top of page

The Wartime Presidency Part IV: Nuremberg 2.0

Updated: Jan 24

By SLAG on SubStack

Originally Published: Jan 10, 2021, Updated April 14, 2022

VIEW: The Wartime Presidency Part 0, The Introduction

VIEW: The Wartime Presidency Part 1: Things Remembered - WWII, Trump & Devolution

VIEW: The Wartime Presidency Part 2: A Government in Exile

VIEW: The Wartime Presidency Part 3: The Trial of the Millennium! Monday night RAW

We’ve discussed a possibility of what happened during the election, and how President Trump has been operating a government-in-exile. We’ve talked about how he might return to the White House.

But there’s a final piece we haven’t discussed.

After Trump returns to the White House, then what? How do we right the wrongs perpetuated against the people of the United States and the world?

These are big questions.

This article will deal with the historical context, what happened after WW2, the modern medical parallels to Nazi Germany, and what we might expect to happen this time around.

I thank you for sticking with me through this series.

How do you solve a problem like war crimes?

Washington DC, May 1945

In the closing days of World War Two, right before the Red Army overran Berlin, President Truman had a promise to keep.

The promise was made at the Moscow Conference on October 30, 1943. The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed that they would hold the leaders of the Nazi Regime and the leaders of the German military responsible for the crimes and atrocities committed by Nazi Germany during the war.

To keep this promise made by the United States, Truman appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson to represent the United States of America as chief prosecutor in the coming trials of the Nazi regime.

As he met with his counterparts from Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union, it quickly became clear that the Russians had a very different understanding of what justice should look like.

While Jackson thought the trial should be modeled after the US constitution and its instructions to the state as how to carry out justice and administrate trials, the Russians wanted to display the accused, conduct a show trial, and when that trial was complete, take the accused behind the courthouse and shoot them.

Jackson wrote to President Truman in a public letter that eloquently said the following;

  1. We may follow what was done historically, and recognize that the power to make war is the prerogative of kings, and we may capture treasure from Germany but allow the heads of state to go free.

  2. We may do what the human condition cries out for when presented with the atrocities committed by Germany, and line all the Nazis up and shoot them one by one. You, Mr. President, may do so if you wish - and if you choose to do so, you do not need me to help you with this task. But it’s my belief that our grandchildren will not look upon that act fondly in the years to come

  3. We may conduct a fair trial and put the Nazi institutions on trial along with the high ranking officials.

President Truman chose path number three. And Jackson got to work.

In the summer of 1945 in London, he was able to convince the Soviets that option three was the correct course of action as well.

The City of Nuremberg was chosen primarily because it was in the American sector of occupied Germany, and that it had a suitable courthouse with attached detention facilities. A secondary reason Nuremberg was chosen is that the city was the birthplace of the Nazi party. The marches, the fiery speeches by Adolf Hitler, the portrayal of Nazis on the March and book burning in films - these events took place at Nuremberg.

On November 20,1945 the Nuremberg trials began. Up first were the trials of 23 individuals and 7 Nazi organizations. Later, German physicians were put on trial (the infamous doctor’s trial, where the world learned of the ghastly medical experiments performed on human prisoners), as were German industrialists and their corporations. Most were found guilty, although there were a handful of acquittals. In all, just shy of 300 defendants were tried at Nuremberg. These trials went on from 1945 to 1949, when the Cold War started.

Lessons from Nuremberg;

1: The record left behind.

The decision to follow a legal process that had the tenants of the constitution at its core was incredibly important.

This process produced a 23 volume record of transcripts of the trial as well as additional volumes of evidence used in the trial. This record forever eliminated the possibility that a future generation could declare that the holocaust was a hoax. The trial and the hurdle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt produced that record and preserved it for posterity. That record is the primary reason for following this process where the risk exists that a guilty person might escape justice. If the allies followed the model that the Soviets suggested, immediate justice would be served, but the record would never have been written, and it would complicate bringing Nazi co-conspirators to justice years, even decades after the Nuremberg trials. That’s a lesson for us today - we cannot pass by the opportunity to record exactly what happened and who was responsible.

This was not only put into practice at Nuremberg, but was later used when the Israeli Mossad found and extradited Adolph Eichmann from Argentina to stand trial in Israel on April 11, 1961

Look at the above photo of the prosecutor’s table. Do you see the books indicated by the arrows? Those are volumes of the Nuremberg record.

If we had agreed to follow what the Soviet Union suggested - a show trial and summary execution, this one chance to record the trial and amass evidence of Nazi war crimes would have been lost forever. This is a critical lesson of Nuremberg that we must not forget.

2: Trials of organizations.

The decision to put Nazi organizations on trial was a stroke of genius. In all, seven organizations; The Nazi party, The Reich Cabinet, the Schutzstaffel (SS - a division of the SS, the Totenkopfverbaände, or death’s head units ran the concentration and extermination camps. Still another provided slave labor from these facilities to German industry, others served as crack troops intermixed with the German army, but they were separate from the Wehrmacht), the Schierheitsdienst (SD - or Nazi intelligence. It also ran the Einsatzgruppen, or killing squads that took Jewish people and POWs into secluded areas and shot them. I’m sure you’ve seen photos of Nazi troops shooting civilians and letting their bodies fall into a mass grave - these were the Einsatzgruppen troops), the Strumabteilung (SA - this was the paramilitary wing of the Nazi party, also known as the “brown shirts”), The Gestapo (Nazi secret police), and the General staff & German High Command were put on trial. There were several reasons for this;

  1. It streamlined the trials of individuals, as the prosecution did not have to re-litigate the reasons the organization the defendant worked for was guilty - it was already a matter of court record and precedent.

  2. It removed the possibility of “I was just following orders” or “it was legal at the time” or “I was acting in the best interests of my nation in time of war - same as you” from being used by the defendants as a legitimate defense. You will notice that the common defenses were,

  3. Ignorance: “I was far away from the front lines, I didn’t know how bad it was” or “This was a different department, I just ran accounting”

  4. Shifting blame: “Underlings behaved badly” or “the allies did the same thing”

  5. Marginalizing one’s role: “I was just a junior manager, my supervisor (who is conveniently dead) made all these decisions”

  6. Some capitulated, and threw themselves on the mercy of the court. Most of these defendants got lengthy prison terms, and were not sent to the gallows.

  7. Others proudly declared their involvement. One example was Hans Fritzsche who was an “arch criminal” found by the Red Army. In truth he was an underling and not involved in anything serious - he was one of the three acquittals. Another who proudly declared their involvement was Rudolph Hess who was determined by the court to be incompetent (due to suspected insanity) but pleaded with the court to stand trial anyway. He was given life in prison and hanged himself in his cell in 1987 under suspicious circumstances.

Defenses used were not the former common defenses mentioned above. Putting the organizations on trial and finding them guilty got in front of that problem.
  1. By prosecuting these seven organizations and proving them to be criminal enterprises, the prosecution could use the same technique used to prosecute the mob in America - criminal conspiracy. In fact, one of the prosecutors on Jackson’s team was Colonel John Harlen Eaman who was an assistant district attorney in Brooklyn in the 1930’s and successfully put away organized crime members (the infamous Murder Incorporated cases).

3: Division of prosecutorial efforts.

It’s a common misconception that Nuremberg netted all of the Nazis and they were tried there. Nuremberg handled the Nazi leadership and the doctors and industrialists that were involved in the concentration and extermination camp system. Nuremberg dealt with international concerns about crimes against humanity and aggressive war making. Plenty of individual Nazis were discovered, arrested and tried in the country where their crimes occurred.

The best example of this was Rudolph Hoess (pronounced “Hersh”). Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz. He was not tried at Nuremberg. He was tried in Poland because that’s where Auschwitz was. Hoess was found guilty of his crimes and was hanged behind the very villa where he lived with his family just outside the Auschwitz camp fence.

4: The problem of a monopoly.

Not all Nazi party members were these arch criminals involved in the slaughter of millions of people. Many Germans became Nazi party members because the Nazi party was the way to advancement within Germany between 1933 and 1945. That’s an important lesson; affiliation with an evil organization doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual is evil as well. This is yet another critical reason for a fair trial - if we followed the model the Soviets suggested, it’s very possible that Nazis that were not involved with genocide would have been executed. A fair trial prevents a wholesale slaughter.

5: Someone’s not dead until you see the body!

Sometimes suicides are used to cover an escape. After all, if the authorities believe a person is dead, they concentrate resources elsewhere. The classic example of this is Adolph Eichmann.

Eichmann was wanted by the allies for being the architect of the extermination camps, but reports from the last people to see him alive described him as wondering off into the woods, dazed. He was never heard from or seen again. At the time, the allies believed that he took a cyanide capsule or shot himself and the body was never found. In truth he escaped to Argentina and worked there with his sons until he was discovered by Mossad agents in 1960.

Israel found him guilty and hanged him for his crimes in 1962. The lesson here is that an assumed suicide is just that - an assumption. Many people will try to fake their own death to escape prosecution.

6: The Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics.

Nazi doctors were responsible for ghastly human experiments that caused horrendous pain and suffering, as well as death in many, many cases.

One thing that came out of the Nuremberg trials was the Nuremberg code of Medical ethics. It’s critical we grasp how serious this was to the field of medicine. The Hippocratic code - the oath, was written down 2200 years prior to WW2, and this was the first occasion in all that time that the world saw a need to amend it to codify the ethical treatment of human beings who choose to be the subject of a medical experiment;

Highlights of the Nuremberg Code of 1947 (excerpts from the code are in italics):

  • Voluntary consent from the subject is essential; This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

  • Experiments should yield a fruitful outcome; The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

  • Experiments shall be validated on animals prior to human trials; The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

  • Experiments shall avoid suffering and injury; The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. Note here that the Nuremberg code protects experimental subjects from mental suffering - although mental suffering and illness meant something different in 1947,

  • No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

  • The risk to the subject must be balanced with the expected benefits of the experiment - for example, if the risk to the subject is high, the benefit to the subject must also be high.

  • The experiment must occur in a facility with adequate capability to care for the subject, and the facility must also support safety of the subject - specifically; Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remotepossibilities of injury, disability, or death.

  • The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

  • During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible. Note here that the call to terminate the experiment lies with the subject - regardless of what the data shows or what the scientist believes, if the subject wants to stop, the experiment is OVER.

  • During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Ask yourselves, have any of these principles been violated by governments, public health departments, drug companies, employers, and medical institutions during the COVID hysteria?

You bet they have. Dr. Robert Malone was booted from Twitter for making this very point.

I ended our study of the Nuremberg trial with this for a reason, because there’s a final lesson of Nuremberg that was not learned the first time.

Right after Nuremberg, and in the decades following, the code of ethics that was a product of the trials was not taught in medical schools.

Why not?

The field of medicine regarded the Nuremberg code as a means to police barbarians - it wasn’t intended to be used to keep “real” doctors honest, “real” doctors would never engage in such reckless or cruel behavior, right?


The evidence revealed over the last 2 years brings that supposition under serious cross examination. I’m not saying all doctors are bad - far from it. There have been doctors during the pandemic who have conducted themselves with the highest integrity and held their actions to the finest ethical standards.

What I am saying is that the field of medicine failed to learn a critical lesson from Nuremberg, and by the time the field actually began teaching lessons learned from Nuremberg in ethics classes (early 2000’s), two generations of doctors had gone through medical school with no such opportunity…and that’s been a mistake that the pandemic has exposed.

Now envision an environment where the following is true;

  • Doctors have a serious financial stake in keeping their jobs - student loans, a comfortable lifestyle, respect of colleagues, etc.

  • Doctors are told by their medical boards (that issue licenses to practice) that they will say and do ____ regarding COVID

  • Alternative methods of treatment are suppressed by social media - where most Americans get their news

  • Alternative methods of treatment are banned by state medical boards and politicians issuing executive orders

How many doctors have the moral fortitude to stand up to all this and say, “NO”? Risk their own financial and professional future to do what is right for their patient?

I’d say not many.

Now, I use history as a guide, a gage for measuring human response to stimuli and to predict behavior. In Nazi Germany, long before anyone thought up the SS Totenkopfverbaände and the extermination camps, German doctors were already killing their patients.

Remember what I said about Nazi feelings towards those patients with “lives not worth living”? At the beginning of WW2, in 1939, there was a wholesale sterilization and euthanasia program already underway within Germany’s hospital system.

Not many people know this, but it’s important.

Would it surprise you to know that right at the dawn of WW2, the German hospital system had set up and begun the targeted extermination of physically and mentally disabled patients under its care?

They started with infants, moved on to children under three, then on to teenagers and finally adults.

Those targeted for euthanasia were;

  • Patients with physical disabilities

  • Patients with neurological disorders

  • Patients with Down’s Syndrome

  • Patients with Schizophrenia

  • Patients with various mental illness - something as simple as chronic depression

  • (Later) Those deemed not fit for society, I.E. Jews, Gypsies, criminals, and others - this group of people was later rotated out of the euthanasia program and into the extermination camp system

Here are Adolf Hitler’s own words:

“Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt;

Are charged with the responsibility to extend the powers of specific doctors in such a way that, after the most careful assessment of their condition, those suffering from illnesses deemed to be incurable may be granted a mercy death.

-Adolf Hitler

September 1, 1939 (Backdated)”

Who were Bouhler and Dr. Brandt?

Phillip Bouhler was the Führer Chancellory Director. This was like a private government administration within the Nazi State that administered Hitler’s affairs.

Dr. Karl Brandt was Adolf Hitler’s personal physician. A “rockstar” doctor if you will.

Bouhler & Brandt we’re the architects of the Nazi euthanasia program - but they didn’t act alone. Hundreds of medical professionals were involved. Doctors, even ones highly regarded, signed off on the determination that a patient suffered from an incurable disease, and approve that patient’s “mercy death”. Other doctors had to administer a lethal dose of drugs to an infant or child. Nurses had to hold the infants while they died, or left them outside on a cold night. Bus drivers were needed to transport patients to one of six euthanasia facilities. Orderlies were needed to move patients around the facility, and were needed to move the bodies to the crematorium.

The Nazis success in turning ordinary people into inhuman monsters was distributing the task of institutionalized murder to the point where no one person was the executioner - it took dozens of people to do that. Any one individual was simply a cog in the machine.

The program started with lethal injections or the intentional neglect of patients - letting them die from exposure, or from starvation - but that form of euthanasia was too difficult on the medical staff, you see.

Another method was needed to euthanize patients, without causing alarm - so specially designed gas chambers disguised as shower facilities were constructed and used, with cremation facilities built nearby to dispose of the bodies.

What, you thought the gas chambers and cremation ovens at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Majdanek were the original idea of some maniac SS Colonel?

No - they were invented and perfected by doctors and medical staff.

That same staff oversaw and provided technical support for the execution camps constructed later.

Take a look;

Gas chamber at Hadamar Euthanasia Center

Gas chamber at Auschwitz

Other than paint and tile, these execution chambers could be at the same place. By the end of the war, an estimated 250,000 German patients were murdered by their physicians - that’s in addition to the millions killed in the extermination camps.

What mustn’t we forget about the Nazi contamination of medicine? We mustn’t forget that rigorous, inviolate ethical standards must cover all medical procedures and all medical experimentation.

Also, we must not forget what happens when absolute power is concentrated in the hands of an educated elite with propaganda masquerading as ethics - which brings us to…

The Devil’s playground - The Nazi Infiltration of the Field of Medicine

The worst kind of evil is perpetuated by an educated man exerting the full power of the state against the common man - in a futile effort to make the common man’s life better.

Most of the blood spilled in the 20th century claims that previous statement as motive.

The horrors of the Nazi regime and the atrocities they committed in the death camps came out during the infamous “Doctor’s Trials” at Nuremberg.

Popular culture (and indirectly - the medical field as well) would have you believe that Nazi doctors were homicidal maniacs, but there were only a few, and those few doctors and their barbarism was confined to places like Auschwitz and Sobibor.

That supposition is very wrong.

Nazi doctors were respected professionals within the medical community. Before 1945/46 when the world learned of the horrors of the extermination camps, Germany was the top country for the study of medicine. Germany led the world in the quality of medical schools, and every student attending those schools was required to take a course on medical ethics. The question is, if German educated doctors were required to take an ethics course, and then went on to perform those barbaric medical experiments, and participate , what the hell did they learn in those ethics classes?

They learned Nazi propaganda, of course.

They learned;

  • German doctors were physicians to their patients, yes - but first and foremost, they were physicians to the state. And, according to the Nazis, the state was sick through racial impurity.

  • Medical students were taught they were “biological soldiers”

  • German doctors should support the racist Nuremberg laws that imposed punitive sanctions against non-Aryan people.

  • German doctors should support sterilization laws that kept “non-desirable” people from having children through forced sterilization procedures

  • German doctors should support euthanasia programs, that would end the needless suffering of people who had lives “not worth living”. If that doesn’t chill your blood I don’t know what will - hundreds of thousands of German citizens were murdered by their doctors years prior to the holocaust.

  • Lastly, German doctors should support a utilitarian view of medical experimentation.

This clown show of an ethics class had its source in the practice of Eugenics.

Eugenics takes the theory of evolution and expands on it with the following supposition;

If nature takes thousands, or millions of years to evolve a species, could we not intervene in the process and speed it up by first identifying “good” genes and “bad” genes, and then breeding the good ones to create a super-race of human beings?

All of the evils of the holocaust came from this prideful idea that humanity can somehow improve itself through the intentional suppression of certain races and the encouragement of others. In essence, humanity is trying to play the role of God. Remember Lucifer’s fall? What was his sin? It was pride;

“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭14:12-15‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Pride captivated a nation and an ideology - and in so doing, pride let the demons out to play upon the earth.

Here they are at work, two Nazi doctors. The man you see standing is Dr. Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a leader in his field of genetics and human biology. He was the director of many top German medical institutions. His interest in study was the science of genetics - particularly twinning.

However, there’s another doctor in this photograph. Look at the man circled in red. Do you recognize him?

Josef Mengele

How about now?

That’s Josef Mengele - a student of Dr. Verschuer. We know him today as the Nazi doctor that experimented on children, particularly twins, at Auschwitz.

Doctors always played a central part of the Nazi rise to power. Hitler himself proclaimed;

“You, you national socialist doctors, I cannot do without you for a single day, not a single hour. If not for you, if you fail me, then all is lost.”

Eerily similar, isn’t it?

  • Governments seeking the support of doctors to provide cover for their liberty stealing policies

  • Governments rolling out a prime star - a rockstar doctor if you will to “educate” the public about how tyrannical policies are really for their own good