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.

The H put in perspective

 

AUSTIN J. APP    Spring 1980 The Journal of Historical Review

Austin J. App

I am highly gratified — and I am sure all the other speakers are too — that the Institute for Historical Review had the inspiration and the courage to organize this 1979 Revisionist Convention. It is badly needed and long overdue.

Every major war is conducted on tidal waves of propaganda, fair and foul. World War II, because it involved almost the whole world, and because the victors insisted on Unconditional Surrender, and because their side included the two most vengeful and vindictive ideologies in the world, Bolshevism and Zionism, also was guilty of the most shameless and unscrupulous propaganda so far on record. In part because of the never-forget — never-forgive mentality, World War II Allied atrocity propaganda has not ebbed down but kept in high tide, as with the recent phony documentary the NBC-TV Holocaust.

Therefore Historical Revisionism is more important than after any other war: the more atrocity — and hate-mongering vitiate the terms of peace, as at Yalta and Potsdam, the more Revisionism is needed to heal the wounds. The Institute for Historical Review does a vital service both to historical scholarship and also to basic values.

Since 1946, when mostly from small back-page items in brave little publications, I soon was sickened by mountains of evidence of the bestialities of the victors, especially the Soviet-Russians. In anger I published Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe. The subtitle was: “The Big Three Liberators at Work Having a Wonderful Time Raping and Debauching the Women of Germany, Austria and Hungary; Re-Educating Them to Become Good Christians.” I followed this with History’s Most Terrifying Peace. I got thousands and thousands of grateful letters. But I also discovered what hatred and recriminations historical truth provokes among the vindictive vipers in public affairs and in the press!

For me it feels good after thirteen years to see California again. In June 1966 I spoke at the San Diego Mann Jr. High School on “Police Brutality a Phony Cry.” But even farther back, in 1923-24 I spent a year in San Francisco, which climaxed with my taking a national scholarship examination (at St. Mary’s College). What I won was a Knights of Columbus four-year full Fellowship to the Catholic University of America, in D.C., a milestone in my career. Being here today unrolls the kaleidoscope of a lifetime before me.

It was a lifetime during which I was ever painfully conscious of the ugly lies about the world wars, which sabotaged the ideals expressed in the Fourteen Points and the Atlantic Charter. I am sorry to conclude that American foreign policy has never been consistently wise or fair; and, if anything, it is even now getting worse rather than better. General Douglas MacArthur in 1952 (U.S. News, 18 July1952) said:

“Foreign policy has been as tragically in error as has domestic policy. We practically invited Soviet dominion over the free peoples of Eastern Europe … permitting the advance of the Soviet forces to the West to plant the red flag of Communism on the ramparts of Berlin, Vienna and Prague, capitals of Western civilization.”

In a similar vein former President Herbert Hoover said,

“The souls of one quarter of mankind have been seared by the violation of that American promise [namely, Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter]. The ghosts of the Four Freedoms and the Atlantic Charter now wander amid the clanking chains of a thousand slave camps.” (U.S. News, 18 July 1952)

The tragic fact is that America, far from having made the world safe for democracy and self-determination, got into and won the war by spreading so much hatred and atrocity propaganda about the Germans that at the end the leaders and the people wanted, not justice, but vengeance and reparations. They wanted kangaroo war crimes trials for the losers. In place of self-determination, the victors dismembered Germany and Austria, tore provinces away and totally robbed and expelled the inhabitants — twelve million of them — shipped her factories to Soviet Russia, instituted ex post facto laws and trials to hang Germans. While having from the beginning declared Allied war criminals, including Jews, untouchable, the Israelis and Bolsheviks have bludgeoned West Germany to keep persecuting so-called Nazis even to the present day. This June for the third time, under the leadership of Simon Wiesenthal, and in disregard of the democratic rights of the German people, the Bonn Parliament revoked for another spell of years the Statute of Limitations.

Recently President Carter said that American “causes were always just.” William F. Buckley (Star, 19 July 1979) commented that,

“There was very little justice in the Mexican war, in the Spanish-American war, or in the seizure of Vera Cruz. … our intervention in Vietnam, rather than our failure to consummate our mission there, was the unjust thing.”

The unhappy mission of Revisionists will have to be to show that we got unjustly into both world wars against Germany, and, to our everlasting shame and sorrow, did probably more harm than any nation ever did before — in that the U.S., and only the U.S., had the means to lend-lease Soviet-Russia into Berlin — into the heart of Western Europe.

Anglo-American propaganda has managed to represent the Entente or the Allies as the “good guys” and the Germans and the Axis as the “bad guys.” This is to fool the people and foul up the peace. The intrinsic reason America intervened in European wars to destroy Germany was not ethics but power politics. When America saw that Germany was clearly the strongest nation in Europe, the U.S. began to side with the second — strongest there, Britain.

But the American people preferred neutrality. Therefore they had to be exposed to horrendous atrocity propaganda, such as that the Kaiser wanted to rule the world, that Germans cut the hands off Belgian babies, that submarine warfare made all Germans criminals. Even so, a third factor had to be mobilized to grease America’s entry into World War I. That factor was the Balfour Declaration.

Jews had for centuries been best treated by Germany and Austria and felt most congenial there, even to adopting Yiddish as their language. Consequently for the first two years of World War I American Jews were sympathetic to the Central Powers, and certainly against Czarist Russia. The British War Cabinet, in the face of German victories, decided to change the “very pro — German tendency among the wealthy American Jewish bankers and bond issuing houses” (See Conrad Grieb, The Balfour Declaration, N.Y., 1972, p. 3). The Zionist quid pro quo was for Britain to establish “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine” and the Zionists to get America into the war on the side of Britain. The Balfour Declaration followed, dated 2 November 1917.

Perverting the American Jews from neutrality to intervention against the Central Powers had been pushed for a year or more — with success. What helped to make moralistic Wilson a rabid interventionist was the illicit affair he had had with a colleague’s wife, Mrs. Peck (remarried, Mrs. Hulburt). Her stepson needed $40,000 to keep him out of jail. The stepmother asked President Wilson for the money, in exchange for which she would return to him the packet of love letters he had written her. When Wilson could not pay this amount, Samuel Untermeyer rushed to the rescue: If President Wilson would appoint a Jew to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, Untermeyer would settle Mrs. Peck’s claim. Thus it happened that America was “blessed” with its first Jew on the Supreme Bench, and the interventionists on 18 January 1916 got a radical Zionist in a prestige position to help get America into World War 1.

On 2 April 1917, using as a pretext the sinking of the Sussex (which in fact had not been sunk), Wilson asked Congress on 2 April 1917, for a declaration of war against Germany. Dr. E.J. Dillon, in his The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, wrote, “Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who in turn are swayed by their Jewish elements” (See Grieb. op. cit., p.7).

The Balfour Declaration sowed discord between the Germanic and the Jewish people, which in very fact led to World War II; to a Morgenthauistic and Bolshevik conclusion; to the expulsion by the Zionists of the Palestinians; and the sort of continuing friction which could bring about the Third World War. In this, all symptoms point to American’s being again involved, not on the side of justice and the Palestinians, but as in World War II on the side of the Jews. If Soviet Russia were then to help the Arabs, the lines for it would be drawn — with America once again, as in World War II, crusading on the wrong side.

During the Weimar Republic German Jews did not talk or act like patriotic Germans. They were nihilisic, they denigrated the Wehrmacht; Walter Mehring called the Stahlhelm dirt (Dreck), Kurt Tucholsky called German volunteers of 1914 victims of mass drunkenness, Arnold Zweig called the German people a nation of murderers and vote cattle. On my first visit to Germany in 1931 I was shocked by this Jewish pejorativeness. When during the Vietnam war I read the American press, the Washington Post and New York Times and most of the rest, I recalled the similarity.

When Hitler became Chancellor his Third Reich government was the victim of every possible worldwide resistance and smear. It was an indiscriminate opposition on the part of world Jewry, not only where Hitler was or might have been wrong, but also where he was obviously right, as when he demanded the self — determination for Austria, the Sudetenland, and Danzig which the victors in 1919 had denied. As early as 1933, before Hitler had harmed a single Jew, an International Jewish Boycott Conference, presided over by Samuel Untermeyer, the same who had paid Wilson $40,000 to appoint Brandeis Supreme Court justice in 1916, declared a crippling boycott on the Third Reich, while it was still in the throes of the inhuman reparations imposed at Versailles.

The boycott included not only the United States but some eight or more other countries. Simultaneously the anti — German propaganda of World War I was revived. And be it noted the International Jewish Boycott did not exempt the Jews of Germany from this hostile action. Nor did it keep it merely a Jewish action, but succeeded in pressuring the United States to cooperate with it: it imposed a general tariff against German goods as against the “most favored” status for all other nations, while International Financial interests tried to “call” sufficient German treasury notes to “break” Germany (see John Beaty, The Iron Curtain Over America, 1951, p. 63). The fact is that U.S. foreign policy from 1933 on was directed more to further Zionist interests rather than those of the U.S. or of the American people.

At Versailles the peace dictators had violated the right of self — determination of Austria, of the Sudeten Germans, and of the Corridor and Danzig. Germany had the right and the duty to champion this right for these people. Hitler did this, and was on the point of settling for a road through the Corridor and the return of Danzig, an ancient German city of 400,000.

What honest historians call the Unnecessary War broke out over this last injustice of Versailles, the worst and most costly war in history. Why did Poland refuse to negotiate? Because Britain guaranteed to go to war for Poland. Why did Britain give this foolish and tragic promise? Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, as related in the Forrestal Diaries, 27 Dec. 1945, reveals that the war broke out over Roosevelt’s catering to Zionist interests, not to America’s, nor even Britain’s. We read:

“Neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington … Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.”

Even worse, though the American people overwhelmingly wanted us to avoid the stupidity of intervention against Germany as in World War I, the same forces, Roosevelt and the Zionists, used every strategy to involve us. The insults and calumnies Zionist publicists hurled at Hitler, while the U.S. was still neutral, and before anyone had invented the atrocity story of the six million Jews “gassed”, might have provoked any sovereign nation to hit back. Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes wrote that there is

“No greater paradox in history than a war in behalf of Poland on the basis of the Jewish issue. There were in Poland, in 1933, six times as many Jews as in Germany, and they were surely treated as badly as were German Jews under Hitler.” (See Blasting the Historical Blackout, p.35)

Nevertheless, before there was any mention of a so — called “Holocaust,” and while America was still neutral, American Zionists, with the approval of the media, produced the most mass genocidic book in history: Theodore N. Kaufman in Germany Must Perish (Argyle Press, Newark, 1941) literally urged the sterilization of 48,000,000 German men and women of childbearing age, so that, he explained, Germanism will be extirpated in two generations.

Once, as Clare Booth Luce said, Roosevelt had lied America into the war by the back door — by provoking the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — the same Rooseveltians and Zionists immediately started not only to propagandize for Unconditional Victory but for destroying Germany forever. The propaganda thrust was not for achieving a durable peace soon, but for permanent Unconditional Hatred. Among the most bestial peace plans in history ranks that of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., assisted by a parcel of Zionists, chief of whom was Harry Dexter White, later exposed as a Communist spy. Morgenthau without a blush of shame for his monumental atrocity wrote Germany Is Our Problem (Harper, NY, 1945). It describes the Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany which Morgenthau presented to Roosevelt and Churchill at the Quebec Conference in 1944. Germany was to lose most of its territory, all of its manufacturing facilities, and live by farming but without machinery. The mines of the Ruhr were to be destroyed, its five million Germans deported — Morgenthau said he did not care how they would be taken care of. Even harsh peace advocates like Cordell Hull and H.L. Stimson had enough humanity left in them to be appalled. They protested that the plan would starve thirty million Germans to death. Yet Roosevelt and Churchill, who had so piously proclaimed the Atlantic Charter, approved this most murderous peace plan in history. 

During the last year of the war, with victory visible, Jewish publicists demanded a Morgenthau peace, did not urge what was ‘good for Europe and America’, but what ministered to the vindictiveness and eye — for — an — eyism of Zionists. Richard M. Bruckner wrote Is Germany Incurable? (Philadelphia, 1943); Dr. L.M. Birk, head, Director of Friends of Democracy, demanded that “Germany should be removed from the map;” and Louis Nizer in What to Do with Germany, published in 1944, urged that “150,000 German leaders should be tried and sentenced up to life.” In the meanwhile Stalin’s Jewish propaganda minister, Ilya Ehrenburg, inflamed the Bolshevik invaders of Germany to

“Kill. In Germany, nothing is guiltless. Neither the living nor the yet unborn … Ravish them (the German women) as booty. Kill, you gallant Red soldiers.”

When Jewish publicists urged vengeance on the Germans, they served the vindictiveness of the Zionists and the barbarous expansionism of Soviet Russia, not the good of the West Europeans and Americans. Even Stalin, when peace was in sight, restrained Ehrenburg’s hate propaganda as a hindrance to making peace.

In past wars, when the enemy surrendered, the atrocity propaganda ebbed off. But after World War II this propaganda intensified after Unconditional Surrender. We ask why. For whose benefit? A few days after Surrender, Prof. Friedrich Grimm was interviewed by (who unknown to him) was Sefton Delmer, the British War Propaganda Chief, who boasted, “I am of the Central Office you talked about: Atrocity propaganda — and with it we won the total victory.” When Dr. Grimm said, “I know, and now you must stop it!” Sefton Delmer retorted:

“No, now we shall start all the more! We shall continue this atrocity propaganda, we shall intensify it, until nobody shall accept a good word from Germans anymore, until all the sympathy you had in other countries shall be destroyed, and until the Germans themselves shall be so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!” (Quoted from Udo Walendy’s The Methods of Reeducation, p. 8)

Here is revealed the strategy of infamy of the selfproclaimed crusaders for world peace and brotherhood. The deluge of atrocity propaganda against Germany during and after the war triggered history’s most terrifying peace, and left a legacy of injustices which the U.S. is morally bound to try to correct. The worst of these is the monumental expulsion of fourteen million Oder — Neisse and Sudeten Germans, killing nearly three million of them, raping many of their women, and now letting Soviet Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia claim those ancient German lands.

Worse psychologically, and unique in history, is the reeducation and the monstrously clever creation of a German government that toadies to intemational, Zionistic interests. Harry Elmer Barnes, commenting on Prof. Hoggan’s visit to West Germany in April — May, 1964, and his hasty reception by Bonn and the media, wrote,

“The German situation in 1964 is a case of fantastic political masochism without parallel in human history. I know of no other instance in history where a people have almost frantically sought to cast the dark shadow of guilt upon themselves for a public crime they did not commit — exclusive responsibility for the second world war. … in 1964, those who sought the truth about 1939 were being vilified and even exposed to prosecution as public criminals by the Bonn Government.”

(Unpublished manuscript, Malibu, Calif. 1 July 1964)

What has limited true German autonomy; what has kept Washington and London from agitating to get the Wall out of Berlin and the Iron Curtain out of Central Europe; what has kept Washington from ever alluding to the human rights of the seventeen million Germans of the German Democratic Republic; what has, if you will, kept Washington from insisting that Rudolf Hess be freed from Spandau before another bushel of wheat be sold to Soviet Russia, is in the final analysis the Zionist and Communist agitation about the Third Reich’s alleged extermination of Jews.

The simple truth is that U.S. Foreign Policy has since Roosevelt’s Lend — Lease been essentially more in the interests of Israel than of America, or the good of mankind. Now and then someone lets the cat out of the bag. J. Bernard Hutton, in Hess: the Last of the Third Reich’s Imprisoned Leaders (MacMillan, NY, 1970, p. 180), commented:

“At Nuernberg, all the crimes of the Nazi leaders, and of the Allies, faded into insignificance beside this one shocking crime of racial persecution and annihilation. And this was what the Nuernberg Trial was about — it was for the crime against the Jews that the Nazi leaders were punished.”

Here the stark and horrid truth of American Foreign Policy is expressed. Hutton, poor brainwashed fellow (like most other publicists), believed the legend of the six million. He writes, “Millions of Jews were rounded up … driven to prepared killing centers where they were gassed …”

Because the atrocity story that the Third Reich exterminated six million Jews has been the root cause of the most monstrous peace treaty in history, because it continues to blackmail billions of unjust reparations to the promoters of the atrocity story, and because it continues to generate hatred and lies and perjuries, it must have the top priority of Revisionism. 

A few courageous historians like Prof. Paul Rassinier, Dr. Arthur R. Butz, the Jewish Concentration Camp survivor Josef Burg (Munich) and Richard Harwood, Heinrich Haertl, lately Hellmut Diwald, in part David Irving, are beginning to give evidence that the story of the six million exterminated Jews is both the most enormous and the most brazen and unfounded lie in all of recorded history. Dr. Butz called his blockbusting breakthrough The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. After 239 pages of evidence he concluded flatly, “The Jews of Europe were not exterminated and there was no German attempt to exterminate them.”

Since Dr. Butz wrote those fateful words, there has been such a frantic resurrection of the Holocaust as to resemble a death rattle. What intensified the frenzy was Dr. Butz’s corollary that if the extermination was proven false; if the “unspeakable criminal acts” on which the Luxemburg Treaty justified the reparations to Israel and Jews are faked; then the reparations become invalidated. The Anti — Defamation League sponsored an issue of eleven million copies of The Record: The Holocaust in History, with the slogan, “The Crime we cannot neglect or forget.” A most monumental world — wide propaganda production was the T.V. Holocaust, a hybrid documentary soap opera, in which all the lies of the “Six Million” are regurgitated. The “saintly” Jewish participants are called Weiss (White), the wicked Germans are Schwarz (Black). Fact, fiction, and falsehood are so cleverly mixed that most viewers will carry away only the customary lies and perjuries about the German treatment of Jews.

In Six Million Did Die (Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, Johannesburg, 1978, 137 pages) announces that “the truth shall prevail,” and purposes to refute Richard Harwood’s Did Six Million Really Die?, which sent and continues to send shockwaves through the circles committed to the lie of the six million. Suzman and Diamond denounce Harwood for writing that Germany is paying reparations “calculated on six million dead;” then insist that the reparations represent valid “material claims … unaffected by moral — historical claims” (p.53). They then quote Chancellor Adenauer (27 Sept. 1951) justifying the reparations in the Bundestag with the words, “unmentionable crimes were committed in the name of the German people, which call for moral and material compensation” (p.51). Obviously if the Third Reich treated Jews essentially no different from gypsies, or from Roosevelt’s treatment of the Japanese Americans, and much less badly than the Soviet — Poles — Czechs treated the Oder — Neisse and Sudeten Germans, then the reparations are totally uncalled for.

A few facts on the Luxemburg Agreement and how Germany became saddled with reparations to Israel and Jews all over the world of eighty million D — Marks, justifies Harwood’s contention that the Six Million accusation is “undoubtedly the most profitable atrocity allegation of all time.” In 1951, twenty — three Jewish organizations, in the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, demanded (1) funds for relief and rehabilitation of Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, (2) indemnification for injuries inflicted upon individual victims of Nazi persecutions.

On 21 March 1952, Bonn and Israel began to negotiate in the Hotel Oud Wassenen in The Hague. On 7 May 1952, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Moche Scharett, declared in the Knesset that if Bonn did not advance new guarantees and payments, Israel would end negotiations with international consequences that would produce a crisis in Germany. Nahum Goldman, head of World Zionism, warned Adenauer that if Germany did not pay up there would be “violent reaction of the whole world” expressing “deep sympathy with the martyrdom of the Jewish people during the Nazi period.” More impudently, the London Jewish Chroniclewrote blackmailingly, “The whole international weight of World Jewry will be mobilized against Germany, if Bonn’s offers of reparations remain unsatisfactory.” (Echoes of 1933?)

All the while Bonn had presented to Commissioner John McCloy the draft of what was to become the Grundvertrag — the Constitution — of West Germany. But McCloy kept delaying ratification. Adenauer wrote in his Memoirs,

“It was clear to me that, if the negotiations with the Jews failed, the negotiations at the London Debt Conference would also run aground, because Jewish banking circles would exert an influence … which should not be underestimated.”

Thereupon Adenauer, abandoning “democracy” for the time being, went over the heads of his Ministers and of the German people, and committed himself and West Germany to pay Israel 3.45 billion D — Marks reparations; 80 million the first two years. Thereupon Commissioner McCloy, and France and Britain, on 26 May 1952, ratified the Constitution giving West Germany a limited sovereignty. Adenauer had had to agree “that they would not dispute any of the pronouncements of the Allies during and after World War II.” This included the Nuremberg pronouncements, and the “acceptance of the legend of the ‘extermination’ of six million Jews” (Quoted from The South African Observer, July 1979).

Then after further negotiations about details, the Luxemburg Agreement was signed on 19 September 1952. Its first Whereas accuses Germans of “unspeakable criminal acts … perpetrated against the Jewish people during the National Socialistic regime of terror” (Six Million Did Die, p. 53). This certainly founds the reparations to Jews and Israel on what came to be called the extermination of six million Jews.

From the beginning, the Federal Republic of Germany was a cleverly disguised and managed satellite “democracy” controlled by Washington (and London) for the prime benefit of Israel. Never were the German people given a chance to vote on these reparations. Nor were they ever asked to vote on whether they approved on continuing war crimes trial or whether they really wanted the Statute of Limitations honored (as in every other democratic country).

Adenauer’s first pledge of 3.45 billion D — Marks to Israel, in order to get McCloy to ratify the Constitution, was the Niagara Falls of reparations to Jews all over the world and to Israel, a state non — existent when the “Holocaust” was said to have occurred. This Luxemburg Agreement, under the umbrella of Washington, in the first twelve years provided Israel with the following commodities and services:

“West Germany built an entire merchant marine for Israel (including 59 ships and a drydock), repaired and rebuilt Israel’s telephone and telegraph network, constructed a copper plant, steel plant and five power plants in Israel, laid 280 kilometers of irrigation pipeline, laid new railroad tracks over most of the depleted railway system, for which it delivered 400 boxcars, passenger coaches and diesel locomotives. One Kibbutz received $200,000.”

(Quoted from Instauration, August, 1978.)

This fairy — godmother bonanza to Israel was kept a deep dark secret from the German people, under the shadow of a peculiar Zionistic — Washingtonian democracy. It was also kept secret from the Arabs, who lost three wars against an attacking enemy equipped with the world’s best German war materiel. When the Arabs found out, it created a convulsion that destroyed Chancellor Erhard and ever since proved a millstone for the Christian Democratic Party — to the advantage of the socialistic and pro — Russian Social Democrats of Willy Brandt and Wehner and Bahr.

The enormity of German reparations to Israel has been kept as secret as possible from the German people and the world. One has to assume that the puppet Bonn government is ashamed to reveal that it has been and is distributing possibly a hundred billion D — marks to Jews all over the world, to Israel, to Jewish institutions, and to sponsor pensions to every Jew — not who was “gassed” but who was allowed to leave Hitler’s Germany safely and with most of his property. All this while neither the victors nor Bonn have made any realistic attempt to help the fourteen million Oder-Neisse and Sudeten Germans get indemnities from the Communists. Bonn may also fear the end someday of German patience and an outburst of wrath.

Israel too is very secretive about the payments and pensions the Israelis got or are getting from Germany. Perhaps they too are ashamed. More probably, secretly conscious of the enormous blackmail most of these reparations represent, they fear that if the Western world became fully informed of the swindle, it would stop turning the other cheek and demand first of all the full truth, and secondly, justice for the Arabs. But here and there some Jewish writer boasts of the goldmine the defamed and slandered Germans have been to them. Nahum Goldmann, in his book The Jewish Paradox (London, 1978), boasted that whereas at the Nuremberg Trials one Jewish organization suggested only the ridiculously small sum of twenty million marks of reparations, he managed to induce Germany to pay eighty million D — Marks (p.166 — 8). Goldmann boasts that without these German reparations Israel would hardly possess half of its “Infrastruktur”: “All trains, all ships, all electrical works, as well as a major portion of industry is of German origin.” Then he adds “this passes over entirely the individual pensions which are being paid to the survivors. At the present time Israel still collects annually hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency”. And ingeniously and unscrupulously, even now, other wartime disadvantages to Jews are presented for claims. The Washington Observer, for example, on 15 December 1970, carried the following “Observation”:

“The Jewish World Federation of Nazi Victims is pressing another claim for payment from Germany. This time they want $20 billion for lost wages for two million Jews who were allegedly forced by the Nazis to work in factories during the war.”

And Jewish publicists never bother to try to reconcile the alleged gassing of six million with for example the employment of two million working and surviving in the factories!

Surely, the atrocity story of the extermination of six million Jews has been and still is the most profitable invention and swindle in world history. So organized and so supported by perjury is this “manna” from the German taxpayer that one might suspect virtually every Zionist in the world or someone in his family of being a beneficiary of a pension or an indemnity based on the lie of the six million.

The damage this lie of the six million has done is enormous. It ruined the peace; it inspired the awful injustices of the Yalta and Potsdam peace treaties. But a world that wants to lay claim to justice and decency must correct the wrongs of those treaties. The beginning must be made by establishing the truth about the policy of the Third Reich towards Jews.

In 1973, in my booklet, The Six Million Swindle (40 pages, Boniface Press, 8207 Flower Ave., Takoma Park, Md. 20012, 50 cents), I entitled one short section: “Eight Incontrovertible Assertions on the Six Million Swindle.” Since then brave and scholarly studies have destroyed every foundation for the “Holocaust” and exposed the story of the six million “gassed” as an impudent lie. They have not invalidated, they have confirmed, my assertions. I conclude by quoting them:

First, the Third Reich wanted to get Jews to emigrate, not to liquidate them physically. Had they intended extermination, 500,000 concentration camp survivors would not now be in Israel to collect fancy indemnities from West Germany.

Second, absolutely no Jews were “gassed” in any concentration camps. There were crematoria for cremating corpses who had died from whatever cause, including especially also the victims of the genocidic Anglo — American air raids.

Third, the majority of Jews who died in pogroms and those who disappeared and are still unaccounted for fell afoul in territories controlled by the Soviet Russians, not in territories while under German control.

Fourth, most of the Jews alleged to have met their death at the hands of Germans were subversives, partisans, spies, and criminals, and also often victims of unfortunate but internationally legal reprisals. One reason for my denouncing the Nuremberg prosecutors as lynchers is that they hanged Germans for actions they themselves adopted!

Fifth, if there were the slightest likelihood that the Nazis had in fact executed six million Jews, World Jewry would scream for subsidies with which to do research on the question, and Israel would throw its archives and files open to historians. They have not done so. On the contrary they have persecuted anyone who tries to investigate impartially and even call him an anti — Semite. This is really devastating evidence that the figure is a swindle.

Sixth, the Jews and the media who exploit this figure have never offered a shred of valid evidence for its truth. At most they misquote Hoettl, Höss, and Eichmann who spoke only casually of what they were in no position to know or to speak on reliably. Nor do the Jews themselves credit these witnesses as reliable even when they comment on what they could know, e.g., that the concentration camps were essentially work camps, not death camps!

Seventh, the burden of proof for the six million figure rests on the accusers, not the accused. This is a principle of all civilized law. Proving true guilt is easier than proving true innocence. It is hardly possible for a man accused of cheating on his wife to prove that he did not cheat on her. Therefore the accuser must prove his charge. This responsibility the Zionists and Bolsheviks have not accepted, and the browbeaten Germans have rather paid billions than to dare to demand proof!

Eighth, obvious evidence that the figure of six million has no scientific foundation is that Jewish scholars themselves present ridiculous discrepancies in their calculations. And honest ones, whom we recognize by the fact that their co-racialists smear — terrorize them, and even beat them up, invariably lower the six million estimate.

Those who throw around large round numbers, like six million gassed, four million in Auschwitz, two million by mobile units in Russia, let them come up with the proofs — the graves, the bones, the ashes. Six million corpses do not just disappear. They accuse, so they must prove. But in their default, it seems that it is up to us Revisionists to show that the figure of six million is a totally unsubstantiated, brazen lie. What slender means I have had at my disposal, including some ten trips to Europe, including Dachau, Arolsen, and many interviews, induce me to estimate the number of Jewish casualties under the Third Reich at 300,000 in round numbers. Until Jewish publicists come up with solid evidence to the contrary, which so far they have not even realistically tried to do, I will consider 300,000 casualties — some from executions, from reprisals, most of them (like Anne Frank) from diseases.

Holocaust, Hate Speech and Were the Germans so Stupid?

The late British video-journalist Anthony Lawson, a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over, expertly introduces the viewer to the basic concepts and consequences of scepticism about the orthodox Holocaust narrative.