“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed….”
After ridicule alone had become ineffective at maligning the German National Socialists and their allies, the ZC Propaganda machine cranked out some new ammunition for its attack. The first wave of violent opposition was a savage mass-bombing campaign the likes of which Europe had ever seen before. Bombers would drop untold amounts of hellish payload on German cities, fighters would strafe vast tracts of countryside, and in the East, the Soviets and their allies would rape and plunder everyone that opposed them, but with a special dose of bloodthirstiness when it came to Germans.
The Nuremberg Show Trials then wrapped the ribbon on what was supposed to be the coffin of National Socialism. Much to the Zionists’ and their lap-dogs chagrin, the spirit of Hitler’s vision refused to die. Thus, the propaganda continued for the phase of opposition could not yet be ended as its masters wished.
Judgment at Nuremberg
This famous film from 1961 was among the first to be made about “the Holocaust.” However, right from the start there’s much to suggest that this film is mostly speculation along with a particular agenda.
First, the film begins with a title card, Overture, and a marching tune from a rally being sung. This is coupled with an obscured swastika that keeps jumping around the screen showing only two of its hooks at any given moment. Marches and parades are staged performances meant to rouse and entertain making this a tacit admission from the filmmakers – fact doesn’t exactly have a place here! Second, the credits sequence ends with the swastika finally taking center frame, then zooming out and match cutting to the famous footage of the swastika statue exploding. This aptly sums up the film right here – lots of beating around the bush and distorting and then annihilating the object that has been lied about and ridiculed for the long stretch leading up to this moment.
The art of fiction is all about creativity, but in this case, it’s manipulation. We are literally seeing Hollywood’s own version of National Socialism. This point is true in the most literal sense as the film is a fictionalized account of the Nuremberg Tribunal and this readily admitted by mainstream sources. The trial presented in the film never happened, but one of the plot threads is based on the Katzenberger Trial from 1942. This film is also said to be one of the first films to be made about “the Holocaust,” yet it does not mention that word at any point during its three hour run time.
Before we get into the staggering amount of minuses that this film has, it is worth to address the few pluses.
First, the difficulties in the lives of everyday Germans are addressed to a degree. The principle protagonist, an American judge named Haywood, arrives in the bombed out city of Nuremburg and is treated to quite a comfortable accommodation in the form of a mansion with a maid and butler who are very pleased to serve him. He considers letting them go, as they probably have better things to do than work for an American, but then the point is made that this is the only job available as everything else is still destroyed. And the year is 1947. Thus, we get another subtly made point, the Allies have been so busy with the trials that they barely put up any reconstruction efforts.
Second, the film is quite captivating. The main setting is the courtroom, but director Stanley Kramer guides his camera with an expert hand in this one closed space. Using pans and zooms there is hardly a static moment. This is even true when the camera is standing still as the famous cast gives strong performances.
Thirdly, the film itself admits that the Nuremberg Tribunal was excessive as all four defendants in the film receive a verdict of guilty on all counts, but the closing title card says that all were eventually released. This mirrored the fate of many NS officials, even very high-ranking ones like Karl Dönitz, who ended up serving a decade long prison term. Then there are cases like that of Gerhard Klopfer, a Wannsee Conference attendee, who was released for lack of evidence!
Now, it’s time to get to the core of this film. Upon close examination, it fits squarely into all of the typical NS vilification and right along the “inevitable progression.” This film isn’t quite “violent opposition” (as newer films are), but it is opposition nonetheless. Here, “the Nazis” aren’t shown as “the absolute incarnation of evil,” but rather as general bad guys who were more efficient than usual in evil deeds. Previously, they were just general fools, now they’re general bad guys, it’s right along the inevitable progression with a steady rise in viciousness. The film tries hard to show a realistic complexity, but given what we saw at the start – the distorted swastika – it is no surprise that the film assumes the defendants are guilty. Defense counsel Hans Rolfe (played by German actor Maximilian Schell) makes some of the film’s most insightful comments, the first of which is when speaking to defendant Ernst Janning, “the game will be played according to their rules.” This is referring to the American run courtroom and it is an interesting choice of dialog that seems to reinforce the idea of show trials (it’s a “game”) and injustice – “their rules” means that the Americans set up the game to go in their favor right from the very start.
One of the key issues discussed is sterilization for which the Nazis are condemned as barbaric for implementing in Germany. A witness is brought to the stand, a German man with a low intelligence only capable of doing simple work and one of those sterilized. Colonel Lawson, the American prosecuting attorney, is quick to say how wrong such a program is. Rolfe, however, ends up countering that even influential Americans, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, have openly supported controlled sterilization of population. This notion, that it is not just the Germans who are “guilty,” will play a key role as the film proceeds.
The big thing, of course, is the misfortune that befell the Jews. The plot thread here is the only thing based on anything outside of the screenwriter’s imagination: the Feldenstein Case, which is a fictionalized version of the Katzenberger Case, in which an adult Jew was charged with sexual relations with a German teenager. Lawson, instead of going straight to his point, goes into a long discussion of how unjust the system was under the National Socialists. That said system resulted in millions of deaths, which included “two-thirds of Europe’s Jews.” That the defendants on trial in the courtroom, all of whom were judges in NS Germany, are just as guilty as the concentration camp personnel. Next, Lawson speaks of some of the things that supposedly went on in the camps. The video footage shows the shrunken heads of two Polish laborers, a lampshade from human skin, and a pelvis that has been converted into an ashtray. Revisionist scholarship has refuted all of these claims and these revisions have been accepted by the mainstream.
The film even goes on to mention gas chambers, however it does so in passing and doesn’t single them out as the greatest evil to have ever been constructed, as is the norm now. In fact, according to Judgment at Nuremberg, the Nazis wanted to kill everyone aside from the most feverishly nationalistic Germans. Also, according to this film, the Jews were not singled out for extermination, but rather they were just thrown into the category of enemies of the state to be imprisoned and exploited for hard labor or killed off in various ways: by shooting, overwork, hanging, or perhaps in gas chamber. Janning states, “every village had a railroad terminal with cattle cars for extermination victims.” This is absolutely false as far as reality is concerned, but in it interesting to note is that there is no mention of Generalplan Ost aside from that one ambiguous remark that is not backed up by anything else. That one recollection of one frightened defendant is taken as actual evidence of a great crime. The kicker is that the Nazis are not portrayed as racial maniacs, but rather as fierce patriots whose drive is summed up in the phrase “for my country right or wrong.” With this, the film just ends up being an ethical examination and condemnation of traditional “right wing” policies and means that this highly praised film is actually at odds with the currently accepted Holocaust narrative! One of the main reasons for this is that today Israel is packed with right-wing politicians and it is the right-wingers in the United States who are the most fervent supporters of Israel!
Additionally, for all of the details that the film explores it completely avoids getting into the logistics of homicidal gas chamber operations, as do all other films that mention gas chambers in any way. Literally no details are presented as to how these machines work or even look. The 2001 HBO production, Conspiracy, is solely about NS officials discussing their absolute disgust towards the Jews and mentioning gas chambers at length, but just for the shock value of throwing big numbers around. Odd considering that for the first half of the film, the Nazis were going into minute details of race and how society is to be divided according to specific laws, but when it comes to industrial mass-killing (something that would require extensive logistics), they just gloss over the concept. Or should I say it is the filmmakers who gloss over it, since they, like the Wannsee Conference attendees, never actually thoughtof how to mechanize mass-murder with gas chambers! The film Conspiracy is a clearer example of “violent opposition” as it only seeks to vilify with outright lies, while Judgment at Nuremberg presents a distorted collage with half-truths and distortions, in addition to key omissions.
In the film footage shown by Lawson, the dead bodies that can be seen being bulldozed into a pit by a British bulldozer are clearly starvation and/or disease victims. Now, this raises the question: did the Germans starve these people on purpose? The film seems to suggest this, and this brings us to a key omission: the terror bombing of Germany that cut off virtually all supply lines. There were hints, albeit only in the background, of the bombing Germany had to endure, but no connection is drawn between that bombing and the awful conditions in the camps that led to a multitude of unsanitary conditions including an outbreak of typhus. It was that plague of disease that killed a huge number of internees, including Anne Frank who died in the Bergen-Belsen camp after being transferred out of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Defense counsel Rolfe has an impassioned reaction to Lawson’s use of the film footage, saying that it was unfair and out of context. Rolfe states that the men on trial here were not camp administrators, but judges who interpreted the law and thus they should be tried for that and not what went on in the camps. Rolfe even seems to edge on seriously calling out Lawson for using the footage as a trick in order to get an emotional response from the presiding judges and those attending the trial. Earlier, Rolfe had recognized that this is all a “game” being played by “their rules.” The real context of the film footage, which is not brought up in this film, is the awful conditions that were directly caused by Allied bombing. This careful omission is most certainly unfair as the men are facing life imprisonment and the entire nation of Germany is being deliberately shamed, civilian and soldier alike.
Mrs. Berthold, played by Marlene Dietrich, and whose confiscated mansion serves as the accommodation for American Judge Haywood, tells the Judge that Germans must “forget to go on living” and the German civilians were not aware of what was going on in the camps. Dietrich, a thoroughly indulgent humanist who was married to a Jew, was reportedly disgusted with this scene, but performed it after Spencer Tracy (playing Haywood) helped her stomach her feelings. It is doubtful that Dietrich realized the fact that she was under the intoxicating influence of propaganda as she had moved to work in Hollywood in the early 1930s. Just like Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange who reacts with a fright and terror and a feeling of ill when shown images of NS Germany, Dietrich acted like the good programmed goy that all humanists are to this day. Mrs. Berthold, whose husband (another “good German”) was a Wehrmacht general executed after an earlier tribunal, even does her bit to belittle Hitler, calling him a “little corporal” who would make unwelcome advances on married women. It’s the old “the good Germans hated Hitler and he them” meme. In reality, Adolf Hitler was known to have excellent manners in public and private, and it should be noted that he volunteered for military duty during the First World War and received the Iron Cross First Class for his service.
The film does briefly state that innocent Germans were wrongly executed, however this topic will not be considered as seriously and legitimately addressed until a non-ZC Propaganda film is made about the matter.
Speaking of “good Germans,” one of the women brought to the witness stand in the film says that “we were forced” to be members of the NSDAP. This is perhaps the film’s most blatant example of conflating Hitler’s National Socialism with Stalin’s Judeo-Marxism. The latter did require party membership for each State post, however NS Germany kept Party and State functions separate, though there was some grey area, e.g. – Hitler was a Party Member and held a State post. According Heinrich Himmler, out of the 80,000,000 citizens in the Third Reich, roughly 6,000,000 were NSDAP members. Party membership was not required, but deliberately kept exclusive so as to ensure high quality membership that was best fit to carry out the required all of its duties and functions.
The most interesting scenes in Judgment at Nuremberg are towards the end of the film. First, Rolfe discusses how guilt should fit in to this trial. He mentions that Hitler made a pact with Stalin and so is not the USSR also guilty? Wealthy American industrialists initially supported Hitler and so is not the USA also guilty? Churchill permitted the annexing of Austria and capturing of Czechoslovakia without incident and so is not the UK also guilty? In fact, Rolfe just ends up saying it straight up front: “everyone is guilty for Hitler’s rise to power!” There is, however, a key omission here and this is the film’s greatest and most deliberate omission. There is no mention of the Jews relentlessly subverting German production during WWI, no mention of the Jews completely exploiting the German economy during the Weimar years, no mention of the Jews perpetuating their false monetary policy that makes any economy ripe for their exploitation, and to top it all of the film says that “the Nuremberg Laws were the start of all wrong.”
Tacit point: poor Jews, evil Nazis (who are all Germans).
The key omission is basically the truth, the REAL reason why Hitler mobilized Germany the way he did and why the Germans followed him – the Jews were filling the Germans’ homeland with degenerate filth as they exploited it and Hitler fixed this mess.
“The kind of existence which he leads forces the Jew to the systematic use of falsehood, just as naturally as the inhabitants of northern climates are forced to wear warm clothes.” ~Adolf Hitler
That is an apt summary of Jewish parasitism. Here is an elaboration that explains the birth of Marxism in a way no mainstream source will:
“He showed himself eager to study their various hardships, whether real or imaginary, and strove to awaken a yearning on the part of the workers to change the conditions under which they lived. The Jew artfully enkindled that innate yearning for social justice, which is a typical Aryan characteristic. Once that yearning became alive it was transformed into hatred against those in more fortunate circumstances of life. The next stage was to give a precise philosophical aspect to the struggle for the elimination of social wrongs. And thus the Marxist doctrine was invented. By presenting his doctrine as part and parcel of a just re-vindication of social rights, the Jew propagated the doctrine all the more effectively.”
That is what this film is ultimately about, social rights. The point is that Jews are just as worthy to be free individuals in a healthy society like anyone else. The Civil Rights Movement was a hot topic in the United States at the time of this film’s release and it was probably meant to fit into that greater spectrum. It’s Jewish attempt to equate themselves (people who exploit) to African-Americans (people who were exploited). This absurd conflation only makes sense if one turns a blind eye to the true nature of Jews and Zionism and this masterpiece of humanist thinking does just that.
The film ends with the same music as from the Overture, again ironically suggesting that this was a staging.
That said, this film is not quite as blunt in its lies as more recent films that don’t even bother to have a semblance of truth. Films like Blood Creek about Nazi occultism, or The Unborn, which contains a subplot of Nazi human experimentation, or Inglorious Basterds that ends in an orgy of kosher slaughter as Jews gun down a crowd of NS personnel, including Hitler. These films, along with computer games like Wolfenstein, are the “violent oppositon.” They are not meant to even evoke direct sympathy for the Jew anymore, but direct hatred of National Socialism. The Jews know that it is impossible to like them, so they just get others to hate what they hate and ridicule what they ridicule. ZC Propaganda keeps its subjects in a back and forth swing between the ridicule and opposition stages of this progression. The National Socialists can only be seen as idiots or as devils. Perhaps Inglorious Basterds is the best example of the two at work in one film. This swinging back and forth in the false paradigm is the key to prevent the third stage of the inevitable progression from ever coming into play.