Support this blog.

Every donation makes it easier for me to focus on creating material for National-Socialist Worldview. If some financially secure person would pledge to donate regularly based on the quantity of original material posted, I think that would be a particularly good arrangement. If you have cash to spare and like what you see here, contact me please:

11 February 2016

Crazed Halfwit Musicians Run Afoul of Jews

Negro Rapper "B.o.B." rejects the Jewish version of history.

On 26 January 2016, chart-topping Black rapper B.o.B. (real name Bobby Ray Simmons Jr.), who has had three top-ten hit recordings, caused serious worry to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith by posting online a rap-video that: (1) alludes to Jewish power over the government of the United States, (2) declares that Adolf Hitler was not the greatest villain in world-history, and (3) suggests that the listener become familiar with David Irving. Read more.

Ted Nugent announces that Jews promote gun-control.

On Monday, 8 February 2016, Nugent shared on his personal Facebook page an image bearing the faces of twelve prominent Jews who advocate gun-control, with a small Israeli flag accompanying each Jewish face, and a contemptuous description accompanying several. Nugent did not create the meme, which is several years old, but reposted it with his own comment.... Read more.

09 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 11

Judicial Murderers

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016

The prerequisite for this pseudo-justice was the destruction of German sovereignty through the elimination of the Reich's government. With naked arbitrariness one has robbed the German political and military leaders of the protection of sovereignty, in order first to make them into prisoners of war and then to exterminate them as bandits. 

It is part of the natural law of genuine democracy that members of parliament have an immunity. In order to secure the independence of the people's representation, no deputy may be held responsible officially or in court for his political decisions and votes. If in a genuine democracy such a protection is necessary already for domestic political reasons, how much more obligatory was it that the democratic victor-states respect the immunity of the military and political leaders who must possess a government for their foreign-policy dealings? The simple consideration that no minister and no general could prepare and carry out a war as a private citizen would have necessarily hindered them from treating them in this manner contrary to international law. Would Field-Marshall Keitel ever have been able or wanted to bring about a world-war out of personal motives as a private citizen? Would Grand Admiral Doenitz have been able to build up a u-boat force and to lead a sea-war against the global powers as a private citizen? They acted on the order of their head of state in the performance of the tasks assigned to them, and could therefore be responsible only to their sovereign. 

This is however the difference between international law and private law, that the former knows only peoples and therefore states as accountable subjects of law. It is a law between states or communities of states. Especially the decision about war and peace has been the exclusive right of sovereign states. Although the act of coercion (Gewaltakt) at Flensburg could dissolve the legal government of the Reich, it could not therewith earn the right to proceed against members of a sovereign government as if they had been private persons. All maneuvers that are supposed to give legal justification retroactively to this act of coercion have thus failed absolutely. Only three years later the General Assembly of the United Nations pronounced the juristic death-sentence on the hangmen of Nuremberg. 

On 9 December 1948 it refused to recognize the principles of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg as authoritative international law.

Had this decision been issued already during the trial, the judges at Nuremberg would have had to terminate their functions, if they did not want to be convicted and sentenced as judicial murderers.

To the glory of the German defense-team, it must be stated again and again that even during the trial they dare to refute all pseudo-juristic maneuvers that are supposed to justify the military tribunal. The defense-attorney of the former Reich's Minister Alfred Rosenberg, Dr. Thoma, objects for example to the attempt to construct a personal responsibility of the members of the Reich's government toward an  international court created after the fact. Dr. Thoma states:

"The highest good, summum bonum, in international morals of nations has not yet been mandatorily codified. There does not exist any authoritative idea for the community of nations. Instead of discussions on individual ethics and individual criminality, the Prosecution should have submitted its accepted principles and criteria as international common law, which was not done.
"Therefore, with regard to the standpoint of the prosecuting authorities as to the personal responsibility of acting statesmen, I feel impelled to look upon this as a totally new philosophy and one which is very dangerous in its consequences." [Alfred Thoma, IMT transcript, 10 July 1946]

Jackson had to admit indirectly in his letter to President Truman on 7 June 1945, that when the war began no international legal order existed that could designate the war as a crime and the war-wagers as criminals:

But International Law as taught in the Nineteenth and the early part of the Twentieth Century generally declared that war-making was not illegal an is no crime at law. Summarized by a standard authority, its attitude was that “both parties to every war are regarded as being in an identical legal position, and consequently as being possessed of equal rights.” [Robert H. Jackson, letter to President Truman, 7 June 1945, p.6]

Jackson has to "demand" the criminalization of war for the first time in 1945! We have already demonstrated exhaustively that this was precisely the legal situation that was internationally acknowledged also at the beginning of the war in 1939. Since war was not illegal, the war-wagers of 1939 were not punishable as "criminals against peace." Dr. Stahmer already indicated in his petition of 19 November 1945 that even the League of Nations never could and never wanted to hold an individual personage of a belligerent country privately responsible for his tasks in the government. The practice of the League of Nations, he says, has been unambiguous on this point until the most recent period. It was however required to decide several times about the legality or illegality of the violent action of one of its members against another.

On several occasions the League had to decide upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of action by force of one member against another member, but it always condemned such action by force merely as a violation of international law by the State, and never thought of bringing up for trial the statesmen, generals, and industrialists of the state which recurred to force. [Otto Stahmer, IMT transcript, 19 November 1945]

From the experiences with the League of Nations and the treaties of 1919-1939, especially after the total failure of the Kellogg Pact, the nations also after 1945 renounced codification of an individual responsibility of statesmen, for as long as there had been no success in constructing an international authority that would have been superordinated and thereby uniquely situated to call representatives of a particular state to account. Dr. Stahmer made the key observation about that:

And when, this summer, in San Francisco the new world-peace organization was established, no rule of law was created under which in the future an international court will punish those persons who launch an unjust war." [Otto Stahmer, Defense Motion Challenging Jurisdiction of Tribunal, IMT transcript, 20 November 1945]

Never will the judges and prosecutors at Nuremberg be able to justify that, in spite of this decision reached already in 1945 by the highest international authority, at the same time they claimed the role of world-judges and international hangmen. In the same summer of 1945 they created their own "law" ("Recht") in article 7 of the charter: 

The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.[Charter of the IMT]

And still a year later, in the rationale for the verdict they confirm this principle completely contrary to international law: 

... [T]he very essence of the Charter is that individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual State.[IMT's Judgement]

What are these "international duties" that are supposed to be stronger than the responsibility of politicians and military men to their own state? Who has established these international duties, who monitors compliance with them, and who punishes violation of them? An arbitrary construct is supposed to suffice for unhinging a right on which the sovereignty of the state is based. Consistently applied, this superordination of an international law over national laws must destroy these laws -- and the state.

This causal nexus shows that the Allies were compelled to eliminate the government of the Reich in order destroy the sovereignty of the German state.

Only in this case was the specially invented international law to be applied.

Already it is a shameless presumption of politicizing advocates to claim the privilege of deciding from their absolute power what "international duty" might be. That is because out of 50 nations only 23 attended the London convention, and even these remained passive, so that in practice the authority over 50 states is claimed by the representatives of only 4 states: France, England, USA, and USSR.

06 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 10

Lawrence Praises Nikitchenko

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016

The representatives of the liberal-democratic Western powers on the other hand have betrayed all legal principles of the cultured nations and juristically submitted to Soviet despotism.  In the English House of Lords on 5 May 1949, three years after the unjust verdict at Nuremberg, Lord Hankey pronounced the moral and juristic death-sentence on the French, American, and English members of the International Military Tribunal, as he affirmed before the plenum with an elevated voice that there was "something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the Bench with colleagues representing a country which before, during, and since the trials had perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar."

Mr. Justice Lawrence saw himself compelled 14 days later to take refuge from Lord Hankey's reproach in the pretense that this was an insult to his Soviet colleagues who had demonstrated "their ability and fairness" in Nuremberg.

The strongest evidence of the demoralizing effect of this absolute capitulation to Soviet class-justice came from Chief Justice Jackson himself.  He, who uncontrollably invokes the west-east charter again and again in order then to go back to manipulating with arguments about international law, dares on 19 March 1946 to go so far as to admit that the expansion of the war by France and England in 1939 does not represent an act of aggression by Germany. But since it happens to be the case that Germany declared war on neither France nor England, but rather the reverse, and since without attack no state of war can occur, France and England, according to all rules of logic, must have been the aggressors. On 8 July 1946 defense-attorney Dr. Horn nailed Jackson down on this matter:

"At the session of March 19, 1946, Mr. Justice Jackson interpreting the indictment has stressed the point that the extension of the war brought about by the Western powers did not constitute a punishable aggression on the side of Germany. This interpretation is in keeping with his general argumentation concerning the notion of aggression. Should he want to carry this through quite consistently, he would logically have to declare Great Britain and France aggressors of Germany for having brought about the state of war by means of the ultimatum." [Martin Horn, Final Argument for Ribbentrop, IMT transcript, Supplement B, Part I]

If the Kellogg Pact had still been valid in 1939, the Nuremberg Tribunal would have had to prosecute France and England, specifically the French and English politicians and generals, of crimes against peace. One would get into such contradictions if Soviet class-justice is mixed with European principles of law. If this is embarrassing for an American jurist like Jackson, it is an enduring disgrace for Great Britain, that this land of world-famous jurisdiction supplies Mr. Justice Lawrence as the president, the primary responsible party, for a trial that employs Soviet class-justice against politicians and officers of a cultured European people.

Since none of the treaties concluded before 1939 was still in force at the time of the outbreak of the German-Polish conflict -- neither the charter of the League of Nations, nor the Locarno Treaty, nor, least of all, the Kellogg Pact --  only the motive would remain as the basis for an accusation of "crime" against a peace that was not protected by law: "criminal," they say, is a war against the Un-peace of Versailles; "permitted," indeed moral and virtuous, is a war for the perpetuation of the unjust borders established at Versailles. After futile attempts to lend the halo of law to this political prosecution of the vanquished by the victors, again and again one resorts to undisguised force and arbitrariness.

Meanwhile decades have passed [between 1945 and 1965] without bringing any genuine peace, but small and dirty wars, especially in Africa and Asia, the forward skirmishes of the threatening Third World War, and at every scene of battle those powers that purported in Nuremberg that they wanted to prohibit war forever participated directly or indirectly. As the Wilsonian League of Nations was founded in 1919 to perpetuate Un-peace, so was Roosevelt's U.N.O. constructed after 1945: with the same goal and the same result.

The new "peaceful world order" 20 years later still has not achieved any unity about the fundamental question that the Nuremberg inquisitors presumed had been solved for the longest time, about the problem of the how to distinguish defensive and aggressive war. The U.N.O. Committee on the Definition of Aggression, which has been debating for 15 years, must in these very days, on 16 April 1965, state that there is still no agreement to be reached. They are adjourning now until 1967 and are making humanity wait again for the solution of an insoluble problem.* Let us again compare to this reality the phrases with which Jackson wants to defend the Allied justice of revenge. In his opening address he declares:

"Any resort to war -- to any kind of a war -- is a resort to means that are inherently criminal." [Robert H. Jackson, Opening Statement, IMT transcript, 21 November 1945]

Where and when in the past decades was any government of any nation held responsible for any acts of war? If the system of justice constructed for Nuremberg by Jackson and Nikitchenko had functioned, all the ministers and militaries responsible for these subsequent wars would have ended very long ago behind penitentiary-walls or on the gallows of international jurisdiction. The guilty parties would necessarily have been found on one side or the other of those powers that indicted and hanged in Nuremberg.
* The United Nations' Committee on the Definition of Aggression finally in 1974 (after 24 years) arrived at a kind of definition, calling aggression the use of military force by one state against another, but it was really no definition, insofar as it also empowered the U.N. Security Council to designate any act not fitting that description as "aggression." (Eric Pace, New York Times News Service, 13April 1974) What it means is that the wealthier states that have ways to create hardship for other states without resorting to overt violence will have international support for crushing any less-powerful state that strikes back overtly, and a less-powerful state runs the risk of being labeled an aggressor for crossing those more powerful states even non-violently. It seems likely that schemes for maintaining world-peace are always ultimately schemes for maintaining the supremacy of the currently dominant power or powers. It was so at Versailles in 1919, and just the same at San Francisco in 1945. 

02 February 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 9

Rotten Pillars

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016

This Kellogg Pact however was used as the main support for convicting the German political and military leaders of crimes against peace and hanging them. Unfortunately, what the former Lord Chancellor of England stated in his book U.N.O. and War-Crimes was not yet known at that time. Viscount Maugham deals exhaustively with the Kellogg Pact and resolutely rejects the Nuremberg Tribunal's claim that the Pact gives entitlement to impose penalties for violating its terms.

The former Lord Chancellor of England issues a damning judgment against his Anglo-Saxon colleagues who played judges and prosecutors in Nuremberg:

The execution or imprisonment of numerous soldiers, naval officers, and statesmen of a signatory state could hardly be useful for this laudable goal. Such steps will very much sooner lead to exacerbated hostility.

The Kellogg Pact, ever since its signing in August 1928 -- thus long before 1939 -- was in fact never taken as a reason to brand as criminal and to treat as criminal any power subsequently involved in a war.

That the Kellogg Pact in 1939 was treated as no longer in existence even by its most important signatory states, is most clearly proven by the fact that even England and France, in their declarations of war against Germany, were not able to invoke the Kellogg Pact but only their disastrous guarantee to Poland.

The defense-attorney Dr. Horn has also indicated it:

"In 1939 there was neither a recognized definition of the aggressor nor an institution authorized to designate the aggressor.... According to the conception existing in 1939, the outbreak of war, in whatever way it happened, was not valuated juridically.... That this opinion is in accordance with the conception of international law of the main participating powers that had signed the statute when war broke out follows from the fact that men of international reputation in the field of international law were of the opinion that, should the Kellogg Pact and the system of collective security fail, the traditional legal conception as to war was still valid." [Martin Horn, final plea for Ribbentrop, IMT transcript, Supplement B, Part 1

Dr. Horn summarizes and explains in regard to the declarations of guarantees to Poland:

"This guarantee declaration shows once more how much Great Britain drew conclusions, taking a sensible political view, out of the decline of the collective security system, and how small a confidence it had in the practical results of the moral condemnation of war through the Kellogg Pact."

The Kellogg Pact, the basis for both the indictment and the convictions for crimes against peace, was not adequate for the task that the Nuremberg Tribunal tried to pretend that it could do. Again and again recourse was made to the self-made charter. Thus even these judges found themselves in effect obeying orders. They had to invoke that charter, which was incompatible with the acknowledged international law of the time. The appeal to superior command or superior directive of a government however was forbidden by precisely this charter. The all-powerful judges thereby found themselves in legal difficulties that they could not overcome through any pettyfogging (Rabulistik) however apodictically presented.

How simple, clear, and consistent, by contrast, is the principle of their Soviet Russian colleague Nikitchenko. As early as 20 June 1945 he revealed his universal formula.

"We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea declarations by the heads of the governments, and those declarations both declare to carry out immediately just punishment for the offenses which have been committed." [Iona Nikitchenko, IMT transcript, 29 June 1945]

This Soviet law of brutality has the advantage of doing without Anglo-Saxon hypocrisy.

31 January 2016

Misrepresentation of German bombing-victims as Jewish Holocaust-victims by the World Jewish Congress

The logo of the World Jewish Congress appears on a site called, which has a page titled "The Final Solution." On that page is a slideshow of eight images that are apparently supposed to represent the Holocaust. The only image on that page showing dead people (as of 31 January 2016) is the one that you see above.  

Update. The day after I posted this commentary, WJC replaced that image with a different image.* It is nice that they are at least able to recognize when they've been caught, but here's a screenshot as documentation of how reckless they were:

The details of this photo are such as to make a thoughtful person doubt that it shows a scene from a concentration-camp. The bodies are neither nude (as if gassed in a fake shower-room), nor clad in striped concentration-camp uniforms, but dressed in normal civilian clothes. You can see a damaged multi-storey structure in the background, suggesting that the photo may have been taken in a bombed city.

In fact the photo shows German victims of Anglo-American bombing. In 2011 The Atlantic published a collection of photos with commentary by Alan Taylor, titled "World War II: the Fall of Nazi Germany," where this same image carries the following caption:

21. A large stack of corpses is cremated in Dresden, Germany, after the British-American air attack between February 13 and 15, 1945. The bombing of Dresden has been questioned in post-war years, with critics claiming the area bombing of the historic city center (as opposed to the industrial suburbs) was not justified militarily. [Alan Taylor, The Atlantic, 9 October 2011]

You might think that a high-profile and extraordinarily well funded organization like the World Jewish Congress would not be so reckless -- indeed, that they would have highly competent experts checking everything that they do to make sure that they get it right -- but you should not be so surprised. It is commensurate with Friedrich Nietzsche's observation: Power makes stupid

So much for the pretended intellectual integrity of the Jews.

From another perspective, we can say that they do it because they get away with it. 

How can they get away with it? That is a failure on our side, mainly a failure of moral courage. Even people in what is supposed to be alternative media often shirk their duty as truth-tellers when faced with a claim promoted under the banner of the holy Jewish Holocaust.

Don't let them continue to get away with it. The Holocaust myth should be ruthlessly demolished with facts and logic whenever it makes an appearance, until Jews find that this kind of attempt at emotional manipulation does them more harm than good.

* The image that the WJC posted as a replacement shows corpses at Buchenwald. This is still deceptive, and I will explain why. This kind of image from camps captured by U.S. and British forces has been used often to promote the belief that Jews were gassed, but -- and it is an important fact that you should know -- mainstream historiography today says that nobody was gassed at Buchenwald, nor at any other of the camps that U.S. and British forces "liberated." Not at Bergen-Belsen, not at Dachau, nor any other camp in Germany or Austria. For decades now the gassing-claims have been restricted to camps in Poland. The pictures that we are customarily shown as evidence for the Holocaust  mostly show victims of a typhus-epidemic that erupted as the war was ending. 

24 January 2016

Truth versus Lie about Dr. Josef Mengele

Read it here.

23 January 2016

A Court without Law, by Heinrich Haertle -- part 8

Permissible War

From Freispruch für Deutschland by Heinrich Haertle
Translated by Hadding Scott, 2016

The attempt to construct a "peaceful world order" with such unsuitable means ran aground not only on a so-called "unjust" war but on war as such. No one yet has been able to define what is a good or a bad, a just or an "unjust" war, because victors and vanquished could never agree on this question.

Professor Jahrreiss can therefore state in summation, and this conclusion totally smashes the foundations of the indictment: 

"By 1 September 1939 the various experiments, which had been tried since the first World War with a view to replace the "anarchic world order" of classical international law by a better, a genuine, order of peace, were over, that is, to create in the community of states a general statute according to which there would be wars which are forbidden by law and others which are countenanced. These experiments, in the opinion of the major powers of the time, had failed. The greatest military powers of the earth clashed in a struggle in which they pitted their full strength against one another." [IMT transcript, 4 July 1946]

Professor Jahrreiss then, invoking all recognized authorities[1] on international law, repeats:

"... that in universal international law as at present applied, there exists no distinction as to forbidden and non-forbidden wars."

One must thus, he said, speak of the collapse of the system of collective security (what Shawcross calls "peaceful world order"). This is of the greatest significance for the indictment on "breach the peace."  Here existed difficulties that no prescriptions of any lawgiver could entirely eliminate. 

Even if there were unambiguous standards, no authority able to make a decision would be present in a dispute:

" For even if unambiguous criteria existed, who among fallible mankind would have the authority to give a decision in case of dispute? 
"We do not even possess unambiguous criteria for aggression and defense. This holds good both for the so-called political concept, which is in a way natural, and for the legal concept or concepts of aggression and defense."

One must ask oneself, he said, whether one may speak of the collapse of the so-called system of world-peace, since such a system in practice never existed. As soon as the Kellogg Pact was interpreted, such divergent constructions resulted that "no two powers were implying exactly the same thing by the treaty."

As the distinction between "just" and "unjust" war will always vary in accord with the interests of victors and vanquished, so will a consensus never be reached among the participants about who is committing aggression and who is waging a defensive war – nor about where aggression changes into defense or defense into aggression. Professor Jahrreiss thinks indeed that there has been complete agreement [only] in this:

"War in self-defense is permitted as an inalienable right to all states; without that right, sovereignty does not exist; and every state is sole judge of whether in a given case it is waging a war of self-defense."

What kind of state however would take the position that its war is not a defensive war? And where was there ever an authority that would have been able to determine when the defensive war begins or ends? What Professor Jahrreiss affirms was applicable in every case until 1939:

"No state in the world has ever been ready to accept a foreign jurisdiction over the question of whether its decisions in the ultimate questions of existence were justified or not."

Professor Jahrreiss can invoke in this connection even the very author of the "Treaty for the Renunciation of War." In a note of 25 June 1928 Kellogg assured all nine partners in negotiation:

"The right of self-defense ... is inherent in every sovereign state and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation ... is alone competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense."

As proof that the Kellogg Pact applied only to certain wars, defense-attorney Dr. Siemers likewise refers to a circular memorandum of the American Secretary of State Kellogg from 23 June 1938 in which it is still asserted:

"There is nothing in the American draft of an antiwar treaty which restricts or prejudices the right of self-defense in any manner. That right is inherent in every sovereign state and is implied in every treaty." [IMT transcript, 17 July 1946]

That was nothing other than the confession through stipulation of the total failure of the original plan and purpose, which would have been able to fulfill its mission only if it could have subjected every war to the penal law of a supranational legislature and executive.

Professor Jahrreiss therefore states that the friends of peace have been cruelly deceived by the interpretation that Kellogg himself gave to his treaty, What kind of practical effect was such a treaty supposed to have after all? Each of the belligerent parties could invoke these exceptions and nobody was in the position to investigate such an excuse and make a ruling on it. 

During the vote on the Kellogg Pact in the American Senate was uttered already that weighty criticism that later proved all too justified. It was called a "gigantic piece of hypocrisy," the "legalization of war," a means for the Versailles Powers to guarantee France's hegemony in Europe and Britain's dominance over the world, and a "fertile soil for all future wars." Kellogg's interpretation of the right of defense, which according to the will of the signatory states was an integral component of the treaty, necessarily canceled the treaty's practical effect, since: "What kind of war if any was then forbidden?"

In the view of the American international-law expert Philip Marshall Brown, the Kellogg Pact gave birth to the frightening monstrosity of "undeclared war."

The deeper cause of the failure ultimately lay in the fact that the treaty offered no means whatsoever for overcoming the deeper causes of wars, which of course have never been an end in themselves, rather explosions in a situation of political tensions. If the treaty was not a guide to revising great injustices between peoples that threatened a people's right to live and possibility to develop national vigor, and if the treaty was not a guide to making compensation, then this web of paragraphs could never offer a real guarantee of peace.

One treated the problem only legally and thus could not construct a political order of peace. This task Kellogg shirked, so that his treaty-work was able to have only the effect that had been feared in the American Senate: the securing of the privileges of the Versailles Powers. This Versailles "order of peace" however was loaded with the very dynamite that led to the explosion in 1939.

The government of the German Reich explicitly indicated these dangers in the note of 27 April 1928 from Foreign-Minister Stresemann to the American ambassador.

Therefore the Kellogg Pact was able neither legally nor politically to disable war as a lawful instrument of policy. It never succeeded in finding a clear and practically applicable distinction between "aggression" and "defense."

It is thereby already proven that the aggressor-state in a war receives the same rights and obligations as the aggressed: the traditional rights pertaining to war in international law.

Had the Kellogg Pact really succeeded in prohibiting war and declaring it a crime, this would necessarily have ended the neutrality of each of its signatory states. Each state thereafter would be obliged to treat as a criminal and to fight every other state that started wars. No state could remain neutral toward a belligerent.

The first great test-case, the Abyssinian War, proved precisely the opposite. It showed that no new international law had been created through Kellogg, and that the classic international law was absolutely still in effect. Switzerland declared her absolute neutrality in 1935; Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Holland, and Sweden made the same declaration on 24 July 1938. That was de jure and de facto the end of the Kellogg Pact.

Professor Jahrreiss finally affirms:

"We therefore come to the conclusion that in the actual relations between states there existed – quite a number of years prior to 1939 –no effective general ruling of international law regarding prohibited war. No such general ruling existed so far as the leading statesmen and the peoples were aware." [IMT transcript, 9 July 1946]

Fundamentally considered the Kellogg Pact was the totally ill-fated attempt indeed still to arrive at the guarantee of peace intended with the League of Nations and in the subsequent treaty-efforts. Germany was already not obligated by these efforts because it had withdrawn from the League of Nations and abrogated the Locarno Pact, which in 1934 had been extended for five years and was not extended by any of the signatory states after this term had run its course. Only the Kellogg Pact had not been abrogated, and indeed for the simple reason that politically it no longer existed. It had died from the fact that it wanted to make a distinction between aggressive and defensive war, and therewith left it to each signatory power to allow defensive war for itself.

The famous English historian and jurist F.J.P. Veale therefore states that the much prized distinction between aggressive and defensive war belongs to the greatest lie and deception that the international semantics of modernity has bestowed upon us. The American professor H. W. Lawrence already on the 10th of October 1934 in the periodical Christian Century indicated that with this restriction one only provided for oneself a fabricated moral alibi for securing the privileges of the affluent nations.

The American historian Harry Elmer Barnes in his book History of Western Civilization designates the formal distinction between aggressive and defensive war as "the saddest and greatest monument to the foolishness of those who adhere to formulae."

Since there were no special punishments for violations of the treaty, in other words since no arrangements for the implementations of punishments were envisaged, the pact remained an abstraction that could not be applied to any concrete historical case: "It is quite clear," writes Veale, "that every sharpwitted diplomat was capable of justifying almost any conceivable war under the sanction of one or the other of these excepted categories."

The important American international-law expert Professor Edwin M. Borchard of Yale University declared before the college of politics in Williamstown, already during the signing, that the pact was worthless for keeping war contained. Instead, he said, for the first time in the history of humanity it silently invited the moral forces of the world to approve all wars that would eventuate.
[1]. According to the official English-language transcript, Jahrreiss did not quite say "all" but rather: "the majority of international lawyers throughout the world."