The
Jewish Conspiracy to Promote the Holocaust
John
Wear
Link to the full article: https://inconvenienthistory.com/14/1/8187
This article
documents some of the numerous Jewish groups and individuals who have conspired
to promote the official Holocaust story.
The
Postwar Nuremberg Trials
The genocide
of European Jewry has been given legitimacy by the numerous trials
conducted by the Allies after the Second World War. Dr. Arthur Butz, in his
groundbreaking book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, wrote about
the Allied postwar trials that “it is a fact that without the evidence
generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the
program of killing Jews ever existed at all.” Jewish groups and individuals played
key roles in establishing and conducting these trials.
The first
trial held in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1946, officially known as the
International Military Tribunal (IMT), is the most important of these trials.
The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and
France tried the most prominent surviving German leaders as war criminals in
this trial. In addition, the United States government alone conducted 12
secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT) from 1946 to 1949. Similar trials were also
conducted in other locations by Great Britain, West Germany, the United States
and Israel, including the highly-publicized trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann.
The mostly
political nature of the IMT and later Nuremberg trials is acknowledged by Nahum
Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox. Goldmann, president of the
World Jewish Congress (WJC), admitted that the idea of the Nuremberg trials and
German reparations originated with WJC officials. Only after persistent efforts
by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the
Nuremberg trials. The WJC also made sure that
Germany’s extermination of European Jewry was a primary focus of the trials,
and that the defendants would be punished for their involvement in Germany’s
extermination process.
Two Jewish
U.S. Army officers also played key roles in the formation of these trials. Lt.
Col. Murray Bernays, a prominent New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War
Secretary Henry Stimson and others to put the defeated German leaders on trial.
Col. David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, was head of the U.S. government’s War
Crimes Branch from February 1946 until April 1947. Marcus was made head of the
War Crimes Branch primarily in order “to take over the mammoth task of
selecting hundreds of judges, prosecutors and lawyers” for the later NMT
trials.
This Jewish
influence caused the Allies to give special attention to the alleged
extermination of 6 million Jews. Chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, for
example, declared in his opening address to the IMT:
“The most
savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those
against the Jews. […] It is my purpose to show a plan and design to which all Nazis
were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people. […] The
avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole. […] History
does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever
carried out with such calculated cruelty.”
British
prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed Jackson’s words in his final address to
the IMT.
U.S. Supreme
Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone said of Justice Robert Jackson, who left
the U.S. Supreme Court to lead the IMT tribunal:
“Jackson
is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. 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 the common law. This is a little too
sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”
Stone
wondered on another occasion “whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of
international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert
that our supplying Britain with 50 destroyers was an act of aggression….”
U.S. Sen.
Robert A. Taft courageously denounced the IMT trial in an October 1946 speech:
“The
trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is
hedged about with the forms of justice.”
Taft went on
to state:
"About
this whole judgment there is a spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom
justice. The hanging of the 11 men convicted will be a blot on the American
record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian
idea of the purpose of the trials—government policy and not justice—with little
relationship to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in forms of legal
procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to
come."
Several U.S.
Congressmen also denounced the Nuremberg trials. For example, Congressman John
Rankin of Mississippi declared:
“As a
representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place
in Nuremberg, Germany is a disgrace to the United States. […] 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.”
Gen. George
Patton was also opposed to the war crimes trials. In a letter to his wife, he
wrote:
“I am
frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is
Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POWs to work as slaves in foreign lands,
where many will be starved to death.”
The later
Nuremberg trials were dominated by Jews. Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F.
Wennerstrum, who served as the presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German
generals, said that Jews dominated the staff of the Nuremberg courts and were
more interested in revenge than justice. He stated:
“The
entire atmosphere is unwholesome. […] Lawyers, clerks, interpreters, and researchers
were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were
embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.”
Wennerstrum
left the Nuremberg trials “with a feeling that justice has been denied.”
American
attorney Warren Magee, who served as defense counsel in the Ministries Trial,
wrote:
"‘An
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the driving force behind the
prosecutions at Nuremberg. While it grieves me to say this, the prosecution
staff, its lawyers, research analysts, interpreters, clerks, etc. is largely
Jewish. Many are Germans who fled their country and only recently took out
American citizenship. Jewish influence was even apparent at the first trial,
labeled the IMT. Atrocities against Jews are always stressed above all
else. […] With
persecuted Jews in the background directing the proceedings, the trials cannot
be maintained in an objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, personal grievances,
and racial desires for revenge. […] Basic principles have been
disregarded by ‘new’ Americans, many of whom have imbedded in their very beings
European racial hatreds and prejudices.
Torture
and Intimidation of Witnesses
Allied
prosecutors used torture to help convict the defendants at the IMT and other
postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence at
the Nuremberg trials is the confession of Rudolf Höss, who was a former
commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at the IMT was probably the most
important and striking evidence presented there of a German extermination
program. Höss said that more than two and a half million people were
exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates
had died there of other causes.
No defender of the Holocaust story
today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss’s
testimony at the IMT are widely acknowledged to be untrue.
In 1983, the
anti-National Socialist book Legions of Death by
Rupert Butler showed that Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers
tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession. The torture of Höss was
exceptionally brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler finds anything
wrong or immoral in the torture of Höss. Neither of them seems to understand
the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove
that Höss’s testimony at the IMT was obtained by torture, and is therefore not
credible evidence in proving a program of German genocide against European
Jewry.
Bernard
Clarke was not the only Jew who tortured Germans to obtain confessions. Tuviah
Friedman, for example, was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration
camps. Friedman by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to
obtain confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated:
“It gave
me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”
Much of the
proof offered today by historians of the genocide of European Jewry is the
“confessions” extracted by torture at the war crime trials. Among the most
celebrated cases, Rudolph Höss, Julius Streicher, Oswald Pohl, Fritz Sauckel,
Franz Ziereis and Josef Kramer were all subject to torture. Obviously, no
“confession” obtained under torture would constitute credible evidence in a
legitimate court of law.
Jews also
often used intimidation tactics to help convict the German defendants at the
Allied postwar trials. Jewish attorney Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview
that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions:
“You know
how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American
pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the
wall. Then I’d say, ‘Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.’ It never
occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.”
In the same
interview, Ferencz admits to being an observer of the torture and murder of a
captured SS man:
“I once
saw DPs [Displaced
Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a
crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back
out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did
nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the
air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to
murder?”
Benjamin
Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world peace advocate,
further relates a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz
explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:
“What do
you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in
charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht
erschossen [shot
while trying to escape…]. I said ‘you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it
off!’ I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there
naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly
like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said ‘now listen, you and I
are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you
and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would
never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you
entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else
about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can
write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…’ [Ferencz
gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone
outside and said ‘Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a
coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write
it.’ The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and
destroy the first one. That was it.”
The fact
that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his
superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal
methods were acceptable.
Many of the
investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who
hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating
the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. One Dachau trial court
reporter quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in
the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the
most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.
Robert
Kempner, who was the American chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at
Nuremberg in which 21 German government officials were defendants, is a prime
example of a Jew who had a grudge against German defendants. Kempner was a
German Jew who lost his job as chief legal advisor of the Prussian Police
Department because of National Socialist race laws. He was forced to emigrate
first to Italy and then to the United States. Kempner was bitter about the
experience and was eager to prosecute and convict German officials in
government service.
Kempner
bribed Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus, a leading official from the
German foreign office, to testify for the prosecution in the Ministries Trial.
The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus reveals that Kempner
persuaded Gaus to exchange the role of defendant for that of a prosecution
collaborator. Gaus was released from isolation two days after his
interrogation. A few days later a German newspaper reported a lengthy
handwritten declaration from Gaus in which Gaus confessed the collective guilt
of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s accusation to the
newspaper.
Many people
became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of
Friedrich Gaus, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless
Gaus was willing to cooperate. American attorney Charles LaFollete
said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation was common
knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of us
who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the
Germans would attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in
Nuremberg.”
Kempner also
attempted to bribe German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during the
Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate.
Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote:
“During
the proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good,
it suffered from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my
father’s defense attorney.”
Richard von
Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing but pure cynicism.
In addition
to torturing and intimidating defendants into making confessions, some
defendants did not live to see the beginning of their trials. For example,
Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, adamantly denied the existence
of homicidal gas chambers in his pre-trial interrogations at the Frankfurt
Auschwitz Trial. Baer died in June 1963 under mysterious circumstances while
being held in pretrial custody. An autopsy performed on Baer at the
Frankfurt-am-Main University School of Medicine said that the ingestion of an
odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as a cause of death.
It has been
widely known ever since the illegal abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina
that the Israeli Mossad has immense capabilities. Given the fact that Chief
Public Prosecutor Fritz Bauer was a Zionist Jew, which should have precluded
him from heading the pretrial investigation, it is quite possible that the
forces of international Jewry were able to murder Baer in his jail.
Conveniently, the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Germany began almost
immediately after Baer’s death. With Baer’s death the prosecutors at the trial
were able to obtain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas-chamber myth
and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.
False
Jewish Witness Testimony
Joseph
Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, later
described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:
“[T]he
major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp
cases were what came to be known as ‘professional witnesses,’ and everyone
working at Dachau regarded them as such. ‘Professional,’ since they were paid
for each day they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and
food, at a time when these were often difficult to come by in Germany.
Some of
them stayed in Dachau for months, testifying in every one of the
concentration-camp cases. In other words, these witnesses made their living
testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former inmates from the
camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least, have
called their testimony into question.”
An
embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau
trials. Jewish U.S. investigator Josef Kirschbaum brought a former
concentration-camp inmate named Einstein into the court to testify that the
defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel, however, foiled
this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court
room listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to
Einstein and exclaimed:
“How can
we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother
into the court?”
False
Jewish-eyewitness testimony has often been used to attempt to convict innocent
defendants. For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was
accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the
Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and
convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish
survivors of Treblinka.
Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new
evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk by forging documents
supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka. The Israeli Supreme Court
ruled that the five Jewish eyewitness accounts were not credible, and that
Demjanjuk was innocent.
Another
example of false Jewish testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case
of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing
Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by Simon Wiesenthal
that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal
action.
Eleven Jews testified under oath during the trial that Walus had
murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was
finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on
German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded
regarding Walus’s trial that “…in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging
on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”
Federal
district judge Norman C. Roettger, Jr., ruled in a 1978 case in Florida that
all six Jewish eyewitnesses who had testified to direct atrocities and
shootings at Treblinka by Ukrainian-born defendant Feodor Fedorenko had wrongly
identified the accused. The judge found that these Jewish eyewitnesses had been
misled by Israeli authorities.
The use of
false witnesses has been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was an
ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps
from 1941 to 1945. Neuhäusler wrote that in some of the American-run trials
“many of the witnesses, perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with
criminal records ranging from robbery to homosexuality.”
Stephen F.
Pinter served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American trials of
Germans at Dachau. In a 1960 affidavit, Pinter said that “notoriously perjured
witnesses” were used to charge Germans with false and unfounded crimes. Pinter
stated, “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many
innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”
Jews
Persecute Holocaust Revisionists
European
scholars who have questioned the Holocaust story have suffered tremendous
hardships. For example, French revisionist Dr. Robert Faurisson lost his
professorship in 1991, was viciously beaten by thugs who were never caught or
prosecuted, and was the defendant in numerous law suits. Faurisson believed
that revisionist historians are up against a religion. Faurisson said:
“The
belief in the Holocaust is a religion. We have to fight against this religion,
but I don’t know how to fight a religion. Revisionists can look at demographic
figures, historical documents, forensic evidence, etc., but there is no example
in history of reason destroying a religion.”
Revisionists
have also been persecuted in countries where questioning the Holocaust story is
still legal. Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel was tried in 1985 and 1988 in
Toronto, Canada for the alleged crime of knowingly publishing false news. All
Zündel had ever done was publicly dispute the Holocaust story.
Zündel was
prosecuted based on information from the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance
Association, a Jewish group that claimed Zündel was spreading false information.
This Jewish group used Canadian taxpayer money to prosecute Zündel. Even though
Zündel won both cases on appeal, he continued to be attacked and persecuted in
Canada. In 1995 his Toronto residence was the subject of an arson attack
resulting in over $400,000 of damages. Zündel was also the recipient of a
parcel bomb that was defused by the Toronto Police bomb squad.
Zündel later
moved to rural Tennessee to live with his wife Ingrid Rimland. In February
2003, Zündel was arrested in Tennessee for alleged immigration violations and
deported back to Canada. Zündel was forced to spend over two years in solitary
confinement in a Toronto jail cell even though he was never charged with a
crime. Zündel was deported to Germany in March 2005, where he was tried and convicted
of inciting racial hatred and defaming the memory of the dead. Zündel spent
five years in prison in Germany.
Ernst
Zündel’s persecution illustrates the power of the Jewish blackout forces.
Zündel wrote from his Toronto jail cell:
“The
media and educational system have dumbed the people down to a level hitherto
unknown in the civilized world. They are modern-day zombie populations, led around
by the nose—mentally so manipulated that they cannot think straight, much less
act in their own self-interest, either as individuals or as societies and
states. Both in spirit and in reality, they have become the tax-paying cash
cows and playthings of an alien oligarchy.”
Some people
in the United States have been forced to abandon their revisionist work even
though U.S. citizens enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech. For
example, David Cole, whose parents are both Jewish, was very effective in the
1990s in promulgating revisionist viewpoints. He was so effective that the
Jewish Defense League threatened him into recanting his views. In January 1998,
Cole changed his name to David Stein to protect himself, and he became publicly
known as a right-wing Hollywood Republican. In May 2013 David Cole was exposed
by a former friend and is now using his original name again. Hopefully his
right to free speech will be respected in the future.
Traditional
historians and academics are all forced to uphold the Holocaust story to keep
their jobs. Most historians write as if all aspects of the “Holocaust” are
well-documented and irrefutable. For example, one historian who laments the
outlawing of Holocaust revisionism states: “The Holocaust is an incontestable
fact.” However, major aspects of the
Holocaust story are easily contestable. It is a felony in many European
countries to question the “Holocaust” because major aspects of the Holocaust
story are easy to disprove.
Jewish defenders
of the Holocaust story have also taken extreme measures to prosecute
perpetrators of the alleged crimes. John Demjanjuk, for example, was found not
guilty by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1993 of being Ivan the Terrible at
Treblinka. Demjanjuk returned to his home in Cleveland, Ohio and looked forward
to a peaceful retirement after spending years on death row in Israel.
Unfortunately, in 2001 Demjanjuk was charged again on the grounds that he had
been a guard named Ivan Demjanjuk at the Sobibór camp in Poland.
On May 11,
2009, Demjanjuk was deported from Cleveland to be tried in Germany. On May 12,
2011, Demjanjuk was convicted by a German criminal court as an accessory to the
murder of 27,900 people at Sobibór, and sentenced to five years in prison. No
evidence was presented at Demjanjuk’s trial linking him to specific crimes.
Instead, Demjanjuk was convicted under a new line of German legal thinking that
a person who served at an alleged death camp can be charged as an accessory to
murder because the camp’s sole function was to kill people.
No proof of
participation in a specific crime is required. Demjanjuk died in Germany before
his appeal could be heard by a German Appellate Court.
This new
line of German legal thinking is breathtaking in its unfairness. It incorrectly
assumes that some German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of
exterminating people when, in fact, none of them was. Moreover, this proposed
German law finds a person guilty merely for being at a certain camp. People can
be found guilty of a crime even when no evidence is presented that they
committed a crime. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been looking to help
prosecute and convict other elderly German guards under this line of German
legal thinking.
The
Holocaust story is being used to increasingly restrict free speech. Moshe
Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, spoke at the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day at the European Parliament ceremony in Brussels on
January 27, 2014. Kantor rejected free speech arguments over what he called the
worldwide spread of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is “not an opinion—it’s a
crime,” he said. Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols or
gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.
Conclusion
The Jewish
organizations and people mentioned in this article who have conspired to
promote the myth of the so-called Holocaust include:
1.
The
World Jewish Congress (WJC), whose president, Nahum Goldmann, admitted that WJC
officials originated and promoted the idea of the IMT and reparations from
Germany. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders
persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.
2.
Two
Jewish U.S. Army officers, Lt. Col. Murray Bernays and Col. David Marcus, who
played prominent roles in implementing and staffing personnel for the Nuremberg
trials.
3.
Jewish
Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers, who tortured Rudolf Höss into
making his famous confession at the IMT.
4.
Jewish
attorney Benjamin Ferencz, who acknowledges that he used torture and
intimidation tactics to help convict German defendants at the Allied postwar
trials.
5.
Jewish
attorney Robert Kempner, the chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at
Nuremberg, who used bribes and threats to prosecute defendants.
6.
The
Jewish Israeli Mossad agents near Buenos Aires, who illegally captured Adolf
Eichmann in May 1960.
7.
Jewish
“Holocaust” survivor Tuviah Friedman, who by his own admission beat up to 20
German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers.
8.
Jewish
prosecutor Josef Kirschbaum, who brought former concentration-camp inmate
Einstein into court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered
Einstein’s brother.
Menzel foiled Einstein’s testimony by pointing to
Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room.
9.
False
Jewish eyewitness testimony at the trials of John Demjanjuk, Frank Walus and
Feodor Fedorenko.
10.
The
Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, a Jewish group that claimed Ernst
Zündel was spreading false information about the “Holocaust.” This group used
Canadian taxpayer money to prosecute Zündel for the criminal offense of
spreading false information.
11.
The
Jewish Defense League, which attacked David Cole and then threatened him into
recanting his views on the “Holocaust”.
12.
The
Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has been looking to prosecute elderly Germans
even though there is no proof that these Germans actually committed a crime.
Just being at a German camp is considered to be a crime.
13.
Moshe
Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, who at the International
Holocaust Remembrance Day at the European Parliament ceremony in Brussels on
January 27, 2014 rejected free speech arguments regarding the so-called
Holocaust. Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols or
gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.
Other Jewish
organizations are actively working to promote the official Holocaust narrative.
For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) writes about its Holocaust
education program:
“Since
2005, Echoes & Reflections has impacted more than 85,000 educators,
reaching an estimated 8 million students across the United States—and at no
cost. Through our Holocaust education programs and resources, educators gain
the skills, knowledge, and confidence to teach this topic effectively.”
The ADL is
also actively promoting “Holocaust” historian Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S.
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.
The American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also actively works to advance
pro-Israel policies and support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. All
American politicians are so aware of AIPAC’s power that they would never
publicly question the official Holocaust narrative.
The alleged
genocide of European Jewry is extremely important in promoting Jewish
interests. mans and the Allied nations, to cover up
and ignore horrific Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive
massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish
community. The extreme importance of the Holocaust story:
The “Holocaust” has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the state of Israel, to justify Israel’s violence against its
neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up
and ignore horrific Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive
massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish
community.
The extreme importance of the “Holocaust” in advancing Zionist/Jewish
interests ensures that Jewish groups and individuals will continue to promote
this falsification of history in the future.
Notes
|
[1]
|
Butz,
Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the
Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.:
Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 10.
|
|
[2]
|
Goldmann,
Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978,
pp. 122-123.
|
|
[3]
|
World
Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion, New York: WJC, 1948, pp.
141, 264, 266, 267.
|
|
[4]
|
Butz,
Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the
Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.:
Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.
|
|
[5]
|
Office of
the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis
Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (11 vols.), Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Govt., 1946-1948. (The “red series”) / NC&A, Vol. 1, pp.
134-135.
|
|
[6]
|
Weber,
Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of
Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.
|
|
[7]
|
Mason,
Alpheus T., Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, New York:
Viking, 1956, p. 716.
|
|
[8]
|
Delivered
at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day,
Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47.
|
|
[9]
|
Congressional
Record-House, Vol.
93, Sec. 9, Nov. 28, 1947, p. 10938.
|
|
[10]
|
Blumenson,
Martin, (ed.), The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1974, p. 750.
|
|
[11]
|
Foust,
Hal, “Nazi Trial Judge Rips Injustice,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23,
1948, pp. 1-2.
|
|
[12]
|
Remy,
Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 134.
|
|
[13]
|
Taylor,
Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir,
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
|
|
[14]
|
Faurisson,
Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” The
Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.
|
|
[15]
|
Stover,
Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The
Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland,
Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.
|
|
[16]
|
Brzezinski,
Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July
24, 2005, p. 26.
|
|
[17]
|
Ibid.
|
|
[18]
|
Jardim,
Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
|
|
[19]
|
Ibid., p. 83.
|
|
[20]
|
Halow,
Joseph, “Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of Franz Kofler et
al.,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No.
4, Winter 1989-1990, p. 459. See also Bower, Tom, Blind Eye to Murder,
Warner Books, 1997, pp. 304, 310, 313.
|
|
[21]
|
Weizsäcker,
Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics,
New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
|
|
[22]
|
Ibid., pp. 97-98.
|
|
[23]
|
Maguire,
Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New
York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
|
|
[24]
|
Frei,
Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and
Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
|
|
[25]
|
Weizsäcker,
Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics,
New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
|
|
[26]
|
Staeglich,
Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for
Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.
|
|
[27]
|
Halow,
Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for
Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
|
|
[28]
|
Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley,
Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery
Company, 1949, p. 195.
|
|
[29]
|
An
excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel,
Yoram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible”: The Conspiracy to
Convict John Demjanjuk, Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.
|
|
[30]
|
“The Nazi
Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
|
|
[31]
|
Weber,
Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of
Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 186.
|
|
[32]
|
Frei,
Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and
Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
|
|
[33]
|
Sworn and
notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich
Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
|
|
[34]
|
Speech at
the 1992 11th International Revisionist Conference in Irvine,
Cal., October 10-12. Quoted in Weintraub, Ben, The Holocaust Dogma of
Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order, Robert L. Brock, Publisher,
1995, p. xiii.
|
|
[35]
|
Zündel,
Ernst, Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7, Pigeon
Forge, Tenn.: Soaring Eagles Gallery, 2004, pp. 80-81.
|
|
[36]
|
Davies,
Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945, New
York: Viking Penguin, 2006, p. 489.
|
|
[37]
|
The
Dallas Morning News,
May 7, 2013, p. 9A.
|
|
[38]
|
Ibid.
|
|
[39]
|
The
Dallas Morning News,
Jan. 28, 2014, p. 2A.
|
|
[40]
|
https://www.adl.org/.
|
|
[41]
|
https://www.aipac.org/about.
|
|
[42]
|
Duke,
David, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, Mandeville,
La.: Free Speech Press, 2003, p. 334.
|
|
[43]
|
Wear,
John, “Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented,” Inconvenient
History, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2017 https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4881.
|
%20(1).jpg)