Re: The Holocaust/Holohoax

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:01 pm

Posted by adimski on 07/22/2015

Web site of Eric Hunt's effort, an all-encompassing website on the subject:

http://gaschamberhoax.com/

I watched his The Last Days of the Big Lie (2009) and it's great! From the first minutes i just sampled, the most recent ones look terrific. Smile

For french speaking people, Vincent Reynouard @ Youtube is still, while on the run from French authorities!, producing very well written and delivered historical notes and commentaries. Great material! Cites historic documents extensively. Great service for truth!

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:01 pm

Posted by aleksander2015

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:02 pm

Posted by banazir on 08/04/2015

I see your 6 million and raise you 20 million...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:02 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 08/04/2015

Aug 3, 2015 23:52:54 GMT banazir said:
I see your 6 million and raise you 20 million...

How fucking dare they? They must be getting incredibly desperate, or else they wouldn't have to spit out such high and ridiculous figures.

You would have to be an absolute bloody moron to fall for this patently absurd rubbish.

What is next, Hitler founded ISIS?

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:03 pm

Posted by lizardking on 08/05/2015

The Enigma of Lawrence
Desmond Hansen

T. E. Lawrence was born in North Wales on 15 August 1888. He was the illegitimate son of Sir Thomas Chapman, an Anglo-Irish baronet. His mother was Scottish. He became a legend in his own time as Lawrence of Arabia-a brilliant active life which ended in a motorcycle "accident" when he was only 46. Many famous people attended his funeral: statesmen, writers, politicians. Winston Churchill wept and called him "one of the greatest beings of our time." Lawrence is buried in a simple grave at Moreton in Dorset, which together with his cottage at Clouds Hill nearby has become a shrine to his admirers and all people dedicated to the ideals of British and Arab nationalism.

When told of the tragic death of T. E. Lawrence, Sheikh Hamoudi of Aleppo exclaimed in his grief: "It is as if I had lost a son. Tell them in England what I say. Of manhood, the man; in freedom free; a mind without equal; I can see no flaw in him."

Lawrence was indeed a very great man, a great thinker and a great military leader and strategist. He planned, organized and led a national rebellion of the Arab peoples and gave them the first opportunity in 400 years to become an important Middle Eastern power. But for Zionism he would have succeeded in his plan. Unfortunately his work was betrayed by Anglo-French and Zionist interests over which neither he nor the liberated Arabs were powerful enough to prevail. As Lawrence himself put it, the opponents of Arab nationalism had bigger guns, that was all.

When war broke out in 1914, Lawrence was 26. He was fluent in Arabic, he had a deep knowledge of Arab tribalism and knew Arabia better than any soldier living. He was drafted into Military Intelligence with the rank of Captain. Several highly independent intelligence operations were given to him. One task was to make a personal approach to the Turkish Commander, Khahil Pasha with a bribe of 1 million pounds to allow Major General Townsend's beseiged force of 12,000 British soldiers at Kut who were starving, to go free. The offer failed and the survivors had to surrender.

The historic role Lawrence was to play as leader of the Arab revolt did not emerge until January 1916 when he became attached to the Arab Bureau in Cairo. By then, spurred on by British suggestions, the Arabs had attempted a revolt against their Turkish overlords by attacking the fortified city of Medina. Sir Henry McMahon, Kitchener, and others in Cairo conceived the idea of harnessing the forces of Arab guerillas to help defeat Turkey. Acting on initiative, promises were made to the Moslem Arabs of independence if they united and fought alongside the Christian British forces under the direction of British officers. The British Government endorsed the agreement and Lawrence accepted the task of planning and organizing the campaign under the nominal sovereignty of Feisal, Prince of Mecca.

In his epic work on the Arab revolt, Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence describes his personal feelings and attitudes; especially his bitterness when his success was undone by the governments of the victorious powers. For, Lawrence knew by November 1917, that all the Arab efforts and his own were to be betrayed. The aims of the Balfour declaration and the Sykes-Picot plan were to create a Jewish state in Palestine and partition the rest of Arabia between British and French colonial interests-which meant Rothschild interests. Although the full implications may not have dawned on Lawrence, the mere fact that the French were to get Syria was bad enough; hence his bitterness; but also his self-mortifying determination to entrench the Arabs in Damascus ahead of Allenby and the British Imperial forces at all costs to try to sabotage the conspiracy.

Lawrence at the head of the Arab armies had captured Damascus and installed a provisional Arab government with himself as head, deputizing for King Feisal. Three days later he left Damascus having established a semblance of order over which Feisal could stake his claim. The objective was an Arab State with Damascus as the capital. But soon this was overthrown by the French with considerable bloodshed. France was determined to stick by the Picot demands and annex the whole of Syria and this was done with force which the Arabs were unable to resist. Feisal, having been robbed and deposed of his kingdom in Syria was fobbed-off with Iraq and Lawrence was called back in 1921 to inspire and guide this make-shift policy. So after 400 years of Turkish rule, the Arabs were once again a force to be reckoned with in the modern world, though very much below the power and strength which Lawrence had intended for them.

After his efforts in the Colonial Office in 1921-22, working alongside Winston Churchill, he tendered his resignation once Feisal had been enthroned in Iraq. As a measure of recognition (and to attempt to placate the bitterness he held toward the allies) the British Government offered Lawrence the position of Viceroy of India. He turned it down; and as a measure of his disdain enlisted in the ranks of the Royal Air Force under the name of Ross. He was discovered while working at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough and discharged. After all, he had been a full Colonel in 1918. He enlisted again, this time in the Tank Corps-adopting the name of Shaw. In 1925, he succeeded in getting transferred back to the RAF. But he was never given any rank beyond Leading Aircraftsman. Usually, it is said that this was due to Lawrence's lack of ambition. But the truth is, he was kept down. After all, he had committed the unpardonable offense of spurning the Establishment.

Lawrence moved in a wide circle of influential people, many of whom were associated with the Round Table and other quasi-political groups. During the early thirties, he became friendly with Lord and Lady Astor and the so-called "Cliveden Set," Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times was a life-long friend and sponsored Lawrence's fellowship of All Souls College, Oxford in 1919-20 in order to write about the Arab Revolt. Dawson, Lioned Curtis, the Mosleys and the Astors were all supporters of the idea of a central European bulwark against Soviet Communism, in the shape of National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy. Equally they were anxious to curtail French military expansionism, especially where this was likely to affect British possessions in the Middle East. To all this, Lawrence was a subscriber, though for security reasons while he was in the RAF he would have had to lie low, being a signatory to the Official Secrets Act. Also, his friendship with people like George Bernard Shaw the Socialist and Henry Williamson the Blackshirt would have been viewed with great suspicion by the authorities. Just exactly what was said or planned at some of these private meetings at which Lawrence was present may never be known.

What is known however is that Lawrence had been under some pressure from Henry Williamson and others to meet the leaders of National Socialist Germany including Hitler.

"The new age must begin ...Hitler and Lawrence must meet..." wrote Henry Williamson. Lawrence had been out of uniform for barely a month when press reporters besieged his cottage, Clouds Hill, Dorset. When was he going to see Hitler? Was he prepared to become a dictator of England? He avoided these awkward questions by leaving his abode and touring the West Country, but not before the press had physically attacked his cottage, throwing rocks at the roof and smashing the tiles. Lawrence had to use his fists on one man. Then the police brought in day and night protection.

On 13 May 1935, he wheeled out his massive Brough Superior motorcycle for the last time and rode down to Bovington camp to send a telegram in reply to a letter received that morning from Henry Williamson, proposing the vital meeting with Adolf Hitler. The telegram of agreement was dispatched and then on the way back the accident happened. He was just 200 yards from the cottage. At least four witnesses saw it: two delivery boys on bicycles, an army corporal walking in the field by the road and the occupants of a black van heading toward Lawrence. After the crash the black van raced off down the road and the corporal ran over to the injured man who lay on the road with his face covered in blood. Almost immediately an army truck came along and Lawrence was put inside and taken to the camp hospital where a top security guard was imposed. Special "D" notices were put on all newspapers and the War Office took charge of all communications. Police from Special Branch sat by the bedside and guarded the door. No visitors were allowed. The cottage was raided and "turned over," many books and private papers were confiscated. Army intelligence interrogated the two boys for several hours. The corporal was instructed not to mention the van as being involved in the accident. Six days later Lawrence died and two days later an inquest was held under top security which lasted only two hours. The boys denied ever seeing a black van which contradicted the statement by the army corporal who was the principal witness. But no attempts were made to trace the vehicle and the jury gave a verdict of "accidental death." He was buried that same afternoon.

The following year, 1936, saw the banning of political parades in uniform and the forced abdication of King Edward, another patriot who like Lawrence had to be disposed of by the warmongers who were determined to destroy both Germany and Britain in another European war. And they succeeded.

On Lawrence's gravestone is carved these words: "The hour is coming and now is when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God and they that hear shall live."

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:04 pm

Posted by The Modern Gnostic on 08/24/2015

The enclosed article has content that comes from Patton's diary and journals. He was fastidious about his daily journal and diary entries so it's right from the horse's mouth. Here's a quote from Wiki "After World War II, Patton expressed anti-Semitism and treated Jews badly in the former concentration camps – called displaced persons camps after the war – that he ran for the United States. According to the New York Times, Patton wrote into his journal that people believe “the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews who are lower than animals..." As you read this article you'll encounter his justifications for that remark and I think you'll agree. Of course Wiki put's in their anti-semetic spin as you'd expect. He was subsequently destroyed by the Zionist press and Eisenhower, himself a Zionist jew.

What he witnessed during WW2 was something he could barely reconcile. He realized that America was allied with the wrong side. He witnessed the sheer brutal barbarity of the Bolshevik Communist Jews and was sickened by their behavior and ideology. He was looking right into the evil heart of the Talmudic Khazarian Jews that had been expelled 109 times dating back to 250 A.D. The synthesis of Talmudic Judaism (which is derived from the ultra radical Zaddikim tribe) and the mass conversion to Talmudic Judaism by the mongols of Khazaria was a match made in cabalist hell. Zaddikim was changed to Tzadikim and to be "Tzadik" is righteous. (Hebrew: צַדִיקִים נִסתָּרים, "hidden righteous ones")

Patton realized that Germany and Hitler was the last great hope for Europe before being plunged into the total control and depravity of the Khazarian/Bolshevik Communist Jews. Patton is considered to be one of the greatest American Generals in history and his greatest story was never told.

George Patton was a highly decorated war hero from WWII who led the Third Army to victory in many campaigns. After the war, General Patton was tasked with control of the larger portion of American occupied Germany, and his job was to dole out justice to the newly defeated enemy. It was the summer of 1945, and after the end of the fighting, General Patton started to get a grip on what had really transpired around him.

As General Patton started to actually become acquainted with the defeated Germans and America’s Soviet allies, Patton finally realized what he was in the midst of, and his opinions about the war, and both our enemies and allies changed drastically.What Patton realized was recorded in his diary, and in letters to everyone from his family and friends, to other military and government personnel.It’s a good thing that these writings were preserved, so that we could see how even America’s “most fightingest General” knew that something was wrong with the outcome of WWII. In those writings it is clear that Patton realized that these new “allies” of ours were more of a danger than the Germans ever were.I only wish that Patton were still alive today to see with the hindsight that is available to us now. We can only wish that Patton would have known then what many of us know now about the dangers of jew Bolshevik communists, but Patton quickly caught on that something was a miss when the war ended.Patton was not only labeled the “fightingest” General in the American Army, he was the Army’s youngest ever “Master of the Sword” and redesigned the sword carried by Army personnel, which became known as the Patton saber. Patton was also an olypmic athlete who competed in pistol shooting, running, equestrian, and swimming events.To top it all off, George Patton was a valiant fighter, and a pioneer of armored warfare, who made numerous improvements to tank warfare in the form of communications, tank movements, etc.

The rest of this article is a summary compiled by someone else from a book called the Patton Papers, published in 1947, which contained the diary entries, letters, and other writings.What follows from this point on is not my own writing, but is recorded here in fair use for readers of SN to get a good glimpse of how even those who are duped by the jewish war machine can come to see the truth about world events.It also goes to show that many of those who fought for the jews, never quite knew what it was they were doing until it was too late. General Patton discovered the truth, and for that, he paid with his life. This is real history, and this we shall NEVER FORGET.On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.Patton said to Patterson:“Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.”Patterson replied, “Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture.”Patton rejoined:“I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof — that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days.After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down.There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!”

Patton’s urgent and prophetic advice went unheeded by Patterson and the other politicians and only served to give warning about Patton’s feelings to the alien conspirators behind the scenes in New York, Washington, and Moscow.The more he saw of the Soviets, the stronger Patton’s conviction grew that the proper course of action would be to stifle communism then and there, while the chance existed.Later in May 1945 he attended several meetings and social affairs with top Red Army officers, and he evaluated them carefully. He noted in his diary on May 14:“I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits.”And Patton’s aide, General Hobart Gay, noted in his own journal for May 14:“Everything they (the Russians) did impressed one with the idea of virility and cruelty.”Nevertheless, Patton knew that the Americans could whip the Reds then — but perhaps not later. On May 18 he noted in his diary:“In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better.”Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife:“If we
have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger.”He realized the Soviet danger and urged a course of action which would have freed all of eastern Europe from the communist yoke with the expenditure of far less American blood than was spilled in Korea and Vietnam and would have obviated both those later wars not to mention World War III

Patton next came to appreciate the true nature of the people for whom World War II was fought: the Jews.Most of the Jews swarming over Germany immediately after the war came from Poland and Russia, and Patton found their personal habits shockingly uncivilized.He was disgusted by their behavior in the camps for Displaced Persons (DP’s) which the Americans built for them and even more disgusted by the way they behaved when they were housed in German hospitals and private homes.He observed with horror that“these people do not understand toilets and refuse to use them except as repositories for tin cans, garbage, and refuse . . . They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor.”He described in his diary one DP camp,“where, although room existed, the Jews were crowded together to an appalling extent, and in practically every room there was a pile of garbage in one corner which was also used as a latrine. The Jews were only forced to desist from their nastiness and clean up the mess by the threat of the butt ends of rifles. Of course, I know the expression ‘lost tribes of Israel’ applied to the tribes which disappeared — not to the tribe of Judah from which the current sons of bitches are descended. However, it is my personal opinion that this too is a lost tribe — lost to all decency.”Patton’s initial impressions of the Jews were not improved when he attended a Jewish religious service at Eisenhower’s insistence. His diary entry for September 17, 1945, reads in part:“This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large, wooden building, which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue, which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about halfway up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . . "The smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.”

These experiences and a great many others firmly convinced Patton that the Jews were an especially unsavory variety of creature and hardly deserving of all the official concern the American government was bestowing on them.Another September diary entry, following a demand from Washington that more German housing be turned over to Jews, summed up his feelings:“Evidently the virus started by Morgenthau and Baruch of a Semitic revenge against all Germans is still working. Harrison (a U.S. State Department official) and his associates indicate that they feel German civilians should be removed from houses for the purpose of housing Displaced Persons. There are two errors in this assumption. First, when we remove an individual German we punish an individual German, while the punishment is — not intended for the individual but for the race.Furthermore, it is against my Anglo-Saxon conscience to remove a person from a house, which is a punishment, without due process of law. In the second place, Harrison and his ilk believe that the Displaced Person is a human being, which he is not, and this applies particularly to the Jews, who are lower than animals.”One of the strongest factors in straightening out General Patton’s thinking on the conquered Germans was the behavior of America’s controlled news media toward them.At a press conference in Regensburg, Germany, on May 8, 1945, immediately after Germany’s surrender, Patton was asked whether he planned to treat captured SS troops differently from other German POW’s. His answer was:“No. SS means no more in Germany than being a Democrat in America — that is not to be quoted. I mean by that that initially the SS people were special sons of bitches, but as the war progressed they ran out of sons of bitches and then they put anybody in there. Some of the top SS men will be treated as criminals, but there is no reason for trying someone who was drafted into this outfit . . .”

Despite Patton’s request that his remark not be quoted, the press eagerly seized on it, and Jews and their front men in America screamed in outrage over Patton’s comparison of the SS and the Democratic Party as well as over his announced intention of treating most SS prisoners humanely.With great reluctance, and only after repeated promptings from Eisenhower, he had thrown German families out of their homes to make room for more than a million Jewish DP’s — part of the famous “six million” who had supposedly been gassed — but he balked when ordered to begin blowing up German factories, in accord with the infamous Morgenthau Plan to destroy Germany’s economic basis forever. In his diary he wrote:“I doubted the expediency of blowing up factories, because the ends for which the factories are being blown up — that is, preventing Germany from preparing for war — can be equally well attained through the destruction of their machinery, while the buildings can be used to house thousands of homeless persons.”Similarly, he expressed his doubts to his military colleagues about the overwhelming emphasis being placed on the persecution of every German who had formerly been a member of the National Socialist party. In a letter to his wife of September 14, 1945, he said:“I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POW’s to work as slaves in foreign lands (i.e., the Soviet Union’s Gulags), where many will be starved to death.”

Despite his disagreement with official policy, Patton followed the rules laid down by Morgenthau and others back in Washington as closely as his conscience would allow, but he tried to moderate the effect, and this brought him into increasing conflict with Eisenhower and the other politically ambitious generals. In another letter to his wife he commented:“I have been at Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans can sink so low. It is Semitic, and I am sure of it.”And in his diary he noted:,“Today we received orders . . . in which we were told to give the Jews special accommodations. If for Jews, why not Catholics, Mormons, etc? . . . We are also turning over to the French several hundred thousand prisoners of war to be used as slave labor in France. It is amusing to recall that we fought the Revolution in defense of the rights of man and the Civil War to abolish slavery and have now gone back on both principles.”His duties as military governor took Patton to all parts of Germany and intimately acquainted him with the German people and their condition.

He could not help but compare them with the French, the Italians, the Belgians, and even the British. This comparison gradually forced him to the conclusion that World War II had been fought against the wrong people.After a visit to ruined Berlin, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945:“Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist. It’s said that for the first week after they took it (Berlin), all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped. I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”This conviction, that the politicians had used him and the U.S. Army for a criminal purpose, grew in the following weeks. During a dinner with French General Alphonse Juin in August, Patton was surprised to find the Frenchman in agreement with him. His diary entry for August 18 quotes Gen. Juin:“It is indeed unfortunate, mon General, that the English and the Americans have destroyed in Europe the only sound country — and I do not mean France. Therefore, the road is now open for the advent of Russian communism.”Later diary entries and letters to his wife reiterate this same conclusion. On August 31 he wrote:“Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. it’s a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.” And on September 2: “What we are doing is to destroy the only semi-modern state in Europe, so that Russia can swallow the whole.”By this time the Morgenthauists and media monopolists had decided that Patton was incorrigible and must be discredited. So they began a non-stop hounding of him in the press, a la Watergate, accusing him of being “soft on Nazis” and continually recalling an incident in which he had slapped a shirker two years previously, during the Sicily campaign.A New York newspaper printed the completely false claim that when Patton had slapped the soldier who was Jewish, he had called him a “yellow-bellied Jew.”Then, in a press conference on September 22, reporters hatched a scheme to needle Patton into losing his temper and making statements which could be used against him.

The scheme worked.The press interpreted one of Patton’s answers to their insistent questions as to why he was not pressing the Nazi-hunt hard enough as: “The Nazi thing is just like a Democrat-Republican fight.” The New York Times headlined this quote, and other papers all across America picked it up.The unmistakable hatred which had been directed at him during this press conference finally opened Patton’s eyes fully as to what was afoot. In his diary that night lie wrote:“There is a very apparent Semitic influence in the press. They are trying to do two things: first, implement communism, and second, see that all businessmen of German ancestry and non-Jewish antecedents are thrown out of their jobs.“They have utterly lost the Anglo-Saxon conception of justice and feel that a man can be kicked out because somebody else says he is a Nazi. They were evidently quite shocked when I told them I would kick nobody out without the successful proof of guilt before a court of law . . .“Another point which the press harped on was the fact that we were doing too much for the Germans to the detriment of the DP’s, most of whom are Jews. I could not give the answer to that one, because the answer is that, in my opinion and that of most nonpolitical officers, it is vitally necessary for us to build Germany up now as a buffer state against Russia. In fact, I am afraid we have waited too long.”And in a letter of the same date to his wife: “I will probably be in the headlines before you get this, as the press is trying to quote me as being more interested in restoring order in Germany than in catching Nazis. I can’t tell them the truth that unless we restore Germany we will insure that communism
takes America.”

Eisenhower responded immediately to the press outcry against Patton and made the decision to relieve him of his duties as military governor and “kick him upstairs” as the commander of the Fifteenth Army.In a letter to his wife on September 29, Patton indicated that he was, in a way, not unhappy with his new assignment, because“I would like it much better than being a sort of executioner to the best race in Europe.”On October 22 he wrote a long letter to Maj. Gen. James G. Harbord, who was back in the States. In the letter Patton bitterly condemned the Morgenthau policy; Eisenhower’s pusillanimous behavior in the face of Jewish demands; the strong pro-Soviet bias in the press; and the politicization, corruption, degradation, and demoralization of the U.S. Army which these things were causing.He saw the demoralization of the Army as a deliberate goal of America’s enemies:“I have been just as furious as you at the compilation of lies which the communist and Semitic elements of our government have leveled against me and practically every other commander. In my opinion it is a deliberate attempt to alienate the soldier vote from the commanders, because the communists know that soldiers are not communistic, and they fear what eleven million votes (of veterans) would do.”In his letter to Harbord, Patton also revealed his own plans to fight those who were destroying the morale and integrity of the Army and endangering America’s future by not opposing the growing Soviet might:“It is my present thought . . . that when I finish this job, which will be around the first of the year, I shall resign, not retire, because if I retire I will still have a gag in my mouth . . . I should not start a limited counterattack, which would be contrary to my military theories, but should wait until I can start an all-out offensive . . .www.themoderngnostic.com/?p=41315

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:14 pm

Posted by lizardking on 08/27/2015

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 Tumblr_npmbjwPw3I1us0emro1_500

The Occult Roots of Nazism

by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, U.K.: Aquarian Press, 1985. Hardbound, 293 pages, illustrations, ISBN 0-85030-402-4.
Reviewed by William Grimstad

Although the gas chamber mythos has been the center-piece of ongoing Establishment efforts to diabolize the Third Reich, there has been a parallel attempt to remove that epoch from objective consideration by casting it in a less homicidal but more bizarrely demoniacal light. Linking National Socialism to occultism has served several purposes: making the Hitler period look spooky, or at least a bit "kooky"; alienating people of traditional religious outlook, and not least, cashing in on the lucrative bookselling fad of recent years sometimes called the "occult explosion."

Such books as The Morning of the Magicians or The Occult and the Third Reich first broached the notion that the National Socialist era, in addition to its multifarious other evils, had actually been conjured up by wicked wirepullers behind the visible leaders. We were introduced to the enigmatic figures of Rudolf von Sebottendorf and other supposed adepts of the fabled Thule Society, which now have become household words among even casual students of the period; and behind them an earlier strain of philosophers who, shockingly enough, had erected a religious worldview upon "Aryan" racialism.

Conveniently, the German regime's avowed pro-Aryan policies now could be faulted not only as leading to the Holocaust. They also became the butt of ridicule for travestying science or of opprobrium for trying to harness powers of evil. Still better, the always awkward fact of broad electoral support for the National Socialist program in one of the world's most advanced countries likewise could be explained: an entire nation had been mesmerized by baleful cultic Svengalis.

Goodrick-Clarke's book was published several years ago in England, but has begun finding its way into the book trade here. As it represents a substantial research effort, one naturally wonders about the author's inclinations. Little biographical information is furnished, but the acknowledgments do contain a couple of names of interest. The first one thanked is Ellic Howe, a leading personality within the United Grand Lodge of England, reputedly the world's predominant Masonic organization. Howe writes frequently in Ars Quatuor Coronatorum, the controlled circulation research journal of the lodge, whose enmity to National Socialism is glaring.

The author next salutes Norman Cohn, the British Holocaustorian who has made a career of microscopically analyzing the sensational Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a literary impetus for the later Holocaust. On the strength of such thinly veiled pro-Zionist essays as his Warrant for Genocide, Cohn worked his way to the top of the historical hierarchy at Oxford, and there supervised Goodrick-Clarke's studies, where the present volume began as a Ph.D. thesis.

Revisionists may raise eyebrows at such auspices, but my impression is that Goodrick-Clarke generally avoids the tendentiousness of his mentors. Although marred by annoying knee-jerks and tics of minor residual bias, this remains a thorough and levelheaded inquiry into a topic severely mauled by hacks. It also offers, for the first time known to me in English, a window into the amazingly extensive and frankly quite fascinating German nationalist literature of the period.

His subtitle, "The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935," refers to a body of ideas which once had a substantial following in the German-speaking world. The ideas centered on the writings of two Austrians, Guido von List (1848-1919) and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels (1874-1954). Ariosophy is used by the author as a generic for this "lore of the Aryans" that was expounded by the two men.

Guido von List (the aristocratic von was self-assumed) was raised a Catholic but early took interest in Nordic paganism, which he coupled with a profound attraction to nature. An ardent rebel against modernity, which he associated with the spreading metropolis of fin-de-siècle Vienna and all its decadent ways, List's happiest moments came on rambles through the Austrian countryside, and he began his literary career with newspaper pieces on the rural scene, depicted as highly spiritualized. He was concerned to furnish an ideological backdrop to the pan-German movement led by such nationalist politicians as Georg von Schoenerer and Vienna Mayor Karl Lueger.

Later, List worked out what was essentially a clairvoyant reconstruction of the distant past, elaborating a vast mythology of an ancient Wotanist priesthood, the Armanenschaft. They supposedly held sway in Europe until the Christian conversion, but now were confined to clandestine status, perpetuating the ancient Aryan lore through a small élite, among whom he numbered himself.

Eventually, List built up a fairly wide readership and a Guido von List Society, sponsored by prestigious people, was established. With the coming of the First World War, the appeal of such a philosophy grew greatly, especially in Germany, and List also found a wider field for analysis of the destructive elements arrayed against the Central Powers. He dubbed these the Great International Party, in a fair anticipation of the World Zionist Organizations and Trilateral Commissions of our own day.

Adolf Josef Lanz also was born in Vienna, of middle-class Catholic parents. Like List, he assumed an aristocratic pedigree and the pompous Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels moniker, although his claim to this title was never disproven. He was inspired by List and became one of the older guru's early backers, but Lanz's Ariosophical interests were different. As a young man he had entered a Cistercian abbey as a novice monk, and although he left after a time, he remained enthralled by medieval Catholicism.

Lanz was disinterested in Listian oracular recreations of the German past, but he did have his own candidate for an ancient Aryan secret priesthood that supposedly had survivors in the modern era: the Knights Templar, a Catholic order suppressed for heresy in the 1300s. He founded his Ordo Novi Templi (Order of the New Temple) around 1907 in the medieval castle of Burg Werfenstein, which perched dramatically above the Danube with a swastika and fleur-de-lis flag over its tower. Goodrick-Clarke is much perturbed at the racialist slant of this literature. Actually, such material was commonplace in many Western countries at that time: imperial Britain had its "white man's burden" ethic purveyed to a huge audience by poet Rudyard Kipling; and here in America, anthropologist Lothrop Stoddard could publish a best-selling book entitled The Rising Tide of Color.

As the author's exhaustive analysis, if not his own conclusions, makes clear, however, Ariosophy played only a very incidental role in the rise of National Socialism.Although Hitler may have known of List, there is no proof of it, and only an indication that he had read Lanz's Ostara magazine as a young man. He was not impressed, to judge by his ridicule of "völkisch wandering scholars" and antiquarian cultists in Mein Kampf.

Of far greater import in the political arena was Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorf von der Rose (born Adam Alfred Rudolf Glauer in 1875), although his role too has been distorted. Goodrick-Clarke has done an excellent job of analyzing the available material on this colorful international adventurer. Once again, however, Sebottendorf's involvement with Freemasonry, Muslim dervishes and the Turkish revolution cannot be convincingly tied to his pan-Germanism, except that they may have predisposed him to backstage activism. What he does deserve credit for is having the political savvy, virtually alone among a welter of confused nationalists and anti-Communists in southern Bavaria, to see what was needed in Germany and the conviction to stake his personal resources on that.

After joining the moribund Germanenorden in 1916, Sebottendorf quickly revived the Bavarian section and began using the nominal cultural society as a center for political action during the brewing Marxist revolution, adopting the Thule Society name as a "cover" to divert Red suspicions. He purchased the Beobachter newspaper (later the National Socialists' Völkischer Beobachter); stockpiled weapons; schemed to kidnap the Communist leader, Kurt Eisner; infiltrated spies into the Communist cadres, and organized the Kampfbund Thule paramilitary group which joined with other Free Corps units in the successful attack on Munich's Communist government on April 30, 1919.

Most important, of course, was Sebottendorf's recognition of the need for a new type of worker-based party to deal with the unprecedented Red threat. He founded the German Workers Union in 1918, the most active member of which was Anton Drexler, who went on to start the German Workers Party, which was joined, taken over, and renamed the National Socialist German Workers' Party by Adolf Hitler in 1919.

Meanwhile, Sebottendorf's political career ended abruptly that same year, when Communists seized seven Thule Society members and executed them on April 30, triggering international outrage and at last galvanizing the Munich citizenry into ousting the Marxists. Sebottendorf was blamed for having allowed the Thule membership list to fall into the Reds' hands, although there were those who suggested that this was his Machiavellian intent all along, as the ensuing creation of martyrs played a key role in the nationalist victory.

In any case, Rudolf von Sebottendorf was in no way a puppet-master of the much later Third Reich, which indeed treated him with some hostility. Rather, he was an unusually shrewd political operative at a critical formative period, whose personal courage kept him battling in Red Munich long after many others had retreated. One wonders exactly what situation would have awaited the inexperienced Hitler had Sebottendorf not laid this groundwork.

* * * * *

Anyone trying to arrive at a rational understanding of this important period has been painfully aware of the jabberwock literature that has held the floor since the Second World War, ranging from popular novels through journalistic exposes to solemn histories, and treating of everything from "Holocaust studies" through postwar "Nazi war criminal" skullduggeries.

Although it may seem extreme to link a Lucy Dawidowicz with the latest Hitler-is-alive tabloid tale, the fact is that they are on a continuum of literature which enforces a Manichean, total-evil view of the National Socialist era, from the academic down to the comic-book levels, a peculiar situation that does not exist in any other known area of inquiry.

Moreover, it is not that the literary establishment simply neglects to repudiate this trashier output. In fact, it has actively promoted it. The books in question are published by major houses, and get conventional review and promotional attention. Such a state of affairs would never exist in regard to sensationalized titles critical of Israeli Zionism, for example. Clearly, then, a Revisionist laying to rest of this material is long overdue; the present book, despite its lacks, is a start.

Goodrick-Clarke traces the origin of the Lovecraftian school of Third Reich historiography to the self-proclaimed German rocket engineer, Willy Ley, who emigrated here in 1935 and spent the ensuing years working on Hollywood science fiction films. In 1947, Ley wrote an article for a "pulp" fantasy magazine ridiculing pseudoscience in Germany, which he claimed included a Berlin sect attempting to conjure up the mysterious vril force described by British novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton in his The Coming Race (1871), supposedly conveying to its adepts total power over the world.

This was sufficient to spark off, in 1960, the first and probably most enduring of the genre, The Morning of the Magicians by French journalists Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier. A vast farrago of misquotations, sheer fabrications and exclamation points, this opus touched base on the major points that were to become standard for the type:

The rise and early success of National Socialism were due, not to sober choice by the German electorate, followed by hard work of a capable people, but to supernatural forces;
The forces are described as either discarnate, like Bulwer's vril, or as the doings of godlike "ascended masters" in some remote and exotic location, usually Tibet;
It is possible to get into contact with this power, identified by Pauwels and Bergier as "the Master of the World or the King of Fear," and as it were plug in on the current for one's own ends in the mundane world;
Such liaison was a top-priority project of the German government, despite its other distractions;
The government's channel was the Thule Society, which in turn was the creature of the two evil geniuses, the playwright and early Hitler friend, Dietrich Eckart, and a professor of geopolitics at the University of Munich, Dr. Karl Haushofer. They used the Thule Society to control the state through Hitler, who is invariably described in the canon as a semi-hysterical "mediumistic" personality.
Later savants, such as Dietrich Bronder in his Before Hitler Came (1964), with its title rather crassly lifted from Sebottendorf's 1933 memoir, introduced the Ariosophical dimension of List and Lanz, including the pair in the Thule clique, along with Hitler, Mussolini, Göring and a who's who of Axis luminaries. With this, the menu was complete and numerous others could begin rehashing it, most notably Michel-Jean Angebert, The Occult and the Third Reich (1971); Trevor Ravenscroft, The Spear of Destiny (1972), and J.H. Brennan, Occult Reich (1974).

Placing his magnifying glass on the "MOM" genre, Goodrick-Clarke reports as follows:

There was no Vril Society or "Luminous Lodge," as the fabulists call it, although there was a "Lumenclub" in Vienna for some years after 1932, acting as a front for the banned National Socialist Party;
Prof. Haushofer did endorse a thrust to the east, into Soviet territory, but strictly for obvious geopolitical reasons; his alleged goal of reaching the ascended masters in the Orient is "entirely false;" according to Goodrick-Clarke;
Dietrich Eckart (who died in 1923), along with the young Alfred Rosenberg, attended a few early Thule meetings as guests but there is no evidence linking other Party leaders, or List, Lanz or Haushofer, with the group;
The Thule Society was disbanded around 1925 because of declining membership and was never reorganized.
We certainly owe something to Goodrick-Clarke for so expertly skewering this pernicious nonsense, which has even tripped up major-league historians like Joachim Fest, although he does not follow through on the truly important question. The inimitable Holocaust, spotlighted by all these "schlock" authors as the result of the national demonic possession, still sits enshrined in its increasingly shopworn hideousness, even here.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:16 pm

Post by susie

Eisenhower's WW2 death camps

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:16 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/11/2015

Hello everyone. I need your help.

I am trying to find a quote by Hannah Arendt that I used to have, where she admits that the evidence shows that most camp deaths were the result of starvation and disease. It was a great quote to have, because it was said by a widely respected Jewish historian, and it would be considered Holocaust denial by many European Zionist courts.

It was something along the lines of this: 'It would be misleading to call them intentional death camps, because most deaths were the result of disease like typhus and starvation'.

Thanks in advance.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:17 pm

Posted by radicaldualist on 09/19/2015

LEAFLETS WHICH CIRCULATED GERMANY IN THE 1920'S.

Translation:
Who is Adolf Hitler?
The man from the people, for the people! The German front soldier who risked his life in 48 battles for Germany!
What does Adolf Hitler want?
Freedom and food for every decent working German! The gallows for profiteers, black marketeers and exploiters, regardless of religious faith or race!
Why is Adolf Hitler not allowed to speak? Because he is ruthless in uncovering the rulers of the German economy, the international bank Jews and their lackeys, the Democrats, Marxists, Jesuits, and Free Masons! Because he wants to free the workers from the domination of big money!
Working Germans! Demand the lifting of the illegal ban on his speaking!

Attachments:

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 BUWHUCHOdianVZyrdky1

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 BUWHUCHOdianVZyrdky1

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:19 pm

Posted by lizardking on 09/23/2015

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 Tumblr_nlfjvgY8is1rhavdko1_400

.....Or not.

'Best Witness': Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR

Fourteen years ago, over Labor Day weekend in 1979, the Institute for Historical Review held its very first conference at Northrop University in Los Angeles. At that time,the Institute announced its offer of a reward of $50,000 to the first person to prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.

A little over a year later, in the spring of 1981, Mel Mermelstein, a southern California businessman and self-described Holocaust survivor, claimed that reward, and then sued the Institute for $17 million.

On October 9, 1981, in response to a motion by Mermelstein, Judge Thomas Johnson of the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles declared:

Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944.... It is not reasonably subject to dispute, and it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.

Because of the prejudicial effect of this action, the IHR decided not to proceed with the suit, and instead settled the matter by signing a formal letter of apology to Mermelstein on July 24, 1985, for the pain, anguish, and suffering he sustained relating to the $50,000 reward offer, and agreeing to pay him $90,000 to settle the case. (For more on this, see "About the IHR/Mermelstein Settlement," below.)

Encouraged by this success, Mermelstein later brought yet another suit for $11 million against the Institute charging malicious prosecution, defamation, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yet on Thursday, September 19, 1991, in the Superior Court at Los Angeles, Mermelstein voluntarily dismissed most of his complaints. (Earlier that day, Judge Stephen Lachs had dismissed Mermelstein's complaint of "malicious prosecution.") This victory not only saved the Institute for Historical Review, but also substantially overturned the negative effects of the both the 1981 judicial notice and the 1985 settlement. (For more on this sweeping legal victory, see the October 1991 IHR Newsletter.)

The First Case

To appreciate the ramifications of this stunning reversal of fortunes, one must review the convoluted connection between Mermelstein and the IHR.

In the first ("reward") case -- and despite absurdities in his reward claim obvious to any knowledgeable student of Auschwitz -- Mermelstein was able to mount an aggressive attack against the IHR in the courts. He was well armed with first-rate legal assistance, much of it donated, not to mention overwhelming approval and support from the political establishment, the mass media, and southern California's influential Jewish community.

Meanwhile, the Institute had difficulty getting any legal counsel whatsoever, let alone the kind of skilled, dedicated, and fearless attorneys needed to withstand Mermelstein's publicity juggernaut and his blitz in the courtrooms. Recall the hurricane of libel and slander from the press, coming at a time when what Alfred Lilienthal has called Holocaustomania was at high tide in America. In an atmosphere of constant smears against the IHR and Revisionism, every survivor hallucination ("Nazi 'smiled' as dog ate Jew," to cite one headline of the day) gained instant currency in a corrupt media willing to accept such stories unquestionably and spread them as gospel.

Then recall the constant physical attacks that the enemies of truth and freedom aimed at IHR, its staff, and its supporters. In addition to harassment, including telephone threats, there was vandalism of IHR staff cars and homes, a physical beating of IHR founder Willis Carto, and attacks by gunfire and Molotov cocktail against the IHR office. Three separate firebombings culminated in the arson of July 4, 1984, which resulted in the total destruction of the IHR's office and warehouse. Let us also not forget the role of local Zionist thugs in carrying out much of this intimidation: I refer to the goonwork of that gang led by the revolting Irving Rubin, the so-called national chairman of the Jewish Defense League -- but whom I prefer to regard as the Grand Wizard, or, better, the Grand Dullard, of the Kosher Ku Klux Klan.

Judicial Notice

And so, with the help of high-priced lawyers, a corrupt media, and Jewish terrorists, Mermelstein seemingly laid to rest the historical issue by obtaining Judge Johnson's ridiculous judicial notice. His lawyers went on to concoct a massive $17 million assault for breach of contract, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and so forth, until IHR had virtually no choice but to capitulate by settling out of court in preference to losing a potentially ruinous trial.

The frustrating thing for all informed and conscientious Revisionists was that the IHR's researchers were aware from the beginning, thanks to the very affidavit Mermelstein presented to claim the $50,000 reward, that when he described watching his mother and sisters enter "gas chamber no. 5" through a tunnel, he was speaking of an impossibility, an absurdity that became even more absurd six months later, when, in sworn testimony, he said he'd seen them going down the stairs into the tunnel to the gas chamber. Why? Because even then it was well known to all students of Auschwitz that "gas chamber no. 5" -- in fact, Auschwitz Krematorium building V -- had no stairs descending from the outside, no tunnel, and no basement. It was entirely above ground!

As the IHR's staff and supporters gathered more evidence, in the months and years of the first trial, they learned more. In Mermelstein's own book, By Bread Alone, which offers a detailed account of the single night and day he spent at Birkenau (May 21-22, 1944), and which was published only two years before his sworn affidavit in application for the reward, Mermelstein wrote nothing of witnessing his mother and sisters enter any building at all, let alone any gas chamber -- whether down the stairs, up the ladder, through the window, or down the chimney.

During the course of the long discovery phase, that is, the period in which the opposing parties gather evidence to support their case, researchers for the IHR, led by Louis A. Rollins, were able to gather much more information about what Mermelstein had said (or hadn't said), and was still saying, about his experiences in wartime Europe.

Working from a mass of statements, either direct or reported, made by Mermelstein about his past life (paying particular attention to his time at Auschwitz and other camps), Rollins was able to compile a list of instances in which, it seemed to him, Mermelstein had either:

First, contradicted himself in his various statements on what he had seen or experienced during the Holocaust (for example, his several different accounts of how and where his father died), or;
Second, made absurd claims about what had happened to him and others during the Holocaust -- for example, witnessing a non-existent tunnel leading to the imaginary cellar of Krematorium 5, or being ordered to wash with soap made from dead Jews.

Contradictions and absurdities -- Lou Rollins compiled 33 of them on a list that ran to eleven pages. But because of the judicial notice, all of this research went to naught. How, then, did it prove important in the second case?

The IHR Fights Back

It happened like this: In 1984 an independent writer and journalist by the name of Bradley Smith approached the Institute seeking funding for a newsletter; Smith had decided to take on the thankless task of alerting America's journalists to the falsehood and fraud they were accepting and disseminating uncritically under the rubric of the Holocaust. Smith went on to publish some of the most flagrant instances of these claims in his newsletter Prima Facie, and not surprisingly, among the ripest contradictions and absurdities in the lore of the Holocaust were the testimony and statements of Mel Mermelstein, as researched by Lou Rollins and studied, with due diligence -- remember that phrase, due diligence -- by Bradley Smith.

Alas, Smith's trumpet calls in Prima Facie went unheeded by our nation's press corps. In July 1985 came the settlement and the triumph of Mermelstein, followed by his false gloating about how he had collected the reward, and his false claim, made during a radio broadcast from New York that August, that the IHR had signed the 1981 judicial notice, and thus accepted the "fact" of homicidal gassings of Jews at Auschwitz.

As had happened after the 1981 judicial notice, tributes and congratulations flowed in to the "survivor" from around the globe. How galling it was for Revisionists to see Mermelstein vaunt himself to the nation and the world as the man who proved the Holocaust, who had humbled IHR and the Revisionists!

Undaunted

In the wake of this bitter defeat, IHR had two tasks:

First, to explain the settlement to its subscribers and supporters around the world, to reassure them that IHR had accepted a compromise to avoid the expense and uncertainty of trial but -- and in spite of what Mel Mermelstein and our other enemies were saying -- had not abandoned its skepticism on the gas chambers, and had not accepted the judicial notice.
Second, to show the flag, to proclaim our defiance, to fight back.

In the September 1986 issue of the IHR Newsletter (then editor) Bradley Smith took direct aim, not at the so-called Holocaust, not at every one of its survivors, but at that minority he firmly believed, on the basis of a reasonably careful (or "duly diligent") study of the evidence, was actively engaged in spreading falsehoods about their experiences. Smith wrote of "the vainglorious prevaricators," "the false-tale spinners who claim to speak for the survivor community," and "such demonstrable frauds as Melvin Mermelstein and Elie Wiesel." Smith's good faith assertion that Mermelstein was a fraud was based on the previously mentioned list that Rollins had compiled for the first trial.

The sweet taste of victory had done nothing to mellow Mermelstein's disposition, and when he learned of Smith's short IHR Newsletter article, he sued for defamation.

The Second Case

After Mermelstein launched his second suit, the Institute, learning of his misrepresentation of the settlement of the reward case, filed a defamation suit of its own against Mermelstein in August 1986. The IHR never served this suit, and later voluntarily dismissed it. Thereupon Mermelstein sued the IHR for malicious prosecution, and with the help of his attorney, Jeffrey N. Mausner (formerly of the federal government's "Nazi-hunting" Office of Special Investigations), concocted an $11 million suit for four causes of action: libel, malicious prosecution, conspiracy to inflict emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

This suit was brought against four defendants: the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, the non-profit corporation through which IHR functions; Liberty Lobby, the nationalist and populist institution based in Washington, DC; Willis Carto, founder of both IHR and the Liberty Lobby; and the southern California law firm of Robert Von Esch, Jr., which had defended Liberty Lobby in the reward case, and had filed the IHR's defamation suit against Mermelstein in 1986.

Pre-trial Shenanigans

The lead-up to trial was both protracted and eventful. After hearing of the defamation suit against him, Mermelstein demanded that the Hartford Insurance Company, where he had his homeowner's insurance, pay his legal costs. When Hartford refused, pointing out (reasonably enough) that Mermelstein had never been served, attorney Mausner represented the IHR's suit as a big threat to Mermelstein. Mausner was able to intimidate Hartford with his client's Holocaust-survivor status to the extent of securing $60 thousand for Mermelstein in a settlement, as well as obtaining very generous legal fees for himself. Apparently, Hartford was unaware that at this same time Mausner was maintaining in a California court that IHR's suit was entirely groundless and frivolous.

In February 1989, a process server seeking Willis Carto on behalf of Mermelstein mistook the IHR's former accountant, Robert Fenchel, for Carto at the Ninth Revisionist Conference at the Old World Shopping Center. That November, Judge John Zebrowski found that, in spite of the non-service, the IHR was delinquent in not notifying Mermelstein of his mistake: Zebrowski imposed sanctions of $3,000, which the Institute was obliged to pay before it could begin to defend itself.

This was followed by a number of unfavorable pretrial rulings: Mermelstein was allowed to add new legal theories to his libel suit, four years after it had been filed. The IHR was not allowed to make use of a California law which allows a newspaper to retract offending statements and thus avoid suit. The Institute's motion for summary judgment on whether the Institute had probable cause to sue Mermelstein for libel (and thus defeat his malicious prosecution complaint) was rejected. Finally, in January 1991 Mermelstein succeeded in obtaining a second judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz.

Nevertheless, not everything went Mermelstein's way: two judges, both Jewish, who believed they might not be able to be impartial, did the decent thing and disqualified themselves.

The Best Defense

After nearly five years of pre-trial maneuvering and legal jousting, the trial at last loomed before us. The IHR was represented by William Hulsy of Irvine. Liberty Lobby's attorney was Mark Lane, an experienced trial lawyer, a long-time fighter for civil rights, noted critic of the Warren Report, bestselling author, movie scriptwriter, and anti-Zionist Jew. Lane served as the defendants' lead attorney, dealing primarily with the conspiracy complaint. Hulsy was responsible for combating the defamation charges, and for formulating the overall trial strategy.

They were assisted by Charles Purdy of San Diego, who also represented Liberty Lobby, and by Willis Carto, who defended himself. Finally, the Von Esches (primarily Mark Von Esch, son of Robert, Jr.) defended their firm, and were to concentrate on dealing with the malicious prosecution complaint.

William Hulsy had been recommended to us by John Schmitz, the former US Congressman and very good friend of Revisionism and IHR. A successful attorney with experience in more than 200 jury trials, Hulsy finally agreed to take our case in spite of warnings from friends and colleagues, and his own apprehensions about possible damage to his career.

Hulsy firmly believed that the case could be fought and won on its legal merits, and that to make the main issue the Holocaust -- as Mermelstein's attorneys were seeking to do -- might very well result in an annihilating defeat. He decided to oppose the libel complaint by convincingly demonstrating to a jury, if possible, that everything Smith had written about Mermelstein was true. Failing that, he would show that Mermelstein was "a public figure," who had thrust himself to the forefront of participation in a public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved (his constitutional privilege, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren, in the famous New York Times vs. Sullivan ruling of 1964). Hulsy would also seek to show that the question of Mermelstein's credibility as an eyewitness to the gassings and the Holocaust was a matter of public concern; that Brad Smith had exercised "due diligence," not reckless disregard for the truth, in his research for the offending article; that Brad's description of Mel was not based on personal malice; and that the IHR's Newsletter was not (as Mermelstein sought to argue) disseminated to the public at large, but was instead a periodical circulated to a limited readership that shared a specific interest in Revisionism. Establishing any or all of these things might suffice to defeat the libel complaint; failing that, to minimize damages.

Thanks to the evidence carefully compiled by Lou Rollins and others, we could show that what had appeared in the IHR Newsletter about Mermelstein was true. This alone should have been enough to defeat the libel complaint, but Hulsy believed that it might not be enough to convince a Los Angeles jury.

My Assignment

My first assignment was to demonstrate to Bill Hulsy that the IHR and revisionists were not "neo-Nazis" or ~~cranky flat-earthers~~, but responsible researchers with a different viewpoint on modern history. After winning his confidence, he set me to work gathering, compiling and evaluating evidence to defend against Mermelstein's libel complaint, based on Hulsy's research and understanding of the law. Again and again, Hulsy stressed that he wanted evidence to win the trial, not to disprove the Holocaust. But I must confess that I cheated: I sought every bit of evidence I could lay my hands on about Mermelstein's actual experiences during the Second World War, and what he'd said about them over the years.

Aided by numerous volunteers who worked not only in California but across the United States, and in Germany, Poland, and Israel, we searched for whatever we could find about Mermelstein and his family. This included evidence about his mental soundness (Mermelstein had admitted to being under the care of a psychiatrist); information as to his litigation with persons other than the IHR; newspaper reports quoting Mermelstein on his Auschwitz experiences; and, of course, wartime documents from Auschwitz and elsewhere that would disprove his claims about witnessing atrocities, above all the alleged gassing of his mother and sisters at Auschwitz in May 1944.

My first step was to nail down the existing evidence, much of it from the first trial: Mermelstein's sworn statements in the form of transcribed depositions (of which there were eleven, running to some twelve hundred pages of close interrogation by IHR and Liberty Lobby lawyers), written responses to interrogatories, and the like; Mermelstein's writings, above all his autobiographical account of his concentration camp experiences, By Bread Alone; and his public statements on his Holocaust years, reported in more than a hundred different newspaper and magazine articles, and on several recordings of presentations by Mermelstein at synagogues or seminars as well as on radio broadcasts.

Further evidence came from history and reference books, such as Jewish encyclopedias; public documents and records, including statements made by Mermelstein to authorities at the Auschwitz State Museum and the German consulate in Los Angeles; wartime documents from the German camps; and Mermelstein's US Army medical records.

As this mass of paper and audiotape accumulated, I had to read and re-read, to analyze and evaluate, to extract and collate and tabulate the evidence that would serve our defense against Mermelstein's complaint that he was libeled by the IHR's description of him as "a vainglorious prevaricator," "a false-tale spinner," and "a demonstrable fraud."

Contradictions and Absurdities

While Mermelstein was a rather difficult witness who had attempted (sometimes with success) to intimidate IHR attorneys during depositions by playing the Holocaust card, he was often boastful and extravagant, and provided many nuggets for analysis and comparison.

I began my compilation of contradictions and absurdities in Mermelstein's Holocaust claims with the list that Lou Rollins had put together. With much more evidence and a great deal more time than was available to Rollins, I compiled a new list, longer and more thorough than his original, but including many of the discrepancies and exaggerations that he had caught years earlier.

This listing had to be not only exhaustive, but reasonable and persuasive. Citing mere slips of the tongue, or mistakes attributable to sloppy journalists, would not only have been poor scholarship, it wouldn't have persuaded a jury.

Caught

In all, I discovered 30 absurdities, 22 contradictions, and a number of exaggerations. These examples went directly to the matter of Mermelstein as a "demonstrable fraud," a "vainglorious prevaricator," and a "false-tale spinner."

Among the absurdities were the nonexistent subterranean tunnel to the above-ground crematory, the soap made from Jewish bodies, a claim that Auschwitz camp "kapos" were rewarded for every prisoner they killed, and that there was a railroad track leading from the crematory to a pond for dumping ashes.

Contradictions

Since the summer of 1980, Mermelstein has repeatedly stated that he saw his mother and sisters go into a gas chamber, or into tunnel leading to it, from a distance of "a stone's throw away," a distance of "40, 50 feet," and that he watched the "gas chamber" building for "a couple of hours." Remarkably, though, Mermelstein made no mention of witnessing any of this in any account available prior to 1980, including his supposedly autobiographical book, By Bread Alone.

This is nothing compared to his varying versions of the fate that befell his father. In a declaration given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, Mermelstein said his father died during "evacuation marches to Blechhammer from other camps." According to the account given in By Bread Alone, though, Mermelstein's father died in bed after working himself to death, trading food for cigarettes. In a May 1981 deposition, his father had died of overwork and exhaustion, while in a June 1985 deposition, he died of "exhaustion, cruelty, starvation, and beatings." According to still other accounts given by Mel Mermelstein, his father was "gassed at Auschwitz."

Mermelstein has given similarly contradictory accounts of what he did while interned at Auschwitz (between approximately May 21 and July 1, 1944). In a statement given in November 1969 at the German consulate in Los Angeles, he had "no occupation." Similarly, in a May 1981 deposition, he declared that had done "practically nothing ... just some detail work" and "no physical work."

In February 1987, a dramatically different account of Mermelstein's time in Auschwitz appeared. Ed Koch (who was then mayor of New York City) told of a meeting with Mermelstein during a tour of Auschwitz. Koch reported in a newspaper article that Mermelstein had told him: "I was part of the special detail which hauled the bodies from the gas chamber and took them to the crematoria."

Exaggerations

In claiming that Auschwitz camp kapos would kill an inmate if "they didn't like the shape of your nose," Mermelstein seemed to suggest that his own nose was not unattractive. Survival could be just as cruel as death, Mel implied on another occasion, because the bread given to Auschwitz inmates (during the period when he claimed to have done "practically nothing") was intended not for nourishment, but to kill inmates "as fast as they expected us to die." At Buchenwald, Mermelstein would have us believe, he went swimming "in blood," even though he and others had been transported to Buchenwald "only for one purpose" -- to be disposed of in crematorium rather than "litter ... the beautiful towns and cities with our bodies."

Fortunately, Mermelstein and many others like him miraculously survived. One of these friends, Dr. Miklos Nyiszli (who wrote his own book about his stay entitled, Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account), was a truly exceptional survivor. In a 1981 deposition, Mermelstein claimed that Dr. Nyiszli, whom he supposedly knew personally, would testify on Mermelstein's behalf about the alleged crimes of Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. At that time, though, Nyiszli had been dead for more than 25 years.

The evidence we were able to collect about Mermelstein's credibility not only persuaded our attorneys that this was a very unreliable witness, to say the least; it also, I believe, gave them additional confidence to challenge Mermelstein directly.

New Evidence

In addition to all the evidence cited above, we obtained yet another piece of potentially explosive evidence: a document that indicates that Mermelstein's sisters may have been alive nearly five months after he insisted they were killed. This secret German document, dated October 12, 1944, lists 500 Jewish females who were being transported from Auschwitz to Altenburg (a sub-camp of Buchenwald). Among those listed are Edith and Magda Mermelstein, names identical to those of Mermelstein's two sisters. This document is dated almost five months after the day in May 1944 when Mermelstein swears he saw them gassed. While the birth dates of Edith and Magda as typed on this document do not tally precisely with those given by Mermelstein for his two sisters in By Bread Alone, there is good reason to believe that the two women on the list were, in fact, his sisters.

Forewarned and Forearmed

From the volume of evidence we acquired, we learned two important things:

First, that Mermelstein is simply not a credible witness to gassings at Auschwitz, or to very much else involving concentration camps and the Holocaust. The contradictions, exaggerations, and absurdities lovingly noted and recorded by the IHR's researchers amply demonstrate this, not merely to Revisionists and others skeptical of "survivor" testimony, but any knowledgeable, intelligent, and fair-minded person. Whether Mermelstein is fibbing, to others or to himself; whether he has forgotten; or whether whatever he did experience has so deranged his mind as to render him incapable of rationally recounting the facts, his testimony proves nothing about the existence of Nazi gas chambers or a policy to exterminate Jews. If anything, careful analysis of his statements indicates the opposite: that there were no Auschwitz gas chambers or German policy to exterminate the Jews.
Second, there is no evidence that Mermelstein ever claimed to have witnessed the gassing of his mother and sisters until after he learned of the IHR's reward offer. He apparently first claimed to have personally seen them enter a so-called gas chamber in letters attacking the IHR that appeared in newspapers in southern California and Israel in the summer of 1980.

Neither his book, By Bread Alone (published in 1979), nor a statement made for the Auschwitz State Museum in 1967 about his wartime experiences in the camp, nor a sworn affidavit given at the German consulate in Los Angeles in 1969 about crimes he had witnessed during his time at Auschwitz, contains a word about witnessing any gassing.

Similarly, there is no mention whatsoever of Mermelstein having witnessed the entry of his mother and sisters into a gas chamber, or anything like that, in any of the several detailed press accounts about his industrious activity as a lecturer, exhibitor of artifacts, and museum proprietor published prior to the 1979 reward offer.

The Trial

After several postponements in the first half of 1991, the trial was upon us. It followed a new Mermelstein media propaganda blitz, the centerpiece of which was the made-for-television movie Never Forget. This lurid and false account of the "reward case" was broadcast nationwide over the Turner cable television network in April 1991 (or just before the original trial date).

To make things more interesting, shortly before trial the Von Esches, on whose shoulders virtually our entire defense of the malicious prosecution complaint rested, threw in the towel and capitulated. After already enduring years of vituperation as agents of a worldwide Nazi cabal, they gave in to fear that their law practice would be ruined.

The Von Esches settled with a payment to Mermelstein of $100,000, and a craven -- I'm sorry to say -- apology agreeing that, yes, Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz, and that millions more had perished in Auschwitz and other camps at the hands of the Germans.

Then we got a break. We learned that the trial judge, Stephen Lachs, was Jewish, a member of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and the first avowed homosexual to serve as a judge in California history. As it happened, Lachs turned out to be a conscientious and impartial judge, despite the sensitive nature of the case and the blatant attempts by Mermelstein's attorneys to appeal to his Jewish background.

The combination of Mark Lane's trial savvy and Bill Hulsy's careful strategy brought about, against all expectations (ours as well as theirs), an annihilating victory for the forces of historical truth and freedom of inquiry. The 49 pretrial motions crafted by Hulsy to withstand and counter Mermelstein's case were like a mighty fortress protecting us and blocking the enemy's advance. Thus, even to get to a jury trial, Mermelstein's three lawyers -- lead attorney Lawrence Heller, Peter Bersin, and Jeff Mausner -- were forced to attack across legal mine fields, negotiate factual tank traps and concertina wire, dare procedural pill boxes and machine gun nests. The plaintiff's legal assault was contained at the outset, suffering heavy casualties during the close-in combat over the pre-trial motions. When Mermelstein's lawyers attempted a retreat it quickly turned into a rout. In the end, a downcast plaintiff and his (somewhat bedraggled) lawyers slunk from the courtroom, seemingly dazed by defeat.

Mermelstein Takes the Stand

This is not to say that Mel Mermelstein didn't have his day in court. He and his counsel had unwisely declined to stipulate that he was a "public figure," as we had tried to establish (mindful of the added protection against defamation suits by public figures provided by the Supreme Court in a landmark 1964 decision). He also contested our motion to sever the determination of that issue from the matters to be decided by the jury. (We had wanted Judge Lachs to rule on this.)

As a result, Mermelstein took the stand, allowing Mark Lane to examine him on the question of whether his activities qualified him as a public figure according to the standards of the court. Mermelstein attempted to argue that he was not a public figure, in spite of his admission on the stand that he is: a published author; the founder of the "Auschwitz Study Foundation"; the curator of a Holocaust museum (that was first a traveling Holocaust exhibition); the willing subject of scores of newspaper and magazine stories, radio and television interviews; an eager accumulator of plaudits and testimonials from state and local governments, and laurels from the likes of Israel's late Prime Minister Menachem Begin; and a lecturer who has spoken, over nearly two decades, at numerous colleges, high schools, synagogues, and so forth, across the United States.

Lane led him carefully through each of these damaging admissions. Evidently Mermelstein had believed that he could represent himself as someone who had been dragged unwillingly into the public arena by the IHR (even though most of his various public activities started before he'd ever heard of the Institute).

After establishing Mermelstein as an author, curator, founder of a non-profit educational organization, political honoree, and media star over the airwaves and in print, Lane zeroed on Mermelstein's activities as a lecturer. About how many lectures had he given on Auschwitz prior to 1985, Lane wanted to know. Here Mermelstein, uncommonly forthcoming so far, began to prevaricate. Despite ample testimony out of his own mouth and pen as to his numerous lectures over the years, testimony of which the defendants were very well aware, Mermelstein claimed that he had given only about as many talks as "the fingers on my hands."

Thereupon Lane flourished a typed list, signed by Mermelstein, of more than 30 lectures given by him in a period of just 18 months in 1981-1982. Mermelstein tried to be crafty: he allowed that he might have lectured more than once at the same place -- not the most effective answer, but one that later might defuse the issue for an inattentive jury.

At this point I recalled that in one of his depositions Mermelstein had estimated giving an average of 20 lectures a year on Auschwitz since 1967. I quickly found the statement in a deposition given in 1985. After a break for lunch, Mark Lane confronted Mermelstein with his own words, and then, using a pencil and pad to multiply 18 by 20 (a calculation equalling 360), Lane asked Mermelstein if he hadn't just told the court that he had only given as many lectures as there are fingers on his hands. A vexed Mermelstein then blurted out, "I meant the fingers of my hands and feet!"

At that point, Judge Lachs was seen to roll his eyes heavenward. A few minutes later, Bersin rose to concede his client's status as a public figure.

Judge Lachs Rules

Several days later, after carefully considering the text of Mermelstein's characterization of the IHR's 1985 settlement (which the plaintiff had made on a New York City radio broadcast shortly after that settlement), Judge Lachs declared that Mermelstein's claim that IHR had "signed" the 1981 judicial notice of gassing at Auschwitz could indeed be interpreted by a reasonable man as defamatory. This meant, he ruled, that IHR had had probable cause to sue Mermelstein in 1986, and that thus he had no alternative but to grant the IHR's motion for dismissal of Mermelstein's malicious prosecution complaint.

Soon afterwards, Mermelstein dismissed his libel and conspiracy complaints, and he and his attorneys trundled wearily out of the courtroom, haggling over who would pay for the transcript, a requirement in any appeal.

As reported elsewhere in this issue of the Journal, Mermelstein's appeal of Judge Lachs's dismissal of his malicious prosecution complaint was unanimously rejected by the California Court of Appeal on October 28, which should serve to end the second Mermelstein suit and, perhaps, the long and costly Mermelstein affair.

Best Isn't Good Enough

At one point in a deposition, Mel Mermelstein referred himself as his own "best witness." In spite of his evident failings as a credible eyewitness to the gas chambers and the Holocaust, I agree with this self-description. In a very real sense, Mermelstein is indeed the best witness to the gas chambers. He twice succeeded in getting judges in the state of California, a trendsetter in legal fashion as in so much else, to pronounce the Auschwitz gassings as indisputable fact.

While sharing with the Elie Wiesels, the Rudolf Vrbas, and the Filip Müllers the same knack for wild exaggerations, bizarre contradictions, and flat absurdities, Mermelstein is unlike them in having submitted his claims to careful scrutiny and relentless cross-examination. And so, while Mel Mermelstein is admittedly so far the best witness to the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, the best clearly isn't good enough.

If it were to end right here, this report on the great victory by the IHR and its co-defendants would be incomplete. This account -- delivered before this Institute's loyal supporters and contributors, and some of the many researchers who gathered evidence across America and around the world -- must appropriately conclude with an expression of our heartfelt thanks to them, and to all our subscribers and supporters. By contributing their time, their expertise, their money and their prayers, they have made this victory possible. With your loyal support, we pledge to carry on the fight for truth and freedom, for the honor of those who can no longer speak, for the enlightenment of those yet unborn, until the final victory.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994 (Vol. 14, No. 1), pages 25 ff.
This item is slightly edited from a presentation at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992.

About the Author

Theodore J. O'Keefe worked as an Institute for Historical Review editor from 1986 until 1994. He led the IHR's research effort during the second Mermelstein lawsuit, devoting hundreds of hours without pay to uncovering and organizing the evidence. He served as chief editor of the IHR’s Journal of Historical Review from 1988 until April 1992, and addressed several IHR Conferences. Educated at Harvard, he is the author of numerous published articles on historical and political subjects.

About the IHR/Mermelstein Settlement

The July 1985 agreement between the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) and Mel Mermelstein received considerable media attention. Because the terms of the agreement were widely misrepresented, IHR director Tom Marcellus issued this statement which was published in the IHR Newsletter.

With so many wild rumors still being circulated about the IHR/Mermelstein settlement, we want to remind our readers that, contrary to what has gone out through the press and media:

1. The settlement agreement did not include any provision for a payment of any reward offer, and in fact was not such a payment.
2. The IHR did not accept or in any way agree with Judge Johnson's ridiculous 1981 "judicial notice" that Jews were "in fact" exterminated in "gas chambers" at Auschwitz.
3. The IHR has not retreated one inch from its well-known position that there is no credible evidence to support the theory that Germans allegedly used homicidal poison gas chambers to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
4. The letter of apology addressed the "suffering" some Jews said they experienced around the $50,000 award offer. It did not apologize for revisionist theory or revisionist literature in any way.

Following is the complete text of the letter our lawyers signed:

“Each of the answering defendants do hereby officially and formally apologize to Mr. Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Buchenwald, and all other survivors of Auschwitz for the pain, anguish, and suffering he and all other Auschwitz survivors have sustained relating to the $50,000 reward offer for proof that 'Jews were gassed in gas chambers at Auschwitz'."

Any person or organization that claims our lawyers signed any apology other than these few lines is either mistaken or knowingly distributing false information.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:26 pm

Posted by radicaldualist on 09/26/2015

codoh.com/

holocausthistorychannel.wordpress.com/

inconvenienthistory.com/index.php

www.vho.org/

furtherglory.wordpress.com/

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:28 pm

The Holocaust Testimonies You DIDN'T Hear

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:28 pm

Posted by angeleyes on 10/01/2015

Proof of the premeditated HoloHoax:

SIX MILLION JEWS 1915-1938

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:29 pm

WOW MUST SEE Auschwitz the true story

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:29 pm

Posted by wiseblood on 10/07/2015

I was searching soundcloud to see what will it return for a 'flat earth' query, and of all things a post by Cambridge University popped up of a lecture by Deborah E. Lipstadt (of the D.Irvin trials fame) titled: Holocaust Denial: A Flat Earth Theory or a Clear and Present Danger?

Just goes to show that, if Cambridge peddles this kind of propaganda as legitimate history, imagine what they must be like regarding other subjects. How deeply penetrated by zionism they must be..

What I found especially unsavoury was the fact they are brazen enough to use an image of the JFK assasination to promote Lipstadt's drivel, while pissing at FET at the same time... Bizarre, and seemingly desperate.

by Thinkforyourself Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:30 pm

Posted by devalle on 10/09/2015
Here's some comic relief. For the most efficient killers the world has ever seen, they sure seem to be incompetent at gassing people. LOL.

"Three times they gassed me" at Dachau

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 067ea3691cf59fd1aa1abad1f3e77ef9

Polish-born Catholic priest Rev. Hyacinth Dabrowski claimed he survived three gassings at Dachau.

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 A040041a682c084d5923e7da9370f667

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 A040041a682c084d5923e7da9370f667

The Times-Picayune, (New Orleans, LA) Thursday, May 5, 1949, p.25.
From Winston Smith's excellent blog:
winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2015/09/three-times-they-gassed-me-at-dachau.html?zx=ceb77b6b2bd93a5

by lizardking Sun Jan 24, 2016 6:56 pm

“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers… or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”
— ‘Guidelines for Teaching about the Holocaust’ at the Stockholm International Forum, 2000

“One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one.”
— “34 reputable historians” published in the prominent French daily Le Monde on February 21, 1979

by Thinkforyourself Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:47 am

Everyone should watch the following:

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:49 am

The Unknown History of the 1939 German-Polish Conflict

A Brief Synopsis

To understand how the war in 1939 between Poland and Germany, and consequently WW2, unfolded, it is not sufficient to look at - and accept - the widely-held view that peace-loving and weak little Poland was attacked by an ever-marauding National Socialist Germany. Rather, one must look much deeper into history.

This conflict which cost many millions of lives did not originate with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, as is still claimed today by over-simplifying historians. It is not just a black-and-white story, but a complex one. It was also not caused by the Polish mobilization of her army two days previous, on August 30, 1939, although the mobilization of a country's army, according to international standards, is equal to a declaration of war on the neighboring country.

German-Polish relations are even today poisoned by centuries-old, deep-seated hatred on the Polish side. For centuries the Poles have been taught from early childhood on

Comment added by The Scriptorium:This selfsame "centuries-old, deep-seated hatred on the Polish side" is still very much in evidence today. We invite the reader to consider the vicious invective and threats that a (Polish? at least rabidly pro-Polish!) visitor to our web site saw fit to send us with reference to the article on this page.

that Germans were evil and ought to be fought whenever there was a promise of success. Hate on such a scale, as it was and still is promoted in Poland today against her westerly neighbor, eventually leads to a chauvinism that knows few constraints. In Poland, as in all countries, the respective elites use the means accessible to them to shape public sentiment. Traditionally these elites have been the Polish Catholic Church, writers, intellectuals, politicians and the press. For a balanced understanding of the forces which moved Poland inexorably ever closer to the war against Germany, it is essential to investigate the role these components of the Polish society have played in the past. And it is fairly easy to find abundant evidence for the above claim and to trace it from the present time back into the distant past.

"Póki swiat swiatem, Polak Niemcowi nie bedzie bratem." This is a Polish proverb, and translated into English it means: "As long as the world will exist, the Pole will never be the German's brother."¹ While the age of this proverb cannot be traced precisely, it is reflected by a recent poll (1989) taken amongst students of three educational establishments in Warsaw, where only four of 135 fourth-graders [ten-year-olds!] declared having amicable feelings toward the German people. Half of the students questioned considered the Germans to be cruel, spiteful and bloodthirsty. One of the students wrote: "The Germans are as bad as wild animals. Such a people oughtn't even to exist. And now they even want to unite!"² One year later, in 1990, the then Polish Prime Minister Lech Walesa made his feelings towards his German neighbors publicly known: "I do not even shrink from a statement that is not going to make me popular in Germany: if the Germans destabilize Europe anew, in some way or other, then partition is no longer what will have to be resorted to, but rather that country will have to be erased from the map, pure and simple. East and West have at their disposal the advanced technology necessary to carry this verdict out."³

It can reasonably be assumed that these remarks of a public figure like the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Polish president Lech Walesa reflect emotions that are very common in his country. While the three samples of hateful Polish sentiments against Germans were expressed in very recent times, there are many more outbursts of chauvinistic feelings and intentions against Germans in the not too distant past, only some 60 years ago. An example is this Polish slogan from Litzmannstadt, January 1945: "Reich Germans pack your suitcases, ethnic Germans buy your coffins!"⁴ It is especially important to know this in order to fully understand what this writer proposes: namely, that unrestricted expression of hate and disregard of the rights of others in international affairs can lead to tragedies of unimaginable proportions.

Many years before the differences between Germany and Poland escalated to the point of no return, numerous diplomatic efforts were made by the German government to defuse the ever more dangerous situation the two countries were facing. These efforts were all rejected by Poland. One of them comes to mind: on January 6th, 1939, the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with the Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck in Munich to discuss the differences between the two countries. Von Ribbentrop proposed "the following solution: the return of Danzig to Germany. In return, all of Poland's economic interests in this region would be guaranteed, and most generously at that. Germany would be given access to her province of East Prussia by means of an extraterritorial highway and rail line. In return, Germany would guarantee the Corridor and the entire Polish status, in other words, a final and permanent recognition of each nation's borders." Beck replied: "For the first time I am pessimistic..." Particularly in the matter of Danzig I see 'no possibility of cooperation.'"⁵

The belligerent policy of the Polish leadership was, and is of course, echoed by the public in that country. It goes without saying that a diplomat cannot use the same language as the little man at home can. The desired goal, however, is the same. It is the destruction, and if need be, the extermination of the Germans as Mr. Walesa so clearly stated. A leading role in forging the public view in Poland is that of the Catholic Church. To read what she taught her followers is truly blood-curdling. In 1922 the Polish Canon of Posen, prelate Kos, recited a song of hate which he had borrowed from a 1902 drama by Lucjan Rydel, "Jency" (The Prisoners): "Where the German sets down his foot, the earth bleeds for 100 years. Where the German carries water and drinks, wells are foul for 100 years. Where the German breathes, the plague rages for 100 years. Where the German shakes hands, peace breaks down. He cheats the strong, he robs and dominates the weak, and if there were a path leading straight to Heaven, he wouldn't hesitate to dethrone God Himself. And we would even see the German steal the sun from the sky."⁶ This is by no means a single, individual case. On August 26th, 1920, the Polish pastor in Adelnau said in a speech: "All Germans residing in Poland ought to be hanged."⁷And another Polish proverb: "Zdechly Niemiec, zdechly pies, mala to roznica jest"- "A croaked German, is a croaked dog, is just a small difference".⁸

Here is the text of another Polish-Catholic war song which was sung in 1848 at the Pan-Slavic Congress in Prague:

"Brothers, take up your scythes! Let us hurry to war!
Poland's oppression is over, we shall tarry no more.
Gather hordes about yourselves. Our enemy, the German, shall fall!
Loot and rob and burn! Let the enemies die a painful death.
He that hangs the German dogs will gain God's reward.
I, the provost, promise you shall attain Heaven for it.
Every sin will be forgiven, even well-planned murder,
If it promotes Polish freedom everywhere.
But curses on the evil one who dares speak well of Germany to us.
Poland shall and must survive. The Pope and God have promised it.
Russia and Prussia must fall. Hail the Polish banner!
So rejoice ye all: Polzka zyje, great and small!"⁹

Not only did these "Christian" priests excel in rhetoric aimed at cultivating deadly hate against Germans during the pre-1939 years, they also prayed in their churches, "O wielk wojn ludów prosimy Cie, Panie! (We pray to you for the great War of Peoples, oh Lord!)"¹⁰

Later, when their wishes came true, they actively participated in murdering unsuspecting German soldiers. "...Cardinal Wyszynski confirmed the fact 'that during the war there was not one single Polish priest who did not fight against the Germans with a weapon in his hand.' The war lasted only three short weeks, the German occupation lasted several years. This explains the extraordinary high number of priest-partisans who even were joined by bishops."¹¹ Further back in history, we find that "The Archbishop of Gnesen, around the turn of the 13th century, had the habit of calling the Germans 'dog heads'. He criticized a bishop from Brixen that he would have preached excellently, had he not been a dog-head and a German."¹²

To fully understand the implications that this and other hateful utterances about Germans have on the Polish psyche, one has to know that 'dog' is an abusive name that would be hard to top as insult to a German. It is obvious that through this centuries-long conditioning of the common people of Poland by the Catholic hierarchy, from the bishops down to the lowliest clergymen, Polish literature and the press would not be far behind in duplicating the still-continuing vilification of Germans. And indeed there is a plethora of well-documented hostile charges. In his Mythos vom Deutschen in der polnischen Volksüberlieferung und Literatur, Dr. Kurt Lück from Posen explored this propensity to malign Germans. I will repeat here only a few examples in order to illustrate how deeply the Poles are influenced by their elites. In his novel Grazyna, which is used in Polish schools as a learning tool, Mickiewicz uses terms like "psiarnia Krzyzakow" - the dog-pack of the Teutonic Knights . In his novel Pan Tadeusz he writes of "all district presidents, privy councillors, commissaries and all dog-brothers", and in his book Trzech Budrysow he writes of "Krzyxacy psubraty" - "Knights of the Cross, the dog brothers". Henryk Sienkiewicz, in his novel Krzyzacy (Knights of the Cross), repeatedly uses the abusive term "dog-brothers". Jan Kochanowski, in hisProporzec (1569), calls the German Knights of the Cross "pies niepocigniony": unsurpassable dogs. K. Przerwa-Tetmajer, in the short story "Nefzowie": "The German manufacturer is called by the Polish workers rudy pies - red-haired dog."¹³

It is not difficult to imagine how this perversion of civilized human conduct eventually must lead to a Fascist mentality that was also present in the Polish media. They did not mince words when it came to arousing public fanaticism without restrictions when it was time to go to war against Germany. They were the ultimate instrument for instilling in the public the view that Poland was the peerless power that would chasten Germany by defeating her in a few days. Characteristic of this was, for example, an oil painting that showed Marshal Rydz-Smigly, the Polish commander-in-chief, riding on horseback through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.¹⁴ This painting was found by German troops in the Presidential Palace in Warsaw and was not even completely dry. When war finally came, the Germans in Polish territory suffered terribly. They had to bear the unspeakable hate of the Poles. Some 35,000 of them(German authorities then claimed 58,000 murdered Germans!) were murdered, often under the most bestial circumstances. Dr. Kurt Lück (op.cit.) writes on page 271: "Poles had thrown dead dogs into many of the graves of murdered ethnic Germans. Near Neustadt in West Prussia, the Poles slashed open the belly of a captured German officer, tore out his intestines and stuffed a dead dog inside. This report is reliably documented."¹⁵And a German mother grieves for her sons. She writes on October 12th, 1939:"Oh, but that our dear boys [her sons] had to die such terrible deaths. 12 people were lying in the ditch, and all of them had been cruelly beaten to death. Eyes gouged out, skulls smashed, heads split open, teeth knocked out... little Karl had a hole in his head, probably from a stabbing implement. Little Paul had the flesh torn off his arms, and all this while they were still alive. Now they rest in a mass grave of more than 40, free at last of their terror and pain. They have peace now, but I never shall..."¹⁶ And between 1919 and 1921 400,000 ethnic Germans fled their homes and crossed the German border in order to save their lives.

I personally once knew a German who told me that after serving in the German army he was drafted into the Polish army after 1945, and that the Poles destroyed German cemeteries and looted the graves in order to get at the golden wedding bands the corpses were still wearing.

What can one say of the hate that speaks from the pages of one of the more popular papers, the largest Polish newspaper Ilustrowany Kurjer Codzienny, which appeared on April 20th, 1929, in Cracow? "Away with the Germans behind their natural border! Let's get rid of them behind the Oder!" "Silesian Oppeln is Polish to the core; just as all of Silesia and all of Pomerania were Polish before the German onslaught!"¹⁷

"To absorb all of East Prussia into Poland and to extend our western borders to the Oder and Neisse rivers, that is our goal. It is within reach, and at this moment it is the Polish people's great mission. Our war against Germany will make the world pause in amazement."¹⁸

"There will be no peace in Europe until all Polish lands shall have been restored completely to Poland, until the name Prussia, being that of a people long since gone, shall have been wiped from the map of Europe, and until the Germans have moved their capital Berlin farther westwards."¹⁹

On October 1923, Stanislaus Grabski, who later was to become Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, announced: "We want to base our relations on love, but there is one kind of love for one's own people and another kind for strangers. Their percentage is decidedly too high here. Posen [which had been given to Poland after the First World War] can show us one way to reduce that percentage from 14% or even 20% to 1½%. The foreign element will have to see if it would not be better off elsewhere. The Polish land is exclusively for the Poles!"²⁰

"(The Germans in Poland) are intelligent enough to realize that in the event of war no enemy on Polish soil will get away alive... The Führer is far away, but the Polish soldiers are close, and in the woods there is no shortage of branches."²¹

"We are ready to make a pact with the devil if he will help us in the battle against Germany. Hear - against Germany, not just against Hitler. In an upcoming war, German blood will be spilled in rivers such as all of world history has never seen before."²²

"Poland's decision of August 30, 1939 that was the basis for general mobilization marked a turning point in the history of Europe. It forced Hitler to wage war at a time when he hoped to gain further unbloody victories."²³

Heinz Splittgerber, in his short book Unkenntnis oder Infamie?, quotes a number of Polish sources which reflect the atmosphere in Poland immediately before the hostilities commenced. On August 7th, 1939 the Ilustrowany Kurjer featured an article "which described with provocative effrontery how military units were continually foraying across the border into German territory in order to destroy military installations and to take weapons and tools of the German Wehrmacht back to Poland. Most Polish diplomats and politicians understood that Poland's actions would perforce lead to war. Foreign Minister Beck... tenaciously pursued the bloodthirsty plan of plunging Europe into another great war, since it would presumably result in territorial gains for Poland."²⁴ He goes on to cite some 14 incidents where Polish soldiers aggressively crossed the border, destroying houses, shooting and killing German farmers and customs officers. One of them: "August 29th: "State Police Offices in Elbing, Köslin and Breslau, Main Customs Office in Beuthen and Gleiwitz: Polish soldiers invade Reich German territory, attack against German customs house, shots taken at German customs officials, Polish machine guns stationed on Reich German territory."²⁵

These and many more are the things one must take into account before making the fallacious accusation that Germany was the one to have started WW2. The following quotations are added here to show that not only Poland was bent on war against Germany, but also her ally Great Britain (and France). Although it is still widely believed that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on September 29th, 1938 (Munich) honestly tried for peace, one has to consider the possibility that his real goals were somewhat different. Only five months later, on February 22nd, 1939, he let the cat out of the bag when he said in Blackburn: "... During the past two days we have discussed the progress of our arms build-up. The figures are indeed overwhelming, perhaps even to such an extent that the people are no longer able even to comprehend them.... Ships, cannons, planes and ammunition are now pouring out of our dock yards and factories in an ever-increasing torrent..."²⁶

Max Klüver writes: "Of the considerable body of evidence that gives cause to doubt whether Chamberlain actually wanted peace, one noteworthy item is a conversation [after Hitler's address to the Reichstag on April 28th,1939, W.R.] between Chamberlain's chief advisor Wilson, and Göring's colleague Wohlthat... When Wohlthat, taking his leave, again stressed his conviction that Hitler did not want war, Wilson's answer was indicative of the fundamental British attitude that could not be a basis for negotiations between equals: 'I said that I was not surprised to hear him say that as I had thought myself that Hitler cannot have overlooked the tremendous increases which we have made in our defensive and offensive preparations, including for instance the very large increase in our Air Force.'"²⁷

And on April 27th, 1939, England mobilized her armed forces. Heinz Splittgerber quotes Dirk Bavendamm, Roosevelts Weg zum Krieg (Ullstein-Verlag, Berlin 1989, p. 593), who writes: "Since England had never yet introduced universal conscription during peacetime, this alone virtually amounted to a declaration of war against Germany. From 1935 to 1939 (before the outbreak of the war) England's annual expenditure on war materials had increased more than five-fold."²⁸

In 1992 and 1993, Max Klüver, another German historian, spent five weeks in the Public Record Office in London searching through documents which, after fifty years of being hidden from public scrutiny, were now open to researchers. He writes in his book Es war nicht Hitlers Krieg: "How little the British cared about Danzig and the allegedly endangered Polish independence is also shown by the following brief prepared for Colonel Beck's visit of April 3 [1939]. The brief states: 'Danzig is an artificial structure, the maintenance of which is a bad casus belli. But it is unlikely that the Germans would accept less than a total solution of the Danzig question except for a substantial quid pro quo which could hardly be less than a guarantee of Poland's neutrality." But such a deal would be a bad bargain for England. "It would shake Polish morale, increase their vulnerability to German penetration and so defeat the policy of forming a bloc against German expansion. It should not therefore be to our interest to suggest that the Poles abandon their rights in Danzig on the ground that they are not defensible."²⁹Klüver concludes: "So there we have it clearly stated: in the own British interest, the matter of Danzig must not be solved and peace preserved. The British guarantee to Poland, however, had reinforced the Polish in their stubbornness and made them completely obdurate where any solution to the Danzig question was concerned."³⁰ The American Professor Dr. Burton Klein, a Jewish economist, wrote in his book Germany's Economic Preparations for War: "Germany produced butter as well as 'cannons', and much more butter and much fewer cannons than was generally assumed."³¹ And again: "The overall state of the German war economy ... was not that of a nation geared towards total war, but rather that of a national economy mobilized at first only for small and locally restricted wars and which only later succumbed to the pressure of military necessity after it had become an incontrovertible fact. For instance, in the fall of 1939 the German preparations for provision with steel, oil and other important raw materials were anything but adequate for an intense engagement with the Great Powers."³² One only has to compare Mr. Klein's observations with what Mr. Bavendamm wrote about the British preparations for a major war at the same time, and the blurred picture that is painted by historians becomes much more transparent: the Germans were not the ones to provoke WW2.

Besides Chamberlain, there were others in influential and powerful positions in England who were much more outspoken about their wishes. Winston Churchill, for instance, said before the House of Commons on October 5th, 1938: "... but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onwards course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force."³³

Hitler, of course, knew this very well. In Saarbrücken, on October 9th, 1938 he said: "...All it would take would be for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to come to power in England instead of Chamberlain, and we know very well that it would be the goal of these men to immediately start a new world war. They do not even try to disguise their intents, they state them openly..."³⁴

As we all know, the British government under Chamberlain gave Poland the guarantee that England would come to its aid if Poland should be attacked. This was on March 31st, 1939. Its purpose was to incite Poland to escalate its endeavors for war against Germany. It happened as planned: England declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939, but not on the Soviet Union who also attacked Poland, and this is proof enough that it was England's (and Chamberlain's) intention in the first place to make war on Germany. Thus WW2 was arranged by a complicity between Britain and Poland. It was not Hitler's war, it was England's and Poland's war. The Poles were merely the stooges. Some of them knew it too - Jules Lukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to Paris, for instance, who on March 29th, 1939 told his foreign minister in Warsaw:

"It is childishly naive and also unfair to suggest to a nation in a position like Poland, to compromise its relations with such a strong neighbour as Germany and to expose the world to the catastrophe of war, for no other reason than to pander to the wishes of Chamberlain's domestic policies. It would be even more naive to assume that the Polish government did not understand the true purpose of this manoeuver and its consequences."³⁵

Sixty years have passed since Poland got her wish. Germany lost large additional areas to Poland. Today these regions can hardly be compared to what they originally were. Houses, farms, the infrastructure, agriculture, even the dikes of the Oder river are decaying. Financial help from Germany goes to Poland as if nothing had happened between the two countries. The 2,000,000 Germans still remaining in Poland are largely forgotten by their brothers in the west. They now suffer the same fate as other Germans did in Poland in earlier times: "In earlier times the aim was already to eradicate all things German. For instance, in the 18th century, the Catholic Germans from Bamberg who had followed their Bishop and immigrated to Poland after the plague were forcibly Polonized; they were denied German church services, German confession and the German catechism, and were reeducated to become Poles. By the time of the First World War these Germans from Bamberg had become so thoroughly Polonized that despite their traditional Bamberg costumes, which they still wore and for which they were still called 'Bamberki', they could no longer speak German."³⁶

Not only is today's German minority in Poland in danger of losing its identity; the same happened even to famous Germans of the past. Veit Stoss, who was born in Nuremberg and died there too, is now called Wit Stwosz, only because in 1440 in Cracow he created the famous high altar in the Marienkirche, 13 meters (39 feet) high and entirely carved from wood. Nikolaus Kopernikus, the famous German astronomer, is now called Mikolaj Kopernik. He lived in Thorn, never spoke a word of Polish, and published his works in Latin. His ancestors were all Germans. The last names of the surviving Germans have been Polonized: Seligman(n), a name also common in the English-speaking world, would now be Swienty! No comparable phenomenon exists in Germany. Poles who immigrated to Germany generations ago still bear their Polish names, and nobody pressures them to change them. They are considered Germans, and they are.

The Holocaust/Holohoax - Page 2 Wrsynopsismap

Source: Udo Walendy, Truth for Germany, map in diagram section between pp. 64-65.

As this map shows, Polish chauvinism literally knows no bounds. The world went through the Second World War largely because of Poland and her taste for lands that belong to others. Some of her aspirations she accomplished in 1945, but this map suggests that there may still be more to Polish desires. Even today's Czechia and Slovakia are on the list. As Adam Mickiewicz wrote: "But each of you has in his soul the seeds of the future rights and the extent of the future frontiers."

As far as I as German am concerned, I wholeheartedly agree with what Freda Utley wrote in 1945 after she visited destroyed Germany:

"War propaganda has obscured the true facts of history, otherwise Americans might realize that the German record is no more aggressive, if as aggressive, as that of the French, British and Dutch who conquered huge empires in Asia and Africa while the Germans stayed at home composing music, studying philosophy, and listening to their poets. Not so long ago the Germans were, in fact, among the most 'peace-loving' peoples of the world and might become so again, given a world in which it is possible to live in peace.

"Mistaken as the Boeklers of Germany may be in believing that concessions can be won from the Western powers by negotiation, their attitude proves the willingness of many Germans to trust to peaceful means to obtain their ends."³⁷

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:05 am

Wikispooks Comment:

A comprehensive review of research into the Official Narrative of "The Holocaust" and the legislation, court cases and other events that publication of this research precipitated, between about 1970 and 2005. As noted by the author at the beginning, such publication in France and several other 'Freedom of Speech championing' western democracies, would still be illegal today (as at February 2012). This single fact should, if nothing else, stir the curiosity of the intelligent reader. When The establishment puts serious obstacles in the path of historical research, it is a good indication that theOfficial Narrative of the particular research area is more than usually deceptive. "Holocaust revisionism" is the pre-eminent example of the syndrome because, in the western world today (2012), to become associated with it invites the knee-jerk accusation of Holocaust Denier, a pejorative on a par with - for example - 'Pedophile', effectively destroying any career in Academia or public life generally.

Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism
By Robert Faurisson

The following is the remark, not of a revisionist, but rather by an anti-revisionist: note 1

"Holocaust denier," "revisionist," "negationist": everyone knows what such an accusation means. It effectively means exclusion from civilized humanity. Anyone who is suspected of this is finished. His public life is destroyed, his academic reputation ruined.

And he went on to add:

One day people will have to discuss the state of public affairs in a country where to brand a renowned scholar as a Holocaust denier (by hitting him with the 'Auschwitz Lie' club [die Keule der Auschwitz-Lüge]) is enough to destroy him morally, in an instant.

Against the Law

Writings such as this essay cannot be sold openly in my country. They must be published and distributed privately.

In France, it is forbidden to question the Shoah -- also called the "Holocaust."

A law on the "freedom of the press" enacted on July 13, 1990, makes it a crime to question the Shoah, in its three hypostases: the alleged genocide of the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers, and the alleged figure of six million Jewish victims of the Second World War. Violators are subject to a prison term ranging from one month to one year, a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 francs ($333 to $50,000), an order to pay considerable damages, and other sanctions. More precisely, this law makes it a crime to question ("contester") the reality of any of the "crimes against humanity" as defined in 1945 and punished in 1946 by the judges of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, a court established exclusively by the victors exclusively to judge the vanquished.

Debates and controversies about the Shoah are, of course, still permitted, but only within the limits set by the official dogma. Controversies or debates that might lead to a challenging of the Shoah story as a whole, or of a part of it, or simply to raise doubt, are forbidden. To repeat: on this issue, even doubt is proscribed, and punished.

In France, the impetus for such a law (which is of Israeli inspiration), note 2 came in 1986 from several historians of Jewish origin, including Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Georges Wellers, and François Bédarida, together with Chief Rabbi René-Samuel Sirat. note 3 The law was enacted in 1990 on the initiative of former prime minister Laurent Fabius, then a member of the Socialist government, president of the National Assembly, and himself a Jewish militant of the Jewish cause. During this same period (May 1990), a desecration of graves in the Jewish cemetery of Carpentras, in Provence, had given rise to a media furor that nullified any inclination on the part of opposition lawmakers to mount any effective resistance to the bill. In Paris some 200,000 marchers, with a host of Israeli flags borne high, demonstrated against "the resurgence of the horrid beast." Notre Dame's great bell tolled as for a particularly tragic or significant event in the history of France. Once the law was on the statute books (promulgated in the Journal officiel on the 14th of July, the national holiday: the same issue, incidentally, that announced Vidal-Naquet's nomination to the Order of the Légion d'honneur), the Carpentras outrage was mentioned only, if at all, with a certain distance, as a mere reminder. Only the "Fabius-Gayssot" Act remained.

Under pressure from national and international Jewish organizations, and following the Israeli and French examples, other countries similarly adopted laws forbidding any questioning of the Shoah. Such has been the case for Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Lithuania. In practice, such specific laws are not absolutely necessary to combat and suppress historical revisionism. In France, as elsewhere, the practice has often been to prosecute questioners of the Shoah under other laws, according to the needs of a given case, on the basis of laws against racism or anti-Semitism, defaming living persons, insulting the memory of the dead, attempting to justify crimes, or spreading false news, and -- a source of cash indemnities for the plaintiffs -- using personal injury statutes.

In France the police and the judiciary rigorously ensure the protection thus accorded to an official version of Second World War history. According to this rabbinical version, the major event of the conflict was the Shoah, in other words the physical extermination of the Jews that the Germans are said to have carried out from 1941-1942 to 1944-1945. (Lacking any document with which to assign a precise time span to the event -- and for
good reason, as it is a matter of fiction -- the official historians propose only dates that are as divergent as they are approximate.)

A Revisionist Chronicle

Since 1974 I have had to fight so many legal battles that I've been unable to find time to compose the systematic exposition that one is entitled to expect from a professor who, over so many years, has devoted his efforts to a single aspect of Second World War history: the "Holocaust" or the Shoah.

Year after year, an avalanche of trials, entailing the gravest consequences, has thwarted my plans to publish such a work. Apart from my own cases, I have had to devote considerable time and effort to the defense, before their respective courts, of other revisionists in France and abroad. Today, as I write these words, two cases are being brought against me, one in the Netherlands, the other in France, while I must also intervene, directly or indirectly, in proceedings pending against revisionists in Switzerland, Canada, and Australia. For lack of time, I have had to decline helping others, notably two Japanese revisionists.

Around the world, our adversaries' tactic is the same: use courts to paralyze the work of the revisionists, if not to sentence them to prison terms or to order them to pay fines or damages. For those convicted, imprisonment means a halt to all revisionist activity, while those ordered to pay large sums are compelled to set off on a feverish pursuit of money, goaded by threats of bailiffs, "writs of seizure," "notices to third parties," and freezing of bank accounts. For this reason alone, my life over the past quarter of a century has been difficult. It still is and, in all probability, will remain so.

To make matters worse, my idea of research has never been that of the "paper" professor or historian. I consider it indispensable to see the terrain for myself: either the terrain of the forensic investigation, or the terrain where the adversary is deployed. I wouldn't be entitled to talk about the camps of Dachau, Majdanek, Auschwitz or Treblinka without first having visiting them to examine for myself the buildings and the people there. I won't talk about anti-revisionist activities, such as demonstrations, conferences, symposia, and trials, without having attended them, or at least delegating an instructed observer to the events -- a practice that is not without risk, but which enables one to obtain information from a good source. I have friends and associates produce countless letters and statements. Whenever possible, I go myself to the ramparts. To cite but one example: the impressive international "Holocaust" conference organized in Oxford in 1988 by the late billionaire Robert Maxwell (also known as "Bob the Liar"). I believe I can justifiably say that it aborted so pitifully (as Maxwell himself admitted), note 4 thanks to an operation on the spot that I personally organized -- with the help of a female French revisionist who lacked neither courage, nor daring, nor ingenuity: her activism alone was certainly worth several books.

To the hours and days thus spent preparing court cases or various sporadic actions should be added the hours and days lost in hospital, recovering from the effects of an exhausting struggle or from the consequences of physical attacks carried out by militant Jewish groups. (In France armed militias are strictly prohibited, except for the Jewish community.) note 5

Finally, I have had to encourage, direct, or coordinate, in France and abroad, numerous activities or works of a revisionist nature, shore up those whose strength has faltered, provide for the continuance of action, answer requests, warn against provocations, errors, digressions from the goal, and, above all combat ill-conceived accommodations given that, for some revisionists, there is a great temptation in such a struggle to seek compromise with the adversary and, sometimes, even to back down. Examples of war-weary revisionists who have sunk to public contrition are, sad to say, not lacking. I shall not cast a stone at them, though. I know from experience that discouragement is liable to befall each of us because the contest is so unequal: our resources are laughable, while those of our opponents are immense.

Historical Revisionism

Revisionism is a matter of method and not an ideology.

It demands, in all research, a return to the starting point, an examination followed by re-examination, re-reading and rewriting, evaluation followed by revaluation, reorientation, revision, recasting. It is, in spirit, the contrary of ideology. It does not deny, but instead aims to affirm with greater exactitude. Revisionists are not "deniers" (or, to use the French expression, "negationists"). Rather, they endeavor to seek and to find things where, it seemed, there was nothing more to seek or find.

Revisionism can be carried out in a hundred activities of everyday life and in a hundred fields of historical, scientific, or literary research. It does not necessarily call established ideas into question, but often leads to qualifying them somewhat. It seeks to untangle the true from the false. History is, in essence, revisionist; ideology is its enemy. Because ideology is strongest during times of war or conflict, and because it then churns out falsehood in abundance for propaganda needs, the historian working in that area is well advised to redouble his vigilance. In probing deep into the "truths" of which he has been reminded so often, he will doubtless realize that, when a war has led to tens of millions of deaths, the very first victim is the ascertainable truth: a truth that must be sought out and re-established.

The official history of the Second World War comprises a bit of truth mixed with a great deal of falsehood.

Official history: Its Retreats in the Face of Revisionist Advances

It is accurate to say that National Socialist Germany built concentration camps; it did so after, and at the same time as, a good number of other countries, all of which were convinced that their camps would be more humane than prison. Hitler saw in them what Napoléon III had thought he saw in the creation of penal colonies: progress for humanity. But it is false to hold that Germany ever established "extermination camps" (an expression invented by the Allies).

It is accurate to say that the Germans manufactured gas-powered vehicles (Gaswagen). But it is false to say that they ever built homicidal gas vans (if a single one of these had ever existed, it would be on display at an automobile museum, or at one of the various "Holocaust" museums, at least in the form of a drawing of scientific value).

It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard, by disinfestation, the health of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon to kill anyone, let alone to put to death throngs of human beings at once. In light of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as allegedly carried out at Auschwitz and at other camps would have been fundamentally impossible. note 6

It is accurate to say that the Germans envisaged a "final solution of the Jewish question" (Endlösung der Judenfrage). But this solution was a territorial one (eine territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage), and not a murderous one. It was a project to induce or, if necessary, to force the Jews to leave Germany and its European sphere of influence, thereafter to establish, in accord with the Zionists, a Jewish national home, in Madagascar or elsewhere. With a view toward such a solution, many Zionists collaborated with National Socialist Germany. note 7

It is accurate to say that a gathering of German officials was held at a villa in Wannsee, on the outskirts of Berlin, on January 20, 1942, to discuss the Jewish question. But the subject of their discussions was the forced emigration or deportation of the Jews, as well as the future creation of a specific Jewish territorial entity, not a program of physical extermination.

It is accurate to say that some German concentration camps had crematories to incinerate corpses. But their purpose was to combat epidemics, not to incinerate, as some have dared assert, living human beings along with corpses. note 8

It is accurate to say that many Jews experienced the hardships of war, of internment, deportation, the detention camps, the concentration camps, the forced labor camps, the ghettos; that there were, for various reasons, summary executions of Jews, that they were the victims of reprisals and even massacres (for there are no wars without massacres). But it is equally true that all of these sufferings were also the lot of many other nations or communities during the war and, in particular, of the Germans and their allies (the hardships of the ghetto aside, for the ghetto is first and foremost a specific creation of the Jews themselves). note 9 It is above all most plausible, for anyone who is not afflicted with a hemiplegic memory, and who seeks to acquaint himself with both sides of Second World War history (that is, the side that is always shown, as well as the side almost always hidden), that the sufferings of the vanquished during the war and afterwards were, in number and in nature, greater than those of the Jews and the victors, especially as concerns deportations.

It is false that there ever existed, as some have long dared to assert, any order whatever, given by Hitler or any of his associates, to exterminate the Jews. During the war, German soldiers and officers were convicted by their own courts martial, and sometimes shot, for having killed Jews.

It is a good thing that the exterminationists (that is, those who believe in the extermination of the Jews) have grown weary to the point that they now acknowledge that no trace of any plan, instruction, or document relating to a policy of physical extermination of the Jews has ever been found and that, similarly, they have at last admitted that no trace of any budget for such an undertaking, or of a body responsible for running such a project, has been found.

It is a good thing that the exterminationists have at last conceded to the revisionists that the judges at the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946) accepted as true certain pure inventions, such as the stories of soap produced from Jewish fat, of lampshades made of human skin, of "shrunken heads," and of homicidal gassings at Dachau.

It is an especially good thing that the exterminationists have finally recognized that the most spectacular, the most terrifying, the most significant part of that trial -- that is, the session of April 15, 1946, in the course of which a former commandant of the Auschwitz camp, Rudolf Höss, testified openly that, in his camp, millions of Jews had been gassed -- was merely the product of the tortures inflicted on him. His "confession," presented for so many years and in so many historical works as the Number One "proof" of the genocide of the Jews, is now consigned to oblivion, at least as far as historians are concerned. note 10

It is fortunate that exterminationist historians have finally acknowledged that the famous testimony of SS officer Kurt Gerstein, an essential element of their case, is devoid of value. It is loathsome that the French University revoked the revisionist Henri Roques' doctorate, earned for having demonstrated that fact in 1985. note 11

It is pitiful that Raul Hilberg, the "pope" of exterminationism, ventured to write, in the first, 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two orders by Hitler to exterminate the Jews, and then later to declare, in 1983, that the extermination had come about on its own, without any order or plan, but rather through "an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung [German] bureaucracy." So it was that Hilberg replaced a gratuitous assertion with a magical explanation: telepathy. note 12

It is a good thing that the exterminationists have, in effect, finally (or very nearly) abandoned the charge, based on "testimonies," according to which there were execution gas chambers at the camps of Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Hartheim, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof-Danzig, Bergen-Belsen ... note 13

It is a good thing that the most-visited "gas chamber" in the world -- that of Auschwitz I -- has at last (in a January 1995 article) been recognized for what it is -- a fabrication. It is fortunate that it has at last been admitted that "Everything in it is false." I personally delight in knowing that an Establishment historian has written: "In the late 1970s, Robert Faurisson exploited these falsifications all the better as the [Auschwitz] museum administration balked at acknowledging them."note 14 I delight all the more given that the French courts, in their iniquity, convicted me for basically saying just that.

It is a good thing that, in that same 1995 article, this same historian revealed that such a figure in the Jewish world as eminent as Théo Klein sees in that "gas chamber" only a "trick" ("artifice").

It is also a good thing that, in that same article, this same historian revealed, first, that the Auschwitz Museum authorities are conscious of having deceived millions of visitors (500,000 yearly in the early 1990s), and second, that they will nevertheless continue to deceive their visitors, for, as the Museum's assistant director put it: "[Telling the truth about this 'gas chamber'] is too complicated. We'll see to it later on." note 15

It is fortunate that in 1996 two historians of Jewish origin, the Canadian Robert Jan van Pelt and the American Debórah Dwork, finally denounced some of the enormous fakeries of the Auschwitz camp-museum, and the cynicism with which visitors were being duped there. note 16

It is, on the other hand, unconscionable that UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) should maintain its patronage (as it has done since 1979) of a site such as Auschwitz, whose center upholds, in its fake "gas chamber" (to say nothing of other enormous falsifications), an imposture now avowed as such. UNESCO (based in Paris and headed by Federico Mayor) has no right to use the dues of the member countries to sanction such a vast swindle, one so incompatible with the interests of "education," "science," and "culture."

It is fortunate that Jean-Claude Pressac, after having been praised to the skies, has fallen into discredit. Promoted by the Klarsfeld couple, this French pharmacist thought it wise to stake out a half-way position between those who believed in the gas chambers and those who did not. For him, in a sense, the woman in question was neither pregnant nor unpregnant, but rather half-pregnant and even, with time, less and less pregnant. An author of writings that were supposed to be about the Nazi gas chambers, but in which not one comprehensive photograph or drawing of a single one of those chemical slaughterhouses was to be found, this pitiful scribbler would, in a Paris court on May 9, 1995, go on to give a demonstration of his total inability to reply to the presiding judge's questions as to what, concretely, such a mass murder machine might actually have been. note 17

It is fortunate that, although in ruins, "the gas chamber" of Krematorium II in Birkenau (Auschwitz II), plainly shows that there never was a "Holocaust" in this camp. According both to a German defendant's statements under interrogation, as well as 1944 aerial photographs "retouched" by the Allies, the roof of this gas chamber seems to have had four special openings (about ten inches square, it was specified), through which Zyklon was poured in. But as anyone at the site can observe for himself, none of those four openings ever existed. Given that Auschwitz is the capital of the "Holocaust," and that this ruined crematory is at the core of the alleged extermination process of the Jews at Auschwitz, in 1994 I said (and this phrase seems since to have caught on): "No holes, no 'Holocaust'."

It is equally fortunate that a plethora of "testimonies" that supposedly confirm these homicidal gassings have thus been invalidated. By the same token, it is extremely deplorable that so many Germans were tried and convicted by their victorious adversaries for crimes they could not have committed, some even being put to death.

It is a good thing that, in the light of trials resembling so many judicial masquerades, the exterminationists themselves voice doubts as to the validity of numerous testimonies. The defective nature of these testimonies would have been much more obvious if one had taken the trouble to carry out a expert examination of the supposed weapon of the alleged crime. But in the course of hundreds of trials concerning Auschwitz or other camps, no court ordered any such inquiry. (The one exception, very little known, was carried out at Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace, the results of which were kept hidden until I revealed them.) It was nonetheless known that a good number of testimonies or confessions needed to be verified and checked against the material facts and that, in the absence of those two conditions, they were worthless as evidence.

It is fortunate that official history has revised downwards -- often quite drastically -- the supposed number of victims. It was only after more than 40 years of revisionist pressure that Jewish authorities and those of the Auschwitz State Museum removed the 19 plaques that, in 19 different languages, announced that the number of victims there had been four million. It then took five years of internal bickering for agreement to be reached on the new figure of one and a half million, a figure that, in turn, was very quickly challenged by exterminationist authors. Jean-Claude Pressac, Serge Klarsfeld's protégé, has more recently proposed a figure of 600,000 to 800,000 Jewish and non-Jewish victims during the entire period of the Auschwitz complex's existence. note 18 It is a pity that this quest for the true figure is not followed through to reach the likely figure of 150,000 persons -- most of them victims of epidemics -- in the nearly 40 camps of the Auschwitz complex. It is deplorable that the film "Nuit et Brouillard" ("Night and Fog"), in which the Auschwitz death toll is put at nine million, continues to be shown in French schools. This film perpetuates the myths of "soap made from the bodies," or lampshades of human skin, and of scratches made by fingernails of dying victims on the concrete walls of the gas chambers. The film even proclaims that "nothing distinguished the gas chamber from an ordinary barracks"!

It was a good thing that Arno Mayer, a Princeton University professor of Jewish origin, wrote in 1988: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." note 19 But why was it affirmed for so many years that the sources were countless and trustworthy? And why was scorn poured on the revisionists who, since 1950, had written what Arno Mayer affirmed in 1988?

It was a particularly good thing that the French historian Jacques Baynac, who had made a speciality, in Le Monde and elsewhere, of labeling the revisionists as forgers, should finally acknowledge in 1996 that there was, after all, no evidence of the existence of homicidal gas chambers. It was, he made clear, "as painful to say as it is to hear." note 20Perhaps, for certain persons, and in certain circumstances, the truth is "as painful to say as it is to hear." For revisionists, though, the truth is as pleasant to say as it is to hear.

Lastly, it is fortunate that the exterminationists have allowed themselves to undermine the third and last element of the Shoah trinity: the figure of six million Jewish deaths. note 21 It seems that this figure was first put forth by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel (1903-1956). Based in Slovakia, this rabbi was the main inventor of the Auschwitz lie based on the alleged testimonies of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler. He organized intensive "information campaigns" aimed at the Allies, at Switzerland, and at the Vatican. In a letter of May 31, 1944 (that is, nearly a full year before the war's end in Europe), he did not shrink from writing: "Till now six times a million Jews from Europe and Russia have been destroyed." note 22

This six million figure was also published before the end of the war in the writings of the Soviet Jew Ilya Ehrenburg (1891-1967), perhaps the most hateful propagandist of the Second World War. note 23 In 1979 the six million figure was suddenly termed "symbolic" (that is, false) by the exterminationist Martin Broszat during the trial of a German revisionist. In 1961, Raul Hilberg, that most prestigious of conventional historians, estimated the number of Jewish wartime deaths to have been 5.1 million. In 1953, another of those historians, Gerald Reitlinger, put forth a figure of between 4.2 and 4.6 million. In fact, though, no historian of that school has offered any figures based on the results of an investigation. It has always been a matter of each one's own more or less educated guess. The revisionist Paul Rassinier, for his part, proposed the figure of "about one million" Jewish deaths. As he pointed out, though, he did so on the basis of numbers furnished by the opposing side. His figure was thus also a product of guesswork.

The truth is that many European Jews perished, and many survived. With modern calculation methods it should be possible to determine what, in each case, is meant by "many." However, the three sources from which the necessary information might be obtained are, in practice, either forbidden to independent researchers or are accessible only with great limitation:

First, the enormous body of documentation gathered by the International Tracing Service (ITS) of Arolsen-Waldeck, Germany, which is answerable to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland. Access to this center is very limited -- closely guarded by a ten-nation board, of which Israel is a member.
Second, documents held in Poland and Russia, including death registries of certain camps, cremation registries, and so forth. Only a portion of these documents is accessible.
Finally, the names of the millions of Jewish survivors -- in Israel or in dozens of countries represented by the World Jewish Congress in New York -- who have received, or are still receiving, financial indemnities or reparations. Merely listing these names would show the extent to which communities that so often have been said to be "exterminated" in fact were not at all exterminated.

Even 52 years after the end of the war, the State of Israel put the official number of "Holocaust" "survivors" around the world at some 900,000. (More precisely, it gave figures of between 834,000 and 960,000.) note 24 According to a computation made by the Swedish statistician Carl O. Nordling, to whom I submitted that Israeli government evaluation, it is possible, postulating the existence of 900,000 "survivors" in 1997, to conclude that there were, at the end of the war in Europe in 1945, slightly more than three million "survivors." Even today, a diverse range of organizations or associations of "survivors" flourish around the world. These include associations of veteran Jewish "résistants," of former children of Auschwitz (that is, Jewish children born in that camp or interned there with their parents at a very early age), of former Jewish forced laborers, and, more simply, formerly clandestine Jews or Jewish fugitives. Millions of beneficiaries of "miracles" no longer constitute a "miracle," but are rather the result of a natural phenomenon. The American press has reported fairly often on moving reunions of family members, "Holocaust" survivors all, each of whom, we are assured, was at one time convinced that his or her "entire family" had been lost.

To sum up, in spite of the dogma and the laws, the pursuit of the historical truth about the Second World War in general, and about the Shoah in particular, has made headway in recent years, but the general public is kept in the dark about this. It would be stunned to learn that, since the early 1980s, establishment historians have relegated many of the most firmly held popular beliefs to the rank of legend. From this point of view, one can say that there are two levels of "the Holocaust": on the one hand, that of the public at large and, on the other, that of the conformist historians. The first seems to be unshakable, while the second (to judge by the number of hasty repairs being made to it), seems on the verge of collapse.

Year by year (and especially since 1979), the concessions made to the revisionists by the "orthodox" historians have been so numerous and of such quality that today the latter find themselves at a dead end. No longer having anything of substance to say about the "Holocaust," they have handed the baton to the filmmakers, novelists, and theater people. Even the museum people are at a loss. At the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the "decision" has been made not to offer for public viewing "any physical representation of the gas chambers." (This is according to a statement made to me, and in the presence of four witnesses in August 1994, by the Museum's Research Director, Michael Berenbaum. He is the author of a guide book of more than 200 pages in which, in effect, no physical representation of gas chambers appears, not even one of the miserable and fallacious mock-up on display for Museum visitors.) note 25The public is forbidden to take photographs there. Claude Lanzmann, maker of "Shoah," a film remarkable for its utter lack of historical or scientific content, today no longer has any recourse but to pontificate in deploring the fact that "the revisionists occupy the whole terrain." note 26 As for Elie Wiesel, he calls on everyone to show discretion. He requests that we no longer try to closely examine, or even to imagine what happened in the gas chambers: "Let the gas chambers remain closed to prying eyes, and to imagination." note 27 The "Holocaust" historians have turned into theoreticians, philosophers, and "thinkers." The squabbles among them, between "intentionalists" and "functionalists," or between supporters and adversaries of a thesis such as Daniel Goldhagen's on the near-innate propensity of Germans to descend into anti-Semitism and racist crime, ought not to conceal from view the poverty of their historical work.

Revisionism's Successes and Failures

In 1998, an appraisal of the revisionist enterprise could be briefly put as follows: a sparkling success on the historical and scholarly front (where our opponents capitulated in 1996), but a failure on the public relations front. (Our adversaries have closed off all access to the media except, for the time being, the Internet.)

In the 1980s and early 1990s, anti-revisionist authors attempted to cross swords with the revisionists on the field of historical scholarship. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Nadine Fresco, Georges Wellers, Adalbert Rückerl, Hermann Langbein, Eugen Kogon, Arno Mayer, and Serge Klarsfeld, each in turn tried to persuade the media that answers had been found to the revisionists' material or documentary arguments. Even Michael Berenbaum, even the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, in 1993 and in early 1994, wanted to pick up the gauntlet I had thrown down, and try to show just a single Nazi gas chamber, just a single proof -- of their own choosing -- that there had been a genocide of the Jews. But their failures were so stinging that thereafter they abandoned, ever more progressively, the fight on that turf. More recently, in 1998, appeared a thick book by Michael Berenbaum (together with Abraham J. Peck) entitled The Holocaust and History. note 28 But far from examining, on the level of historical scholarship, what the authors call the "Holocaust," instead they unintentionally show that the "Holocaust" is one thing, and "History" quite another. The work, moreover, is quasi-immaterial, presenting neither photographs, nor drawings, nor the least attempt to represent physically any reality whatever. Only the dust jacket offers a view of a heap of shoes. Reputedly possessing a certain graphic eloquence, at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum they supposedly tell us: "We are the shoes, we are the last witnesses." This book is merely a compilation of 55 contributions written and published under the watchful eye of Rabbi Berenbaum: in it even Raul Hilberg, even Yehuda Bauer, even Franciszek Piper, abandon any real effort at scholarly research, while at the same time anathema is pronounced against Arno Mayer who, in his 1988 study, tried to put the "Holocaust" back into the realm of history. note 29 The irrational has prevailed against attempts at rationalization. Elie Wiesel, Claude Lanzmann, and Steven Spielberg (in his film, "Schindler's List," inspired by a novel), have in the end triumphed over those in their own camp who once tried to prove the "Holocaust."

In future years it will be seen in hindsight that in September 1996 the death knell sounded for the hopes of those who wanted to combat revisionism on historical and scholarly grounds. The two long articles in a Swiss daily paper written by the anti-revisionist historian Jacques Baynac definitively closed the book on attempts at a rational response to revisionist arguments.

In the mid- and late 1970s, I offered my own contribution to the development of revisionism. I discovered and formulated what has since come to be known as the physical and chemical argument, that is, the physical and chemical reasons why the alleged Nazi gas chambers were quite simply inconceivable. At the time, I commended myself for having presented to the world a decisive argument that had never before been expounded either by a German chemist or an American engineer. (Germany is not short of chemists, and the United States has engineers who, given the forbidding complexities involved in making and operating an American penitentiary gas chamber, ought to have realized that, because of certain physical and chemical realities, the alleged Nazi gas chambers could not possibly have operated as claimed.)

If, during that period, amidst the fracas prompted by my discovery, a clairvoyant had predicted that, 20 years later, my adversaries, after many attempts to show that I was wrong, would (as Baynac did in 1996) resign themselves to acknowledging that, after all, there existed not the least evidence with which to prove the reality of a single Nazi gas chamber, I certainly would have rejoiced. I might have also concluded that the myth of the "Holocaust" could never survive such a direct hit, that the media would then quit propagating the Great Lie and that, quite naturally, the legal repression of revisionists would end by itself.

In so reckoning I would have committed an error both of diagnosis and of prognosis.

For the spirit of superstitious belief is different than that of science. It makes its own way in the world. The realm of religion, of ideology, of illusion, of the media, and of fictional cinema can develop at a certain remove from scientific realities. Even Voltaire never succeeded in "crushing the vile foe." One may therefore say that, like Voltaire denouncing the absurdities of the Hebraic tales, the revisionists -- in spite of the scholarly character of their work -- are doomed never to carry the day against the wild imaginings of the Synagogue, while the Synagogue, for its part, will never succeed in stifling the voices of the revisionists. The "Holocaust" and "Shoah business" propaganda will continue to flourish. It still remains for revisionists to show how this belief, this myth was born, grew and flourished before, perhaps, one day disappearing to make way, not for reason but for other beliefs and other myths.

How are men deceived, and why do they deceive themselves so readily?

'Holocaust' Propaganda

The masses are most easily fooled through manipulation of images. With the liberation of the German concentration camps in April 1945, British and American journalists rushed to photograph and film true horrors that were then, one may say, made into truer than life horrors. In the language dear to media people, the public was presented with a "put-up" job. note 30 On the one hand, we were shown real dead bodies as well as real crematories, and, on the other hand, thanks to some misleading comments and a cinematic staging, a deft artifice was effected. I describe this fraud with a phrase that may serve to help unmask all such impostures: We were led to take the dead for killed, and crematories for execution gas chambers.

Thus was born the confusion, still so widespread today, between, on the one hand, the crematories, which actually existed (but not at Bergen-Belsen) for the incineration of corpses and, on the other hand, the Nazi gas chambers allegedly used to kill whole crowds of men and women, but which, in reality, never existed nor could have existed.

The myth of the Nazi gas chambers and their association with the crematories originated, in its media form, in the press and newsreel photographs and media commentary from the Bergen-Belsen camp -- which, orthodox historians now admit, possessed neither mass-execution gas chambers nor even simple crematories.

'Gas Chambers' That Have Never Been Seen or Shown

At a news conference in Stockholm in March 1992, I issued a challenge to the audience of newspaper and television reporters. That challenge was made in the nine words: "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber."

The next day, the journalists' reports on the news conference indeed appeared, but they passed over in silence its essential object: precisely that challenge. They had looked for photographs and had found none.

Billions of people over this past half-century assume (or imagine) that they have seen images of Nazi gas chambers in books or in documentary films. Many are convinced that, at least once in their lives, they've come across a photograph of a Nazi gas chamber. Some have visited Auschwitz or another camp where guides told them that this or that structure was a gas chamber. Such visitors are told that before their eyes is (as the case may be) a gas chamber "in its original state" or "a reconstruction" of an original gas chamber. (This latter expression implies that the "reconstruction" is faithful, that it conforms to the "original.") Sometimes visitors are shown remains of what they are told are "ruins of a gas chamber."note 31 Yet, in all such cases, they have been deceived or, better, have deceived themselves. This phenomenon is easily explained.

Many people imagine that a homicidal gas chamber is merely a room with poison gas inside. This reveals confusion between an execution gassing, and a suicidal or accidental one. An execution gassing, such as those of individuals in some United States prisons, is unavoidably a very complicated undertaking. In such a case, care must be taken to kill only the condemned prisoner without causing an accident, and without putting one's own life, or that of one's associates, in danger, especially in the final phase, that is, when the chamber must be entered to remove the contaminated corpse. Most "Holocaust" museum visitors, readers, film-goers, and even most historians, are obviously unaware of any of this. Those in charge of "Holocaust" museums exploit this lack of awareness. For an effective Nazi gas chamber exhibit, they need only show the credulous public a gloomy space or room, a cold morgue room, a shower room (preferably located below ground), or an air raid shelter (with a peephole in its door), and the trick will work. The tricksters can manage with even less that this: it's enough merely to show a door, a wall, or a roof of a purported "gas chamber." The most clever ones will get by with just a bundle of hair, a pile of shoes, or a heap of eyeglasses, while claiming that these are the only traces or remains left of the "gassed" victims. Naturally, they will refrain from mentioning that, during the war and the blockade, in a Europe beset with general shortages and penury, vast "recovery" and "recycling" programs were organized to reclaim all recoverable materials, including hair, which was used, for example, in textile products.

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 2:08 am

Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism: Pt 2

The 'Holocaust' Witnesses: Unverified Testimonies

A similar confusion reigns with respect to the witnesses. We are presented with bands of witnesses to the genocide of the Jews. Whether orally or in writing, these witnesses claim to assert that Germany carried out a plan for the overall extermination of the Jews of Europe. In reality, these witnesses can truthfully attest only to such facts as the Jews' deportation, their internment in detention camps, concentration camps or forced labor camps, and even, in some cases, the functioning of crematories. The Jews were to so great a degree not doomed to extermination, or to end up in mass-execution gas chambers, that each one of these countless survivors or escapees, far from constituting, as some would have us believe, a "living proof of the genocide," is, on the contrary, a living proof that there was no genocide. As has been seen above, at war's end the number of Jewish "survivors" of the "Holocaust" probably exceeded three million.

For Auschwitz alone, a lengthy list may be made of former Jewish inmates who have borne witness -- in public, orally or in writing, on television, in books, in the law courts -- to "the extermination of the Jews" in the camp. note 32

I shall also mention the resounding case of a late arrival -- the Swiss clarinettist Binjamin Wilkomirski. It is not clear why, but this false witness was publicly exposed after a three-year spell of glory during which he was honored with the US National Jewish Book Award, the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize in Britain, the Mémoire de la Shoah prize in France, and an impressive series of dithyrambic articles in the press worldwide. His purported autobiography, in which he relates being deported as a child to Majdanek and to Auschwitz (?), was originally published in Germany in 1995. It appeared in English under the title Fragments: Memories of a Wartime Childhood. note 33 Jewish author Daniel Ganzfried concluded, on the basis of his investigation, that Binjamin Wilkomirski, alias Bruno Doessekker, born Bruno Grosjean, indeed had some experience of Auschwitz and Majdanek, but only after the war, as a tourist. note 34 In 1995 the Australian Donald Watt successfully deceived much of the English-language media with a memoir that told of his alleged life as a crematory "stoker" at Auschwitz-Birkenau. note 35 Between September and November 1998, a vast media operation was organized in Germany and France based on the sudden "revelations" of Dr. Hans-Wilhelm Münch, one-time SS physician at Auschwitz. The vein is decidedly bountiful.

Primo Levi is still generally treated as a reliable witness. While this reputation was perhaps deserved in 1947, with the publication of his book Se questo è un uomo (published in the US under the title Survival in Auschwitz), Levi later conducted himself rather unworthily. Elie Wiesel remains the undisputed "star false witness" of the "Holocaust." In his autobiographical account Night he does not mention "gas chambers." For him, the Germans threw Jews into blazing pits. (As recently as June 2, 1987, he testified under oath at the Klaus Barbie trial in Lyon that he had "seen, in a little wood, somewhere in [Auschwitz] Birkenau, SS men throwing live children into the flames." (The translator and editor of the German version of Night resuscitated the "gas chambers" in Wiesel's account of Auschwitz. In France, Fred Sedel in 1990 similarly proceeded in re-editing a book that had appeared in 1963, putting "chambres à gaz" ["gas chamber"] where, 27 years earlier, he had mentioned only "fours crématoires" ["crematory ovens"].) note 36

In this same boat of "pious lies" one may also include the testimonies of some non-Jews, in particular that of General André Rogerie. In the original 1946 edition of his memoir, Vivre, c'est vaincre, he wrote only of having heard talk of "gas chambers." But fortified by support from Georges Wellers, he presented himself in 1988 as a "Holocaust witness" who had "beheld the Shoah at Birkenau." note 37 As he himself has related, his lot as a prisoner in the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was a privileged one. He lodged in the barracks of the "bosses" and enjoyed a "royally cushy position" of which he "has fond remembrances." He ate pancakes with jam and played bridge. Of course, he wrote, "not only merry events take place [in the camp]." Still, upon leaving Birkenau he had this thought: "Unlike many others, I have been better off here than anywhere else." note 38

Samuel Gringauz got through the war in the ghetto of Kaunas, Lithuania. In 1950 -- that is, at a time when it was still possible to speak somewhat freely on the subject -- he gave an appraisal of the literature thus far produced by the survivors of the "great Jewish catastrophe." Deploring the trespasses to which their "hyper-historical complex" was then giving rise, he wrote: note 39

The hyper-historical complex may be described as judeocentric, lococentric and egocentric. It concentrates historical relevance on Jewish problems of local events under the aspect of personal experience. This is the reason why most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilletante [sic] philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.

One can only assent to this judgment, which could perfectly well apply today to a Claude Lanzmann or an Elie Wiesel. For the latter's "hyper-historical complex," for the "judeocentric, lococentric and egocentric" character of his writings, one may refer to Wiesel's two recent volumes of memoirs, published in the US under the titles All Rivers Run to the Sea, and, And the Sea is Never Full. In so doing, one may also realize that, far from having been exterminated, a great many of the members of the Jewish community of the little Romanian-Hungarian town of Sighet in all likelihood survived deportation, notably to Auschwitz in May and June of 1944, and internment. Himself a native of Sighet, Wiesel endured the fate of his fellow townspeople. In journeys to various places around the world after the war, he came upon an amazing number of relatives, friends, old acquaintances, and others from Sighet who, thanks to a succession of "miracles," had survived Auschwitz or the "Holocaust."

Some Other Second World War Fables

Just as perplexed as today's generation, those of the future will ask themselves identical questions about a number of Second World War myths besides that of the Nazi gas chambers: in addition to the stories already mentioned of "Jewish soap," tanned human skins, "shrunken heads," and "gas vans," one may also cite the stories of the insane medical experiments attributed to Dr. Mengele, Adolf Hitler's orders to exterminate the Jews, Heinrich Himmler's order to halt said extermination, and the mass killings of Jews by electricity, steam, quicklime, crematories, burning pits, and vacuum pumps. Let us also cite the purported exterminations of Gypsies and homosexuals, and the alleged gassings of the mentally ill. Future generations will also wonder about many other subjects: the massacres on the Eastern front as related in certain writings, and in writing only, at the Nuremberg trial by the professional false witness Hermann Gräbe; such now-acknowledged impostures as the book supposedly by Hermann Rauschning, which in fact was written chiefly by the Hungarian Jew Imre Révész, alias Emery Reves, but used extensively at the Nuremberg trial as though it were authentic;note 40 the mass killing of Jews near Auschwitz with an experimental atomic bomb, a claim also brought up at the Nuremberg trial; note 41 the absurd "confessions" extorted from German prisoners; the reputed diary of Anne Frank; the young boy in the Warsaw ghetto shown as going to his death, whereas he most likely emigrated to New York after the war; note 42 along with various false memoirs, false stories, false testimonies, and false attributions, the true natures of which would, with a minimum of effort, have been easy to ascertain.

But those future generations will probably be astonished most of all by the myth that was instituted and hallowed by the Nuremberg trial (and, to a lesser degree, by the Tokyo trial): that of the intrinsic barbarity of the vanquished and the intrinsic virtue of the victors who, as becomes apparent upon a close look at the facts, themselves committed acts of horror that were far more striking, both in quantity and in quality, than those perpetrated by the vanquished.

A Universal Butchery

At a time when one might be led to believe that only the Jews really suffered during the Second World War, and that only the Germans behaved like veritable criminals, an impartial examination into the true sufferings of all peoples and the real crimes of all belligerents seems overdue.

Whether "just" or "unjust," every war is a butchery -- indeed, notwithstanding the heroism of countless soldiers, a competition in butchery. At the end of it, the winner turns out to have been nothing more than a good butcher, and the loser a bad butcher. So when hostilities have ceased, the victor may perhaps be entitled to give the vanquished a lesson in butchery, but certainly not in Right and Justice. Yet that is just what happened in the great Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946, when the four big winners, acting in their own names and in the name of the 19 victorious entities (not counting the World Jewish Congress, which enjoyed the status of amicus curiae or "friend of the court"), had the cynicism to inflict such a treatment on a beaten nation reduced to total impotence.

According to Nahum Goldmann, President of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, the idea of such a trial was the brainchild of a few Jews. note 43 As for the role played by Jews in the actual proceedings at Nuremberg, it was considerable. The American delegation, which ran the entire business, was made up largely of "re-emigrants," that is, of Jews who migrated in the 1930s from Germany to America, and then returned to Germany after the war. Gustave M. Gilbert, the famous psychologist and author of Nuremberg Diary (1947), was a Jew who, working behind the scenes with the American prosecutors, did not miss the chance to practice psychological torture on the German defendants. Airey Neave, a member of the British delegation, remarked, in a book prefaced by Lord Justice Birkett, one of the panel of judges, that many of the American examiners were German-born, and all were Jewish. note 44

For reasons I deal with in detail in my Écrits révisionnistes collection, the Nuremberg trial can be regarded as this century's crime of all crimes. Its consequences have proven tragic. It accorded the status of truth to an extravagant volume of lies, calumnies, and injustices that over the years have served to justify all kinds of wickedness: in particular Bolshevik and Zionist expansionism at the expense of nations in Europe and Asia, and of Palestine. Given, however, that the Nuremberg judges found Germany guilty, first and foremost, of having unilaterally plotted and instigated the Second World War, we must begin by first examining this point.

Four Giants and Three Dwarfs: Who Wanted War?

Because history is primarily a matter of geography, let us consider a desktop globe of the year 1939 on whose surface a single color would cover four immense aggregates: Great Britain and her empire of a fifth of the Earth, and upon which "the sun never set," France and her own vast colonial empire, the United States and its vassals, and, finally, the impressive empire of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Then, another color would mark the modest Germany within her pre-war borders, the meager Italy and her little colonial empire, and finally Japan, whose armies at the time occupied territory in China. (We shall not consider here the countries that were later to join the ranks, at least provisionally, of one or the other of these two belligerent blocs.)

The contrast between the geographical areas covered by these two groups is striking, as is the contrast between their natural, industrial, and commercial resources. Of course, by the end of the 1930s, Germany and Japan were starting -- as the postwar years further proved -- to shake off their yokes, and to build an economy and an army capable of disquieting the bigger and stronger powers. And, of course, the Germans and the Japanese, during the first years of the war, deployed an uncommon measure of energy and succeeded in carving out their short-lived empires. But, all things considered, Germany, Italy, and Japan were mere dwarfs, so to speak, beside the four giants that were the British, French, American, and Soviet empires.

Who today can seriously believe -- as was maintained at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials -- that during the late 1930s these three dwarfs deliberately sought to provoke a new world war? Better still: who today can believe for an instant that, during the general slaughter that ensued, the first of these three dwarfs (Germany) was guilty of every imaginable crime, while the next (Japan) came a distant second, and the third (Italy), which changed sides in September 1943, committed no really reprehensible acts? Who today can accept the notion that the four giants did not, to use the Nuremberg terminology, commit any "crimes against peace," any "war crimes," or any "crimes against humanity" that, after 1945, would have warranted judgment by an international tribunal?

It is nevertheless easy to show, with solid proof, that the winners, in six years of war and in a few years afterwards, accumulated, in their massacres of prisoners of war and of civilians, in massive deportations, in systematic looting, and in summary or "judicial" executions, more horrors than the losers. Katyn forest, the Gulag, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the expulsion, under horrible conditions, of 12 to 15 million Germans (from East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia), the handing over of millions of Europeans to the Soviet moloch, the bloodiest purge ever to sweep the continent: was all of that really too small a matter for review by an international tribunal? During this past century, no military force has killed as many children -- in Europe, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Central America -- as the US air force. And yet no international authority has held it to account for these slaughters, which the "boys" have always been ready to carry out anywhere in the world, for such is their "job."note 45

Did the French Want War?

"Cursed be war!" reads the inscription on the war memorial in the small French town of Gentioux. In the town of Saint-Martin-d'Estréaux, the inscription on the memorial is lengthier, but its "assessment" of the war sends forth the same cry.note 46 The lists, in churches and on monuments throughout France, of the dead from the 1914-1918 war are heart-rending. Today no one is really able to say for just what reason the youth of France (just as, on its side, the youth of Germany) were thus mown down.

On some of these same memorials in our towns and villages one can also find, though in markedly smaller numbers, the names of young Frenchmen killed or missing during the campaign of 1939-1940: about 87,000 altogether. Occasionally one also finds lists of civilian victims. During the war years, the British and Americans alone killed some 67,000 in their air attacks on France. Occasionally, to round out the list, one can sometimes find the names of a few Résistance members who died in their beds well after the war. Almost never can one find the names of French victims of the "Great Purge" of 1944-1947 -- probably 14,000, and not 30,000 or, as is sometimes claimed, 105,000 -- in which Jews, Communists, and last-minute Gaullists played an essential role. With rare exceptions the names of the colonial troops who "died for France" are also missing, because they were not natives of the French towns.

For France, the two world wars constituted a disaster: the first, especially because of the sheer volume of human losses, and the second because of its character as a civil war that has persisted to this day.

When reflecting on these lists of First World War dead, including those "missing in action," when remembering the whole battalions of men who survived with ruined faces, of those wounded, maimed, and crippled for life, when taking stock of the destructions of all sorts, when thinking of the families devastated by these losses, of the prisoners, of those "shot for desertion," of the suicides provoked by so much suffering, when remembering as well the 25 million deaths in America and Europe in 1918 from the epidemic of a viral illness wrongly called "Spanish influenza" (brought into France, at least in part, by American troops), note 47 can one not understand the pre-1939-1945 pacifists and supporters of "Munich," as well as the Pétainists of 1940? What right today has anyone to speak blithely of "cowardice," either with regard to the Munich accords of September 29 and 30, 1938, or to the armistice signed at Rethondes in Picardy on June 22, 1940? Could the Frenchmen who, in the late 1930s, still bore the physical and emotional scars of the 1914-1918 holocaust (a veritable one), and its aftermath, consider it a moral obligation to hurl themselves straight into a new slaughter? And, after the signing of an armistice that, however harsh, was by no means shameful, where was the dishonor in seeking an understanding with the adversary, not in order to wage war but to make peace?

Did the Germans Want War?

"Hitler [was] born at Versailles": that sentence serves as the title of a work by the late Léon Degrelle. note 48 The 1919 Versailles Diktat -- for it was not really a treaty -- was so harsh and dishonorable for the defeated nation that the American Senate refused to recognize or adopt it (November 20, 1919). And in the years that followed, it was ever more discredited. It dismembered Germany, submitted it to a cruel military occupation, and starved it. In particular, it obliged the defeated nation to cede to the newly created state of Poland the regions of Posen, Upper Silesia, and part of West Prussia. The 440 articles of the "Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany" (together with its annexes) signed at Versailles on June 28, 1919, constituted, along with the related treaties (Trianon, Saint-Germain, Sèvres), a monumental iniquity which, if anything, only the fury of a recently ended war can explain. As one French writer has put it: "It is easy enough to find fault with the Germans for not having respected Versailles. Their duty of honor as Germans was, first, to get round it, and then to tear it up, just as that of the French was to maintain it." note 49

Twenty years after that crushing humiliation, Hitler sought to recover some of the territory turned over to Poland, just as France, after its defeat in 1870, sought to recover Alsace and a part of Lorraine.

Unless he chooses to speak flippantly, no historian is in a position to state who in fact is mainly to blame for a worldwide conflict. It is thus wise not to ascribe to Hitler exclusive responsibility for the 1939-1945 war under the pretext that, on the 1st of September 1939, he went to war against Poland. On the other hand, the attempt to justify the entry into war of Britain and France, two days later, against Germany on the basis of a pledge to come to the aid of Poland seems rather unfounded given that, two weeks later (September 17, 1939), the USSR invaded Poland and occupied a good part of its territory, without prompting any military reaction on the part of Britain or France.

Worldwide conflicts resemble tremendous natural disasters in that they cannot accurately be predicted, even if one can sometimes feel them coming. Only after the fact can they be explained, laboriously and, too often, affected by reserves of bad faith in the form of mutual accusations of negligence, blindness, ill will, or irresponsibility. All the same one can note that in Germany during the late 1930s, the pro-war camp, that is, those who urged military action against the western powers was, to all intents and purposes, non-existent. The Germans envisaged only a "push to the East" (Drang nach Osten). On the other hand, in Britain, France and the United States, the anti-German hawks were powerful. The "war party" wanted a "democratic crusade," and got it. Among these new crusaders figured, with a few noteworthy exceptions, the whole of American and European organized Jewry.

Churchill and the British as Masters of War Propaganda

During the First World War, the British cynically exploited all the resources of propaganda based on wholly fictitious atrocity stories. note 50 During the Second World War they remained true to form.

Today people widely condemn Neville Chamberlain for his policy of "appeasement" in dealing with the Germans, whereas people hold, or pretend to hold, Winston Churchill in high esteem for his determination to carry on war against Germany. It is not yet certain that history, with time, will uphold this judgment. New discoveries concerning Churchill's personality and wartime role raise questions about the dubious justifications for that determination, along with questions about the fruits of his policies. At least Chamberlain had foreseen that even a British victory would entail disaster for his country, her empire, and for other victors as well. Churchill did not see this, or did not know how to see it. He promised "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," to be followed by victory. He did not anticipate the bitter morrow of victory: the hastened disappearance of the empire he held dear, and the handing over of nearly half of Europe to Communist imperialism.

During an address given several years ago, David Irving, Churchill's biographer, showed the illusory nature of the justifications given by Churchill, first, to launch his countrymen into the war, and then to keep them in it. The business, if one may so term it, was carried out in four phases.

In the initial phase, Churchill assured the British that it was their obligation to go to the aid of a Poland that had fallen victim to Hitler's aggression but, two weeks into the war, this motive was nullified by the Soviet Union's aggression against the same ally.

In the next phase, he explained to his countrymen that they must carry on the war in order to safeguard the British empire. He rejected Germany's repeated peace proposals, and in May 1941 he had the peace emissary Rudolf Hess incarcerated. Whereas Germany wanted to preserve and maintain the British empire, he chose to conclude an alliance with the empire's worst possible enemy: the American Franklin Roosevelt. Thus the second motive was then nullified.

In a third phase, Churchill told the British that they were duty-bound to fight for Democracy, including its most paradoxical variety: the Soviet Socialist. He held that a second European front must be opened to relieve the burden on Stalin. This of course meant aiding a dictatorship that had assaulted Poland on September 17, 1939, and which was preparing a new conquest of that country.
As late as one month before the end of hostilities in Europe (May 8, 1945), British propaganda was generally lacking in coherence, while many British and American soldiers were appalled to learn the extent to which their bombers had ravaged Germany.

It was then that suddenly, in April 1945, there occurred a miracle that enabled Churchill to find his fourth, and really good motive: the discovery of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp prompted him to assert that, Britain's difficult fight over nearly six years, wreaking and enduring so much havoc, was for no less a cause than that of civilization itself. To be sure, on more than one occasion he had already spoken to his countrymen, in his customarily high-flown rhetoric, about Britain as the cradle of a civilization threatened by the Teutonic hordes (the "Huns," as he called them), but these oratorical devices no longer worked so well. The godsend was the discovery in April 1945 of a pestilence-ravaged camp: a boon for Churchill and for British propaganda.

At Bergen-Belsen, the British Introduce the 'Nazi Crime' Media Spectacle

Situated near Hannover, Bergen-Belsen was originally established as a camp for wounded soldiers. In 1943 it became a detention center for European Jews who were to be exchanged for German civilians held by the Allies. In the middle of the war, Jews were transferred from that camp to Switzerland or, by way of Turkey, even to Palestine (yet another proof, as may be pointed out in passing, of the absence of an extermination program).

Until the end of 1944, conditions for inmates at Bergen-Belsen were about normal: then, along with a convoy of deportees brought from regions in the East facing the imminent Soviet onslaught, there arrived epidemics of dysentery, cholera, and exanthematic typhus. The resulting disaster was aggravated by the Anglo-American bombing raids that severely hampered deliveries of medicine, food, and -- most devastating of all -- water. The rail transports of Jews from the East no longer took just two or three days to reach the camp, but rather one or two weeks. Because of Allied air bombardment and strafing, the trains could proceed only at night. As a result, the trains arrived containing only dead and dying, or exhausted men and women unfit to withstand such epidemics. On March 1st, 1945, camp commandant Josef Kramer sent a letter to General Richard Glücks, chief of concentration camp administration, in which he described this "catastrophe" in detail, concluding with the plea: "I implore your help in overcoming this situation." note 51

Germany, on its last legs, could no longer deal with the influx of its own eastern refugees arriving by the millions. It could no longer manage to supply its army with weapons and ammunition, or its population with food. Finally, it could no longer remedy the tragic conditions in camps where even guards were dying of typhus. Himmler authorized Wehrmacht officers to establish contact with the British to warn them that they were approaching, in their advance, a frightful den of infection. Negotiations followed. A wide truce area was declared around Bergen-Belsen, and British and German soldiers decided, by mutual consent, to share the task of camp surveillance.

But what they found in the camp, including barracks and tents flooded with excrement, and the unbearable odor of decomposing bodies, quickly had the British feeling indignant. They came to believe, or were allowed to believe, that the SS had deliberately chosen to kill the inmates or to let them die. And, despite their own best efforts, the British were unable to curb the terrible mortality rate.

Then, like a swarm of vultures, journalists swooped down on the camp, filming and photographing every possible horror. They also proceeded to arrange certain scenes of their own making: a famous one, shown for example in the film "Night and Fog," is that of a bulldozer pushing corpses into a large pit. Many viewers have been led to believe that they are seeing "German bulldozers." note 52 They didn't notice that the bulldozer (just one) is driven by a British soldier who, doubtless after a body count, is pushing the corpses into a large trench that had been dug after the camp's liberation. The Jew Sydney Lewis Bernstein, London head of the Home Office cinema section, called on Alfred Hitchcock to make a film on these "Nazi atrocities." Hitchcock accepted, but, in the end, only fragments of his film were made public, probably because the complete version contained assertions that might cast doubt on its authenticity. note 53

On the whole, the "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was a great success for Allied propaganda. In every possible way, the media exploited it to show dead and dying camp inmates to the world at large, but while at the same time leading viewers, through commentary, to think that these inmates had been killed, murdered, or exterminated, or else were walking corpses condemned to perish as victims of killing, murder, or extermination. Thus, on the basis of the ghastly conditions in a camp that, as already noted, had neither crematories nor (as conventional historians acknowledge) any homicidal gas chamber, was built the general myth of the existence and use, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, of "gas chambers" coupled with crematories.

Among the most famous casualties of epidemics in that camp were Anne Frank and her sister Margot who, for nearly 40 years, were widely and persistently said to have been gassed at Auschwitz (from where, in fact, they had been brought), or killed at Bergen-Belsen. Today, it is generally conceded that they died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen in February-March 1945.

The "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was very quickly imitated by the Americans who, turning to Hollywood, shot a series of motion pictures on the liberation of the German camps. After editing the extensive footage (6,000 feet of film, of a total of 80,000), they produced a film that was shown on November 29, 1945, at the Nuremberg trial. Everyone, including most of the defendants, found it quite disturbing. A few of the defendants sensed the deceit, but it was too late: the great lie's bulldozer had been set in motion. It is still running today. The viewers of all the many horror films on the "Nazi camps" have, over time, been conditioned by the choice of images and the commentary. A section of wall, a heap of shoes, a smokestack: it has taken no more than these for the public to believe that they have seen a chemical slaughterhouse.

Fifty-two years after the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen camp, Maurice Druon, secrétaire perpétuel of the Académie française, testified at the trial of Maurice Papon, accused of "collaboration" in the "Final Solution." Here is an extract of his deposition mentioning gas chambers at that camp (which, as all historians today acknowledge, had none), the famous bulldozer, and the "hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other": note 54

When speaking today of the camps, one has in one's eyes, and the jurors present have in their eyes, those horrid images that the films and the screens offered and offer to us; and it is quite right to do so [that is, to show them], and they ought to be re-shown each year to every secondary school graduating class. But those images, of the gas chambers, of the mounds of hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other, of those children playing among the corpses, and of those bodies so great in number that they had to be pushed into a pit by a bulldozer, and of those troops of skeletons, staggering and haggard, in striped pajamas, with death in their eyes, those images, and I hereby bear witness, I was, in my modest capacity of information officer, one of the 20 Allied officers to "view" them first, when the uncut footage, as it is called, arrived just after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the English. But that was in the spring of 1945. Until then, no one knew. -- We must not judge with our trained eyes [sic] of today, but with our blind eyes of yesterday.

Maurice Druon, in reality, had "trained eyes" yesterday and has "blind eyes" today. More than 50 years of propaganda have blinded him. But already during the war, were not he and his uncle Joseph Kessel, both Jewish, blinded by their hatred of the German soldiers when they wrote the atrocious "Partisans' Song," which includes the exhortation "Killers by bullet and by knife, kill quickly!"?

The Americans and the Soviets Outdo the British

In 1951, anyway, the Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt had the honesty to write: note 55

It is of some importance to realize that all pictures of concentration camps are misleading insofar as they show the camps in their last stages, at the moment the Allied troops marched in ... The condition of the camps was a result of the war events during the final months: Himmler had ordered the evacuation of all extermination camps in the East, the German camps were consequently vastly overcrowded, and he was no longer in a position to assure the food supply in Germany.

Let us once more recall that the expression "extermination camps" is a creation of Allied war propaganda.

Eisenhower thus followed Churchill's lead and set about building, on an American scale, such a propaganda edifice, based on atrocity stories, that soon everything and anything came to be allowed, as much in regard to the vanquished as to the simple, factual truth. In news reports about the German camps there were added to the true horrors, as I have said, horrors truer than life. Eliminated were the photographs or film segments showing inmates with beaming faces, such as that of Marcel Paul, note 56 or those in relatively good health despite the severe shortages or epidemics, or, as at Dachau, the healthy Hungarian Jewish mothers with their babes-in-arms. Instead, the public was only shown images of the sickly, the wasted, the human rags, who were actually just as much victims of the Allies as of the Germans, for the former, with their carpet-bombing of the whole of Germany and their systematic aerial strafing of civilians -- even of farm workers in the fields -- had brought about an apocalypse in the heart of Europe.

Respect for the truth will oblige one to remark that neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Truman, nor de Gaulle was impudent enough to lend credence to the tales of chemical slaughterhouses. They left that job to their propaganda specialists and to the judges of their military tribunals. Appalling tortures were inflicted on the Germans who, in the eyes of the Allies, were guilty of all of those "crimes." Reprisals were carried out against German prisoners and civilians. As late as 1951 German men and women were being hanged. (Even in the 1980s, the Soviets were still shooting German or German-allied "war criminals.") British and American soldiers, at first quite taken aback at the sight both of the German cities reduced to rubble, and of their inhabitants turned into cave-dwellers, could return home with peace of mind. Churchill and Eisenhower were there to vouch for the Truth: the Allied forces had brought down Evil; they embodied Good; there was to be a program of "re-education" for the defeated Germans, including the burning by the millions of their bad books. All told, the Great Slaughter had come to a happy ending, and had been carried out for a righteous cause. Such was the fraud made holy by the Nuremberg show-trial.

A Fraud at Last Denounced in 1995

It took no less than 50 years for a historian, Annette Wieviorka, and a filmmaker, William Karel, to reveal to the general public, in a documentary entitled Contre l'oubli ("Against Forgetting"), the 1945 American and Soviet stagings and fabrications carried out in the context of the liberation of the camps in East and West.

Wieviorka, a French Jew, and Karel, an Israeli who has lived in France since 1985, have manifestly been influenced by the French revisionist school. Although quite hostile toward the latter, they have nonetheless admitted that the time has at last come to denounce some of the exterminationist propaganda's most glaring fictions. On this subject one may refer either to an article by the journalist Philippe Cusin note 57 or, especially, to another article that Béatrice Bocard prepared for the repeat broadcast of "Against Forgetting" on Antenne 2 television, a piece whose title alone says a great deal: "The Shoah, from reality to the spectacle. The indecent stagings by the liberators in the face of the deportees' accounts." note 58 In it Bocard wrote:

With only slight exaggeration, it might be said that the liberation of the concentration camps introduced the reality shows ... The first signs of the genre of spectacles that television channels like CNN were to make commonplace 50 years later were already there, with attempts to outdo [one another] at indecency, at voyeurism, and with recourse to staging ... The least infirm of the survivors were made to repeat their script before the cameras: "I was deported because I was Jewish," says one of them. Once, twice ... Not to be outdone by the American "show," the Soviets, who had done nothing at the time of the Auschwitz camp's liberation, shot a "fake liberation" a few weeks afterwards, with Polish extras enthusiastically greeting the soldiers ... "William Karel is the first to have dissected these false images that we had always been told, until quite recently, were genuine," says Annette Wieviorka. How had it been possible to accept them? "People are not in the habit of questioning images as they question texts," the historian explains. "The example of the [purported] mass graves at Timosoara [Romania, December 1989] is not too distant."

It goes without saying that, in this article by Bocard, the manipulations were presented as being offensive ... for the internees. Some German soldiers and civilians denounced this sort of fakery as early as 1945 but, instead of being believed, they were accused of Nazism or anti-Semitism.

The Jewish Organizations' Responsibility for This Propaganda

From its origins in 1941 up to the present, the propaganda that has evolved around the "genocide" and the "gas chambers" has essentially been the product of Jewish organizations. As a result, the general public has gradually become convinced that the Germans carried out a wartime program of physical extermination directed, above all, at the Jews, and that the "gas chambers" were in some way reserved exclusively for them (including for the Jewish "Sonderkommando" members whose supposed job was to lead their fellow Jews to the slaughter). Nowadays, the countless "Holocaust museums" constitute a Jewish monopoly, and a Hebrew word, "Shoah" ("catastrophe"), is used ever more often to designate this purported genocide. Whatever their part in the making of the myth and in its success, the western Allies played only a supporting role, and always under pressure from various Jewish organizations. (The Soviet case may have been different: Moscow's fabrication of an "Auschwitz" in which the fate of the Jews was not particularly emphasized may have been born of the need for a propaganda to be directed less toward the peoples behind the Iron Curtain than toward Western "progressives.")

The fact that today some Jewish voices are being raised to ask that there be less talk of the "gas chambers" has not induced Jewish community leaders to tone down the "Holocaust" or Shoah propaganda. From the standpoint of Jewish historians these incredible "gas chambers" have, to put it simply, become somewhat burdensome in propagating the Shoah religion.

A French political figure, Jean-Marie Le Pen, has said that the Nazi gas chambers are a detail of Second World War history. Yet, in their respective writings on that war, Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle apparently regarded those chemical slaughterhouses as even less than a detail, given that they did not mention a word of them. A similar discretion can be noted on the part of the historian René Rémond, who was a prominent member first of the French Comité d'histoire de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale (Committee on the History of the Second World War), then of the Institut d'histoire du temps présent (Institute of Contemporary History): in two of his works where one might expect to read the words "gas chambers," one finds no such thing. The American historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen speaks of Nazi gas chambers as an "epiphenomenon." In the 84,000-word French version of the Nuremberg judgment, only 520 extremely vague words are devoted to them, a portion amounting to 0.62 percent of the text. note 59

For a revisionist, the gas chambers are less than a detail because they quite simply never existed. But the gas chamber myth is much more than a detail: it is the cornerstone of a huge structure of beliefs of all sorts that the law forbids us to question.

"Gas chambers or not, what does it matter?" This question may at times be heard, tinged with skepticism. It bothers Pierre Vidal-Naquet, for whom the abandonment of the gas chambers would be a "surrender in open country." note 60 One can only agree with him. On the matter of the gas chambers' existence or non-existence hinges, in effect, the question of whether the Germans are to be regarded as arrant criminals, or instead, the Jews as arrant liars (or confidence men). In the former case, the Germans, in the space of three or four years, killed industrial proportions of poor unarmed victims by industrial means whereas, in the latter, the Jews, for more than half a century, peddled a lie of historic dimensions.

In 1976 the American Arthur Robert Butz, published his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. In the newspaper Le Monde of December 29, 1978, and January 16, 1979, I published two texts on "the rumor of Auschwitz," and, at the very start of that same year of 1979, Wilhelm Stäglich published Der Auschwitz Mythos. Voicing the grave Jewish worries in the face of the emergence of revisionist writings, the Zionist William D. Rubinstein, professor at Deakin University in Melbourne, wrote at the time: "... Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel's propaganda armory disappears." note 61 Some time later he similarly declared: "... The fact that if the Holocaust can be shown to be a 'Zionist myth,' the strongest of all weapons in Israel's propaganda armory collapses." note 62

Eight years later, as if to echo those statements, a lawyer for the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism" (LICRA) wrote: note 63

If [it is true that] the gas chambers existed, then Nazi barbarity has no equal. If not, the Jews will have lied and anti-Semitism will thus be justified. Those are the stakes in the debate.

In Ernst Zündel's phrase, "the 'Holocaust' is Israel's sword and shield."

The stakes are thus not merely historical but also political. And the political stakes present a paradox: the "Holocaust" myth serves, in the first place, to condemn German National Socialism, and secondarily all forms of nationalism or of the national idea -- except the Israeli and Zionist variety, which the myth, on the contrary, reinforces.

The stakes are just as much financial, as one may realize when considering that, at least since the "reparations" agreement signed at Luxembourg in 1952, German taxpayers have paid "astronomical" sums (as Nahum Goldmann put it) to the Jewish population of the State of Israel as well as outside (in the Diaspora), and that they are to continue to pay for the crimes of the Shoah imputed to them until at least the year 2030. The "Shoah Business," denounced even by a Pierre Vidal-Naquet, is inseparable from the Shoah.

Today, the bluff of the Shoah legitimizes a worldwide racket. In the first place, a growing number of either rich or poor countries, including France, find themselves facing claims made by billionaire Edgar Bronfman's World Jewish Congress, and by immensely wealthy American Jewish organizations, for new "reimbursements" or new "reparations" in the form of mountains of gold and money. The countries of Europe, starting with Switzerland, are not the only ones targeted. For the moment a well-established "mafia" concentrates on four main issues (there will certainly be others in future): "Nazi gold," Jewish assets, Jewish art collections, and insurance policies taken out by Jews. The chief targets are governments, banks, museums, auction houses, and insurance firms. The New Jersey legislature, under pressure from Jewish organizations, took measures to impose a boycott of Swiss banking institutions. This is but the beginning. The only real argument brought to bear by the blackmailers can be put in one word: Shoah. Not one government, not one bank, not one insurance company dare retort that the matter at hand is one of myth, and that there is no question of its paying for a crime that was not committed. The Swiss, also under pressure from Jewish organizations, were at first so naive as to think that it would be enough to enact a law forbidding any questioning of the Shoah. But no sooner had they enacted this new legislation than Bronfman presented them his bill. They then offered considerable amounts: a wasted effort. An "angry" Bronfman let it be known that it would take infinitely more to satisfy him. "My experience with the Swiss," he remarked, "is that unless you hold their feet very close to the fire, they don't take you seriously." note 64

As for the moral wrong done to Germany in particular and to non-Jews in general by the propagation of the "Holocaust" faith, it is incalculable. Incessantly the Jewish organizations repeat their accusations, not only against a Germany supposedly guilty of a "genocide" of the Jews, but also against Churchill, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Stalin, Pope Pius XII, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the neutral countries, and still other countries, all guilty, supposedly, of having permitted Germany to commit this "genocide" and, consequently, themselves likewise liable for financial "reparations."

The Duty of Resistance

Whatever storms and vicissitudes may arise now or in future, the revisionist historian must hold firm. To the cult of tribal remembrance built on fear, vengeance and greed, he will prefer the stubborn search for exactitude. In this way he will, albeit perhaps unwittingly, do justice to the true sufferings of all victims of the Second World War. And, from this viewpoint, it is the revisionist who refuses to make a distinction among victims on the basis of race, religion, or community. Above all, he will reject the supreme imposture that gave the crowning touch to that conflict: that of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, and of the thousand other proceedings since the war in which, even today, the victor, without in the least having to answer for his own crimes, has assumed the right to prosecute and condemn the vanquished.

Contrary to the romantic vision of the aristocratic author Chateaubriand (1768-1848), the historian is hardly "commissioned to avenge peoples," and still less so to avenge one that claims to be God's own.

On whatever subject, the historian in general and the revisionist historian in particular have no other mission than to determine the accuracy of what is said. That mission is basic and obvious, but also -- as experience teaches -- perilous.

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:44 am

The Mendacity of Zion
Lewis Brandon

Professor Butz in his book has commented on the remarkable similarity between modem "Holocaust" lore and ancient Talmudic fantasies. On pp. 246-7 of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century he reports that the Talmud claims that the Romans slew 4 billion, "or as some say" 40 million, Jews. The blood of the Jewish victims was so great that it became a tidal wave, carrying boulders out to sea, and staining the water for four miles out. The bodies of the Jews were used as fence-posts, and their blood as fertilizer for the Roman vineyards. The Jewish children were wrapped up in their Torah scrolls and burned alive-all 64 million of them, or as some say, 150,000.

Some exterminationist authors have admitted that at least some aspects of the myth are untrue. In The Final Solution (Sphere, London, 1971) art-dealer Gerald Reitlinger comments on page 581:

A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material [documentary evidence], and particularly this applies to the last section [survivor narratives]. For instance, the evidence concerning the Polish death camps was mainly taken after the war by Polish State Commissions or by the Central Jewish Historical Commission of Poland. The hardy survivors who were examined were seldom educated men. Moreover, the Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes. When a witness said that the victims from the remote West reached the death camp in Wagons-Lits [Pullman cars], he probably meant that passenger coaches were used instead of box-cars. Sometimes the imagery transcends credibility, as when a gang of food smugglers in a ghetto are described as exceptionally tall men with pockets running the whole length of their bodies. Thus readers, who are by no means afflicted with race prejudice, but who find the details of the murder on the national scale too appalling to assimilate, are inclined to cry Credat Judaeus Apella and dismiss these narratives as fables. The witnesses, they will say, are Orientals, who use numerals as oratorical adjectives and whose very names are creations of fantasy; Sunschein and Zylberdukaten, Rotbalsam and Salamander.

In her extraordinarily candid book Eichmann in Jerusalem (Penguin, 1978), journalist Hannah Arendt reports on page 207 that at the Eichmann trial, the prosecution

had been under considerable pressure from Israeli survivors, who constitute about 20% of the present population of the country. They had flocked spontaneously to the trial authorities and also to Yad Vashem, which had been officially commissioned to prepare some of the documentary evidence, to offer themselves as witnesses. The worst cases of "strong imagination," people who had "seen Eichmann at various places where he had never been," were weeded out, but 56 4'sufferings-of-the-jewish-people witnesses," as the trial authorities called them, were finally put on the stand, instead of some 15 or 20 "background witnesses," as originally planned. 23 sessions, out of a total of 121, were entirely devoted to "background," which meant that they had no apparent bearing upon the case.

(Eichmann, of course, was not allowed to present any live witnesses in his defense, since the Israeli government had threatened to arrest as a war criminal any German defense witness who set foot on Israeli soil. They also refused to allow witness subpoenas for two El Al officers who could give evidence about Eichmann's abduction.) One wonders whether the prosecution did such a thorough job in "weeding out" those with "strong imaginations" for a few pages later Ms. Arendt describes how one witness who gave his name as "K-Zetnik" ("Jailbird" or "Camp Inmate") started to venture into an excursion into the astrological aspects of the Holocaust. He testified that the astrological stars were "influencing our fate in the same way as the star of ashes at Auschwitz is there facing our planet; radiating toward our planet." After allowing the witness to continue in this manner for some time, the presiding judge finally intervened to stop his ramblings, whereupon the witness fainted. According to Arendt, this man was also the author of several highbrowed books on Auschwitz which dealt with the camp brothels, homosexuality, and other human interest sagas (pp. 223-4). Another verbose witness was Abba Kovner, the Israeli poet, who "had not so much testified as addressed an audience." When he was also interrupted by the judge in full flow, he upbraided the judge for daring to interfere with his artistry. Chassidic Jews claim that Kovner was not a partisan during the war, but a Nazi collaborator (see Shonfeld,The Holocaust Victims Accuse).

Even the witnesses who were supposed to give proper evidence turned out to be a waste of time. Ms. Arendt reveals on page 208 that

If Eichmann's name was mentioned at all, it obviously was hearsay evidence, "rumors testified to," hence without legal validity. The testimony of all witnesses who had "seen him with their own eyes" collapsed the moment a question was addressed to them.

The whole Eichmann affair is stereotypical of the ethics of Zionists. Not only was the trial rigged from beginning to end, but his initial abduction was an even more blatant example of bare-faced lying. When the Argentinian government protested to Israel about their agents violating Argentinian sovereignty by kidnapping Eichmann on their soil, the Israelis blatantly lied. They claimed that the Israeli government had no knowledge of Eichmann's capture, since their Secret Service had not told them about it! They said that Eichmann had surrendered himself voluntarily, when recognized, and had given his agreement to come to Israel to stand trial. They even had the gall to include a "letter" signed by Eichmann where he stated that he wanted to be tried so that future generations would have a "correct" picture of WWII events. As Richard Harwood comments in Nuremberg & Other War Crimes Trials(IHR, $2.50) p. 52

The Israeli statement was a pack of lies from beginning to end. Eichmann was not "approached by Jewish volunteers." He was bundled into a car in the street by Israeli secret service agents (David Ben-Gurion, Israel: A Personal History). He did not go to Israel of his own free will-his family spent the whole night searching for him after his abrupt disappearance. As for his so-called "letter to the Argentinian Government" it just defeats description.

Hannah Arendt suggests that the letter was written in Jerusalem, not in Argentina. She describes how Eichmann was kept tied to a bed for eight days after his kidnapping (p. 241). Whatever the location of its origination, Richard Harwood cynically comments that "Eichmann's'confession' could not have been better written if the Israelis had written it themselves-as seems most likely."

The lies churned out by the Israeli government surrounding the Eichmann abduction were very small beer compared to their behavior in 1967, when Israeli marines torpedoed and strafed an American intelligence ship, the USS Liberty. 34 Americans were killed in the raid, and the ship was so badly damaged it had to be scrapped. The attack was personally ordered by General Moshe Dayan, who did not want Israel's imperialist war plans to become documented by the American spy ship. There would be no telling where the information would end up. Dayan wanted Israel to appear to the world as the underdog, whereas in reality the Israelis were hatching expansionist plans for the invasion of Syria and the Sinai and Jordan.

The attack took place in broad daylight. The ship was reconnoitered 8 times for 6 hours before the attack by Israeli aircraft. The ship was flying a large and prominent American flag. Yet the Israelis had the nerve to pretend that the whole attack had been an accident. They claimed that they had mistaken the vessel for an Egyptian one. In his new book Assault on the Liberty (available from IHR at $14), crewman James Ennes describes the astonishing denials and cover up. He produces CIA documents that prove that the Israelis knew what they were doing. He also proves how the Israeli excuses do not coincide with the facts. Yet, to this day, Israel maintains that the attack was an "error" and this outrageous calumny is meekly accepted by our so-called "representatives" in Washington.

Of course, this was the second time that Dayan had escaped by the skin of his teeth from being publicly exposed as a murderer of Americans. In 1955, a plot to bomb American libraries and theaters in Cairo was revealed. The bombers were Jewish Egyptians who had been trained in Israel by the Mossad. The intention of the plot was to blame the bombings on Egypt, and thus sour American-Egyptian relations. When the plan backfired, Pinhas Lavon, the Israeli Minister of Defense, was forced to resign. But he was only the "fall guy" for the plot's failure. The murder scheme had been drawn up by Moshe Dayan along with Shimon Peres and Brigadier Abraham Givli. They were able to blame Lavon only by framing him with a forged document. An internal Israeli investigation five years later showed that the document had been faked, and this revelation so rocked the country that it led to the resignation of the entire Ben-Gurion government in 1961. The "dirty tricks" of Dayan, both in hatching the murder plot in the first place, and then framing his colleague when found out, are described in the recently reprinted indictment of Zionism, The Zionist Connection by the distinguished Jewish scholar Alfred Lilienthal (available from IHR at $21). Further details can be found in The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time by Moshe Menuhin (IHR $13).

Lilienthal also deals with the SS Patria affair in 1940. The ship was full of illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine, but was refused docking permission at Haifa harbor by the British. They ordered it out to sea again. Then on the night of 25 November, the ship blew up and 276 Jews were killed. At the time, these deaths were attributed to the British, but it was not until ten years later that the truth finally came out. David Flinker, Israeli correspondent of the New York Morning Freiheit reported on 27 November 1950 that the bombs had been planted by the Haganah, the Zionist terrorist organization. The idea was, yet again, to blame the deaths on the enemy and make the Zionists out to be the poor martyred ones. Fifteen months later, the SS Struma exploded in the Black Sea, killing 769 illegal Jewish immigrants. The Jewish Agency described it as an act of "mass-protest and masssuicide," although it seems somewhat doubtful if all 769 victims were polled. The American newspapers once more laid the responsibility at the door of the British.

Even today, it seems that very little has changed. The Zionists are still up to their usual dirty tricks; trying to make themselves out to be the underdogs and the victims. Sandra Ross inThe Nation Wreckers (available from IHR at $3) describes how many of the outbreaks of swastika-daubing in Britain in the 1950s and '60s were the work of Communists and Zionists. Lilienthal also describes how Zionism thrives on "anti-Semitism." The New York Times (16 September 1979) reports that a Jewish businessman was arrested for insurance fraud, after his own building burned down and swastikas and the slogan "Jews Get Out" were found painted on the walls. The London Jewish Chronicle (21 September 1979) reports an incident in Long Island, NY, where a large swastika was burned into the lawn of a Jewish family. Another Jew was later arrested for the offense.

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 3:52 pm

Opportunity and Challenge in a New Era
By Mark Weber

With the dawning of a new century, Holocaust revisionism is making headlines everywhere. Around the globe there is real ferment, a new surge of media attention on Holocaust skepticism, and growing criticism of the oppressive impact of the powerful "Holocaust industry."

"Holocaust deniers" are, of course, still widely portrayed as misguided or malevolent. But we are seeing more and more "mainstream" concessions to historical truth, and open acknowledgment of "Holocaust" manipulation and exploitation. More than ever, the iconic facade seems to be cracking.

In late December, a much-discussed documentary film about American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter was released for public showing, to the accompaniment of commentary in nearly every major American daily paper. (In 1988 Leuchter carried out a forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau, and concluded that they were never used to kill people as alleged.) The film "Mr. Death" attempts, of course, to discredit Leuchter's findings; it portrays him as both arrogant and self-deluded; it completely ignores the investigations and studies of other specialists that impressively corroborate the results of his on-site investigation. The director Errol Morris portrays as quite natural and unexceptional the outrageous campaign that destroyed Leuchter's career as the country's foremost execution hardware specialist, and even presents without criticism the hateful comments of two of the perpetrators.

But on balance, the film has the merit of focusing renewed public attention on the Holocaust debate, prompting at least a few independent observers to say the unsayable. Film critic Godfrey Cheshire, for one, in the weekly New York Press, told readers that "'Mr. Death' is the closest thing we're likely to get to a film that questions Holocaustolatry, a mild form of which is now firmly established as part of our official culture." The Holocaust, Cheshire went on, has become a "myth" of "supernatural character," and "an untouchable, quasi-religious event fraught with a Significance quite beyond anything that mere history might support."

Another indicator of the changing climate is a recent front-page Los Angeles Times article, "Danger in Denying Holocaust?" For the first time ever, a major American daily newspaper highlighted the fact that in France, Germany, and some other European countries, scholars are jailed, fined and forced into exile for questioning government-ordained Holocaust history.

Written by veteran journalist Kim Murphy, the lengthy January 7 piece begins by citing the persecution of a young German chemist, Germar Rudolf, for concluding -- on the basis of a detailed on-site forensic examination -- that no one was killed, or could have been killed, in the alleged homicidal gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau. As the article goes on to note, this doctoral candidate at Stuttgart University lost his job at the respected Max Planck Institute, saw his doctoral degree put on hold, was sentenced to 14 months in prison, and finally was forced into exile -- all because of his carefully considered evaluation of Holocaust "gas chamber" claims.

More than a few readers of the Times article must certainly wonder: Just what kind of "historical truth" is it that must be protected by the armor plate of police, lawsuits, fines and imprisonment? Because the report suggests that revisionists might at least have a point about the issue of academic freedom, the Jewish lobby lost no time in furiously attacking both the Times and Murphy for this "immoral" article.

Even more important in terms of public awareness is something that happened in London on January 11. On that day began the libel trial brought by British historian David Irving against American Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt. In his opening statement to the court (reprinted elsewhere in this Journal issue), Irving charges that Lipstadt and her British publisher severely damaged his reputation and career through her book, Denying the Holocaust, a strident work that also attacks professors Robert Faurisson and Arthur Butz, revisionist activist Bradley Smith, and the Institute for Historical Review.

Further complicating this already complex case, authorities in Germany announced shortly after the trial began that they would try to extradite Irving to that country on the basis of a fine imposed on him by a German court for having told a meeting in Munich in 1990 that the "gas chamber" at Auschwitz, shown to hundreds of thousands of tourists yearly, is a postwar dummy. Amazingly, one of the witnesses for Lipstadt in the London trial, Robert-Jan van Pelt, has acknowledged the truth of precisely this point in his detailed 1996 study of Auschwitz. (For more on this, see "The 'Gas Chamber' of Auschwitz I" in this Journal issue.)

Irving, a literal and figurative David, faces a Goliath. Day after day he sits alone on one side of the courtroom; arrayed against him sits a legal team of some 20 lawyers and para-legal specialists (not to mention the phalanx of support staff posted outside the courtroom). Each day he walks alone into the court house, carrying his own books and documents.

Win or lose, Irving is a marked man, a pariah -- more than ever, a target of his enemies' implacable hatred. Independent observers marvel at his unflagging confidence and verbal skill in the courtroom. But even an Atlas would falter under the great emotional and psychological burden of this ordeal -- especially because so much of the court battle focuses on a field of history that, as Irving concedes, "is not my patch."

Whatever the outcome, and whatever wavering or waffling the strain of battle might occasion, Irving is performing a great public service by heightening public awareness of the international debate on this much abused chapter of history.

In a recent essay about the trial published in a major British daily, a prominent Jewish Holocaust historian, David Cesarani, writes with concern about what he calls "the growing backlash against the so-called 'Holocaust industry'." He cites as evidence the new book by Jewish-American writer Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, and a forthcoming book, The Holocaust Industry, by another Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein. This "intellectual backlash," Cesarani continues, "is taking hold in mainstream and media circles."

Perhaps the most remarkable fallout thus far from the Irving-Lipstadt case is "The Holocaust on Trial," a front-cover feature article in the current Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 2000), written by London-based American-Jewish writer D. D. Guttenplan. This 19-page essay begins by conceding that "political calculation" has "influenced our knowledge of the Holocaust from the very beginning," and that "what everybody knows about the Holocaust isn't always true" -- a point that this Journal has been making for 20 years.

Guttenplan notes that no one was ever gassed at Dachau and Belsen, but says nothing about the far-reaching implications of such concessions. Though he implicitly acknowledges that a mass of historical "evidence," including court judgments and many "eyewitness testimonies," is worthless, he can neither acknowledge nor publicly regret that men were put to death on the basis of such bogus "evidence."

"Though it is considered impolite to mention them in public," Guttenplan writes, "there are still a number of 'live questions' about the Holocaust," among them the "delicate ... question of survivor testimony." Much of this "testimony," he acknowledges, is just plain wrong.

Particularly eyebrow-raising is what Guttenplan tells readers of this leading intellectual/literary magazine about the decades-long efforts by organized Jewry to suppress historical scholarship, even by Jewish academics. As a result of such efforts, "certain aspects of the Holocaust and its aftermath ... became not just controversial but unmentionable."

As long ago as the early 1960s, Guttenplan shows, Jewish historian Raul Hilberg was accused of "impiety" and "defaming the dead" in the pages of Commentary, the American Jewish Committee monthly, because he had taken note of the extent to which wartime German authorities relied on Jews to assist in the "final solution." Officials at Yad Vashem, Israel's central Holocaust memorial center, even refused Hilberg access to their archives.

Also in the 1960s, Jewish historian Barbara Tuchman attacked Hannah Arendt for her much-discussed book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, accusing the German-born Jewish intellectual of "a conscious desire to support Eichmann's defense." The Anti-Defamation League similarly condemned Arendt's "evil book," hurling charges at her that, as Guttenplan notes, were "not just false but the reverse of the truth."

Another Jewish historian, Princeton professor Arno Mayer, was, in Guttenplan's words, "practically excommunicated" by organized Jewry for concluding, in his 1989 work on the "final solution," that Hitler was far more concerned with annihilating Communism than he was with decimating Jews. "It isn't only Holocaust deniers who twist facts, obscure the truth and, in Deborah Lipstadt's phrase, create 'immoral equivalencies'," writes Guttenplan. "... Time and time again those who insist on the truth in all its 'complex, unsentimental,' paradoxical, and ambiguous detail are shouted down."

Another indication of the general worldwide trend is a column about the London trial in the weekly New York Press (Jan. 18). "Irving is right to be upset that an influential minority with a political agenda succeeded in destroying his career," comments George Szamuely.

After pointing out that the epithet "Holocaust denier" is an elastic one, the columnist writes:

In Denying the Holocaust, Lipstadt wrote that Pat Buchanan's "attacks on the credibility of the survivor testimony are standard elements of Holocaust denial." Yet, a few years ago [August 1986] the director of Yad Vashem's archive [Shmuel Krakowski] told a reporter that most of the 20,000 testimonies it had collected were unreliable: "Many were never in the places where they claim to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on secondhand information given them by friends or passing strangers." Is he also then a "Holocaust denier"?

"We now know," Szamuely continues, "that many of the most lurid stories of the Holocaust are not true ... Whether Irving wins or loses his libel case, we will probably find out that our current knowledge of the Holocaust is much flimsier than we had believed."

Here at the IHR, we are generally pleased with the overall trend and guardedly optimistic about the future. To be sure, we still face powerful enemies who, to paraphrase Guttenplan, are determined to "shout down" those who insist on the truth. At the same time, our adversaries are slowly but inexorably being forced to make ever more grudging concessions to truth.

by lizardking Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:49 pm

'Holocaust' Propaganda

The masses are most easily fooled through manipulation of images. With the liberation of the German concentration camps in April 1945, British and American journalists rushed to photograph and film true horrors that were then, one may say, made into truer than life horrors. In the language dear to media people, the public was presented with a "put-up" job. note 30 On the one hand, we were shown real dead bodies as well as real crematories, and, on the other hand, thanks to some misleading comments and a cinematic staging, a deft artifice was effected. I describe this fraud with a phrase that may serve to help unmask all such impostures: We were led to take the dead for killed, and crematories for execution gas chambers.

Thus was born the confusion, still so widespread today, between, on the one hand, the crematories, which actually existed (but not at Bergen-Belsen) for the incineration of corpses and, on the other hand, the Nazi gas chambers allegedly used to kill whole crowds of men and women, but which, in reality, never existed nor could have existed.

The myth of the Nazi gas chambers and their association with the crematories originated, in its media form, in the press and newsreel photographs and media commentary from the Bergen-Belsen camp -- which, orthodox historians now admit, possessed neither mass-execution gas chambers nor even simple crematories.

[...]

Churchill and the British as Masters of War Propaganda

During the First World War, the British cynically exploited all the resources of propaganda based on wholly fictitious atrocity stories. note 50 During the Second World War they remained true to form.

Today people widely condemn Neville Chamberlain for his policy of "appeasement" in dealing with the Germans, whereas people hold, or pretend to hold, Winston Churchill in high esteem for his determination to carry on war against Germany. It is not yet certain that history, with time, will uphold this judgment. New discoveries concerning Churchill's personality and wartime role raise questions about the dubious justifications for that determination, along with questions about the fruits of his policies. At least Chamberlain had foreseen that even a British victory would entail disaster for his country, her empire, and for other victors as well. Churchill did not see this, or did not know how to see it. He promised "blood, toil, tears, and sweat," to be followed by victory. He did not anticipate the bitter morrow of victory: the hastened disappearance of the empire he held dear, and the handing over of nearly half of Europe to Communist imperialism.

During an address given several years ago, David Irving showed the illusory nature of the justifications given by Churchill, first, to launch his countrymen into the war, and then to keep them in it. The business, if one may so term it, was carried out in four phases.

In the initial phase, Churchill assured the British that it was their obligation to go to the aid of a Poland that had fallen victim to Hitler's aggression but, two weeks into the war, this motive was nullified by the Soviet Union's aggression against the same ally.

In the next phase, he explained to his countrymen that they must carry on the war in order to safeguard the British empire. He rejected Germany's repeated peace proposals, and in May 1941 he had the peace emissary Rudolf Hess incarcerated. Whereas Germany wanted to preserve and maintain the British empire, he chose to conclude an alliance with the empire's worst possible enemy: the American Franklin Roosevelt. Thus the second motive was then nullified.

In a third phase, Churchill told the British that they were duty-bound to fight for Democracy, including its most paradoxical variety: the Soviet Socialist. He held that a second European front must be opened to relieve the burden on Stalin. This of course meant aiding a dictatorship that had assaulted Poland on September 17, 1939, and which was preparing a new conquest of that country.

As late as one month before the end of hostilities in Europe (May 8, 1945), British propaganda was generally lacking in coherence, while many British and American soldiers were appalled to learn the extent to which their bombers had ravaged Germany.

It was then that suddenly, in April 1945, there occurred a miracle that enabled Churchill to find his fourth, and really good motive: the discovery of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp prompted him to assert that, Britain's difficult fight over nearly six years, wreaking and enduring so much havoc, was for no less a cause than that of civilization itself. To be sure, on more than one occasion he had already spoken to his countrymen, in his customarily high-flown rhetoric, about Britain as the cradle of a civilization threatened by the Teutonic hordes (the "Huns," as he called them), but these oratorical devices no longer worked so well. The godsend was the discovery in April 1945 of a pestilence-ravaged camp: a boon for Churchill and for British propaganda.

At Bergen-Belsen, the British Introduce the 'Nazi Crime' Media Spectacle

Situated near Hannover, Bergen-Belsen was originally established as a camp for wounded soldiers. In 1943 it became a detention center for European Jews who were to be exchanged for German civilians held by the Allies. In the middle of the war, Jews were transferred from that camp to Switzerland or, by way of Turkey, even to Palestine (yet another proof, as may be pointed out in passing, of the absence of an extermination program).

Until the end of 1944, conditions for inmates at Bergen-Belsen were about normal: then, along with a convoy of deportees brought from regions in the East facing the imminent Soviet onslaught, there arrived epidemics of dysentery, cholera, and exanthematic typhus. The resulting disaster was aggravated by the Anglo-American bombing raids that severely hampered deliveries of medicine, food, and -- most devastating of all -- water. The rail transports of Jews from the East no longer took just two or three days to reach the camp, but rather one or two weeks. Because of Allied air bombardment and strafing, the trains could proceed only at night. As a result, the trains arrived containing only dead and dying, or exhausted men and women unfit to withstand such epidemics. On March 1st, 1945, camp commandant Josef Kramer sent a letter to General Richard Glücks, chief of concentration camp administration, in which he described this "catastrophe" in detail, concluding with the plea: "I implore your help in overcoming this situation." note 51

Germany, on its last legs, could no longer deal with the influx of its own eastern refugees arriving by the millions. It could no longer manage to supply its army with weapons and ammunition, or its population with food. Finally, it could no longer remedy the tragic conditions in camps where even guards were dying of typhus. Himmler authorized Wehrmacht officers to establish contact with the British to warn them that they were approaching, in their advance, a frightful den of infection. Negotiations followed. A wide truce area was declared around Bergen-Belsen, and British and German soldiers decided, by mutual consent, to share the task of camp surveillance.

But what they found in the camp, including barracks and tents flooded with excrement, and the unbearable odor of decomposing bodies, quickly had the British feeling indignant. They came to believe, or were allowed to believe, that the SS had deliberately chosen to kill the inmates or to let them die. And, despite their own best efforts, the British were unable to curb the terrible mortality rate.

Then, like a swarm of vultures, journalists swooped down on the camp, filming and photographing every possible horror. They also proceeded to arrange certain scenes of their own making: a famous one, shown for example in the film "Night and Fog," is that of a bulldozer pushing corpses into a large pit. Many viewers have been led to believe that they are seeing "German bulldozers." note 52 They didn't notice that the bulldozer (just one) is driven by a British soldier who, doubtless after a body count, is pushing the corpses into a large trench that had been dug after the camp's liberation. The Jew Sydney Lewis Bernstein, London head of the Home Office cinema section, called on Alfred Hitchcock to make a film on these "Nazi atrocities." Hitchcock accepted, but, in the end, only fragments of his film were made public, probably because the complete version contained assertions that might cast doubt on its authenticity. note 53

On the whole, the "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was a great success for Allied propaganda. In every possible way, the media exploited it to show dead and dying camp inmates to the world at large, but while at the same time leading viewers, through commentary, to think that these inmates had been killed, murdered, or exterminated, or else were walking corpses condemned to perish as victims of killing, murder, or extermination. Thus, on the basis of the ghastly conditions in a camp that, as already noted, had neither crematories nor (as conventional historians acknowledge) any homicidal gas chamber, was built the general myth of the existence and use, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, of "gas chambers" coupled with crematories.

Among the most famous casualties of epidemics in that camp were Anne Frank and her sister Margot who, for nearly 40 years, were widely and persistently said to have been gassed at Auschwitz (from where, in fact, they had been brought), or killed at Bergen-Belsen. Today, it is generally conceded that they died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen in February-March 1945.

The "shock of Bergen-Belsen" was very quickly imitated by the Americans who, turning to Hollywood, shot a series of motion pictures on the liberation of the German camps. After editing the extensive footage (6,000 feet of film, of a total of 80,000), they produced a film that was shown on November 29, 1945, at the Nuremberg trial. Everyone, including most of the defendants, found it quite disturbing. A few of the defendants sensed the deceit, but it was too late: the great lie's bulldozer had been set in motion. It is still running today. The viewers of all the many horror films on the "Nazi camps" have, over time, been conditioned by the choice of images and the commentary. A section of wall, a heap of shoes, a smokestack: it has taken no more than these for the public to believe that they have seen a chemical slaughterhouse.

Fifty-two years after the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen camp, Maurice Druon, secrétaire perpétuel of the Académie française, testified at the trial of Maurice Papon, accused of "collaboration" in the "Final Solution." Here is an extract of his deposition mentioning gas chambers at that camp (which, as all historians today acknowledge, had none), the famous bulldozer, and the "hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other": note 54

When speaking today of the camps, one has in one's eyes, and the jurors present have in their eyes, those horrid images that the films and the screens offered and offer to us; and it is quite right to do so [that is, to show them], and they ought to be re-shown each year to every secondary school graduating class. But those images, of the gas chambers, of the mounds of hair shorn from the dead to help make some ersatz or other, of those children playing among the corpses, and of those bodies so great in number that they had to be pushed into a pit by a bulldozer, and of those troops of skeletons, staggering and haggard, in striped pajamas, with death in their eyes, those images, and I hereby bear witness, I was, in my modest capacity of information officer, one of the 20 Allied officers to "view" them first, when the uncut footage, as it is called, arrived just after the liberation of Bergen-Belsen by the English. But that was in the spring of 1945. Until then, no one knew. -- We must not judge with our trained eyes[sic] of today, but with our blind eyes of yesterday.

Maurice Druon, in reality, had "trained eyes" yesterday and has "blind eyes" today. More than 50 years of propaganda have blinded him. But already during the war, were not he and his uncle Joseph Kessel, both Jewish, blinded by their hatred of the German soldiers when they wrote the atrocious "Partisans' Song," which includes the exhortation "Killers by bullet and by knife, kill quickly!"?

The Americans and the Soviets Outdo the British

In 1951, anyway, the Jewish scholar Hannah Arendt had the honesty to write: note 55

It is of some importance to realize that all pictures of concentration camps are misleading insofar as they show the camps in their last stages, at the moment the Allied troops marched in ... The condition of the camps was a result of the war events during the final months: Himmler had ordered the evacuation of all extermination camps in the East, the German camps were consequently vastly overcrowded, and he was no longer in a position to assure the food supply in Germany.

Let us once more recall that the expression "extermination camps" is a creation of Allied war propaganda.

Eisenhower thus followed Churchill's lead and set about building, on an American scale, such a propaganda edifice, based on atrocity stories, that soon everything and anything came to be allowed, as much in regard to the vanquished as to the simple, factual truth. In news reports about the German camps there were added to the true horrors, as I have said, horrors truer than life. Eliminated were the photographs or film segments showing inmates with beaming faces, such as that of Marcel Paul, note 56 or those in relatively good health despite the severe shortages or epidemics, or, as at Dachau, the healthy Hungarian Jewish mothers with their babes-in-arms. Instead, the public was only shown images of the sickly, the wasted, the human rags, who were actually just as much victims of the Allies as of the Germans, for the former, with their carpet-bombing of the whole of Germany and their systematic aerial strafing of civilians -- even of farm workers in the fields -- had brought about an apocalypse in the heart of Europe.

Respect for the truth will oblige one to remark that neither Churchill, nor Eisenhower, nor Truman, nor de Gaulle was impudent enough to lend credence to the tales of chemical slaughterhouses. They left that job to their propaganda specialists and to the judges of their military tribunals. Appalling tortures were inflicted on the Germans who, in the eyes of the Allies, were guilty of all of those "crimes." Reprisals were carried out against German prisoners and civilians. As late as 1951 German men and women were being hanged. (Even in the 1980s, the Soviets were still shooting German or German-allied "war criminals.") British and American soldiers, at first quite taken aback at the sight both of the German cities reduced to rubble, and of their inhabitants turned into cave-dwellers, could return home with peace of mind. Churchill and Eisenhower were there to vouch for the Truth: the Allied forces had brought down Evil; they embodied Good; there was to be a program of "re-education" for the defeated Germans, including the burning by the millions of their bad books. All told, the Great Slaughter had come to a happy ending, and had been carried out for a righteous cause. Such was the fraud made holy by the Nuremberg show-trial.

From The Journal of Historical Review, January/February 2000 (Vol. 19, No. 1), pages 2-31.

Impact and Future of Holocaust Revisionism

by Sponsored content