Ermordung von zehn Führern des Deutschen Reiches  

am 16. Oktober 1946.

ABCD

Zwischen 1,00 und 2,57 Uhr des Nachts wurden in der Sporthalle des Nürnberger Gefängnisses zehn führende Repräsentanten des besiegten Deutschen Reiches durch die Schergen der alliierten Kriegsverbrecher Stalin, Churchill und Roosevelt sadistisch durch Erhängen umgebracht. Die mörderische Grausamkeit dieses Trios hatte sich schon lange zuvor gezeigt und war vor allem maßgeblich verantwortlich für das Entflammen des Zweiten Weltkrieges mit seinen millionenfachen Toten und zuvor ungekannten Verbrechen. Die Nürnberger Mordaktion wurde von diversen Zuschauern verfolgt, unter anderen von den deutschen Kollaborateuren Wilhelm Hoegner (damals fungierend als von den Besatzern eingesetzter bayerischer Ministerpräsident) und Friedrich Leistner , (lizenzierter Generalstaatsanwalt beim Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg). 

Die Ermordeten

          Joachim von Ribbentrop  
          Wilhelm Keitel  
          Ernst Kaltenbrunner  
          Alfred Rosenberg
          Hans Frank  
          Wilhelm Frick  
          Julius Streicher  
          Fritz Sauckel  
          Alfred Jodl  
          Arthur Seys-Inquart.

Kritische Stimmen / Criticism of Nuremberg trials: 

Man kann mit Bestimmtheit sagen, dass mit dem Ende dieses Krieges gleichzeitig auch das Ende des christlichen Zeitalters herangekommen ist. Alle Lehren über gutes Benehmen, die bis heute Geltung hatten, wurden beseitigt und an ihre Stelle trat der Rachegeist des mosaischen Gesetzes ...

Die Fortsetzung des totalen Krieges mit juristischen Mitteln und die Fortschreibung der bedingungslosen Kapitulation. 

Das Statut, in dessen Namen die Angeklagten abgeurteilt werden, ist die eigenste Erfindung Jacksons und widerspricht dem Völkerrecht, so wie es in der zweiten Haager Übereinkunft definiert ist. Durch die Erfindung eines solchen Statuts verleiht Jackson der Lynchjustiz die Legalität.

Dass man Männer aufhängt, weil sie dieses angebliche 'Gesetz' verletzt haben, ist in Wirklichkeit eine Handlung, die man unmöglich von einem Meuchelmord unterscheiden kann.

These were not trials. Nuremberg was nothing less than public revenge and had nothing to do with justice. If justice was truly sought for atrocities, then tons of Russians, Americans, Brits, Jews, Czechs, Poles, and others would have been hanged.

In the end, there is a generally accepted view that Nuremberg was an example of high politics masquerading as law. 

The Nuremberg trial (1945-1946) is the crime of crimes

“Just” or “unjust”, every war is a butchery. The winner is a good butcher. The loser is not as a good a butcher. The winner can perhaps give the loser a lesson in butchery. He should not administer lessons of law, justice or virtue to him. Yet that is what the winners of 1945 did.

In 1945-1946, at the Nuremberg trial, the four victors of the recently ended war instituted themselves as judges of the vanquished, whom they found guilty, and punished. They punished him for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and they held themselves innocent of such crimes. However, before or during the war, the victors committed such crimes. Then, after the war, they committed still others: 

Summary executions, deportations of about twelve million Germans, gigantic thefts and looting (of gold, silver, platinum, bank holdings, artwork, scientific patents, industrial facilities), the amputation of a third of the country and splitting of the remainder into four parts, military occupation with the implementation of martial law, takeover of radio stations and newspapers imposing either Hollywood-style or Stalinist propaganda grounded in stories of wholly invented atrocities (“steam chambers”, alleged mass killings by drowning, with quicklime or electricity,...) fabricating a phenomenon of mass hysteria based on repentance where the vanquished, becoming after time possessed by a fury of self-accusation, espouses the cause of his conqueror, convinces himself that he belongs to a race of born criminals, runs headlong into servitude and is taken with hatred for whoever suggests that he calm down, reflect a bit, look closely to see whether that with which he has been inculcated is true or not. Those crimes of after the war were committed solely by the winner, as the loser for his part found himself in a state of total submission, bound hand and foot in a devastated country.

In itself, the Nuremberg trial was a crime against peace, a war crime and a crime against humanity.

– The Nuremberg trial was a crime against peace insofar as, in the very words of its main organiser, the American prosecutor Jackson, it was “a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations”; it thus amounted to a war waged against a disarmed opponent; sixty-five years later, the victors have still not seen fit to sign a peace treaty with the vanquished.
– The Nuremberg trial was a war crime in that it allowed the winners to hang prisoners, and, sixty-five years later, this type of trial, iniquitous and one-sided, to a greater or lesser degree continues.
– The Nuremberg trial was a crime against humanity in that it allowed the winners to put an entire country beyond the pale of civilised nations, beyond the pale of humanity; sixty-five years after the end of the conflict, the loser still stands as a guilty party; there is no statute of limitations on his crimes against humanity. Those of the winners have not been tried and never will be. The winners’ innocence is to stand for all time.

Weitere Infos: