“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
~Stated by Nazi Hermann Wilhelm Göring, a German politician, military leader, and a leading member of the Nazi Party in an interview with Gustave Mark Gilbert, (1) at the Nuremberg Trials, (2)(3)(4)(5) on April 18th, 1946. After World War II, Göring was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials. He was sentenced to death by hanging, but committed suicide by cyanide ingestion the night before he was due to be hanged.
(September 30, 1911– February 6, 1977) was an American psychologist best known for his writings containing observations of high ranking Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg Trials. His ‘Psychology of Dictatorship’ was an attempt to profile Adolf Hitler using as reference the testimonials of Hitler’s closest generals and commanders. Gilbert’s published work is still a subject of study in many universities and colleges, especially in the field of psychology.
In 1945, after the end of the war, Gilbert was sent to Nuremberg, Germany, as a translator for the International Military Tribunal for the trials of the World War II German prisoners. Gilbert was appointed the Prison Psychologist of the German prisoners. During the process of the trials Gilbert became the confidant of Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel, Hans Frank, Oswald Pohl, Otto Ohlendorf, Rudolf Höss, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner, among others. At first he did not tell them he was Jewish; after he told them, most of the prisoners did not mind talking to him. Gilbert also participated in the Nuremberg Trials as the American Military Chief Psychologist and provided testimony attesting the sanity of Rudolf Hess.
In 1946, after the trials, Gilbert returned to the USA. Gilbert stayed busy teaching, researching, and writing. In 1947 he published part of his diary, consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, “eavesdropping” and conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary. (This diary was reprinted in full in 1961 just before the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem.) The following is a famous exchange Gilbert had with Göring from this book:
- Göring: Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
- Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
- Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Between 1945 and 1946, German officials involved in the Holocaust and other war crimes were brought before an international tribunal in the Nuremberg Trials. The Soviet Union had wanted these trials to take place in Berlin. However, Nuremberg was chosen as the site for the trials for specific reasons.
- The city had been the location of the Nazi Party’s Nuremberg rallies and the laws stripping Jews of their citizenship were passed there. There was symbolic value in making it the place of Nazi demise.
- The Palace of Justice was spacious and largely undamaged (one of the few that had remained largely intact despite extensive Allied bombing of Germany). The already large courtroom was reasonably easily expanded by the removal of the wall at the end opposite the bench, thereby incorporating the adjoining room. A large prison was also part of the complex.
- As a compromise, it was agreed that Berlin would become the permanent seat of the International Military Tribunal and that the first trial (several were planned) would take place in Nuremberg. Due to the Cold War, subsequent trials never took place.
The same courtroom in Nuremberg was the venue of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, organised by the United States as occupying power in the area.
More formally, the Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, were a series of twelve U.S. military tribunals for war crimes against surviving members of the military, political, and economic leadership of Nazi Germany, held in the Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, after World War II from 1946 to 1949 following the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT).
Although it had been initially planned to hold more than just one international trial at the IMT, the growing differences between the victorious allies (the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Soviet Union) made this impossible. However, the Control Council Law No. 10, which the Allied Control Council had issued on December 20, 1945, empowered any of the occupying authorities to try suspected war criminals in their respective occupation zones. Based on this law, the U.S. authorities proceeded after the end of the initial Nuremberg Trial against the major war criminals to hold another twelve trials in Nuremberg. The judges in all these trials were American, and so were the prosecutors; the Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution was Brigadier General Telford Taylor. In the other occupation zones similar trials took place.
A BBC documentary film series consisting of three one-hour films that re-enact the Nuremberg War Trials of Albert Speer, Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess. They were broadcast on BBC Two in 2006 to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the trials.
In the first episode, Nathaniel Parker plays the most inscrutable Nazi on trial at Nuremberg, Hitler’s architect and armaments minister Albert Speer. He was the only defendant who unreservedly accepted responsibility for the Nazis’ crimes. But was Speer’s remorse genuine or just a clever defense strategy to get off the hook? The film tells the intriguing behind-the scenes-story of Speer’s trial and his showdown with unrepentant rival, Hermann Goering. The second episode tells the story of the trial of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s charismatic and ruthless second-in-command. On trial for his life at Nuremberg, the unrepentant Reich Marshal turned the tables on the Allies. So much so that Chief Prosecutor Justice Robert Jackson began to wish the Allies had followed Churchill’s suggestion and shot the leading Nazis out of hand. This documentary drama traces the behind-the-scenes story of Goering’s attempt to re-ignite Nazism from the courtroom and reveals the role that Jewish psychologist, Gustave Gilbert played in Goering’s final defeat. In the third and final episode, Ben Cross delivers a compelling performance as Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess. After his bizarre flight to Scotland in 1941 to offer peace to Britain, the Fuehrer had Hess declared insane. At Nuremberg, Hess’s fitness for trial was at the center of his case. He claimed not to remember his Nazi past and seemingly suffered from paranoid delusions. American psychiatrist Douglas Kelley and prison psychologist Gustave Gilbert sought to unlock the mystery of Hess’s state of mind. What they found offers revealing insights into the psychology of Nazism.
Written by Detlef Siebert (Series Producer)
September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
BY: John F. Kennedy
“While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida–the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power–the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms–an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues–for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured–perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew–or a Quaker–or a Unitarian–or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim–but tomorrow it may be you–until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end–where all men and all churches are treated as equal–where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice–where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind–and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe–a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so–and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test–even by indirection–for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none–who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him–and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in–and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died–when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches–when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom–and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey–but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition–to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress–on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)–instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts–why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France–and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views–for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters–and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President–on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject–I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come–and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible–when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith–nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency–practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution…so help me God.”
Updated January 25, 2007 and April 19, 2005 (originally published November 24, 2004)
The “War on Terror” has provided Americans with a helpful introduction to theocracy. The fight against Al Qaeda, the war on the Taliban, and the growing tensions with the regime in Iran has offered a quick primer on the hallmarks of the religious state. First is the rule of religious authorities, whether it be Bin Laden’s new Caliphate, Mullah Omar’s Taliban regime, or the mullahs in Tehran. Second is the imposition of the faith’s sacred texts as law, in these cases, some variant of sharia law of the Koran. And last is the direct involvement of the state in the most minute and deeply personal aspects of individual lives, enforced by religious police, informed by spies, and punished severely (and often publicly).
Now thanks to the Bush administration, a Republican Congress and the conservative ascendancy, Americans need not travel to Kandahar to learn about the perils of theocratic rule. Right here in the United States, a network of politicians, religious leaders, “faith-based” organizations and (literally) their amen corner are working overtime to make a particularly onerous concept of Christianity the de facto law of the land. Armed with the Bible in one hand and the Patriot Act in the other, George W. Bush and his GOP jihadists threaten to fundamentally change the role of government in monitoring Americans’ lives, liberties and even bodies.
MORE: American Taliban: http://www.perrspectives.com/features/Taliban.htm
(Side note: though some of these people are not in the public eye and/or are dead and rotting in the ground being eaten by maggots, it DOES NOT mean they are gone for god, keep in mind; Bush #41, Dick-Head Cheney and Rummy all worked with and in circles that includes those of the like of Nixon and have been pissed since that time, that he was treated the way he was…and now they want revenge. ALWAYS keep in mind, there mythical god is indeed a revengeful and cruel god, they admire this, live for this, and the more people that suffer because if them, the happier they are. They truly are scum of the earth an always remember to treat them, and those like them, like that!)
Quotes from the The American Taliban:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.” ~ Anne Coulter
“Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” ~ Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America)
Last week, ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ star Patricia Heaton joined Limbaugh and other right-wingers in denouncing Fluke, a Georgetown University law student and reproductive rights advocate who testified before Democratic members of Congress on why contraception should be covered by insurance companies.
“If every Tweaton sent Georgetown Gal one condom, her parents wouldn’t have to cancel basic cable, & she would never reproduce — sound good?”
“Hey GTown Gal: How about only having sex on Wednesday? (Hump day!),”
“Hey G-Town Gal: turn your underwear inside out! Then u only have to do laundry every 2 weeks—saves on detergent & trips to Laundromat!”
“If your parents have to pay for your birth control, maybe they should get a say in who u sleep with. Instant birth control.”
“G-Gal: you’ve given yer folks great gift for Mother’s/Father’s Day! Got up in front of whole world & said I’m having tons of sex- pay 4 it!”
“Hey G-Town: stop buying toothpaste, soap, and shampoo! You’ll save money, and no one will want to sleep with you!”
Of course with all the backlash she made a lame attempt to apologize, just like her god Rush LimDick:
“Tweatons: Finally heard all the commentary. I crossed the line w/@SandraFluke. Don’t agree w/her views, but I was not showing Christ’s love.”
“@SandraFluke I am not backing down on my position: but there is a better way to fight the fight.”
NOTE: I lost all respect for this “actress” who should be barefoot and pregnant, not living in a world where liberal-minded people made it possible for her to leave the kitchen, vote, get and education and get a job. I am sure her “Christ” would appreciate that he died for her to have to freedoms to be treated equally to all others. This is not a conservative Christian ideology though, this is the “liberal” one those with freedoms seem to hate. Then go back to the “good ole’ days” and such the fuct up. So I just tweeted Patricia: PatriciaHeaton “Your words on Ms. Fluke show ur lack of intelligence, shines more brightly on who you and other Christians are”.
Just read “….stick by Obama, they themselves, their daughters, or their daughter’s daughters will all be wearing Burqas” HUH? “wearing Burqas” ? Repubs are the ones making laws against females, not Dems. In fact, Repubs have always voted against woman. The didn’t support a womans right to vote, to get an education, to work, to leave an abusive husband, to get financial help when she leaves the abusive husband, when woman started to wear pants…etc.
By Sunsara Taylor. March 1, 2012
“Women the world over are facing a growing assault on their lives, their rights, and even their recognition as full human beings.
In the U.S., Catholic bishops have turned women’s basic right to birth control into a national controversy. At least 20 percent of U.S. female soldiers are sexually assaulted by fellow soldiers. Every moment we are bombarded by images of women’s bodies, half naked and half starved. And strip clubs, which serve up the subordination of women to men in the living flesh, have become so mainstream that men annually spend an estimated $16 billion on them (compared to the $4 billion they spend on baseball)”.