Think of it: exactly HOW did holohoax first "get off the ground"?

Apollonian

Guest Columnist
How the Standard Holocaust Narrative Got off the Ground

A Book Review

Ezra MacVie

Link: https://inconvenienthistory.com/10/1/5276

Commandant in Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions. Carlo Mattogno and Rudolf Höss, English translation by Germar Rudolf. Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, U.K, 2017, trade paperback, 402 pp.

Carlo Mattogno, Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, Nov. 2017; 402 pages pb, 6"×9", bibliography, index, ISBN: 9781591481911. Read it free of charge or purchase a hard copy here.

Hellishly flaming crematoria. Lines of doomed Jews trudging through the snow from cattle cars. Heartless selektions. Gas chambers! It’s all part of the gruesome furniture with which the minds of going on three generations of Westerners have been filled since the swastika flag finally came down for the last time. The insanely cruel and destructive assault upon Jewry by every non-Jew in Germany is indelibly branded upon the knowledge of every Westerner—including Germans—from childhood.

Like success itself, the wildly successful story of the Six Million has many authors,[1] whose ranks at this late remove still show no signs of slowing in their phenomenal growth. But pride of place in the composition and certification of the Greatest Crime in History may belong to the unfortunate SS Lieutenant Colonel from Baden-Baden whom the British nabbed in occupied Germany almost a year after the end of the war and charged with crimes committed during his tenure as commandant of the concentration camp at Auschwitz. Over the ensuing 401 days and nights, Obersturmbannführer Höss admitted to practically all the charges and obligingly if not credibly supplied virtually the entire outline of the Holocaust Story that reigns (literally, by law) supreme everywhere in the Western world to this day. He not only authoritatively supplied the horrifying, fascinating details, he did it mostly in 1946, that is, very early in the game, and he willingly signed a total of 85 affidavits and depositions in German, English and Polish—so many in fact that voluminous quotations from these qualify him to be named as co-author of the book here reviewed. His own co-author, maestro massimo of the Holocaust Carlo Mattogno, was born six years after Höss’s death by hanging at the hands of Polish executioners in that very same Auschwitz—by then reverted to its Polish name of Oswiecim—of which he had had charge for years during World War II.

Few authors indeed in the history of the written word could be said to have as profoundly influenced the content of popular belief around the world than this devoted family man who resided with his wife and five children in a house on the very grounds of the “death camp” he is said to have commanded during the war. Just how this came to be in the years following his execution would be a fascinating chronicle whose particulars would surely rival those of the aftermath of the Crucifixion, though with execration, rather than veneration, for the martyr at the heart of the story. But that is not the book here reviewed.

The first matter addressed by this paragon of meticulous historiography is exactly what Höss said (wrote, attested to), how he said it, where and when. The full-depth approach taken here—the signature approach taken by Mattogno in whatever subject he investigates—enables the reader both to trace the unfolding of what is largely Höss’s creation and to observe the glaring inconsistencies between successive presentations of the same subject, a process the author defers to Part II, the larger part by a slight margin of this magisterial work. Doing this obviously required, along with inexhaustible patience, careful scrutiny and a steel-trap memory for thousands of details, but fluency in at least English, German and Polish. Mattogno wrote in Italian and did not rely on translators for the source languages. English-language material is quoted verbatim, while translations from source material in other languages was translated into English directly from the source language.

It is chiefly in Part I that the damning specifics of Höss’s odyssey through the horror-house of vengeance erected and operated by the victorious Allies in Europe is described, beginning with the terrorization of Höss’s wife and children to extract information permitting Höss’s own capture and continuing with the torture that dominated the first weeks of Höss’s time in Allied captivity. The lessons taught Höss in the benefits of cooperation with his captors are vividly portrayed in the descriptions of his handling. By the time in late 1946 when Höss was transferred to (Communist) Polish authorities, Höss had apparently mastered the life-or-death art of eliciting less-cruel, if not actually gentle, treatment from those who obviously wanted crackling good testimony from their prize captive. If only in behalf of his still-threatened family, Höss seems to have developed a large appetite for decent treatment; that in satisfying it, he condemned present and future generations of his countrymen to inextinguishable guilt and calumny seems not to have occurred to him, and indeed it would seem that such an outlandish eventuality would not have occurred to any reasonable person, even one not subject to the irresistible incentives that Defendant Höss was subject to.

The scholarly “heavy lifting” is undertaken in Part II, where the content of Höss’s testimony is analyzed both in relation to the context of events surrounding the testimony and to other testimony given by Höss on related matters—the fitting together of the pieces, to use the analogy of a puzzle or other such integrated whole. It is in this process that the image of a “motivated witness” becomes apparent, and the artifacts of fictional creativity emerge. Not until the last section (Conclusions) does Mattogno voice his interpretation that the “star witness” had indeed become starstruck in his role as the center of attention. Mattogno here implicitly neglects the fact that Höss remained as much concerned as ever not only for sparing himself any reprise of the torture to which he had been prolongedly subjected the previous year, but also for the continued safety of his wife and five children. Mattogno further ignores the Grand Prize to be at least theoretically hoped for by anyone in Höss’s predicament: clemency, or even mere delay in the imposition of the ultimate punishment.

Höss was ultimately hanged, and if Mattogno overlooked the notion that Höss might however unrealistically have hoped to be spared this outcome, perhaps it might be noted that Mattogno ruthlessly suppresses and expunges any and every flight of imagination from his exacting analyses without fail. Mattogno’s legendary scrupulousness in analysis of facts may be the very thing that limits him in the necessarily speculative contemplation of counterfact. But counterfact everywhere and always ultimately drives fact, so I will cite Jett Rucker’s insightful analysis on codoh.com titled “Telling Stories to Stay Alive: Rudolf Höss vs. Scheherazade,” which lays out the theory quite adequately.

In a final letter to his wife, reproduced in this book, Höss contritely tells her not only that he expects to be executed, but that he deserves to be executed. He expressed such thoughts on other occasions also recorded and cited in the book. He presumably did expect to be executed. But his saying so did not in any way increase the likelihood that he would be executed. To the contrary, if they had any effect at all on the likelihoods in play at the time, they would have militated against finally executing him. Ruling such strategies out of the condemned man’s mind would contradict Samuel Johnson’s famous quip, “Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”


Notes

[1] Aside from outright frauds such as Binjamin Wilkomirski, the opportunists riding this “juggernaut of conscience” include Rainer Höss, grandson of the commandant, who claims that, if magically he could somehow meet his grandfather, he would kill him.
 
Review of Auschwitz Forensically Examined

Cyrus Cox. Auschwitz—Forensically Examined. Castle Hill Publications, Uckfield, UK, 114 pp., £8.

John Wear

Link: https://inconvenienthistory.com/11/1/6633

Auschwitz—Forensically Examined by Cyrus Cox summarizes the forensic evidence proving that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp. This article will review some of the important points mentioned in this book.

The Chemistry of Auschwitz

Forensic tests show that all of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof and Majdanek have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian Blue, a compound of cyanide and iron readily discernible by a distinctive deep blue color. Not only the inner surfaces, but also the outside walls and the mortar between the bricks of the delousing facilities have Prussian Blue staining. On the other hand, nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau.[1]

Cyrus Cox writes:

While there is an enormous presence of cyanide residue in the masonry of the disinfestation chambers, in the alleged homicidal gas chambers there is no significant presence at all…The simplest explanation for this is that there were no gassings with Zyklon B in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, plain and simple.[2]

Proponents of the orthodox Holocaust story, however, cannot concede that there were no gassings with Zyklon B in the alleged-homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau. They have made the following attempts to explain away the results of forensic tests showing no significant cyanide residues in the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau:[3]

1) The Kraków Institute of Forensic Research published results in 1994 that claimed not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian Blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen-cyanide gas. The researchers therefore adopted methods that excluded Prussian Blue and similar iron/cyanide compounds from their analyses. Their assumptions made it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a “cyanide residue” of close to zero. The Kraków researchers concluded from their deliberately crippled analyses that since the gas chambers and delousing facilities all had similar amounts of cyanide residues, humans were gassed in the gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau.[4]

Cox dismisses this Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report: “The cockeyed blabber about not understanding or about blue wall paint is egregious flimflam at best; in reality, however, it is a lie to confuse the audience.”[5]

2) Dr. James Roth testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as the laboratory manager of Alpha Analytical Laboratories. The purpose of the tests was to determine the total iron and cyanide content in the samples. Dr. Roth testified that the Prussian Blue produced by a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide could penetrate deeply into porous materials such as brick and iron.[6]

Dr. Roth later changed this testimony in a 1999 movie titled Mr. Death produced by Errol Morris. Dr. Roth states in this movie:

Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go looking for it, you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep, because it’s not going to be there.[7]

Cox writes in regard to Dr. Roth’s statement in Mr. Death: “That was a lie. To hydrogen-cyanide gas, plaster and mortar are as permeable as a sponge is to water…Roth knows this, because when he testified under oath at the 1988 Zündel trial, he truthfully said: ‘In porous materials such as brick and mortar, [hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open’…”[8]

3) Dr. Richard Green, who says “I am not embarrassed to call Holocaust denial hate speech,” agrees with Germar Rudolf that the Prussian Blue found in the delousing chambers is the result of gassing with hydrogen cyanide. However, Dr. Green offers a possible alternative explanation for why the outside walls of the delousing chambers have blue staining. Green writes:

[T]he discoloration on the outside of walls [of the delousing chambers], ought to make one consider what possible processes could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings? Not enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its origins to processes that took place within those buildings.[9]

Cox writes concerning Dr. Green’s statement:

Which absurd auxiliary thesis will come next? Maybe the one by Dr. Richard Green, who seriously proposed that the cyanide residues in the disinfestation chambers did not stem from fumigations, but were caused by objects leaning against the wall which had been soaked in a “hydrogen-cyanide solution”? Where then do the cyanide residues close to the ceiling, in the middle and outside of the wall come from?[10]

4) French biochemist and Auschwitz veteran Dr. Georges Wellers provides another explanation by stating that humans are considerably more sensitive to hydrogen cyanide than insects. The homicidal gassings at Auschwitz/Birkenau thus were conducted with smaller amounts of hydrogen cyanide over shorter times. Wellers says the victims would have inhaled almost all of the hydrogen cyanide, so there presumably was nothing left to react with the masonry.[11]

Cox writes that Wellers’s explanation overlooks several things:

1) Executions in U.S. gas chambers took on average around nine minutes before the victims were dead;

2) The Zyklon B used in Auschwitz/Birkenau slowly discharges its toxin over a period of one to two hours, in contrast to US methods, in which a cyanide “egg” virtually “boils” in a pot of pure sulfuric acid;

3) None of the alleged-homicidal gas chambers used in Auschwitz/Birkenau had devices such as warm-air blowers to aid evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide. Such devices were part of the standard equipment of the disinfestation chambers used in that period (the gas chambers are said to have used precisely the same form of Zyklon B as did the disinfestation chambers);

4) The concentration of toxic gas in the chambers would have steadily increased for one or two hours; therefore, ventilation of the chamber before the complete evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide would have been of no avail; and

5) The victims before dying could have inhaled only an insignificant part of the hydrogen-cyanide gas that would have been in the homicidal gas chambers.[12]

Cox lists several additional factors indicating that the alleged-homicidal gas chambers had a significantly higher tendency of forming long-term-stable cyanide residue than the disinfestation buildings. He concludes: “In the masonry samples of the underground morgue, we should find approximately similar residues as in the disinfestation chambers, if not even more, provided that the stories told by the witnesses are true.”[13]

The Cremations of Auschwitz

Cyrus Cox debunks eyewitness testimony claiming that gigantic flames burst from the chimneys of the crematories of Auschwitz/Birkenau. The construction blueprints show that the flues and the chimney of the largest crematories in Auschwitz/Birkenau each had a length of about 15 meters. The coke and coal used to fuel the furnaces burn with a short flame not exceeding half a meter. This fuel could not even have produced flames that protruded out of the cremation muffles.[14]

Many witnesses also claim that smoke constantly covered all of Auschwitz/Birkenau. However, none of the aerial photos taken of Birkenau by Allied reconnaissance planes since late May 1944 shows a column of smoke from any of the crematories. This is so even though these facilities were allegedly cremating the Jews deported from Hungary at their peak capacity.[15]

The capacity of the Auschwitz/Birkenau crematories has also been exaggerated by proponents of the official Holocaust story. The crematories of Auschwitz/Birkenau had muffles with doors 1.97 feet in width and height, and were meant to cremate only one corpse at a time without casket. The full incineration of a single corpse took about an hour.[16] If one considers that the furnace had to be cleaned daily from ash and cinders, a coke-fired crematory could be operated for a maximum of only about 20 hours per day.[17]

There effectively were never more than 38 cremation muffles concurrently operating at Auschwitz/Birkenau. Their theoretical maximum daily capacity on a 20-hour-per-day operational schedule amounts to:

38 muffles x 20 hours x 1 corpse/hour = 760 corpses.

Since single furnaces or even complete crematories had to be shut down on occasion for necessary repairs, and since the furnaces were often operated by unskilled detainees, one can assume that the actual cremation capacity at Auschwitz/Birkenau was significantly lower.[18] There was never enough capacity at Auschwitz/Birkenau to cremate 4,800 corpses per day as alleged by pro-Holocaust historians.[19]

A set of documents has been preserved showing the quantities of coke delivered to Auschwitz/Birkenau in the period from February 1942 to October 1943. These documents show that the new crematories at Birkenau weren’t used as intensively as the old one at the Auschwitz main camp, and that there was not enough fuel delivered to cremate the additional hundreds of thousands of corpses claimed to have accrued at Auschwitz/Birkenau. These documents also show that coke deliveries starting in March 1943 approximately match the numbers of dead reported in the Auschwitz/Birkenau Death Books. [20]

Cox does acknowledge that approximately 13,000 corpses were buried in mass graves in Birkenau in 1942 because deaths from a typhus epidemic exceeded the limited cremation capacity in the camp at the time. Most of these bodies were later exhumed, with many bodies probably directly burned on pyres.[21] However, Cox says a photograph taken of Birkenau on May 31, 1944 provides irrefutable proof that the alleged incineration of Hungarian Jews on enormous outdoor pyres has been nothing other than a gigantic propaganda lie.[22]

Carlo Mattogno agrees with Cox’s analysis. In his book Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Mattogno states in regard to Allied aerial photographs taken at Birkenau on May 31, 1944:

It is pointed out also that the aerial photographs taken by the Allied military on 31 May 1944, at the crucial time of presumed extermination, on the day of the arrival at Birkenau of about 15,000 deportees, and after 14 days of intense arrivals (184,000 deportees, averaging 13,000 per day) and with an extermination toll (according to Pressac’s hypothesis) of at least 110,000 homicidally gassed, which would have had to average 7,800 per day, every single day for 14 consecutive days; after all of that, the photographs do not show the slightest evidence of this alleged enormous extermination: No trace of smoke, no trace of pits, crematory or otherwise, burning or not, no sign of dirt extracted from pits, no trace of wood set aside for use in pits, no sign of vehicles or any other type of activity in the crucial zones of the courtyard of Crematory V nor in the earth of Bunker 2, nor in Crematories II and III. These photographs constitute irrefutable proof that the story of extermination of the Hungarian Jews is historically unfounded.[23]

Suppressing Evidence

Cox describes the first independent forensic report on Auschwitz:

In 1972, the two architects Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, who were involved in the planning and construction of the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, had to stand trial in Vienna for assisting in mass murder. The Auschwitz Museum had sent the Viennese court the construction plans of these buildings. Because the judges found themselves incompetent to evaluate these plans, they tasked the Viennese architect Gerhard Dubin, a certified engineer, to examine these designs to ascertain whether the spaces denoted by the Auschwitz Museum as execution chambers could have been used as such or could have been restructured for such use. Dubin answered “No” to both questions in his expert report. This was one of the reasons why both defendants were ultimately acquitted by the jury. Subsequently, an unknown person removed Dubin’s embarrassing (for the orthodoxy) expert report from the trial records, because today it is not to be found there. This destruction of evidence is not only grossly anti-scientific, it is also a criminal act.[24]

The Holocaust orthodoxy continues to suppress evidence to this day. Publicly disputing the official Holocaust narrative is a crime in some 19 countries. Moreover, in Germany it is prohibited by threat of punishment to file a motion with the court to admit evidence seeking to prove that revisionist statements are correct. The reason given is that such motions constitute “Holocaust denial” and would therefore be a criminal act during a public trial. Accordingly, several defense lawyers have been sentenced simply because they filed such a motion.[25]

Holocaust revisionist writings cannot even be read in court in modern-day Germany. Cox writes:

In order to keep the public in the dark about the fact that the defendants are being sent to the dungeon for entirely harmless and scientifically well-based statements, their writings for which they are on trial are moreover not read out in the courtroom, which would normally be obligatory, but the trial participants—judges, prosecution, defense—are ordered to read the material by themselves at home.

Ever since the introduction of these measures, silence has been once more every citizen’s primary duty in German courtrooms. Shut up, and don’t you dare protest![26]

Conclusion

Auschwitz—Forensically Examined provides an excellent introduction to the forensic evidence proving that Auschwitz/Birkenau was not an extermination camp. Readers who are interested in a more detailed analysis of the forensic evidence can read books written by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno to gain additional insights.

Cyrus Cox states the primary reason for knowing that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau: “While there is an enormous presence of cyanide residue in the masonry of the disinfestation chambers, in the alleged homicidal gas chambers there is no significant presence at all.”[27] Pro-Holocaust historians have yet to provide a credible explanation why no significant presence of cyanide residue has been found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau.

Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes: “…for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German World War II labour camp let us merely measure cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”[28]

Endnotes

[1] Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2000, pp. 363-371.

[2] Cox, Cyrus, Auschwitz—Forensically Examined, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, pp. 41, 53.

[3] Ibid., p. 41.

[4] Rudolf, Germar. op. cit., pp. 368-369.

[5] Cox, Cyrus. op. cit., p. 40.

[6] Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 362-363.

[7] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mr._Death; Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving v. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113, 2001, p. 16; http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf.

[8] Cox, Cyrus. op. cit., p. 42.

[9] Richard J. Green. “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” 10 May 1998, p. 18. http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/.

[10] Cox, Cyrus. op. cit., p. 54.

[11] Ibid., p. 42.

[12] Ibid., pp. 42-45.

[13] Ibid., pp. 45-47.

[14] Ibid., pp. 57-58.

[15] Ibid., pp. 59-60.

[16] Ibid., pp. 61-62.

[17] Ibid., pp. 64-65.

[18] Ibid., p. 66.

[19] Ibid., p. 61.

[20] Ibid., pp. 67, 70-71.

[21] Ibid., pp. 69-70.

[22] Ibid., p. 84.

[23] Mattogno, Carlo. Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Newport Beach, Cal.: The Institute for Historical Review, 1994, p. 32.

[24] Cox, Cyrus. op. cit., pp. 21-22.

[25] Ibid., pp. 92-94.

[26] Ibid., p. 95.

[27] Ibid., p. 41.

[28] Kollerstrom, Nicholas. Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 70.


Author(s):
John Wear

Title:
Review of Auschwitz Forensically Examined

Sources:

Dates:
published: 2019-04-04, first posted: 2019-04-05 02:33:15
 
Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries
Presented by Castle Hill Publishers and CODOH
ISSN 1529-7748 (books) & 2059-3872 (documentaries)

Link: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=6

Informationen zur deutschen AusgabeInformationen zur deutschen Ausgabe
Holocaust Handbooks, Volume 6:

Don Heddesheimer: The First Holocaust—The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure

5th slightly revised edition

click for a larger version

Your browser does not support the video tag, but you can download the video here.

Most people believe that roughly six million Jews were killed by National Socialist Germany during World War II in an event generally referred to as the Holocaust or the Shoah. But how long have we been hearing about this six-million figure? The most widely understood answer is that the six-million figure was established after the Second World War during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

Although it is true that the six-million figure was declared to be the indubitable truth at this tribunal, it is actually remarkably older. This book shows that the six-million figure dates back to the late 1800s, when Jewish pressure groups were targeting czarist Russia for its anti-Jewish stance, accusing Russia of oppressing and persecuting the six million Jews in Russia, and adopting a “solution” to its “Jewish question” which allegedly consisted of outright extermination. Claims that six million Jews in Europe were suffering to such a degree that millions had died already, while many more millions would face a lingering death, climaxed for the first time during fundraising campaign that started during the FIRST World War and reached its peak in the early and mid-1920s. The New York Times was the main vehicle for such propaganda, which also included well-known buzzwords such as “annihilation,” “extermination” and even the term “holocaust.”

Although this sensational propaganda of Jewish suffering slowed down during the 1930s, it never completely ceased and received new momentum in the 1940s during the Second World War. As we all know today, this propaganda skyrocketed after Germany’s total defeat, as the victorious powers of the Second World War seized upon the opportunity to take advantage of such propaganda and to increase its scope and impact.

Don Heddesheimer’s book reveals a Jewish-Zionist propaganda pattern that has been used since the late 1800s, first against czarist Russia, then in favor of the Soviet Revolution, next against Nazi Germany, and finally and ever since in favor of Israel.

Fifth edition with an extended introduction featuring most of the information also contained in our video shown below, plus a list of including a list of 288 sources referring to 6 million suffering, dying or dead Jews published between 1900 and the opening of the Nuremberg Trials in late 1945.


The following video explores "The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure" in depth. Watch it right here (YouTube deleted our account with all our documentaries in June 2019):

Your browser does not support the video tag, but you can download the video here.

5th slightly revised edition, 200 pages.
Format: pb, 6"×9", 26 illustrations, bibliography, index.
Published by Castle Hill Publishers (Uckfield, UK) in July 2018. ISBN13: 9781591482048 (ISBN10: 1591482046)
For prices please see retail outlets.

Purchase Options

Note: Books published by Castle Hill Publishers should be available anywhere books are sold – except for those companies boycotting us, like Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Search other online stores using the book-price search-engine links provided below, or when searching other stores use the ISBN number provided above. Also ask your local book store to order it for you. They should be able to get it for you.

Order from the publisher, with links to various other outletsOrder from the publisher, with links to various other outlets Buy at the source from the publishers CODOH/Castle Hill Publishers.

Search book-price search engines:
FindBookPrices.com. Pick shipping destination and payment currency on their webpage FindBookPrices.com: Pick shipping destination and payment currency on their webpage.

BookFinder4U.com. This search engine is good only for shipping addresses in the U.S. BookFinder4U.com: Good only for shipping addresses in the U.S.


Online Reading and Download Options

Read this book online in html-formatLook inside: table of contents & first chapter (smaller than 1 MB)Download free PDF fileDownload free Amazon Kindle fileDownload free ePub file (zipped html) Bestell-Infos zur deutschen AusgabeBestell-Infos zur deutschen Ausgabe

If you decide to download this book's free PDF or Kindle file instead of purchasing it, please consider supporting the publishers with a donation for their generosity.


Copyright Notice

Electronic files of some (but not all) of the volumes of the Holocaust Handbooks have been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. Where this is the case, the files can be downloaded above. They may be copied and distributed by third parties free of charge only. No commercial use by third parties is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the book are permitted without the prior written consent of the book's author(s)/editor(s).

alternative download: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/06-tfh.pdf


For prices and availability visit the outlet websites as given above or write to:
CODOH/CHP Bookstore, managed by Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 243, Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK
 
The Holocaust of Six Million Jews—in World War I

by Thomas Dalton - The Unz Review

Link: https://www.unz.com/article/the-holocaust-of-six-million-jews-in-world-war-i/


I take it that the reader is familiar with the basics of the so-called Holocaust: the alleged deaths of some six million Jews, many in gas chambers, at the hands of the Nazis in World War II. This was, we are told, a deliberate policy of Hitler and his top men, something of highest priority—even above the war effort itself—and a policy of the utmost secrecy. It was so secret, in fact, that hard documentation and forensic evidence on this catastrophic, world-changing event are almost nonexistent: no ‘Hitler order’ to kill the Jews, no plans for homicidal gas chambers, no physical remains of gas chambers,[1]Those alleged gas chambers that they show to tourists in Auschwitz Main Camp, Majdanek, and Dachau are postwar reconstructions, and could never have functioned as mass killing sites using poison gas. See my books for details. no photos of gas chambers or gassed Jews, no autopsies confirming death by gas, no consistent or coherent records of mass shootings that must have totaled over 1.5 million, no evidence of any of the 1 million or so ghetto deaths. Those ingenious devils, the Nazis, managed to destroy all the evidence—including the physical remains of virtually all six million Jewish corpses—in order to conceal their heinous deed. They were truly evil geniuses. Or so we are told.

But this is not my topic for today. For the full story of the incredible World War II Holocaust, I must refer interested readers to my books The Holocaust: An Introduction (for the concise version), or, for a more detailed discussion, Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides (4th ed, 2020). Also recommended is the book by Germar Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust (2017). Suffice to say that there are many facts about this notorious event that our friendly ‘Holocaust experts’ would rather have us not know.

Today, though, I want to focus on a related but perhaps more surprising event: the Jewish “holocaust” of World War I. (I will use the lower-case ‘holocaust’ for pre-WWII, reserving the upper-case ‘Holocaust’ for WWII itself.)

Wait, you say; World War I? But didn’t that occur decades before WWII? Yes. Wasn’t that years before the Nazi party even existed? True enough. Wasn’t Hitler a mere foot soldier in that initial war? Indeed he was. Then who committed the crime? And why? And how many Jews suffered in that holocaust?

It is truly a remarkable story, one that is too little known. It has often been said that “history repeats itself.” But who would have guessed that a monumentally tragic event like a holocaust could repeat itself, inflicted on the same people, in the same region of the world, and in the same numbers, in just three decades? This amazing occurrence is worth a bit of exploration; the holocaust of WW1 has huge implications for the Holocaust of WWII, and by extension, for Jewish-Gentile relations in the world today.

Context for War
The precursors and causes of WW1 are vast and complicated, and I cannot delve into those here. But a key factor, and likely decisive, was the action of the global Jewish Lobby of the day, which pushed for war at every possible juncture; I have detailed this aspect in my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and I refer interested readers to it. The same Jewish Lobby, it turns out, also had a decisive hand in the holocaust narratives.

For the moment, I will have to restrict myself to the basic facts. World War I, as we recall, began in July 1914 and ran for a bit more than four years, ending on 11 November 1918. For the majority of this time, the Triple Entente of the UK, France, and Russia faced off against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. The US eventually entered the war (on the side of the Entente) in April 1917. Russia, torn apart by the Judeo-Bolshevik Revolution, withdrew in March 1918. Germany held out for another seven months, but eventually, in November 1918, it too succumbed, in part as a result of internal Jewish agitation,. In the end, the Alliance suffered some 8 million total casualties (military plus civilian), and the Entente around 10 million. Despite the many complicating factors, a defeated Germany was ultimately assigned full blame for the war—completely overlooking the fact that that nation “did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine…efforts to avert one,” in the words of historian Sidney Fay.[2]As quoted in Fay’s “classic study” of the war, The Origins of the World War (1928), p. 552. The onerous postwar reparations inflicted on Germany set the stage, in large part, for the later emergence of Hitler and his NSDAP party.

As in all wars, many civilians were caught in the crosshairs; here, the Jews were no exception. Their suffering, however, had already been ongoing for many years prior to the war. Or perhaps we should say, selfinflicted suffering. Jewish behavior, attitudes, actions, and beliefs have been a constant source of conflict throughout the centuries—even through millennia.[3]For this story, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020). Jewish abrasiveness became particularly pressing by the late 18th century, as was noted by many prominent critics, including Kant, Voltaire, Hegel, Fichte, and Herder. By the mid-19th century, the likes of Schopenhauer and Bruno Bauer were issuing scathing critiques.

A particularly disturbing situation, though, was developing in Russia. By the late 1800s, Russia had some 5 million Jews within its borders, nearly all of whom lived in the so-called Pale of Settlement in the far west of the country; this represented about half of the global total of around 10 million Jews. This large Jewish population was a disruptive and agitating force within Russia and hence earned the dislike of Czars Nicholas I (reigned 1825 to 1855) and Alexander II (reigned 1855 to 1881). By 1871, Russian activist Mikhail Bakunin could make this observation about the Jews:
This whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people (ein Blutegelvolk), a collective parasite (einzigen fressenden Parasiten), voracious, organized in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. … Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united them [both].[4]Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.
In 1881, a gang of anarchists known as Narodnaya Volya, which included a few Jews, succeeded in assassinating Alexander; this unleashed a series of anti-Jewish pogroms that persisted for decades.

By the late 1880s, American media was beginning to take notice of the Jewish situation in Russia—especially the New York Times. A brief item from 1889 began with the question “How many Jews are there?” meaning, globally. At a minimum, “the number of the ubiquitous race [is] 6,000,000.” It then continues with a reference to Jewish suffering: “With the exception of half a million, they are all in a state of political bondage.” Furthermore, “in Russia alone there were 4,000,000 of their race whose every step was dogged by that curse, religious hatred and persecution.”[5]10 February, p. 14. Here we find an early reference to (almost) six million suffering Jews.

Another short piece appeared in 1891 entitled “Russia’s Christianity: Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews.” In a public lecture, Gottheil examined a number of facts “in relation to the treatment of Russia’s 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 Jews by the Christian population.” Notably, the population of Russian Jews, which was just 4 million two years earlier, was now as high as 6 million. Gottheil then proceeds to quote a recent article by one E. B. Lanin, who said, “about six millions [sic] persecuted and miserable wretches remain steadfastly faithful to a religion that causes their life to be changed into a fiery furnace.”[6]26 January, p. 8. Prophetic, indeed.

Nearly a decade later, in June 1900, Rabbis Gottheil and Stephen Wise were the keynote speakers at a “Zionist mass meeting” in New York. They were anxious to highlight Jewish suffering around the world to help make their case for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Gottheil spoke generically of the “oppressed in Russia,” but Wise made the point explicit: “There are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”[7]11 June, p. 7. Incidentally, the New York Times was, by this time, formally a Jewish newspaper; Adolph Ochs purchased the firm in 1896. It has retained Jewish ownership and management ever since. Within a few years, the pogroms became increasingly intense, eventually leading to small-scale killings. The so-called “Kishineff (or Kishinev) massacre” of 1903, in which all of 49 Jews were killed, became, for the first time, a “holocaust.” The NYT quotes from an editorial of the Jewish Chronicle:
We charge the Russian Government with responsibility for the Kishineff massacre. We say it is steeped to the eyes in the guilt of this holocaust. (16 May, p. 1)
The editorial goes on to speak of how the Russian Jews are being “slowly annihilated” and subject to “the process of extermination.” Such words obviously anticipate similar charges that would be leveled against the National Socialists some four decades later.

Two years later, we read that the “holocaust” is still ongoing. A short item of 1905 is headlined “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian holocaust is to continue.”[8]10 November, p. 2. Also that year, the NYT reported, once again, on “our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia.”[9]23 March, p. 7. The following year, in 1906, we read of “startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews”; it is a “horrifying picture” of “renewed massacres” and “systematic and murderous extermination.”[10]25 March, p. SM6. At this point, one is tempted to ask: What is it about the Jews, such that they are subject to such continual and horrific abuse? And furthermore, why isn’t the figure of six million, first reported back in 1890, growing any larger? Is it now, somehow, fixed at six million? If so, why?

In 1910, we find “Russian Jews in sad plight,” and we are saddened over “the systematic, relentless, quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls.”[11]11 April, p. 18. In 1911, the New York Times reported that “the 6,000,000 Jews of Russia are singled out for systematic oppression and for persecution by due process of law.”[12]31 October, p. 5. And yet things got worse still:
That Russia is pursuing a definite anti-Jewish policy, that the condition of the Jews in Russia is worse now than it ever was before, will be gathered from the following extracts… [T]he restrictive laws now in existence…intensif[y] the oppression of the Jews, and by which it is making the 6,000,000 Jews a people economically exhausted—a people without any rights at all. (10 December, p. SM8)
We need to remind ourselves that the leading Russians had a very low opinion of the Jews, and felt themselves fully justified in any recrimination. Sometimes their words were shocking. Russian prime minister Pyotr Stolypin wrote the following in 1911:
It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures, who cannot enter into our concept of human nature. We can observe them the way we observe and study animals, we can feel disgust for them or hostility, the way we do for the hyena, the jackal, or the spider, but to speak of hatred for them would raise them to our level. … Only by disseminating in the popular consciousness the concept that the creature of the Jewish race is not the same as other people, but an imitation of a human, with whom there can be no dealings—only that can gradually heal the national organism and weaken the Jewish nation so it will no longer be able to do harm, or will completely die out. History knows of many extinct tribes. Science must put, not the Jewish race, but the character of Jewry into such condition as will make it perish.[13]Cited in Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (1994), p. 6.
Just a few months later, Stolypin was assassinated by a Jewish radical, Dmitri Bogrov.
I emphasize that it was not only the New York Times that was reporting on the six million suffering Hebrews. Zionist Jews were repeating the same lines to their own people. Speaking at the 1911 Zionist Congress, Max Nordau said the following:
Virtuous governments…lay the groundwork with their own hands for the destruction of six million persons, and no one except the victims themselves raises his voice against this—even though this, of course, is an infinitely greater crime than any war which as yet has never destroyed six million human lives.[14]Cited in Herzl Year Book, vol. 2 (1959), p. 156. The chapter author explicitly comments on Nordau’s “astonishing accuracy.”
Thus we find repeated linkage, over a period of many years, of “six million,” “extermination,” and “holocaust” with respect to the Jews. History indeed repeats itself.

Into the Great War
It seems, then, that our holocaust journey is even more intriguing than I indicated above. The first Jewish holocaust occurred in Russia, running, at a minimum, from the years 1903 through 1911. We don’t know how many Jews were killed in that period, but it was unquestionably small, given the over-emphasis on relatively minor events in which, for example, 49 were killed (see Andrew Joyce’s “Revisiting the Nineteenth-Century Russian Pogroms”). Based on scattered reports, the total would have been on the order of a few thousand, at most. And yet, the figure of 6 million recurred repeatedly, as a kind of token of mass Jewish suffering. This set the stage for the second holocaust, of World War One, as I am about to explain. And this, of course, leaves “the” Holocaust of World War II as holocaust number three. A rather remarkable turn of events, and one not likely to be covered in your local history class.

As I stated above, World War I began in July 1914. Already in December of that year we were reading accounts of mass suffering of Jews—and we can guess the number. The New York Times reported as follows:
Appeal for aid for Jews: American Committee tells of Suffering Due to War. The American Jewish Relief Committee called a conference…to consider the plight of more than 6,000,000 Jews who live within the war zone. (2 December, p. 12)
The “war zone” in question was the Eastern Front, which ran through parts of present-day Poland, Ukraine, Austria, and Hungary, as well as portions of western Russia. Just a month later, the Times reported,

In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the very heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of sorrow and suffering. (14 January, p. 3)

A year later, we read that the head of a Jewish aid society has declared that “even the wrongs of the Belgians could not be compared to the outrages heaped upon the Polish Jews. ‘Nearly six million Jews are ruined, in the greatest moral and material misery. … And the world is silent’.”[15]28 February, p. 8. And in case we had forgotten, the Times would soon remind us that, indeed, this horrific situation constituted…a holocaust. In October, a Jewish organization—The Joint Distribution Committee of Funds for Jewish War Sufferers—launched a \$10 million appeal with these words:
The new campaign is the largest ever undertaken by Jews of the United States. … Dr. Judah Magnes has been enabled [to ascertain] the present needs of the Jewish people in Europe, who have fallen under the blight of the world holocaust. (29 October, p. E9)
Into 1917, the war evolved into a sort of stalemate, with the infamous trenches defining much of the front. Despite growing fatalities on all sides, the number of suffering Jews stayed remarkably constant: “Six millions [sic] of Jews are living in lands where they are oppressed, exploited, crushed, and robbed of every inalienable human right.”[16]22 January, p. 6. By September of that year, the Times was reporting on an appeal for an aid fund,
to alleviate the suffering of Jews in the European war zones…[whose] suffering is unparalleled [!] in history. … [W]omen, children, and babies must be saved if the Jewish race is to survive the terrible holocaust… (24 September, p. 20)
Once again, we see the repeated connection between ‘holocaust’ and ‘six million’ suffering Jews.

By mid-October of 1918, it was becoming clear—at least to the crew at the New York Times—that the war was about to end. Hence they excitedly reported on an astonishing “\$1 billion fund to rebuild Jewry” (18 October, p. 12).[17]In present-day dollars, this would come to almost \$20 billion. As it turns out, of those “six millions” of Jews who were suffering, starving, and dying in the “holocaust”—well, miraculously, all of them survived. And they needed cash. “Six million souls will need help to resume normal life when war is ended,” we read. Send your checks now.

Interwar Holocaust?
No sooner had World War I ended than our ever-industrious Jewish Lobby went to work again, conjuring up yet more Jewish suffering. In September 1919—less than one year after the war—the New York Times was reporting on renewed mass Jewish suffering, now in Poland and Ukraine. In a story headlined “Ukrainian Jews Aim to Stop Pogroms,” we read, with by now little surprise, that “6,000,000 are in peril.” Apparently half of these are in Poland, half in Ukraine, but “all of whom are in need of assistance from America.” According to the story, President Wilson had recently issued a statement of concern in which he said:
This fact that the population of 6,000,000 souls in Ukrainia and Poland have received notice through action and by word that they are going to be completely exterminated—this fact stands before the whole world as the paramount issue of the day. (8 September, p. 6)
Assuredly so.

Lest we might forget, this situation was quickly described as, yes, a “holocaust.” In one of the most craven and pandering articles ever to be penned by a non-Jewish politician, former New York governor Martin Glynn published an essay for American Hebrew in October 1919, titled “The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!” It reads, in part:
From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread. … With them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. … In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate. … Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. … In this threatened holocaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction. … And so in the spirit that turned the poor widow’s votive offering of copper into silver … the people of this country are called upon to sanctify their money by giving \$35 million in the name of the humanity of Moses to six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying… [italics added]
A truly appalling bit of servility, if there ever was one. Clearly Glynn owed much to his Hebrew supporters.
The very next month, the NYT reported on prominent Jewish banker Felix Warburg, who had recently traveled to Europe to witness the suffering firsthand:
The successive blows of contending armies have all but broken the back of European Jewry, and have reduced to tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation, and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population on the earth. (12 November, p. 7)
The storyline persisted in subsequent years:

* April 1920: “Mr. Louis Marshall declared that typhus menaced 6,000,000 Jews of Europe.”[18]Notably, it was typhus that likely produced most Jewish fatalities during WW2.

* May 1920: “Hunger, cold rags, desolation, disease, death—six million human beings without food, shelter, clothing…”

* July 1921: “Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews are facing extermination by massacre” (again!).

* September 1924: “1,235 Pogroms” in the Soviet Union; “The Jewish population, which number in Russia over 6,000,000, live scattered. … [Events] have subjected the Jews to greater suffering than any other section of the Russian population.”

And so on. But the point is proven. Through a long series of incredible, unbelievable circumstances, six million Jews were perpetually suffering through various incarnations of a “holocaust” for decades prior to World War II. Such references tapered off through the 1930s, but accelerated again with the approach of the second great war. Several mentions of the “six million” appeared between 1936 and 1939. With the onset of war in September 1939, the predictions became explicit. In June of 1940, leading Zionist Nahum Goldmann was quoted as saying “Six million Jews in Europe are doomed to destruction, if the victory of the Nazis should be final.”[19]25 June, p. 4. What an astonishing prediction! How could Goldmann have known, at that early date, of the final death toll? Jewish foresight never fails to amaze.

Conclusions
The facts here are clear and indisputable. The reader is strongly encouraged to look up a few of the old New York Times citations that I mentioned, to confirm that the words are really there. Most any online search engine or a local library research database can find them. They are highly damning. Our friends in the Jewish Lobby have no plausible reply, no reasonable defense, no good explanation; they can only stifle the whole discussion. And this is precisely what they do.

There are clear lessons here for history. If six million Jews suffered, but very few died, in the first holocaust (Russia), and if another six million suffered, but very few died, in the second holocaust (World War I), then we might reasonably infer, by inductive logic, that perhaps the alleged toll in the third Holocaust (World War II) was—let us say—not quite right. Especially so, given the facts that I mentioned at the very start of this essay. We can also plausibly infer that the claimed ‘six million’ figure of World War II did not come from a body count—it didn’t—but rather is a symbolic number, a token, used over many years, to represent mass Jewish suffering. As an actual death toll, it could be far removed from reality.
And if all this is true, then there are profound consequences. First, we must significantly rewrite our history of the mid-twentieth-century; second, we have to hold accountable all those historians and politicians, Jewish or otherwise, who foisted upon us a distorted picture of human suffering; and third, we need to recompensate Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and all those who were extorted into paying billions in “reparations” to Israel and global Jewry. It is not hard to find the money; American Jews alone own or control perhaps \$50 trillion in assets, and this would go a long way toward a restorative justice.[20]See my essay, “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (2019). But the situation has become even more extreme due to the Covid pandemic, during which Jewish tech billionaires prospered immensely. Just the five wealthiest American Jews—Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg—now own over half a trillion dollars. We need to contemplate this for a moment: five individual men, five Jews, collectively own more than \$500 billion. When we then consider the total wealth of the six million or so American Jews, it is quite easy to reach \$50 trillion, or more. We have the means. We need only muster the will to act.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!. All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com. See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

Notes

[1] Those alleged gas chambers that they show to tourists in Auschwitz Main Camp, Majdanek, and Dachau are postwar reconstructions, and could never have functioned as mass killing sites using poison gas. See my books for details.
Subscribe to New Columns

[2] As quoted in Fay’s “classic study” of the war, The Origins of the World War (1928), p. 552.

[3] For this story, see my book Eternal Strangers (2020).

[4] Cited in Wheen, Karl Marx (1999), p. 340.

[5] 10 February, p. 14.

[6] 26 January, p. 8.

[7] 11 June, p. 7. Incidentally, the New York Times was, by this time, formally a Jewish newspaper; Adolph Ochs purchased the firm in 1896. It has retained Jewish ownership and management ever since.

[8] 10 November, p. 2.

[9] 23 March, p. 7.

[10] 25 March, p. SM6.

[11] 11 April, p. 18.

[12] 31 October, p. 5.

[13] Cited in Vaksberg, Stalin Against the Jews (1994), p. 6.

[14] Cited in Herzl Year Book, vol. 2 (1959), p. 156. The chapter author explicitly comments on Nordau’s “astonishing accuracy.”

[15] 28 February, p. 8.

[16] 22 January, p. 6.

[17] In present-day dollars, this would come to almost \$20 billion.

[18] Notably, it was typhus that likely produced most Jewish fatalities during WW2.

[19] 25 June, p. 4.

[20] See my essay, “A brief look at Jewish wealth” (2019). But the situation has become even more extreme due to the Covid pandemic, during which Jewish tech billionaires prospered immensely. Just the five wealthiest American Jews—Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg—now own over half a trillion dollars. We need to contemplate this for a moment: five individual men, five Jews, collectively own more than \$500 billion. When we then consider the total wealth of the six million or so American Jews, it is quite easy to reach \$50 trillion, or more.
 

A new Israeli film tackles the taboo: Did six million Jews die in the Holocaust?​

Filmmaker David Fisher’s latest documentary, the controversial ‘The Round Number,’ explores how the toll was determined and why many are loath to call it into question​

By Amy Spiro 17 January 2022, 12:19 pm Edit
Link: https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-new...oo-did-six-million-jews-die-in-the-holocaust/

Amy Spiro is a reporter and writer with The Times of Israel.

Filmmaker David Fisher (left) speaks to retired Israeli Supreme Court justice Gabriel Bach, who served as the deputy prosecutor in the trial of Adolf Eichmann. (Leigh Heiman)
Filmmaker David Fisher (left) speaks to retired Israeli Supreme Court justice Gabriel Bach, who served as the deputy prosecutor in the trial of Adolf Eichmann. (Leigh Heiman)

A new documentary film by Israeli filmmaker David Fisher is provoking controversy for its attempts to confirm whether six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

The film, titled “The Round Number,” played at the Jerusalem Film Festival last year and aired on Sunday evening on the HOT8 channel in Israel. The film deals with the round number of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, how it was established and why it has become so untouchable, despite obviously not being an exact figure.

“‘The Round Number’ explores why and how the number six million was written into the canon, and what its meaning can teach us about the Holocaust,” according to a description of the film shared by its distribution company.

Fisher speaks with a wide range of historians and other figures in the film, in an attempt to answer the question.

“Nobody responsible or no self-respecting historian will tell you that six million [Jews] were killed in the Holocaust,” Hanna Yablonka, a professor of Holocaust studies at Ben-Gurion University, tells Fisher in the film.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Editionby email and never miss our top storiesNewsletter email address Get it By signing up, you agree to the terms
History professor Omer Bartov, meanwhile, tells Fisher that the exact final figure will never be truly known. “One of the characteristics of genocide is that you’ll never know all of the victims,” said Bartov.

Fisher, 65, the child of two Holocaust survivor parents, has produced more than a dozen films over the years. The origins of “The Round Number” can be linked back to his award-winning 2011 film, “Six Million and One,” which traces the filmmaker’s father’s experiences in the Holocaust and the trauma that remained with him for the rest of his life.

“Both of my parents, who are Holocaust survivors, lived their lives like victims,” Fisher says in the trailer for “The Round Number,” adding: “So from my perspective, the number is not six million, but six million and two.”

Fisher, who acknowledges that even asking such a question is controversial, said he was not seeking a definitive answer or figure.

“I wasn’t trying to do a count myself and I didn’t seek out people who were involved in the counting,” Fisher told Haaretz in a recent interview. But he noted that he came across a variety of different numbers from historians and other figures over the years, suggesting that the number could be higher or lower than six million. “So I was curious where this number six million came from, and how it became so fixed and so sanctified that people warn you to leave it alone.”

round_number_fs_11-640x400.jpg

A still from filmmaker David Fisher’s ‘The Round Number.’ (Courtesy)

“The number six million has become an institution, and I wanted to stick a pin in it to try to understand where this number came from,” Fisher added.

Yad Vashem historian Dina Porat, who was interviewed for the film, said it treads on dangerous ground.

“The film will leave the borders of Israel, it already has captions in English, and it is a problem,” Porat told Channel 12 news of her concerns that it will call Holocaust memorial and memory into question. “I’m worried about it.”

Fisher told Channel 12 that the touchy nature of his latest film has made it difficult to sell to film festivals abroad.

“In Germany they told me, We can’t allow ourselves to air such a film to our audience,” the filmmaker said. “We are worried that the film will come across as if we are supporting Holocaust denial.”

When the film was released in Israel last year, it was praised for its nuanced approach to a complicated and highly controversial idea.

“‘The Round Number’ is a thought-provoking film, even provocative in its own humble way,” wrote a film reviewer for Yedioth Ahronoth, “about a pain that will not abide, about historical truth, and about the secularization of holiness.”
 

The Jewish Conspiracy to Promote the “Holocaust”​

John Wear, InconvenientHistory.com

Link: http://inconvenienthistory.com/14/1/8187

I recently participated in a discussion thread to an article written by Thomas Dalton. A lady on this discussion thread asked me:

“Is there a Jewish conspiratorial Holocaust hoax group. If there is one, I am not aware of one. Maybe you can point me in the right direction. Do you know anyone who has ever been in this group?”
This article documents some of the numerous Jewish groups and individuals who have conspired to promote the official Holocaust story.

The Postwar Nuremberg Trials​

The genocide of European Jewry has been given legitimacy by the numerous trials conducted by the Allies after the Second World War. Dr. Arthur Butz, in his groundbreaking book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, wrote about the Allied postwar trials that “it is a fact that without the evidence generated at these trials, there would be no significant evidence that the program of killing Jews ever existed at all.”[1] Jewish groups and individuals played key roles in establishing and conducting these trials.

The first trial held in Nuremberg from 1945 to 1946, officially known as the International Military Tribunal (IMT), is the most important of these trials. The governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France tried the most prominent surviving German leaders as war criminals in this trial. In addition, the United States government alone conducted 12 secondary Nuremberg trials (NMT) from 1946 to 1949. Similar trials were also conducted in other locations by Great Britain, West Germany, the United States and Israel, including the highly-publicized trial in Israel of Adolf Eichmann.

The mostly political nature of the IMT and later Nuremberg trials is acknowledged by Nahum Goldmann in his book The Jewish Paradox. Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), admitted that the idea of the Nuremberg trials and German reparations originated with WJC officials. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.[2] The WJC also made sure that Germany’s extermination of European Jewry was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants would be punished for their involvement in Germany’s extermination process.[3]

Two Jewish U.S. Army officers also played key roles in the formation of these trials. Lt. Col. Murray Bernays, a prominent New York attorney, persuaded U.S. War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to put the defeated German leaders on trial. Col. David Marcus, a fervent Zionist, was head of the U.S. government’s War Crimes Branch from February 1946 until April 1947. Marcus was made head of the War Crimes Branch primarily in order “to take over the mammoth task of selecting hundreds of judges, prosecutors and lawyers” for the later NMT trials.[4]

This Jewish influence caused the Allies to give special attention to the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews. Chief U.S. prosecutor Robert H. Jackson, for example, declared in his opening address to the IMT:[5]

“The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the Nazis were those against the Jews. […] It is my purpose to show a plan and design to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all Jewish people. […] The avowed purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people as a whole. […] History does not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever carried out with such calculated cruelty.”
British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross echoed Jackson’s words in his final address to the IMT.[6]

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone said of Justice Robert Jackson, who left the U.S. Supreme Court to lead the IMT tribunal:

“Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to the common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”
Stone wondered on another occasion “whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert that our supplying Britain with 50 destroyers was an act of aggression….”[7]

U.S. Sen. Robert A. Taft courageously denounced the IMT trial in an October 1946 speech:[8]

“The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice.”
Taft went on to state:

"About this whole judgment there is a spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the 11 men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of the trials—government policy and not justice—with little relationship to Anglo-Saxon heritage. By clothing policy in forms of legal procedure, we may discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come."
Several U.S. Congressmen also denounced the Nuremberg trials. For example, Congressman John Rankin of Mississippi declared:[9]

“As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany is a disgrace to the United States. […] A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.”
Gen. George Patton was also opposed to the war crimes trials. In a letter to his wife, he wrote:[10]

“I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and it is Semitic. I am also opposed to sending POWs to work as slaves in foreign lands, where many will be starved to death.”
The later Nuremberg trials were dominated by Jews. Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, who served as the presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals, said that Jews dominated the staff of the Nuremberg courts and were more interested in revenge than justice. He stated:[11]

“The entire atmosphere is unwholesome. […] Lawyers, clerks, interpreters, and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.”
Wennerstrum left the Nuremberg trials “with a feeling that justice has been denied.”

American attorney Warren Magee, who served as defense counsel in the Ministries Trial, wrote:[12]

"‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the driving force behind the prosecutions at Nuremberg. While it grieves me to say this, the prosecution staff, its lawyers, research analysts, interpreters, clerks, etc. is largely Jewish. Many are Germans who fled their country and only recently took out American citizenship. Jewish influence was even apparent at the first trial, labeled the IMT. Atrocities against Jews are always stressed above all else. […] With persecuted Jews in the background directing the proceedings, the trials cannot be maintained in an objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, personal grievances, and racial desires for revenge. […] Basic principles have been disregarded by ‘new’ Americans, many of whom have imbedded in their very beings European racial hatreds and prejudices.

Torture and Intimidation of Witnesses​

Allied prosecutors used torture to help convict the defendants at the IMT and other postwar trials. A leading example of the use of torture to obtain evidence at the Nuremberg trials is the confession of Rudolf Höss, who was a former commandant at Auschwitz. Höss’s testimony at the IMT was probably the most important and striking evidence presented there of a German extermination program. Höss said that more than two and a half million people were exterminated in the Auschwitz gas chambers, and that another 500,000 inmates had died there of other causes.[13] No defender of the Holocaust story today accepts these inflated figures, and other key portions of Höss’s testimony at the IMT are widely acknowledged to be untrue.

In 1983, the anti-National Socialist book Legions of Death by Rupert Butler showed that Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers tortured Rudolf Höss into making his confession. The torture of Höss was exceptionally brutal. Neither Bernard Clarke nor Rupert Butler finds anything wrong or immoral in the torture of Höss. Neither of them seems to understand the importance of their revelations. Bernard Clarke and Rupert Butler prove that Höss’s testimony at the IMT was obtained by torture, and is therefore not credible evidence in proving a program of German genocide against European Jewry.[14]

Bernard Clarke was not the only Jew who tortured Germans to obtain confessions. Tuviah Friedman, for example, was a Polish Jew who survived the German concentration camps. Friedman by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers. Friedman stated:[15]

“It gave me satisfaction. I wanted to see if they would cry or beg for mercy.”
Much of the proof offered today by historians of the genocide of European Jewry is the “confessions” extracted by torture at the war crime trials. Among the most celebrated cases, Rudolph Höss, Julius Streicher, Oswald Pohl, Fritz Sauckel, Franz Ziereis and Josef Kramer were all subject to torture. Obviously, no “confession” obtained under torture would constitute credible evidence in a legitimate court of law.

Jews also often used intimidation tactics to help convict the German defendants at the Allied postwar trials. Jewish attorney Benjamin Ferencz admits in an interview that he used threats and intimidation to obtain confessions:[16]

“You know how I got witness statements? I’d go into a village where, say, an American pilot had parachuted and been beaten to death and line everyone up against the wall. Then I’d say, ‘Anyone who lies will be shot on the spot.’ It never occurred to me that statements taken under duress would be invalid.”
In the same interview, Ferencz admits to being an observer of the torture and murder of a captured SS man:[17]

“I once saw DPs [Displaced Persons] beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?”
Benjamin Ferencz, who enjoys an international reputation as a world peace advocate, further relates a story concerning his interrogation of an SS colonel. Ferencz explains that he took out his pistol in order to intimidate him:[18]

“What do you do when he thinks he’s still in charge? I’ve got to show him that I’m in charge. All I’ve got to do is squeeze the trigger and mark it as auf der Flucht erschossen [shot while trying to escape…]. I said ‘you are in a filthy uniform sir, take it off!’ I stripped him naked and threw his clothes out the window. He stood there naked for half an hour, covering his balls with his hands, not looking nearly like the SS officer he was reported to be. Then I said ‘now listen, you and I are gonna have an understanding right now. I am a Jew—I would love to kill you and mark you down as auf der Flucht erschossen, but I’m gonna do what you would never do. You are gonna sit down and write out exactly what happened—when you entered the camp, who was there, how many died, why they died, everything else about it. Or, you don’t have to do that—you are under no obligation—you can write a note of five lines to your wife, and I will try to deliver it…’ [Ferencz gets the desired statement and continues:] I then went to someone outside and said ‘Major, I got this affidavit, but I’m not gonna use it—it is a coerced confession. I want you to go in, be nice to him, and have him re-write it.’ The second one seemed to be okay—I told him to keep the second one and destroy the first one. That was it.”
The fact that Ferencz threatened and humiliated his witness and reported as much to his superior officer indicates that he operated in a culture where such illegal methods were acceptable.[19]

Many of the investigators in the Allied-run trials were Jewish refugees from Germany who hated Germans. These Jewish investigators gave vent to their hatred by treating the Germans brutally to force confessions from them. One Dachau trial court reporter quit his job because he was outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice. He later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that the most brutal interrogators had been three German-born Jews.[20]

Robert Kempner, who was the American chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg in which 21 German government officials were defendants, is a prime example of a Jew who had a grudge against German defendants. Kempner was a German Jew who lost his job as chief legal advisor of the Prussian Police Department because of National Socialist race laws. He was forced to emigrate first to Italy and then to the United States. Kempner was bitter about the experience and was eager to prosecute and convict German officials in government service.[21]

Kempner bribed Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus, a leading official from the German foreign office, to testify for the prosecution in the Ministries Trial. The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus reveals that Kempner persuaded Gaus to exchange the role of defendant for that of a prosecution collaborator. Gaus was released from isolation two days after his interrogation. A few days later a German newspaper reported a lengthy handwritten declaration from Gaus in which Gaus confessed the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s accusation to the newspaper.[22]

Many people became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of Friedrich Gaus, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate.[23] American attorney Charles LaFollete said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation was common knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of us who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the Germans would attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in Nuremberg.”[24]

Kempner also attempted to bribe German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during the Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate. Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote:

“During the proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good, it suffered from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my father’s defense attorney.”
Richard von Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing but pure cynicism.[25]

In addition to torturing and intimidating defendants into making confessions, some defendants did not live to see the beginning of their trials. For example, Richard Baer, the last commandant of Auschwitz, adamantly denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers in his pre-trial interrogations at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. Baer died in June 1963 under mysterious circumstances while being held in pretrial custody. An autopsy performed on Baer at the Frankfurt-am-Main University School of Medicine said that the ingestion of an odorless, non-corrosive poison could not be ruled out as a cause of death.

It has been widely known ever since the illegal abduction of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina that the Israeli Mossad has immense capabilities. Given the fact that Chief Public Prosecutor Fritz Bauer was a Zionist Jew, which should have precluded him from heading the pretrial investigation, it is quite possible that the forces of international Jewry were able to murder Baer in his jail. Conveniently, the Auschwitz Trial in Frankfurt, Germany began almost immediately after Baer’s death. With Baer’s death the prosecutors at the trial were able to obtain their primary objective—to reinforce the gas-chamber myth and establish it as an unassailable historical fact.[26]

False Jewish Witness Testimony​

Joseph Halow, a young U.S. court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, later described some of the false witnesses at the Dachau trials:[27]

“[T]he major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp cases were what came to be known as ‘professional witnesses,’ and everyone working at Dachau regarded them as such. ‘Professional,’ since they were paid for each day they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau for months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words, these witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least, have called their testimony into question.”
An embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials. Jewish U.S. investigator Josef Kirschbaum brought a former concentration-camp inmate named Einstein into the court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel, however, foiled this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to Einstein and exclaimed:[28]

“How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into the court?”
False Jewish-eyewitness testimony has often been used to attempt to convict innocent defendants. For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five Jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk by forging documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the five Jewish eyewitness accounts were not credible, and that Demjanjuk was innocent.[29]

Another example of false Jewish testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by Simon Wiesenthal that Walus had worked for the Gestapo prompted the U.S. government’s legal action. Eleven Jews testified under oath during the trial that Walus had murdered Jews during the war. After a costly four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had spent the war years as a teenager working on German farms. An American Bar Association article published in 1981 concluded regarding Walus’s trial that “…in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”[30]

Federal district judge Norman C. Roettger, Jr., ruled in a 1978 case in Florida that all six Jewish eyewitnesses who had testified to direct atrocities and shootings at Treblinka by Ukrainian-born defendant Feodor Fedorenko had wrongly identified the accused. The judge found that these Jewish eyewitnesses had been misled by Israeli authorities.[31]

The use of false witnesses has been acknowledged by Johann Neuhäusler, who was an ecclesiastical resistance fighter interned in two German concentration camps from 1941 to 1945. Neuhäusler wrote that in some of the American-run trials “many of the witnesses, perhaps 90%, were paid professional witnesses with criminal records ranging from robbery to homosexuality.”[32]

Stephen F. Pinter served as a U.S. Army prosecuting attorney at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. In a 1960 affidavit, Pinter said that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to charge Germans with false and unfounded crimes. Pinter stated, “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”[33]

Jews Persecute Holocaust Revisionists​

European scholars who have questioned the Holocaust story have suffered tremendous hardships. For example, French revisionist Dr. Robert Faurisson lost his professorship in 1991, was viciously beaten by thugs who were never caught or prosecuted, and was the defendant in numerous law suits. Faurisson believed that revisionist historians are up against a religion. Faurisson said:[34]

“The belief in the Holocaust is a religion. We have to fight against this religion, but I don’t know how to fight a religion. Revisionists can look at demographic figures, historical documents, forensic evidence, etc., but there is no example in history of reason destroying a religion.”
Revisionists have also been persecuted in countries where questioning the Holocaust story is still legal. Canadian revisionist Ernst Zündel was tried in 1985 and 1988 in Toronto, Canada for the alleged crime of knowingly publishing false news. All Zündel had ever done was publicly dispute the Holocaust story. Zündel was prosecuted based on information from the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, a Jewish group that claimed Zündel was spreading false information. This Jewish group used Canadian taxpayer money to prosecute Zündel. Even though Zündel won both cases on appeal, he continued to be attacked and persecuted in Canada. In 1995 his Toronto residence was the subject of an arson attack resulting in over $400,000 of damages. Zündel was also the recipient of a parcel bomb that was defused by the Toronto Police bomb squad.

Zündel later moved to rural Tennessee to live with his wife Ingrid Rimland. In February 2003, Zündel was arrested in Tennessee for alleged immigration violations and deported back to Canada. Zündel was forced to spend over two years in solitary confinement in a Toronto jail cell even though he was never charged with a crime. Zündel was deported to Germany in March 2005, where he was tried and convicted of inciting racial hatred and defaming the memory of the dead. Zündel spent five years in prison in Germany.

Ernst Zündel’s persecution illustrates the power of the Jewish blackout forces. Zündel wrote from his Toronto jail cell:[35]

“The media and educational system have dumbed the people down to a level hitherto unknown in the civilized world. They are modern-day zombie populations, led around by the nose—mentally so manipulated that they cannot think straight, much less act in their own self-interest, either as individuals or as societies and states. Both in spirit and in reality, they have become the tax-paying cash cows and playthings of an alien oligarchy.”
Some people in the United States have been forced to abandon their revisionist work even though U.S. citizens enjoy the First Amendment right to free speech. For example, David Cole, whose parents are both Jewish, was very effective in the 1990s in promulgating revisionist viewpoints. He was so effective that the Jewish Defense League threatened him into recanting his views. In January 1998, Cole changed his name to David Stein to protect himself, and he became publicly known as a right-wing Hollywood Republican. In May 2013 David Cole was exposed by a former friend and is now using his original name again. Hopefully his right to free speech will be respected in the future.

Traditional historians and academics are all forced to uphold the Holocaust story to keep their jobs. Most historians write as if all aspects of the “Holocaust” are well-documented and irrefutable. For example, one historian who laments the outlawing of Holocaust revisionism states: “The Holocaust is an incontestable fact.”[36] However, major aspects of the Holocaust story are easily contestable. It is a felony in many European countries to question the “Holocaust” because major aspects of the Holocaust story are easy to disprove.

Jewish defenders of the Holocaust story have also taken extreme measures to prosecute perpetrators of the alleged crimes. John Demjanjuk, for example, was found not guilty by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1993 of being Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka. Demjanjuk returned to his home in Cleveland, Ohio and looked forward to a peaceful retirement after spending years on death row in Israel. Unfortunately, in 2001 Demjanjuk was charged again on the grounds that he had been a guard named Ivan Demjanjuk at the Sobibór camp in Poland.

On May 11, 2009, Demjanjuk was deported from Cleveland to be tried in Germany. On May 12, 2011, Demjanjuk was convicted by a German criminal court as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at Sobibór, and sentenced to five years in prison. No evidence was presented at Demjanjuk’s trial linking him to specific crimes. Instead, Demjanjuk was convicted under a new line of German legal thinking that a person who served at an alleged death camp can be charged as an accessory to murder because the camp’s sole function was to kill people. No proof of participation in a specific crime is required. Demjanjuk died in Germany before his appeal could be heard by a German Appellate Court.[37]

This new line of German legal thinking is breathtaking in its unfairness. It incorrectly assumes that some German concentration camps were used for the sole purpose of exterminating people when, in fact, none of them was. Moreover, this proposed German law finds a person guilty merely for being at a certain camp. People can be found guilty of a crime even when no evidence is presented that they committed a crime. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been looking to help prosecute and convict other elderly German guards under this line of German legal thinking.[38]

The Holocaust story is being used to increasingly restrict free speech. Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, spoke at the International Holocaust Remembrance Day at the European Parliament ceremony in Brussels on January 27, 2014. Kantor rejected free speech arguments over what he called the worldwide spread of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is “not an opinion—it’s a crime,” he said. Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols or gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.[39]

Conclusion​

The Jewish organizations and people mentioned in this article who have conspired to promote the myth of the so-called Holocaust include:

  1. The World Jewish Congress (WJC), whose president, Nahum Goldmann, admitted that WJC officials originated and promoted the idea of the IMT and reparations from Germany. Only after persistent efforts by WJC officials were Allied leaders persuaded to accept the idea of the Nuremberg trials.
  2. Two Jewish U.S. Army officers, Lt. Col. Murray Bernays and Col. David Marcus, who played prominent roles in implementing and staffing personnel for the Nuremberg trials.
  3. Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers, who tortured Rudolf Höss into making his famous confession at the IMT.
  4. Jewish attorney Benjamin Ferencz, who acknowledges that he used torture and intimidation tactics to help convict German defendants at the Allied postwar trials.
  5. Jewish attorney Robert Kempner, the chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg, who used bribes and threats to prosecute defendants.
  6. The Jewish Israeli Mossad agents near Buenos Aires, who illegally captured Adolf Eichmann in May 1960.
  7. Jewish “Holocaust” survivor Tuviah Friedman, who by his own admission beat up to 20 German prisoners a day to obtain confessions and weed out SS officers.
  8. Jewish prosecutor Josef Kirschbaum, who brought former concentration-camp inmate Einstein into court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel foiled Einstein’s testimony by pointing to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room.
  9. False Jewish eyewitness testimony at the trials of John Demjanjuk, Frank Walus and Feodor Fedorenko.
  10. The Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, a Jewish group that claimed Ernst Zündel was spreading false information about the “Holocaust.” This group used Canadian taxpayer money to prosecute Zündel for the criminal offense of spreading false information.
  11. The Jewish Defense League, which attacked David Cole and then threatened him into recanting his views on the “Holocaust”.
  12. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has been looking to prosecute elderly Germans even though there is no proof that these Germans actually committed a crime. Just being at a German camp is considered to be a crime.
  13. Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, who at the International Holocaust Remembrance Day at the European Parliament ceremony in Brussels on January 27, 2014 rejected free speech arguments regarding the so-called Holocaust. Kantor apparently wants to criminalize any speech, symbols or gestures that Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.
Other Jewish organizations are actively working to promote the official Holocaust narrative. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) writes about its Holocaust education program:

“Since 2005, Echoes & Reflections has impacted more than 85,000 educators, reaching an estimated 8 million students across the United States—and at no cost. Through our Holocaust education programs and resources, educators gain the skills, knowledge, and confidence to teach this topic effectively.”
The ADL is also actively promoting “Holocaust” historian Deborah Lipstadt to be the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.[40]

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also actively works to advance pro-Israel policies and support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.[41] All American politicians are so aware of AIPAC’s power that they would never publicly question the official Holocaust narrative.[42]

The alleged genocide of European Jewry is extremely important in promoting Jewish interests. The “Holocaust” has been used to justify the Allied war effort, to establish the state of Israel, to justify Israel’s violence against its neighbors, to induce guilt in both Germans and the Allied nations, to cover up and ignore horrific Allied crimes against Germans, to allow Jews to receive massive reparations from Germany, and to create solidarity in the Jewish community. The extreme importance of the “Holocaust” in advancing Zionist/Jewish interests ensures that Jewish groups and individuals will continue to promote this falsification of history in the future.[43]

Notes​

[1]Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 10.
[2]Goldmann, Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, pp. 122-123.
[3]World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion, New York: WJC, 1948, pp. 141, 264, 266, 267.
[4]Butz, Arthur R., The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, pp. 27-28.
[5]Office of the United States Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (11 vols.), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt., 1946-1948. (The “red series”) / NC&A, Vol. 1, pp. 134-135.
[6]Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.
[7]Mason, Alpheus T., Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, New York: Viking, 1956, p. 716.
[8]Delivered at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day, Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47.
[9]Congressional Record-House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, Nov. 28, 1947, p. 10938.
[10]Blumenson, Martin, (ed.), The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, p. 750.
[11]Foust, Hal, “Nazi Trial Judge Rips Injustice,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1-2.
[12]Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 134.
[13]Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.
[14]Faurisson, Robert, “How the British Obtained the Confessions of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter 1986-87, pp. 392-399.
[15]Stover, Eric, Peskin, Victor, and Koenig, Alexa, Hiding in Plain Sight: The Pursuit of War Criminals from Nuremberg to the War on Terror, Oakland, Cal.: University of California Press, 2016, pp. 70-71.
[16]Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.
[19]Ibid., p. 83.
[20]Halow, Joseph, “Innocent in Dachau: The Trial and Punishment of Franz Kofler et al.,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 1989-1990, p. 459. See also Bower, Tom, Blind Eye to Murder, Warner Books, 1997, pp. 304, 310, 313.
[21]Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.
[22]Ibid., pp. 97-98.
[23]Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.
[24]Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.
[25]Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.
[26]Staeglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.
[27]Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.
[28]Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.
[29]An excellent account of John Demjanjuk’s trial is provided in Sheftel, Yoram, Defending “Ivan the Terrible”: The Conspiracy to Convict John Demjanjuk, Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996.
[30]“The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.
[31]Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 186.
[32]Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.
[33]Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.
[34]Speech at the 1992 11th International Revisionist Conference in Irvine, Cal., October 10-12. Quoted in Weintraub, Ben, The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism: Keystone of the New World Order, Robert L. Brock, Publisher, 1995, p. xiii.
[35]Zündel, Ernst, Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7, Pigeon Forge, Tenn.: Soaring Eagles Gallery, 2004, pp. 80-81.
[36]Davies, Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945, New York: Viking Penguin, 2006, p. 489.
[37]The Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2013, p. 9A.
[38]Ibid.
[39]The Dallas Morning News, Jan. 28, 2014, p. 2A.
[40]https://www.adl.org/.
[41]https://www.aipac.org/about.
[42]Duke, David, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, Mandeville, La.: Free Speech Press, 2003, p. 334.
[43]Wear, John, “Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2017 https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4881.

Author(s):John Wear
Title:The Jewish Conspiracy to Promote the “Holocaust”
Sources:Inconvenient History, Vol. 14, No. 1 , 2022
Dates:published: 2022-03-29, first posted: 2022-03-29 08:37:50
 
Back
Top