The false flag assault on the radio station at Gleiwitz is well attested to in the documentary record and historical examinations of the war, as well as various investigations of the outbreak of th war. Although historians quibble about the details and blame, there is an overall consensus (which, I should add is extremely rare in the historical profession- the old canard "history is a lie agreed upon" is nonsensical because historians are seldom able to agree) in the literature that Hitler wanted this war and pushed for it. The Gleiwitz raid was part and parcel of a larger SS project to take part in the Polish invasion, and covert operations included smuggling SS men in Danzig to take part in the invasion.

The main witness for the Gleiwitz raid at the Nuremberg IMT was not the main defendants, but an SD officer Alfred Naujocks who defected to the Allies in 1944. But despite his defection, the British never fully trusted Naujocks and interrogated him accordingly as they feared he was a double agent and not a member of the Austrian resistance as Naujocks claimed. The IMT entered Naujocks's affidavit on 20 December 1945- starting at p. 241. Naujocks cooperated with the Allied interrogation, but still faced charges for his SD-related activities in Denmark. The Danish courts gave Naujocks 15 years, which were later reduced to 5 years, which was in keeping with the post-IMT trend of minor sentences and slaps on the wrist for German defendants. There is no indication Naujocks was tortured, on the contrary he is an exemplar of how many Germans complicit in war crimes managed to finagle a lesser sentence through both cooperation and selective editing of their biography in a manner that deflected blame onto their superiors. Naujocks went on to live a fairly quiet and unassuming life in West Germany and he was quite open about his involvement in the Gleiwitz raid as it was his claim to fame as "the man who started the war."

The question of torture and forced confessions is an old canard used to delegitmize the Nuremberg tribunal and cast the whole project as a case of victor's justice. Such arguments do not hold water and often come packaged in with conspiracies like Holocaust denial or anticommunism. AH moderator /u/commiespaceinvader said it best in an answer some time ago about torture in relation to a IHR article, which I will quote at length:

• Testimony

Here again, it becomes obvious how deniers work. The author of the article claims that because there have been cases of unreliable testimony, all testimony is unreliable on principle. We have testimonies from over 10.000 survivors of the Holocaust, either in trials or collected by various institutions. Some of these testimonies get details wrong (the date on which someone was in the camp, the name of the guard that beat them, minor variations of place names) but on the whole they agree that yes, the Nazis killed a lot of Jews. We have these testimonies from a whole variety of places, times, and people. Picking out a rather small list of inconsistencies doesn't render all of them false. It's a pretty blatant attempt lying from the IHR to serve their agenda.

• Torture

As can be seen from the sources the article puts forward, the allegations of torture of prisoners in order to confess in connection to Nuremberg have never been substantiated. They either cite themselves or other deniers, whose works have been thoroughly debunked. No document exists that proves the defendants at Nuremberg were tortured because they were not. By all accounts, including those of the defendants themselves in Nuremberg as well as other cases (see the writings of Hans Frank or Erich von dem Bach) they have not been tortured and have not observed torture.

As for the last two sections, it is hardly a surprise that the defendants in Nuremberg acted surprised about hearing of the Holocaust. I mean, they were maintaining their innocence. And yet, several former Nazis who testified against them, were not surprised. Here, one could also cite from the testimony of Erich von dem Bach who testified against his former colleagues and basically admitted at murdering and torturing on order of Ernst Kaltenbrunner and the likes.

So, in conclusion, the Nuremberg Trials have been assessed critically by non-denier historians and had their problems discussed critically. However, not in the sense this article claims. While there were aspects to them that we nowadays would see in a critical light, they were surprisingly fair and not a case of "victor's justice". The core claims of the IHR article, that there is no evidence of large scale murder, that evidence was falsified, and that confessions had come from torture are all false and can not be substantiated with the available evidence. The IHR article amounts to lies, half-truths and cherry picking and in that sense is a typical piece of denialist propaganda and lies.

As for the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, it is also pretty much a consensus that the IJA's Kwantung Army was itching for a wider war in China. Of course, the Japanese government and its military was riven through with various competing factions, but the idea of a military drive into the Chinese heartland was one a number of IJA officers like Ishiwara Kanji wrote about publicly. Whether or not the IJA rigged the Incident or it happened because of local friction in the area is immaterial. Internal documents from the Kwantung Army and the IJA in the Home Islands in 1936 were already envisioning an advance into Northern China and erecting a new, Japanese-led government there. Moreover, relations between the KMT and Japan were rapidly deteriorating since the seizure of Manchuria in 1931. One of the staples of Japanese and subsequent German propaganda about the Sino-Japanese War was that Japan's rationale for invading China was to prevent communism from taking root in China. But this was just window-dressing for a self-serving propaganda. Germany's Sino-Japanese policy was seldom coherent and one of the only common threads its public diplomacy had in East Asia was the need to combat global communism. Japan itself was also part of the anti-Comintern pact with Germany, but it also portrayed the war with China as necessary for Japan's survival and not as a Soviet trick to get them bogged down.