Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Chapter 1: Trials, Jews and Nazis
conquerors.
Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large
tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution.
The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution
considered material to the case.
Our tribunal introduced a rule of procedure that when the prosecution introduced
an excerpt from a document, the entire document should be made
available to the defense for presentation as evidence. The prosecution protested
vigorously. General Taylor tried out of court to call a meeting of the
presiding judges to rescind this order. It was not the attitude of any conscientious
officer of the court seeking full justice.
Also abhorrent to the American sense of justice is the prosecution’s reliance
upon self-incriminating statements made by the defendants while prisoners
for more than two and a half years, and repeated interrogation without
presence of counsel. Two and one-half years of confinement is a form of duress
in itself.
The lack of appeal leaves me with a feeling that justice has been denied.
[…] You should go to Nuremberg. You would see there a palace of justice
where 90 per cent of the people are interested in prosecution.
[…] The German people should receive more information about the trials
and the German defendants should receive the right to appeal to the United
Nations.”
Ironically, the validity of Wennerstrum’s attack on the low or non-existent
standard of integrity maintained by the Nuremberg prosecution was confirmed
even by the nature of Telford Taylor’s reaction to Wennerstrum’s statements,
which were made in supposed privacy in Nuremberg for publication in the Chicago
Tribune. Tribune reporter Hal Foust sent the message to Berlin for transmission
to the U.S. on a wireless channel, which was supposedly secure from prying.
However, the prosecution, apparently by employment of a ruse, managed to obtain
a copy of the message. Ernest C. Deane, Taylor’s press officer, immediately
phoned Foust in order to attempt “to talk him out of sending the story.” However,
the story had already been sent, and Foust replied that “Taylor could not properly
have knowledge of the article until its publication.” Taylor thereupon prepared a
reply to Wennerstrum’s remarks, and the reply was actually made public before
the Tribune published the Foust story containing Wennerstrum’s attack. Taylor
accused the judge, among other things, of making remarks “subversive to the interests
and policies of the United States.” Wennerstrum, on arrival in the U.S.
shortly after the publication of Taylor’s “reply” and of the Tribune story, stood
firm on his remarks and again criticized Taylor.
This incident was one of the notable “government spying” incidents of the
year 1948. The Army issued an order against such spying, and there was much
speculation that Taylor might be court-martialed. When reporters asked Taylor for
his opinion on the legality of his action, the following exchange occurred:
“I don’t know whether it was legal or not,” he replied.
“Weren’t you general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission
45