Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIIVarious
History
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
“The ruling of the local court, in form and content, borders on
embarrassing a German administrative authority to the advantage
of Jewry. The judge should have asked himself the question: What
is the reaction of the Jew to this 20-page-long ruling, which
certifies that he and the 500 other Jews are right and that he
won over a German authority, and does not devote one word to the
reaction of our own people to this insolent and arrogant conduct
of the Jews. Even if the judge was convinced that the food
office had arrived at a wrong judgment of the legal position,
and if he could not make up his mind to wait with his decision
until the question, if necessary, was clarified by the higher
authorities, he should have chosen a form for his ruling which,
under any circumstances, avoided harming the prestige of the
food office and thus putting the Jew expressly in the right
toward it.”
In the third case, a wealthy young Jew had committed certain violations
of the German foreign currency regulations. The district court,
although it found certain extenuating circumstances, imposed a heavy
fine on the Jew and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment. This
decision particularly provoked the Reich Minister of Justice, who said
(_NG-298, Pros. Ex. 81_):
“The court applies the same criteria for the award of punishment
as it would if it were dealing with a German fellow citizen as
defendant. This cannot be sanctioned. The Jew is the enemy of
the German people, who has plotted, stirred up, and prolonged
this war. In doing so, he has brought unspeakable misery upon
our people. Not only is he of a different, but he is also of an
inferior race. Justice, which must not measure different matters
by the same standard, demands that just this racial aspect
must be considered in the award of punishment. Here, where a
profiteering transaction typical of the defendant as a Jew, and
to the disadvantage of the German people, had to be judged, the
verdict, in awarding punishment, must take into consideration in
the first place that the defendant for years had deprived the
German people of considerable assets. * * * This typical Jewish
parasitical attitude required the most severe judgment and
heaviest punishment.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account