Attn: G.F.Hardy, answer to Gord McFee

: dividing of Poland between Prussia, Austria and Russia and - of course - the : german policy against the polish people after September 1939). This method : (Ah! You accuse me of this, but you have done this and this and that...!) is : neither convincing nor helpful.

According to Mr Stuhr the history starts when it is comfortable to Stuhr. The division of Poland and Prussian discrimination of ethnic Poles produced Polish nationalists who discriminated Germans 1919-1939. But Germans didn't continue limited discriminations in 1939, they came with lists of names of people to be murdered. Germans deported about one million people during the frostily winter 1939/1940. It was a totally new 'quality'.

Nazis used Germans in Poland at the very beginning. After the Polish-German treaty Nazis cared less about Germans in Poland. The problem returned only when the war was decided.

Hitler wanted Russia. Poland, Danzig, Germans in Poland were only tools. So the problem of German minority in Poland is slightly connected to the subject of the group. Even the best situation of Germans in Poland wouldn't have saved Poland in 1939.

Jerzy Pankiewicz

It is my understanding that Die Grosse Politik was quite accurate, in contrast to the British and French 'colored books'. Of course, this relates to the origina on WWI, not WWII.

The quote is 'C'est ma guerre.'; not 'Es ist mein Krieg.'

GFH ******************************************************* ******** http://www.ankerstein.org/ The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page See what makes me tick. ******************************************************* ********

Certainly the rules of evidence were far below the standard required in any UK or USA court, whether civilian or military. Hearsay evidence was admitted, even evidence from jailers who reported what they had been told, without allowing any access to the person doing the 'telling'.

All documents submitted by any of the Allied powers were deemed to be 100% truthful and accurate.

But the trials were not 'illegal'. Might makes right. The Germans had no rights at all, other than those allowed them by the victorious powers. The trials simply lacked any basis in law.

GFH

******************************************************* ******** http://www.ankerstein.org/ The Anchor Stone Building Set (Anker-Steinbaukasten) Home Page See what makes me tick. ******************************************************* ********

Rather like Hitler's version of the law when the July 20 'plotters' were brought up on trial. What was it around 5000 executed? Even Hitler's favorite, Rommel who had nothing to do with it was given the choice of a kangaroo court and suicide. At least he went out with some dignity.

Given the rejection notices I have recieved here, it appears that your post is about as far as one can go on this subject. The rejections I have received have been the recitations of the hearsay evidence. It appears you are treading on quite thin ice.

Not only deemed true but required by the charter of the IMT to be deemed true. It was not any conspiracy of the members but right there in black and white in the charter.

Of course they were not illegal as they were pursuant to law even though ex post facto but they were contrary to justice.