What exactly do you think didn't happen? Would you maybe have a list? That would be terrific as a starting point for @Blacksmith21's post maybe.

Sure! Hell, I'll give them some things that DID happen, too. BS21 can pick and choose.

Let's start with the totally fair Nuremburg Trials that everyone is so keen on pointing out!

----My first claim: A fair trial didn't happen.

How is it that the victorious Allies get to act as prosecutor, judge, and executioner of the German leaders?

--_{Source: From Nuremberg to My Lai pp. 81-83.}

Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, at a planning conference before the Tribunal convened explained his view on the trials:

The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences.

This is the man that presided at the opening session. Where were the trials that determined guilt?

--_{Source: Leo Kahn, Nuremberg Trials pp. 26.}

In his memoirs, Nahum Goldmann, who served as president of both the World Zionist Organization and the World Jewish Congress reported that the Nuremberg Trials were the brain-child of the World Jewish Congress officials. They persuaded the Allied leaders to accept the plan.

--_{Source: N. Goldmann, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann pp. 216-217}

The World Jewish Congress(WJC) made sure the persecution of the Jews was the main focus of the trials.

--_{Source: World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion pp. 141, 264, 267.}

Colonel David Marcus, a Jewish officer in the US Army selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors, and lawyers for the Nuremberg Trials.

--_{Source: "War Crimes" article written by him in Britannica Book of the Year in 1947, pp. 819-821.}

Charles F Wennerstrum stated that many employed clerks, lawyers, researchers, and interpreters had only just become Americans in recent years, and whose backgrounds were rather steeped in certain prejudices. He also stated that the evidence selection was made by the prosecution, and the defense had access only to the documents the prosecution considered material to the case.

In regards to Nuremberg, Wennerstrum had "a feeling that justice has been denied".

--_{Source: Chicago Tribune article, dated February 23, 1948, pp. 1, 2. "Nazi Trial Judge Rips 'Injustice'", by Hal Foust.}

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone stated: "Jackson (Chief US prosecutor mentioned above) is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremburg." and "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law."

He specifically calls it a fraud.

--_{Source: Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law pp. 716.}

Congressional representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin states: "The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst."

--_{Source: Congressional Record -- Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 14, pp. A 3741.}

John Rankin of Mississippi, another congressman, declared: "A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States."

--_{Source: Congressional Record -- House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, pp. 10938}

EVEN A JEW, Milton R Konvits, specialist of law who taught at NYU states:

Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department's policy... The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.

--_{Source: M. R. Konvitz, "Will Nuremberg Serve Justice?," Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 11.}

--My second claim: the German defendants were tortured by the Allies

They were tortured by the Allies against international law; violating at least articles 56 and 58 of the Geneva convention of July 1929.

--_{Source: Nuremberg: A Nation on Trial pp. 69, 302}

Austrian officer, Emil Lachout, part of the postwar Allied War Crimes Commission testified under oath in 1988 that German officials had been tortured until they furnished fraudulent statements about alleged killings of Jews in German death camp gas chambers. He provided a copy of a 1948 document confirming this.

--_{Source: Robert Lenski, Holocaust on Trial, pp. 274, 278.}

I've seen Rudolf Höss' confession rather often as a cornerstone document of Holocaust extermination. It's certainly one of the most widely known pieces of "evidence" by anyone that has dipped their toes into this subject.

--_{Source: Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, pp. 235-239}

Rudolph Hoess was tortured for his testimony. After a beating, "It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him, but once he started talking, there was no holding him."

--_{Source: Rupert Butler, Legions of Death, pp. 236-237}

His testimony included claims that 2,500,000 people had been killed in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and another 500,000 had died of other causes.

--_{Source: Höss testimony at the Nuremberg Tribunal, published in: IMT vol. 33, pp. 275-279}

These claims by him are now dismissed by reputable historians, and contradicted by their own, remade memorial stone. 4 Million, really? Does anyone really think the 6 million number wasn't based on 4 million supposedly dying in this camp?

--My third claim: the Allies were guilty of the same things they were "prosecuting" the Germans for.

Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson stated, in a letter to President Truman that the Allies...

have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.

--_{Source: Jackson letter to Truman, Oct. 12, 1945. State Department files.}

The British Government admitted that they, were themselves guilty of "crime against peace" in the planning of a military invasion of Norway before Germany made their move. Britain and the Soviet union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, a neutral nation in 1941.

--_{Source: J. McMillan, Five Men at Nuremberg pp. 245, 414. "Behind the scenes at Nuremberg," London's Daily Telegraph, Jan. 27, 1977}

--My fourth claim: the above, by no means exhaustive on the hypocrisy on crimes, is why there was no definition of "aggression" in the Tribunal's charter, which makes any "conviction" of Principle VI part A, Crimes against peace, a miscarriage of justice.

Funny side note: Notice how the UN adopted the same kind of language? Have you seen what Israel, a member since 1949 has done to Palestine?