Sunday, October 31, 2021

WHO OWNS THE WORLD?



This brilliant documentary by Tim Gielen reveals how a small group of super rich criminals have been buying virtually everything on earth, until they own it all. From media, health care, travel, food industry, governments... That allows them to control the whole world. Because of this they are trying to impose the New World Order.

Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, George Soros, ...

Learn more here:
Https://www.stopworldcontrol.com


BlackRock was founded by Jews. Banking is about 90% owned by Jews. It's easy to go to Wikipedia about the bank in question go to "History" find founders, open them in Wikipedia go to "Early Life" or "Personal Life" where it is usually stated whether the person is of Jewish descent or not. 

It is most effective to do this search yourself to experience that this is not a coincidence!  Only a small percentage of Jews belong to these Jewish elites and should therefore not be judged as a whole!

Friday, October 29, 2021

Dr. Josef Mengele: Angel of Death—or Saviour to Hundreds?



By John Wear- from Inconvenienthistory.com website

At this link: https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/13/1/7585

Josef Mengele (1911-1979) is famous for his alleged participation in the selection of prisoners to be executed in alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. American historian David Marwell writes: “Mengele himself admitted this activity to a number of people, including his son, and there is absolutely no question about his culpability.” Mengele is also known as a nightmarish medical doctor whose research at Auschwitz has flooded our common vocabulary with superlatives depicting evil and depravity.

With the exceptions of Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, no man has been so vilified as the personification of Nazi evil as Dr. Mengele. This article disputes this widely held image of Mengele.

Early Career

Josef Mengele was born into a conservative and conventional Catholic family in Günzburg, Germany. As a young man he was intelligent, studious and popular. Mengele joined the Greater German Youth League in 1924, becoming the leader of its Günzburg chapter from 1927 until he left the organization in 1930. After graduating from the Humanistische Gymnasium in Günzburg, Mengele left home in April 1930 to attend the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich.

Mengele began the study of medicine and its related disciplines of human genetics and anthropology. It was common for German students to study at a number of universities, and Mengele would matriculate at five different universities before he was finished with his studies. On August 12, 1932, after completing his fifth semester of the study of medicine, Mengele passed the preliminary medical examination, which tested him in six subjects (anatomy, physiology, physics, chemistry, zoology and botany).

In the fall of 1933, in addition to medicine, Mengele began to study anthropology under the prominent anthropologist Theodor Mollison. Mengele was eventually awarded a doctor of philosophy degree, summa cum laude, on November 13, 1935. He continued his medical studies and successfully passed the state examination in medicine in the summer of 1936. Mengele then completed his one-year practicum, equivalent to an internship in the United States, at the University Institute for Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene in Frankfurt.

Mengele was hired by this Frankfurt Institute in 1937 to conduct scholarly research and publishing of it. Mengele also applied for membership in the National-Socialist Party. 

He became a member of the National-Socialist Party in May 1938, and joined the SS around this time. While at the Frankfurt Institute, Mengele rendered numerous professional judgments about individuals’ racial origins and “racial acceptability” in fulfillment of official requirements widely imposed by the ruling National-Socialist Party. Historian Sheila Faith Weiss determined that Mengele’s judgments were often beneficial to the person being examined, finding that individuals were not “full Jews” more than two-thirds of the time.

Mengele originally was granted a deferment from military service during World War II. However, on June 15, 1940, Mengele was required to attend a military-physician training course, where he passed the junior-physician examination.

Mengele became a member of the Fifth Waffen-SS Viking Division, a frontline combat unit, around the end of 1940. Mengele served as a physician on the Eastern Front, where his performance was praised by his superiors. The chief physician of his division wrote about Mengele: “Especially competent troop doctor. Promotion most warmly recommended!” Mengele received his promotion in April 1943.

Mengele was wounded in combat and declared medically unfit for (further) combat. After a four-month leave at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology in Berlin, Mengele entered service as a medical doctor at Auschwitz on May 30, 1943. It was from his service at Auschwitz that Mengele became known as the infamous “Angel of Death.”

Selections

Along with numerous other physicians, Mengele routinely made selections of people who were capable of working from the transports of new arrivals at Auschwitz. He said his job had been to classify those “able to work” from those “unable to work.” He also said that he tried to grade as many people as possible as “able to work.” Mengele correctly denied that he had sent anyone at Auschwitz to homicidal gas chambers. Mengele repeatedly said he had never harmed anyone at Auschwitz.

The forensic evidence refutes the possibility of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Reports, articles, testimony and videos from Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter, Walter Lüftl, Germar Rudolf, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Carlo Mattogno, John C. Ball, Richard Krege and David Cole have conclusively shown that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau during World War II. 

The books The Real Case for Auschwitz by Carlo Mattogno[12] and The Chemistry of Auschwitz by Germar Rudolf[13] are probably the best (least biased) books for anyone wanting to make a thorough study of this subject. They are not available from Amazon; they must be acquired directly from the publisher, Castle Hill Publishers.

The documentary evidence, which indicates that a high percentage of inmates at Birkenau were disabled, also refutes the claim that homicidal gas chambers existed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Oswald Pohl, in a secret report to Heinrich Himmler dated April 5, 1944, stated that there were 67,000 inmates in the entire Auschwitz-Birkenau camp complex, of whom 18,000 were unable to work. In Birkenau there were a total of 36,000 inmates, of whom “approximately 15,000 are unable to work.” Rather than sending disabled Jews to homicidal gas chambers, Mengele and other doctors at Auschwitz worked to heal and restore many thousands of inmates.

Interestingly, Auschwitz veterans have attributed a superhuman work effort to Mengele in regard to the selection process. For example, at the well-publicized 1963-1965 Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, a Jewish inmate who claimed to have unloaded incoming transports insisted at the trial that Mengele alone was always there for selections. When the judge commented, “Mengele cannot have been there all the time,” the witness said: “In my opinion, always. Night and day.”  If Mengele had worked that hard in the selection process, he wouldn’t have had time to perform his other medical duties.

Many putative former Auschwitz inmates have also failed to accurately describe Mengele. Some have described Mengele as “very Aryan looking” or “tall and blond,” although Mengele was actually of medium height, with dark hair and a dark complexion.

Twins Research      

Mengele was interested in the study of twins, especially identical twins. Twins selected for Mengele’s observation at Auschwitz were given good food, comfortable beds and hygienic living conditions to build up their health. The purpose of building up the twins’ health was to prevent infections from interfering with the results of studies. Many of the Auschwitz twins adored Mengele, affectionately calling him “Uncle Pepi.”

Despite claims that Mengele performed cruel and lethal experiments on twins at Auschwitz, almost all of the twins Mengele enrolled in his research at Auschwitz survived the war. In fact, so many twins survived Mengele’s research that, in 1984, they helped form an association titled Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Experiment Survivors (CANDLE). This association’s name is a misnomer, because if the experiments were deadly, how could there be so many survivors? Also, if young children unable to work had been immediately selected for gassing at Auschwitz as claimed by “Holocaust” historians, how could so many children at Auschwitz survive the war?

Carlo Mattogno has prepared a long list of children and twins at Auschwitz who survived the camp In addition to the fact that almost all of the twins at Auschwitz survived the camp, Mattogno’s research provides the following proofs that Mengele did not commit his alleged crimes against twins at Auschwitz:

1. The archives of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum contain numerous documents signed by Dr. Mengele, but no document attests to Dr. Mengele’s presumed crimes. No document shows that Mengele killed even one child, or that a child was ever killed on his order.

2. All of the surviving paperwork shows that Mengele’s research was limited to anthropological and behavioral studies, and did not include any surgical or other intrusive procedures.

3. The twins enrolled in Mengele’s program participated in the program for months on end, with none of them dying while under Mengele’s care.

Other “Cruel Experiments”    

Mengele has also been accused of conducting cruel and inhumane experiments for no medical purpose. For example, Vera Alexander, a Jewish prisoner who lived in barracks for twins in the Gypsy Camp, testified:

One day Mengele brought chocolate and special clothes. The next day an SS man, on Mengele’s instructions, took away two children, who happened to be my favorites: Guido and Nino, aged about four. Two, perhaps three days later the SS man brought them back in a frightening condition. They had been sewn together like Siamese twins. The hunchbacked child was tied to the second one on the back and wrists. Mengele had sewn their veins together. The wounds were filthy and then festered. There was a powerful stench of gangrene. The children screamed all night long. Somehow their mother managed to get hold of morphine and put an end to their suffering.

Germar Rudolf writes about this and other fanciful accounts of Mengele’s alleged cruel experiments:

There is “eyewitness” testimony galore about utterly senseless, cruel experiments allegedly performed by Mengele, like changing eye colors by injecting dye into an eye, transplanting limbs and organs to random places in the body, and other nonsense. While studying hundreds of “survivor” testimonies, I’ve come across a good share of these insults to the intellect, so insulting, indeed, that I will not waste my time listing them here.

 

Google the net, and you’ll stumble across these Halloweenish horror stories all over the place. People evidently like to gawk at guts and gore, so the survivors, protected from scrutiny by their aura of sainthood, cater to that need. Interestingly, the alleged victims of these experiments, quite frequently the very witnesses telling these tales, show no signs whatsoever of these cruel procedures. And it goes without saying that there is not the slightest proof for any of it; no documents, no autopsies, no medical examination on survivors proving it. Nothing. It’s all a pack of lies, sweet and simple.

Miklos Nyiszli  

The Jewish Hungarian physician Miklos Nyiszli published a book of memoirs shortly after World War II about his experiences at Auschwitz. These memoirs have been used by mainstream historians as the primary source of Mengele’s alleged crimes at Auschwitz. Nyiszli’s memoirs, however, contain numerous errors and weaknesses that call into question the veracity of his claims.

Dr. Nyiszli said that he wrote innumerable autopsy reports and signed them with his tattoo number. These reports were signed by his superior, Dr. Mengele, and then shipped to a medical center in Berlin-Dahlem. Nyiszli also wrote that he sent countless autopsy specimens to Berlin-Dahlem, and that he received replies about them with detailed scientific commentary or instructions. Based on descriptions in his book, Nyiszli performed at least 170 autopsies while at Auschwitz. Despite these autopsy reports allegedly written and signed by Nyiszli, and the “countless” packages of autopsy specimens sent to a medical institute in Berlin-Dahlem, there is not a single piece of paper in the documentary record bearing Nyiszli’s signature.

Nyiszli also alleged in his book that, starting in August 1944, he was the doctor of the Sonderkommando for the Birkenau crematoria. The Romanian Jewish physician Charles Sigismund Bendel made the same claim at the Belsen trial in late 1945. Despite the fact that these two doctors presumably spent at least four months together in the same place, they were totally ignorant of each other. They also produced totally contradictory testimony in regard to their experiences at the Birkenau crematoria.

Nyiszli made numerous false claims in his memoirs about the alleged homicidal gas chambers and crematoria at Birkenau. For example, Nyiszli wrote regarding a crematorium at Birkenau that “what is really impressive is the column of fire 8-10 meters high which gushes from its mouth between the lightning rods at its four corners.”  As documented by many researchers, it is physically impossible for flames to gush from the smokestacks of crematoria.  

Nyiszli wrote about the aftermath of gassings at Birkenau:

The bodies do not lie all over the length and breadth of the room but rather in a single, story-high heap. The explanation for this is that the fallen gas granules first permeate the air layer above the concrete floor with their deadly vapors and only gradually saturate the higher layers of air in the room. This forces the unfortunate victims to trample each other, to climb over one another. In the higher layers the gas thus reaches them later. What a terrible struggle for life must take place there, and yet the time won is only one or two minutes in all!

Nyiszli totally invented these after-gassing scenes. Since hydrocyanic vapors are lighter than air, the diffusion of gas in the gas chambers would not rise from the floor to the ceiling. The gassing victims would have no occasion to climb over one another to escape the poison gas—the contrary, if anything. Nyiszli also incorrectly wrote that the crematoria were located two kilometers from the Birkenau Camp.  In reality, the crematoria were located inside the camp.

The falsity of Nyiszli’s testimony is shown by the fact that he was not used as a witness at the I.G. Farben trial at Nuremberg. Charles D. Provan wrote: “Although Dr. Nyiszli was summoned to Nuremberg to testify in the I.G. Farben trial, he was not called to the stand, presumably because he was only at Monowitz for about two weeks, and could provide little in the way of useful evidence. At some point in the trial, he was released to return home to Romania.”

Carlo Mattogno writes in regard to Nyiszli: “It is impossible to ascribe good faith to this ‘eyewitness,’ who was and remains a mere impostor. In consequence, the essential eyewitness testimony of Dr. Mengele’s alleged crimes at Auschwitz crumbles inexorably, and the rest of the legend along with it.”

Mattogno concludes:

Dr. Mengele’s alleged crimes are not proven by any document. No document shows that Mengele ever killed even one single child, or that one single child was ever killed on his orders. The essential and sole witness, the one upon whose testimony the whole accusation was based, was an extraordinarily creative imposter. Dr. Mengele’s closest collaborators, including the presumed essential witness, and at least 543 of his “victims” were allowed to live: but how, then, are we to believe seriously in the fairy tale of the “Angel of Death” of Auschwitz?

Last Years

Mengele was not regarded as a principal war criminal immediately after World War II. After escaping from a U.S. prison camp in Bavaria, Mengele spent the next several years working under an assumed name as a farmhand in Germany. In the summer of 1949, Mengele headed for Argentina, where scores of Germans had found shelter. Since the Cold War in Europe had dampened enthusiasm for prosecuting war criminals, for a period of time in the 1950s Mengele felt safe from prosecution. Mengele even used his real name in 1958 to become co-owner of a successful pharmaceutical firm.

Bowing to the pressure of world opinion, the German judiciary issued a warrant for Mengele’s arrest in July 1959, and formally applied to Argentine authorities for his extradition. Mengele escaped arrest by moving in the spring of 1960 to Paraguay and then later to Brazil. Rewards totaling over $3 million were offered for Mengele’s capture. With the Israeli secret police, Brazilian police, and numerous other Nazi hunters after him, Mengele became one of the most wanted men in the world.    

Mengele’s only son, Rolf, secretly traveled to Brazil in 1977 to talk to his father about what had happened at Auschwitz during the war. Night after night Rolf asked his father about his time in Auschwitz. When Mengele had finally completed his statements, Rolf asked his father why, if he felt so sure of his innocence, he had not turned himself in? Rolf said his father replied, “There are no judges, only avengers.”

Rolf said that his father stated that he was not responsible for gassings at Auschwitz, and that twins in the camp owed their lives to him. Mengele said that he personally had never harmed anyone in his life. Sensing Rolf’s incredulity, Mengele shouted at him: “Don’t tell me you, my only son, believe what they write about me? On my mother’s life I have never hurt anyone.”

Eventually father and son agreed that no useful purpose would be served in pursuing their discussions further. Rolf said that, unfortunately, he realized that his father “would never express any remorse or feeling of guilt in my presence.”  What Rolf Mengele failed to realize is that his father felt no remorse because Mengele was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of committing at Auschwitz.

A version of this article was originally published in the November/December 2020 issue of The Barnes Review.

 

Endnotes

 

[1] Marwell, David G., Mengele: Unmasking the “Angel of Death,” New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2020, p. 64.

[2] Ibid., pp. 64-65.

[3] Weber, Mark, “Lessons of the Mengele Affair,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall 1985, p. 377 https://codoh.com/library/document/lessons-of-the-mengele-affair/en/.

[4] Marwell, David G., Mengele: Unmasking the “Angel of Death,” New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2020, pp. 4-7.

[5] Ibid., pp. 7, 15.

[6] Ibid., pp. 17, 22-23.

[7] Ibid., pp. 31, 33, 35.

[8] Ibid., pp. 40, 45, 55-56.

[9] Lifton, Robert Jay and Amy Hackett, “Nazi Doctors,” in Gutman, Yisrael and Berenbaum, Michael, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 311.

[10] Marwell, David G., Mengele: Unmasking the “Angel of Death,” New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2020, pp. xii, 65.

[11] Posner, Gerald L. and Ware, John, Mengele: The Complete Story, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986, p. 279.

[12] Mattogno, Carlo, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 2nd ed., Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-real-case-for-auschwitz-en/389/.

[13] Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas ChambersA Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz-en/449/.

[14] Nuremberg document NO-021, NMT (The “Green Series”), Vol. 5, pp. 384-385.

[15] Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 356. https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-hoax-of-the-twentieth-century-en/388/

[16] Weber, Mark, “Lessons of the Mengele Affair,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall 1985, p. 380 https://codoh.com/library/document/lessons-of-the-mengele-affair/en/.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Posner, Gerald L. and Ware, John, Mengele: The Complete Story, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986, p. 35.

[19] Rudolf, Germar, “Josef Mengele—the Creation of a Myth,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2017 https://inconvenienthistory.com/9/2/4609.

[20] Mattogno, Carlo and Nyiszli, Miklos, An Auschwitz Doctor’s Eyewitness Account: The Bestselling Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele’s Assistant Analyzed, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2020, pp. 391-407. https://shop.codoh.com/book/an-auschwitz-doctors-eyewitness-account-en/467/

[21] Mattogno, Carlo, “Dr. Mengele’s ‘Medical Experiments’ on Twins in the Birkenau Gypsy Camp,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2013 https://inconvenienthistory.com/5/4/3223.

[22] Kubica, Helena, “The Crimes of Josef Mengele,” in Gutman, Yisrael and Berenbaum, Michael, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1998, p. 324.

[23] Rudolf, Germar, “Josef Mengele—the Creation of a Myth,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2017 https://inconvenienthistory.com/9/2/4609.

[24] Mattogno, Carlo and Nyiszli, Miklos, An Auschwitz Doctor’s Eyewitness Account: The Bestselling Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele’s Assistant Analyzed, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2020, pp. 9-16. https://shop.codoh.com/book/an-auschwitz-doctors-eyewitness-account-en/467/

[25] Ibid., pp. 9, 12-13, 19.

[26] Ibid., pp. 13, 304-308.         

[27] Ibid., p. 22.

[28] Ibid., p. 41.

[29] Mattogno, Carlo, “Dr. Mengele’s ‘Medical Experiments’ on Twins in the Birkenau Gypsy Camp,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2013 https://inconvenienthistory.com/5/4/3223.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Provan, Charles D., “New Light on Dr. Miklos Nyiszli and His Auschwitz Book,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, Jan./Feb. 2001, p. 29 https://codoh.com/library/document/new-light-on-dr-miklos-nyiszli-and-his-auschwitz/en/.

[32] Mattogno, Carlo, “Dr. Mengele’s ‘Medical Experiments’ on Twins in the Birkenau Gypsy Camp,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2013 https://inconvenienthistory.com/5/4/3223.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Kubica, Helena, “The Crimes of Josef Mengele,” in Gutman, Yisrael and Berenbaum, Michael, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1998, pp. 329-330.

[35] Ibid., pp. 330-331.

[36] Posner, Gerald L. and Ware, John, Mengele: The Complete Story, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1986, pp. 274, 278.

[37] Ibid., p. 279.

[38] Ibid., pp. 279-280.


Thursday, October 28, 2021

Some Jews Who Discredited Allied War-Crimes Trials

 


By John Wear from InconvenientHistory.com

The International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg, the 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT) and numerous other trials are repeatedly cited as proof of the Holocaust story. For example, Jewish American judge Norbert Ehrenfreund wrote:

“Germans of the 21st century know what happened during the Nazi era because they learn about it in school, through television programs and various other sources. And this information did not arise from rumor or questionable hearsay. Nor was it a fabrication of the Jewish people, as suggested by some anti-Semitic factions. Proof of the Holocaust was based on the record of solid evidence produced at the [Nuremberg] trial.”

This article documents some of the Jewish attorneys, investigators and witnesses whose words and actions prove that the Allied-run war-crimes trials were politically motivated proceedings which failed to produce credible evidence of the so-called Holocaust.

Benjamin Ferencz

Benjamin Ferencz, a Jewish American war-crimes investigator, was born in Transylvania and grew up in New York City before earning his law degree from Harvard. He was assigned to investigate the concentration camps at Buchenwald, Mauthausen and Dachau after the war.

Ferencz states in an interview that he did not have a high opinion of the Dachau war-crimes trials conducted by the U.S. Army:

“I was there for the liberation, as a sergeant in the Third Army, General Patton’s Army, and my task was to collect camp records and witness testimony, which became the basis for prosecutions…But the Dachau trials were utterly contemptible. There was nothing resembling the rule of law. More like court-martials. For example, they might bring in 20 or 30 people, line them up, each one with a number on a card tied around his neck. The court would consist of three officers. None of them had any legal education as far as I could make out; it was coincidental if they did. One officer was assigned as defense counsel, another as prosecutor, the senior one presiding. The prosecutor would get up and say something like this: We accuse all of you of being accomplices to crimes against humanity and war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners of war and other brutalities in the camp, between 1942 and 1943, what do you have to say for yourself? Each defendant would be given about a minute to state his case, which was usually, not guilty. One trial for instance, which lasted two minutes, convicted 10 people and sentenced them all to death. It was not my idea of a judicial process. I mean, I was a young, idealistic Harvard law graduate.”

Ferencz further states that nobody including himself protested against these procedures in the Dachau trials.[4] Ferencz later said concerning the military trials at Dachau:[5]

“Did I think it was unjust? Not really. They were in the camp; they saw what happened…But I was sort of disgusted.”

The defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial and later trials at Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit. 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.”

Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world-peace advocate, further relates a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explained 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. Any Harvard-law graduate knows that such evidence is not admissible in a legitimate court of law.

Robert Kempner

Robert Kempner was the American Chief Prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg in which 21 German government officials were defendants. Kempner was a German Jew who had 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, for example, 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.

Dr. Arthur Butz concludes that “there are excellent grounds, based on the public record, for believing that Kempner abused the power he had at the military tribunals, and produced ‘evidence’ by improper methods involving threats and various forms of coercion.”

Torture of Witnesses

Jews often used torture to help convict the German defendants at Nuremberg and other postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence is the confession of Rudolf Höss, the former commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at the IMT was the most important evidence presented of a German extermination program. Höss said that more than 2.5 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-Nazi book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler stated 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 Nuremberg was obtained by torture, and is therefore not credible evidence in establishing 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 that “It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”

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.

In addition to torturing 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 Witness Testimony

False witnesses were used at most of the Allied war-crimes trials. 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.”

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?”

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.”

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.”

Jewish Prosecutorial Role in Trials

A Russian asked Benjamin Ferencz why the Americans didn’t just kill the German war criminals. Ferencz replied: “…we don’t do that. We’ll give them a fair trial.”  Robert Kempner stated that the Nuremberg and other trials resulted in “the greatest history seminar ever held.”   In reality, Germans did not receive fair trials after World War II, and the trials they did receive played a major role in establishing the fraudulent Holocaust story.

Jews played a crucial role in organizing the IMT at Nuremberg. Nahum Goldmann, a former president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), stated in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of WJC officials. Goldmann said that only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg Tribunal.   The WJC also played an important but less obvious role in the day-to-day proceedings in the trial.

Two Jewish U.S. Army officers also played key roles in the Nuremberg 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 Nuremberg 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 Nuremberg Tribunal:[33]

“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. Based on Jewish influence, numerous other Holocaust-related trials were later held in West Germany, Israel and the United States, including the highly-publicized trials in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann and John Demjanjuk.

Jewish influence in Germany has resulted in a defendant being assumed to be guilty merely for being in a German concentration camp during the war. For example, after being acquitted by the Israeli Supreme Court, John Demjanjuk was charged again on the grounds that he had been a guard named Ivan Demjanjuk at the Sobibor camp in Poland. On May 11, 2009, Demjanjuk was deported from Cleveland to be tried in Germany. Demjanjuk was convicted by a German criminal court as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at Sobibor and sentenced to five years in prison. No evidence was presented at Demjanjuk’s trial linking him to specific crimes. Demjanjuk died in Germany before his appeal could be heard by a German appellate court.

This new line of German thinking is breathtaking in its unfairness. It incorrectly assumes that some German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of exterminating Jews when, in fact, none of them was. Moreover, this German law finds a person guilty merely for being at any camp. People can be found guilty of a crime even when no evidence is presented that they committed a crime. Jewish groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center have been prosecuting and convicting other elderly German guards under this line of German legal thinking.

Conclusion

The IMT and later Allied-run war-crimes trials were a travesty of justice organized by Jews who wanted to demonize and convict Germans of murder. These Allied-run trials were politically motivated proceedings that falsely accused Germans of conducting a policy of genocide against European Jewry.

Notes

[1]Ehrenfreund, Norbert, The Nuremberg Legacy: How the Nazi War Crime Trials Changed the Course of History, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007, p. 140.
[2]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, p. 32.
[3]Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 17.
[4]Ibid.
[5]Lowe, Keith, The Fear and the Freedom: How the Second World War Changed Us, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017, p. 198.
[6]Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 6.
[7]Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[8]Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[9]Ibid., p. 83.
[10]Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
[11]Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[12]Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
[13]Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
[14]Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
[15]Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, p. 169.
[16]Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
[17]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.
[18]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.
[19]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.
[20]Staeglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.
[21]Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
[22]Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
[23]Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
[24]Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
[25]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.
[26]“The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
[27]Stuart, Heikelina Verrijn and Simons, Marlise, The Prosecutor and the Judge, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2009, p. 16.
[28]Bazyler, Michael, Holocaust, Genocide, and the Law: A Quest for Justice in a Post-Holocaust World, New York: Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 106.
[29]Goldmann, Nahum, The Autobiography of Nahum Goldmann: Sixty Years of Jewish Life, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, pp. 216-217.
[30]Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 170.
[31]Conot, Robert E., Justice at Nuremberg, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 10-13.
[32]Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute of Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.
[33]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.
[34]Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.
[35]The Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2013, p. 9A.