward the end of the gluttony, Stalin raises himself one more time, surveys under the influence of vodka his companions from the democratic-capitalist West, bends forward and then bellows hoarsely over the table:

“I drink to the swiftest possible justice for all German war-criminals. I drink to the justice of a firing-squad!”

Suddenly all are silent. Churchill stares in shock at the uneasily smiling Roosevelt. Stalin remains standing; his yellowy face becomes paler. He then restates coldly and acerbically:

“I suggest we drink to the most rapid possible punishment of all German war-criminals – punishment by an execution squad. I drink to our unity in finishing them as soon as we take all of them prisoner, and there are at least 50,000 of them!”

Part 2

Source: National-Socialists Worldview

Heinrich Härtle’s Foreword to Acquittal for Germany (1965)

Holocaustians, like for example Michael Shermer in his appearance with Bradley Smith on the Donahue show in 1994, sometimes like to assert that the Germans themselves accept all the accusations made against them regarding the Second World War and the so-called Holocaust. This is the ultimate way to make an accusation appear uncontested: the accused themselves agree.

Today it is illegal in Germany to question aspects of Allied war-propaganda. Consequently it is unfair to point to some Germans who refrain from disputing the accusations against them (like the accountant Oskar Gröning, who was put on trial recently at age 95, and sentenced to 4 years in prison, simply for having been present at Auschwitz) because publicly questioning the fundamental accusations against Germany is absolutely not allowed, and these accused individuals will only make matters worse for themselves by disputing. But it was not always so.

Heinrich Härtle (1909 – 1986) was not only a German but a prominent National-Socialist imprisoned by the victorious powers until 1948, who most definitely did not accept all the accusations. In his book Freispruch für Deutschland, Härtle questioned many elements of the continuing anti-German propaganda, including the Jewish “genocide” propaganda — which at that time, in 1965, was only beginning to seize the position of central importance in the story of the war that it holds today.

Heinrich Härtle is probably best known to anglophones because of the brief mention of him by Jewish professor Walter Kaufmann in The Portable Nietzsche, where he nitpicked Härtle for omitting the context (which did not affect the meaning) of a Nietzsche-quote about “the young stock-market Jew” (der jugendliche Börsen-Jude) in his book Nietzsche und der Nationalsozialismus (1937).

Foreword to Freispruch für Deutschland

by Heinrich Härtle

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2015

On July 27, 1946, during the greatest tribunal in world history, Sir Hartley Shawcross screamed that the German army had been commanded not by honorable soldiers but instead by “heartless murderers.”

Such and similar calumnies have poisoned the climate between Germany and the other peoples since 1945. Only Germans are to blame for the Second World War; only Germans committed war-crimes: this was said to be the finding of the greatest legal process of all times.

Against this judgment no appeal was legally possible; it was specified thus in the charter of this universal court. But why does the government of the Federal Republic of Germany not summon all political and contemporary-historical means to revise this disgraceful finding?

After 1918 too, Germany was burdened with sole guilt for the World War; by 1919 however the German government of the time was already promulgating a “German White Book on Guilt for the War” whereby the struggle against the verdict of Versaille was begun.

Yet twenty years after 1945 there is no official defense: neither against the second war-guilt lie nor against the slander of “war-crimes.” On the contrary, the Nuremberg guilty-verdict is today the psychological and political foundation for further unimaginable trials in the next 20 years.

In contrast to this irresponsible abdication by officialdom, individual publishers and authors have initiated the struggle for historical truth. But the more clearly the war-guilt dogmatists are refuted, the louder become their accusations against “war-criminals” – of course, only against German ones.

Meanwhile anti-Jewish pogroms have been pushed ever more insistently into the foreground. Thus these questions too necessarily become an important matter for historical dispute.

A critique of the Nuremberg finding must first investigate the following questions: was the war for the actualization of the German right to self-determination in 1939 in any way a crime punishable under the law of nations? How great is the German and the Allied share in the war-crimes from 1939 to 1945? Who bears responsibility for the partisan-war and terror-bombing? What kind of blame goes to atrocity-propaganda for making the war more brutal?

More and more grave, however, are the questions about the scope and causes of the secret crimes against Jews. They supply anti-German propaganda with its most dangerous arguments , and therefore demand a precise and thorough examination: were only Germans guilty of anti-Semitism? What part did Jewry have in the belligerence of Americanism and of Bolshevism? Did only Germans or, alternately, did only Jews incur guilt?

Today none of these questions can be shirked any longer. In Nuremberg they were decided only by the interest of the enemy powers.

Where is Germany’s defense?

The following work undertakes the attempt to revise the judgment at Nuremberg. It can only be a beginning, because the quantity of the material is too much for just one person. The trial-transcript runs to 16,000 pages; 240 witnesses, 300,000 sworn declarations, and 5,300 documents were presented. Nonetheless, this effort must be initiated. It will take a whole generation of researchers, however, to complete such a task.

Gustav Stresemann (1878-1929)

            Gustav Stresemann
                     (1878-1929)

Chief Justice Jackson called the International Military Tribunal the “continuation of the Allied war-efforts.” Attorney General Dr. Bauer declared that the material from Nuremberg would be made the foundation for all further political trials. And in the Soviet government’s proposed peace-treaty with Germany is required, as a preamble: “Germany acknowledges the finding of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, and the findings of other courts for which the charter of this tribunal provides, regarding crimes committed both inside and outside of Germany.”

Should we continue to submit to this judgment of guilt?

Or ought we not, rather, to take to heart Stresemann’s admonition: “As long as a member of the community of nations is branded a criminal against humanity, there can be no true understanding and reconciliation of the nations.”[*]

The Author.

_____________________________________________________

*Stresemann of course, who died in 1929, was referring to the guilt-propaganda following the First World War. By quoting Stresemann, Härtle  implies that the guilt-propaganda after both World Wars is essentially the same — which is to say, unfounded. Weight is added to Stresemann’s words by the fact that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1926.

Part 1

Source: National-Socialist Worldview