|
October 19, 2013 - No. 41 67th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials Replace the
Harper War Government
|
 Memorial to the victims of Nazi atrocities at the site of the former Dachau concentration camp representing the demand of the world's people to never again permit the rise of fascism. |
From the victory of the world's peoples in defeating fascism emerged the demand "Never Again!" -- never again must fascism be permitted to rise! To this end, aggression was recognized as the supreme international crime and unreserved opposition to aggression as the means to achieve peace. The right of nations to self-determination was recognized by the United Nations by recognizing the equality of nations big and small and that the threat or use of force against any state was prohibited.
Of course, these principles were violated by the U.S. and other big powers under its influence starting with the 1950 attack against Korea sanctioned under the UN flag and, more recently, by U.S.-led and NATO aggression against the sovereign peoples of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. Nonetheless, the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War established the principles of international law which were reflected in the Charter of the United Nations.
Today, 67 years after the conclusion of the main trial at Nuremberg, the U.S. and its allies including Canada are going all out to smash all the conclusions of Nuremberg. A campaign to rehabilitate Nazi war criminals is being carried out in Europe, the U.S. and Canada to downgrade and even discredit and criminalize the heroic resistance to Nazi invasion and occupation which inflicted terrible suffering and millions of lives lost. To give one example, in Sinimae, Estonia, a yearly neo-Nazi celebration, with state sanction, has been held since 1994, openly using banned Nazi symbols such as the swastika and attended by Nazis from all over the world. When Canada and the U.S. mark the anniversary of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the Balkan states, in typical Hitlerite style they praise the forces which joined the Nazis during the war by calling them freedom fighters.
At the same time, this campaign to rehabilitate Nazism is also claiming that Nazis and Nazi collaborators are "victims of totalitarian communism" who must have memorials erected to them so that they are placed on pedestals and in halls of honour. Such a memorial already exists in the United States and the Harper dictatorship has committed the Canadian government in its Throne Speech to building a similar one in Ottawa, already financing the spurious organization spearheading it to the tune of $1.5 million, a donation necessitated by the fact that the people of Canada refuse to support the monument. The justification for this attempt to reverse the verdict of history is that those who committed heinous crimes against the people must today be exonerated because they were "fighting communism" and this is a sacred cause.
But Canadians will not tolerate such a stain on the contributions of anti-fascist Canadians to the cause of freedom, democracy, peace and justice in the great anti-fascist war. They will not permit the 25 million Soviet lives lost to defend their freedom and that of the peoples of the world to be wiped off the historical record by the likes of these Hitlerite propagandists. They will not tolerate how the Harper dictatorship and its monopoly media falsify history in the most wretched manner imaginable. They will resolutely oppose how the Harperites try to defend the Nazis and their collaborators who were defeated during World War II.
Meanwhile, in the name of national
security the U.S. and
its NATO allies
including Canada are conducting wanton wars of aggression, committing
crimes against the peace and war crimes against humanity with impunity.
Nazi
practices of using civilians as human shields, justifying torture and
renditions
to torture, using police agents to justify fraudulent conspiracy
charges to target
"enemies," targeting minorities and criminalizing political opinion and
conscience in the name of national security and values are the new
normal.
The U.S., Canada and the big powers in the NATO camp have reversed the verdict of history that fascism must never again be permitted to rise. The immediate U.S. aim is to safeguard the rule of their own monopolies and strive for domination over Europe so as to dominate Asia. Canada has tied itself to this U.S. war aim so as to benefit the interests of the Canadian financial oligarchy. In order to achieve this it must criminalize resistance and the right to self-defence.
Alongside the U.S., the Harper government is actively participating in the campaign to rehabilitate war criminals and it is pursuing a dangerous agenda of fascism, militarism and war. Political protest and dissent are being criminalized and only those who submit to Harper's vision of "Canadian values" are judged worthy of the "blessings" he deems they are fit to receive.
It must not pass!
Resistance to this drive to fascism
and war can and must
give rise to a new and modern democracy. Such a democracy must not only
build on the conclusions drawn from the experience of the Second World
War
by further enshrining the right to resist, but it must smash the
anti-communist
cold war definitions which neo-liberalism has resurrected today to
criminalize
all strivings of the peoples to empower themselves so as to exercise
control
over their lives. A modern democracy which is commensurate with the
demands of the times must provide the right to be with guarantees. Only
in
this way will the people have a say-so in all the crucial questions of
our time,
including over the crucial questions related to war and peace.
The Harper dictatorship is turning Canada into a rogue state that goes around the world attacking sovereign nations militarily, economically and politically, overtly and covertly, as part of a hooligan gang of allies led by the U.S. Its actions are in defiance of the norms and laws governing international relations, precisely what it falsely accuses many other countries of doing. Canadians are faced with the historic task of replacing a government of war, militarism and fascism with an anti-war government. Such a government must uphold the right to be of all peoples and defend their right to establish their societies based on their own decisions and consistent with their own way of life and thought material. This would make Canada a force for peace in the world.
The Imperialists Must be Held to Account for Their Continuing Crimes Against the World's People
The imperialist machinations
around Syria which are
clearly aimed at
regime change in the interests of the international monopolies, the
continuing
wars of aggression against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the
upcoming General Assembly vote which, except for the U.S. and
Israel,
will once again call for an end to the criminal U.S. blockade of Cuba,
have
again
raised the question as to how the imperialists are to be held
accountable for
their many crimes against the world's people. Currently, the
imperialists are
like thieves crying "Stop thief!" as they continue their criminal
activities and
then try to shift the blame onto others. To give just one example,
while Syria
is accused of having and using chemical weapons, the U.S. and Israel
sit on
their own stockpiles of such weapons and use them with impunity against
the
people of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Palestinian people.
This October marks the 67th anniversary of both the beginning and the end of the historic Nuremberg Trial of the Nazi leadership by the International Military Tribunal. The trial began in November 1945 following the defeat of the Nazis and their allies, Japan and Italy, earlier that year. The legal basis for the trial was established by the London Charter, agreed upon by the Soviet Union, United States, United Kingdom, and France on August 8, 1945, which restricted the trial to "punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries." The main trial was followed by other smaller trials, for example, of some of the leading Nazi industrialists. The definition of what constituted a war crime was described by the seven Nuremberg principles in a document created as a result of the trials (see below).
The call by the world's people for punishment of the Nazi war criminals came because the Second World War was unprecedented in the manner in which the Hitlerites and their allies ruthlessly and on a mass basis exterminated any peace-loving peoples who stood in the way of their aim to dominate the entire world. In the course of their depredations, the Nazis kidnapped and murdered women and children, executed prisoners, destroyed entire towns and villages, enslaved and tortured whole populations, stole means of production, burned farms, stole and destroyed culture treasures, and committed uncountable other heinous crimes.
After and even during the Second World War loud demands for the trial and punishment of the Hitlerites were put forward and supported by all freedom-loving peoples. On November 2, 1943, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill declared in Moscow: "At the time of the granting of any armistice to any government which may be set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in the above atrocities, massacres, and executions will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done, in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries."
Some 200 German war crimes defendants were tried at Nuremberg, and 1,600 others were tried under the traditional channels of military justice. The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the Nuremberg court was defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany. Political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council which, having sovereign power over Germany, could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it had no jurisdiction over crimes committed before the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939.[1]
The conception of international crime and the struggle against it was mainly built on the basis of the experience of the war against Hitlerism. The United Nations (UN) was officially founded on October 24, 1945. Its stated aims included promoting and facilitating cooperation in international law and international security, and the achievement of lasting world peace. The UN was set up to function through five principal organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice (replacing the League's World Court), which was located in the Hague.
The International Court of
Justice's (ICJ) main
functions were to settle
legal disputes submitted to it by states and to advise on legal
questions
submitted to it by the UN General Assembly. The ICJ is composed of 15
judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN
Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national
groups in
the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Five new judges are elected every
three
years, in order to ensure continuity within the court. No two judges
may be
nationals of the same country. Since its creation, four of the five
permanent
members of the Security Council, i.e., France, Russia, the United
Kingdom,
and the United States, have always had a judge on the Court.
To date, the ICJ has dealt with relatively few cases. However, since the 1980s there has been a clear increase in willingness to use the Court, especially among smaller countries. Again, however, decisions that go against imperialist interests have been difficult to enforce. After the court ruled that the U.S.'s covert war against Nicaragua was a violation of international law, the U.S. withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1986 and now only accepts the court's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States used in the Nicaragua case. In addition, the main aggressor in the world since the Second World War has been the United States, which has veto power on the Security Council.
In 2002, the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC) was established. After years of negotiations, the UN General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing a treaty. On July 17, 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7. Both the U.S. and Israel voted against. To date, the ICC has only investigated eight cases, all of which involve African countries. Repeated efforts to get the ICC to act, for example, regarding Israeli crimes against Palestine have been unsuccessful. Thus the ICC, which is mainly funded by the European Union, has been exposed as just another tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak African states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states such as the U.S. and Israel.
The world's people want a peaceful world where relations
between nations
are based on respect for sovereignty and mutual benefit and disputes
are settled
through negotiations rather than by military might. The world's people
also
want to have in place effective international instruments that can
bring to trial
and punish those who commit crimes that violate international law. To
date,
the problem has been that those instruments that have been created have
either
been ignored by the aggressors, such as the World Court, or have been
direct
tools of the aggressors, such as the ICC. The United Nations is
nominally the
international organization which should address such matters, however
in its
present form it is dominated by the permanent members of the Security
Council, in particular, the United States. The fact that, for example,
the U.S.
has been able to continue its sanctions against Cuba despite
overwhelming
international opposition, underscores that what is urgently needed is
to reform
the UN so that the will of the General Assembly can actually be
enforced.
Note
1. Prior to the First World War, several international treaty organizations and conferences, notably the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, had been created to try to regulate conflicts between nations. Following the First World War, the Soviet Union led attempts to prosecute those responsible for German atrocities during that war. Declarations were made in favour of such prosecution, for example, U.S. Secretary of State Lansing stated before the signing of the Versailles Treaty that, "Those guilty of the terrible crimes committed against humanity will not be overlooked." However, neither the declarations of statesmen nor the voice of public opinion resulted in real punishment of the guilty. At the same time, the First World War and its aftermath raised important questions such as the responsibility of the aggressor for breaches of international law. A forward step was the formation of the League of Nations in 1920 by the Paris Peace Conference. In 1926, the League established the Permanent Court of International Justice, known as the World Court, to try those accused of international crimes. Many cases were submitted to the World Court in its early years but it was used less and less during the increasing turbulence of the 1930s. The League itself suffered from many limitations, such as only 63 countries ever became member states, the United States did not join, and the three main aggressors of the Second World War withdrew prior to the war -- Germany and Japan in 1933, and Italy in 1937. In addition, the Soviet Union, the main force for peace in the world, was expelled in 1939 on trumped up charges, after defending itself against pro-Nazi Finland, which Germany was fortifying as a base for an attack on the Soviet Union from the West.
Article 16 of the League Covenant provided the League of Nations with the possibility of calling the aggressor to account. It stated: "Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13, or 15, it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the League." Article 16 went on to state that the response should be for all other members to take severe economic and military sanctions against the offending state. Unfortunately, this was not put into practice, since League members failed to act in unison when, for example, the Japanese militarists invaded Manchuria in 1931 and the Italian fascists invaded Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in 1935.
Some years before the beginning of the Second World War, A.Y. Vishinski, Prosecutor General of the Soviet Union, had asked rhetorically: "Is it not Utopian to try to create an international criminal code or at least to adopt some system of international crimes, i.e., crimes which require the joint coordinated unanimous and universally binding international reaction to crime in order to fight and overcome it?" Answering his own question, he stated that, in spite of many difficulties, "criminal law must be put on guard over the cause of peace and must be mobilized against war and against those who incite war."
Unpunished War Crimes of the
U.S. and Nazi
Industrialists
Max Faust (left), an engineer and manager for I.G. Farben's Monowitz site, gives a tour of the site's construction to the head of the Nazis' SS division Heinrich Himmler. This would become the Monowitz-Buna or Auschwitz III concentration camp. The photo at right shows the I.G. Farben plant, run by slave labour, in operation at the concentration camp in 1944. I.G. Farben was one of many German firms to work with the Nazis.
At the end of the Second World War, world public opinion expected that the German industrialists would be among those tried for Nazi war crimes because their responsibility was so obvious. They bankrolled Hitler's seizure of power, financed the Nazi Party, armed the Wehrmacht, looted the occupied countries, exploited the slave labour of millions of prisoners, expanded their empires and made huge profits.
But the Nazi industrialists not only survived the war with most of their fortunes intact, they suffered little punishment for their heinous deeds and quickly rebuilt their empires to again become some of the richest men in the world. The main reason was that the Americans who emerged practically unscathed from the war and whose own industrialists were in fact an integral but secret part of the Nazi machine, went to great efforts to clear the German industrialists from the responsibility of having caused the war and to prevent them from being tried for their crimes.
Fascism is the form of bourgeois rule when economic power is concentrated into political power and the Nazi Party represented the concentration of the economic power of the biggest German industrialists, in political form. Nazism is fascism plus racism. Hitler's Nazi Party could never have seized power or waged such a lengthy and barbaric war against the world's people if it had not represented and been supported by German industry.
The German industrialists were the organizers,
financiers and beneficiaries
of the war, yet they got off virtually scot-free. The war aim of the
Nazi
industrialists in Europe was to forcibly eliminate all their
competition, either
by wiping them out or by taking over their enterprises. Alfried Krupp,
the I.G.
Farben directors, Friedrich Flick, and other industrialists
continuously seized
resources and factories as new territories were occupied by the Nazi
military
and looted industrial plants from the occupied countries to further
extend their
empires, both inside and outside of Germany.
The industrialists were in fact an integral part of the Nazi leadership. They advised the Nazis as to where to hit next and who to kill in order to benefit themselves. Munitions king Alfried Krupp was Hitler's Minister for Armament and War Production and was in government to plan the organized pillage of the countries which would soon be attacked. As the Nazis advanced through the occupied countries, Krupp and other industrialists took over the enterprises of local capitalists and integrated them into their own empires or shipped the captured production machinery back to Germany.
Those few Nazi industrialists tried and imprisoned after the war were released by February 1, 1951, their already short sentences commuted to only three years by U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, John J. McCloy. Because of his many connections with the Rockefellers, Morgans and other members of the U.S. ruling circles, McCloy was referred to as the "Chairman of the American Establishment." McCloy had been an advisor to I.G. Farben, the chemical monopoly whose directors were convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg, and had sat with Hitler and Goering at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. He was the brother-in-law of post-war German chancellor Konrad Adenauer, both having married the daughters of the same J. P. Morgan partner. McCloy's early releases reconfirmed that the U.S. imperialists cared nothing about Nazi war crimes and had in fact replaced the Nazis as the international leaders of those who would commit any crime against the peoples of the world in the name of anti-communism.
 Henry Ford receives Grand Cross of the German Eagle medal from Hitler's Third Reich, presented by Karl Kapp, German consul-general of Cleveland (left), and Fritz Hailer, German consul of Detroit (right), on his 75th birthday, July 30, 1937. |
The accused German industrialists had very strong but hidden links with the Anglo-American monopolies, which are being more exposed every year. These included the close and long-time political and economic ties between the Nazis and Henry Ford (Hitler gave Ford an award and kept a photo of him on his desk); the production of German military equipment by Ford, General Motors' subsidiary Opel, and ITT's subsidiary Focke-Wulf; the secret agreements between Rockefeller's Standard Oil, Dupont and I.G. Farben enabling Farben to produce synthetic oil for the German military; and the collaboration of John Foster Dulles (later U.S. Secretary of State) and Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA) with Nazi banker Kurt Schroeder in hiding Nazi assets.
George W. Bush's grandfather, the late U.S. senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies closely involved with the financial backers of Nazi Germany, including Thyssen and I.G. Farben. Bush was one of seven directors of the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen's U.S. interests and which, even after the U.S. entered the war, continued these dealings until UBC's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act in 1942. Soon after, three other companies Bush was associated with were also seized. Bush was also linked with Thyssen in the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC) which used slave labour in the Nazi concentration camps, including Auschwitz.
Wall Street banks made enormous profits supporting and financing Nazi industry. They included J.P. Morgan Bank, Guaranty Trust, Chase Manhattan Bank (Rockefeller), and at least three Wall Street investment houses: Dillon, Read; Harris, Forbes; and National City Company (today known as Citibank). A group headed by James Mooney of General Motors and including Ford, IT&T and Kodak, lobbied President Roosevelt to suspend arms shipments to Britain and to "improve" relations with Nazi Germany. IBM subsidiaries helped organize Nazi concentration camp prisoner databases. Torkid Rieber, the Chair of Texaco, provided material support to Hitler, attempted to act as an emissary from Goering to Roosevelt, and financed pro-Nazi activities in the U.S. Texaco continued to ship oil to Germany after the beginning of the war, defying the British embargo.
The main reason that the U.S. and British partners of
the German financial
and industrial circles did not want the Nazi industrialists tried was
because
they were afraid this would expose their own collaboration and reveal
the real
machinations and profiteering behind the war. They were also aware that
holding "big business" responsible for war could set a dangerous
precedent for
the future because it struck at private property, the very heart of the
capitalist
system. This had to be prevented at all costs. At the same time, world
public
opinion had to be satisfied.
To mask the real reasons for keeping the Nazi industrialists out of court, the U.S. put forward various bogus arguments against trying them. In a May 13, 1946 letter to President Truman, chief U.S. prosecutor, Robert Jackson, said the trials would be too expensive and the industrialists might be acquitted. He said that there was a risk of giving the impression that the industrialists were only being tried because they were industrialists and that the U.S. would be associated with "Soviet Communists and French leftists." He suggested that a public attack on industry might discourage cooperation with the U.S. government on future armaments.
Under the powerful pressure of public opinion in their
own countries, the
Anglo-American imperialists were forced to agree to hand the Nazi
politicians
and generals over to the International Tribunal. But they kept the
industrialists
out of the tribunal in "protective custody," waiting for time to pass
and for an
opportunity to develop closer and more open cooperation with them.
Telford
Taylor's Final Report to the Secretary of the Army on the
Nuremberg
War Crimes Trials (1949), unmasks the unceasing efforts made to
clear
the Nazi industrialists, the true organizers of Nazi aggression, from
the
responsibility of having caused the war and to prevent them from being
tried
by the International Tribunal. As for the many U.S. industrialists who
supported the Nazis and profited enormously from their business
dealings, not
a single one of them has ever been prosecuted.
Documents presented at the Nuremberg Trials. Left: Original transfer slip dated March 2, 1933 from German General Electric to Delbruck, Shickler Bank in Berlin, with instructions to pay 60,000 RM to the "Nationale Treuhand" fund (administered by Hjalmar Schacht and Rudolph Hess) used to elect Hitler in March 1933. Diagram at right shows International General Electric's links to the Nazis' "Nationale Treuhand" fund.
The Three Trials of the Nazi Industrialists
In the face of considerable opposition from the U.S. ruling circles, U.S. Prosecutor Telford Taylor finally managed to organize trials of three main German industrial groups in 1947, two years after the war ended: Flick Concern, I.G. Farben and Krupp.
Flick Concern was one of Hitler's foremost arms producers and a major exploiter of slave labour. In the Flick trial (April 19-December 22, 1947), owner Friedrich Karl Flick and five directors were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity and membership in three criminal organizations: the Nazi Party, the Circle of Friends of Himmler and the SS. Flick was sentenced to seven years in prison, two of his directors were sentenced to five and 2.5 years respectively and the other three directors were acquitted. After his early release by McCloy in 1951, Friedrich Flick rebuilt his industrial empire, including stakes in Daimler-Benz and Dynamit Nobel, becoming one of the world's wealthiest individuals. His son and heir, Friedrich Flick Jr. sold his stake in Daimler in 1975, then was convicted six years later of bribing West German officials to avoid taxes on the sale. Flick Jr. died the richest man in Austria in 2006.
I.G. Farben manufactured Zyklon B, the cyanide pesticide used in the gas chambers of the mass execution camps and was a major exploiter of slave labour, even constructing a factory next to Auschwitz concentration camp. In the I.G. Farben Trial (August 27, 1947-July 30, 1948), 24 company directors were charged with planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression and invasions of other countries; war crimes and crimes against humanity; and participation in a criminal organization, the SS. Thirteen directors were imprisoned for up to eight years, 10 were acquitted and one was not tried. I.G. Farben was split up into its original constituent companies, BASF, Bayer, Hoeschst and Agfa, the only Nazi enterprise broken up in the U.S. zone. The four smaller companies quickly prospered and expanded and, after their early release by McCloy in 1951, some I.G. Farben directors again took up leading positions. Other former Farben directors became leaders of other German monopolies such as Telefunken.
While the directors of I.G. Farben were tried, the actual owners were not. The owners were descendants of the families that founded the original constituent companies (BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, AGFA and several smaller companies), descendants of individuals who married into the founding families, owners of the banks which provided financing such as the Warburgs, and those who invested in I.G. Farben after it was founded, including non-German investors. These owners collected dividends from I.G. Farben profits while concentration camp prisoners went to I.G. Farben-equipped gas chambers, and they also retook control of the constituent companies after the war to become even richer. To give one example, billionaire Curt Glover Engelhorn, scion of a founding family of BASF, was listed by Forbes in 2013 as the 23rd richest person in Germany. Engelhorn continued to profit from his Nazi connections after the war, partnering with fugitive Gestapo leader Klaus Barbie, who shipped cheap quinine from Bolivia to Engelhorn's drug company, Boehringer Mannheim.
 Defendants at the Krupp Trial in Nuremberg, December 1947, from left: Alfried Krupp, Ewald Löser, Eduard Houdremont, Erich Müller, Friedrich Janssen, Karl Pfirsisch and Karl Eberhardt. |
Krupp Concern, founded in 1810, was Germany's largest industrial group and weapons manufacturer. In 1943, Hitler made Alfried Krupp, who had joined the SS in 1931, his Minister for Armament and War Production. During the war, Krupp enterprises used nearly 100,000 slave labourers in Germany and in the factories it took over in the occupied territories. In the Krupp trial (December 8, 1947-July 31, 1948), owner Alfried Krupp and eleven directors were charged with crimes against the peace, crimes against humanity and participating in a common plan or conspiracy to commit crimes against peace. Alfried Krupp was sentenced to twelve years in prison and ten directors were sentenced from three to twelve years. Alfried Krupp was released in 1951 by McCloy and his property restored to him in 1953. Within two years Krupp was back in the top rank of German companies and, by 1963, Alfried Krupp was again Europe's richest and most powerful industrialist. He died in 1967, his personal copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf still on his nightstand.
Once all the convicted Nazi industrialists were released, vast wealth soon reappeared in their hands; many had hidden money overseas in countries like Argentina or elsewhere in Europe in countries like Switzerland and Sweden. In 1985, Fortune magazine listed the hundred richest men in the world and near the top were billionaires who had been prominent members of Hitler's inner circle. Their descendants and those of other Nazi industrialists who were not tried, e.g., the Quandts of BMW (who used slave labour) and the von Fincks of Allianz (who insured Auschwitz), are still among the super-rich today. The rapid rebuilding of the empires of the Nazi industrialists starkly exposed that all the promises of denazification made by the Anglo-American imperialists were mere rhetoric to cover up their own secret program to rehabilitate the Nazis, whitewash Nazi crimes and their own crimes, and to turn post-war Germany into an anti-communist bulwark against the Soviet Union.
For Your Information
The Nuremberg Principles
Principle I states, "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
Principle II states, "The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
Principle III states, "The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."
Principle IV states, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Principle V states, "Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."
Principle VI states, "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:" crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Principle VII states, "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca