- Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
-
- Here is Ernst Zundel's Letter of Conscience - the first
part written recently in Cell # 7 where he is still allowed no chair and
has to sit on a stack of court transcripts, the rest written about eight
years ago, prophetically:
-
- (START)
-
- My attorneys are nice, competent people, idealists to
the extent that they are totally alive to the erosion of our rights and
the unconstitutional assault on Canadian traditions this represents. They
are learning quickly what it means to stand up to these forces on the loose
in Canada and seem to be committed to the defense of freedom. I find the
working relationship respectful, efficient, and even human.
-
- Should I be released briefly on bail - which I think
will only come, if it does come, due to public pressure or via media stories
embarrassing to the government - my enemies will have me re-arrested either
under a new Security Certificate or by a contempt-of-court charge for my
wife's website. They will find a reason. After all, they crucified Christ
- so it's a cinch to nail Ernst Zundel!
-
- Nuremberg is their style, and I am familiar with how
they used forged documents, false affidavits, perjured testimony of witnesses
- and that was in trials open to the public! In my case, they present
all these forged documents and lying witnesses in secret. My lawyers and
I are excluded, so it's far easier for them than even in Nuremberg to get
a conviction - and, like in Nuremberg, no appeal is allowed!
-
- It is clear by the persecutor's and judge's line of questioning
that the real reason for my kidnapping and return to Canada to face this
Kafkaesque ordeal was the Jewish anger over the Zundelsite - still running
after all these years! I know how vindictive these people are. You know
it also. Thus, I am not surprised by any of the insider corruption and
the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing going on in my case both in
the United States and here. We know from an insider that the above scenario
[about my wife's website] is the underlying cause. This U.S. official
said: "We did some people in another country a favor by delivering
this German into their hands, with whom they had a bone to pick."
-
- I was the victim of an operation coming from the Privy
Council and [Canada'a] Prime Minister's closest advisors. The vehicle
chosen to get me were the intelligence services of at least three, most
likely four, countries. In due time some of these threads and connections
will come to light and begin to unravel. We have already begun with exposing
the Blais-CSIS connection, but that's only the tip of the iceberg! There
will be much, much more!
-
- (END)
-
- Below is an essay that Ernst wrote in 1996 and that has
become one of the favorite Zundelsite essays, reprinted all over the world.
It has particular relevance in light of what we now know of Guantanamo
Bay and similar hell-hole prisons in so-called "civilized" countries:
-
- Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die
-
- By Ernst Zundel
-
- On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials,
it is appropriate that I share with my English-speaking readerships a few
reflections pertaining to those trials. I'd like to start with a revealing
and thought-provoking quote coming from none other than Nahum Goldman,
long-time president of the World Jewish Congress, in a book entitled The
Jewish Paradox.
-
- "Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the
concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to
Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about
reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in
terms of international law.
-
- Until then, when a country lost a war, it paid damages
to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments.
Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary
individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler's
crimes. All the same, I must admit that the idea did not come from me.
-
- During the war the [World Jewish Congress] had created
an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in
London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob
and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely
revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg tribunal and German reparations."
(The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p. 122)
-
- In the United States, the new specialty channel, Court
TV, is treating the whole of the North American continent to a Special
about Nuremberg - a television hate fest lasting about 15 hours in total
length. Likewise, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Division,
recently aired a sequel using static-distorted, crackling old short wave
newscasts from the proceedings in Nuremberg in 1946. Once again, newsreel
commentators regurgitate ad nauseam all the disgusting, lying testimony
of perjurers and con artists, along with the sad "testimony"
frequently tortured out of Germany's military and political leaders.
-
- I can only call these broadcasts "spreading of hate,"
a crime in Canada under its hate laws against an identifiable ethnic group,
namely the Germans. The current German vassal state established by the
Allies in post-war Germany - a state whose roots and foundations stem out
of these disgusting proceedings of Allied vengeance against a vanquished
German people - will not defend its own people against this avalanche of
hate and lies, so I will try to do it. Be prepared for some food for thought.
-
- It speaks to the tenor of our times that this may be
the first time some of my readers may be exposed to a different historical
slant on the Nuremberg Trials. We are so habituated to slander and libel
that often we don't even notice it or recognize it as such. We are so used
to seeing Germany as the convenient and deserving whipping boy for all
its "Nazi crimes" we hardly ever give a thought to its creation
- or its Godfathers.
-
- Nahum Goldman writes in The Jewish Paradox, page 123:
-
- "During a meeting of the World Jewish Congress in
London, a Russian Jew called Noah Baron, a wonderful man and great idealist
() talked me into taking an active part by first of all meeting Adenauer.
I was very hesitant at heart, because it was no easy matter for me to talk
to the Germans again. And in fact it was eventually my head, and not my
heart, which decided me to negotiate. But I laid down a precondition before
I would meet the Chancellor to open negotiations: Adenauer had to make
a solemn statement to the Bundestag; he must say that although the Germany
of those days was certainly not the Germany which had produced Auschwitz
() it nevertheless inherited the Nazis' responsibilities, and reparations
were its duty; he must add that material reparations could not erase the
evil done to the Jews by the Germans."
-
- Let's see now how it all began - and evolved - this matter
of the "Nuremberg Trials" resulting in such guilt and such enormous
sums of reparations squeezed out of a defeated country, Germany, over the
last 50 years.
-
- When we think of the Nuremberg Trials, we think of Auschwitz,
Bergen Belsen, Dachau - places that the Allies "liberated" and
where they "found those skeletons" - yielding useful photographic
backdrops to justify what was to follow ever since.
-
- Guilt, expertly used, is a terrible weapon, a powerful
tool and also a handsome cash cow. There was, in fact, a policy and program
locked in place to punish Germany for alleged war time crimes, planned
and implemented long before the "crimes" of Nazi Germany were
"revealed" to a stunned, shuddering, horrified world via news
reels and sensationalized headlines.
-
- There exist millions of words, and tens of thousands
of books, written about the Nuremberg proceedings in response to these
alleged crimes - publications in all kinds of languages, all borrowing
its footnotes from each other and parroting the post-war Allied propaganda.
A lie repeated six million times, however, does not become the truth by
mere repetition. This essay will inspect the pre-conditions and the reasons
for the lie.
-
- The generations who have grown into adulthood since the
end of the Second World War have been allowed little chance to look at
the Nuremberg Trials critically. They have not been allowed access, for
instance, to information showing what some important people and personalities
at the time thought about the whole disgusting process of using ex post
facto laws against a virtually defenseless, militarily defeated and still
militarily occupied former enemy.
-
- According to Nahum Goldman, former president of the World
Jewish Congress, even during the war plans were being mapped out with great
care and cunning - and the foundation for the lie was being laid. Long
before America agreed to feed its young men into a fratricidal war fought
not for American national interests but for the interests of an alien people
and a State that did not even then exist, there came into being this Institute
of Jewish Affairs in New York that cooked up a devilish brew.
-
- Writes Goldman in The Jewish Paradox, pages 122-123,
addressing this question:
-
- "The Institute's () idea was that Nazi Germany ought
to pay after its defeat. That still required belief in the defeat, at the
time when it seemed likely that the war in Europe was lost for the Allies,
but like Churchill and de Gaulle, I kept my faith. I never doubted for
a moment, because I knew that Hitler would never manage to moderate himself
and that his excesses would draw the Allies into the conflict. According
to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have
to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further,
if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation
to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed
was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore."
-
- As we all know and are never allowed to forget, in due
time Hitler lost the war. Now it was time to conduct Stalinist type show
trials against the defeated German leadership. Was this merely about "punishment"?
Think again!
-
- Continues Goldman:
-
- "The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg
has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law
it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders.
It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When
he began to canvass it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court,
they took him for a fool. "What did these Nazi officers do that was
so unprecedented?" they asked. "You can imagine Hitler standing
trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried
out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers." We therefore had
the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed,
the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did
not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince
the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. (The Jewish Paradox, p. 122)"
-
- What followed next? Total communications control and
news manipulation through censorship!
-
- The Allied powers, by virtue of having established a
military government - one might as well call it a military dictatorship,
in many ways more restrictive than Adolf Hitler's state had been - had
a tight grip on all channels of communications. This fact cannot be overstated.
From control and supervision of the mail service to the telegraph and telephone
systems to radio stations to book, newspaper and magazine publishing houses,
the Allies were fully in charge through a clever "licensing system."
Anyone who did not toe the Allied propaganda line lost his license or had
his license suspended as punishment. Journalists lost their accreditations.
Newspapers lost their already very scarce paper or printer's ink allocations
or reduced-rate postal shipping privileges. Additionally, Germany was divided
into military occupation zones, which were like mini-states, issuing their
own passports, food and fuel coupons as well as clothing and stationary
ration cards. If you wanted to travel in occupied Germany from one zone
to another in the immediate postwar years, you had to explain to the local
military authorities in a written request why you wanted to travel to another
zone, whom you wanted to see, and where you intended to stay. You had to
request ration coupons for the period of your absence. There were other
bureaucratic, for the Nuremberg defense team extremely inconvenient restrictions
as well - some by design, some by default. Many trains didn't run on schedule
or not at all for lack of coal. Most buildings were unheated. The populace
starved. The country was largely without men. There were ruins wherever
you looked, misery everywhere - more misery than there had ever been during
the bitterly fought war!
-
- I find in my conversations and interviews and even during
my court cases that judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers have not
the foggiest idea what life was really like for the defense teams in Nuremberg
in 1946-1949. Today's generation, brainwashed by the high-tech razzle-dazzle
of the O.J. Simpson media-feeding frenzy and image glut-out, has not a
clue under what circumstances the German defense lawyers worked. Not a
clue! Furthermore, I suspect that the cynical generation of money-grubbing,
self-promoting attorneys, prosecutors and judges of today don't give a
damn about what was the horrible truth and the reality then. Nonetheless,
some of these things must be recorded for history's sake.
-
- Imagine if you told the occupation powers you wanted
to go to Nuremberg to testify in defense of Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Kaltenbrunner, Göring, Streicher or military leaders like Keitel,
Jodl, Dönitz, Raeder or others! If the military man to whom you applied
for permission was a Jew in the uniform of Russia, France, America or England,
imagine the response! Would he not think the German applicant was still
a "Nazi lover" intent on additional "mischief"? It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why many people would shy
away from getting politically involved as defense witnesses or experts
after having just survived a brutal war, horrendous bombing raids and the
raping and plundering hordes of the self-appointed "liberators."
Who would choose voluntarily to expose himself to arrest, beatings, torture
etc. - considering the circumstances?
-
- It is remarkable that there were defense witnesses at
all who came forward and tried to help those hapless prisoners in Nuremberg.
There are instances of the defense lawyers having located and convinced
crucial defense witnesses to testify who were being held as prisoners in
Allied prison camps, only to find them - convenient for the prosecution!
- getting "lost" in transfers, "lost" long enough
until the proceedings had passed the point where their testimony could
have been of use to the defense.
-
- These defense lawyers themselves worked against almost
insurmountable odds. They sat in cold, wet, bombed-out basements of half-ruined
houses with boarded-up windows, working in overcoats, writing with stiffened
fingers, wearing hats, scarves and gloves to guard themselves against the
cold and creeping dampness, trying to write some text and formulate some
argument so that a client, who was daily vilified in the press and on radio,
in the news reels and on Armed Forces radio as a despicable monster and
a criminal with no human traits, might get a semblance of a defense in
those nightmarish, Kafkaesque proceedings called the Nuremberg Trials.
-
- Those were truly desperate times for the Germans. The
defense was hampered by lack of staff, space, typewriters and ribbons and
even carbon paper as well as photocopying facilities and paper supplies.
Remember that, in 1945, a photocopy meant exactly what it said. A photograph
had to be taken using special line-film. A negative had to be developed
and dried. This negative had to be projected by means of an enlarger onto
light-sensitive photographic paper in a dark room and had then to be developed
using chemicals not easily available and electric drum dryers using up
precious electricity to dry the prints. Electricity was rationed severely
to approximately two hours every day, with only so many kilowatt allowed
per person.
-
- Try to put yourself in the German defense teams' place,
when two dozen lawyers, defending a great number of different clients,
were handed a 30, 50, 100 or 200 page document by the prosecution - often
this was the only set of a document for all the lawyers - and you had a
limited time until court day to study, analyze, weigh the charges, look
for potentially exonerating witnesses, in a bombed-out country where tens
of millions were homeless, freezing and starving. The old, still existing
phone books and city directories were virtually useless, because telephone
service was not yet restored in many places and private people hardly ever
got a phone approved by the occupation authorities unless you were "essential"
- let's say, like a medical doctor.
-
- Now let's look at the defendants' rights to get the lawyer
of their choice - a sacred right in most civilized countries. What do you
think that meant in those hysterical, lawless days in post-war Germany?
Which lawyer could afford to side with a "Nazi monster"? Many
years later, my own lawyer was sometimes accused during my own trials in
peaceful, democratic Canada for "being too closely associated"
with me, the accused, by media commentators, other lawyers and even, occasionally,
a judge who showed the intolerance rampant against a vilified accused by
those in contemporary society who have the fate of accused people in their
hands. Imagine what courage it must have taken for those Nuremberg defense
lawyers - who also were fathers of children, husbands to wives - all glad
to have survived the war, all of them trying to build new careers out of
the rubble of defeated, devastated Germany in 1946. It took much more than
guts. It took real dedication to a principle and a love of justice few
in today's society could claim to have or hold.
-
- Let's say you were a lawyer of such heroic traits. The
Allies, more often than not, could declare you a "Nazi" as well,
putting you in the class of "criminals," since the Nazi party
was declared a "criminal organization" by the conquerors. Most
of the mental elite of Germany had been members of the National Socialist
Party, and almost all had gone to war and, chances were, had been severely
wounded or even killed. Those who survived, were really persona non grata.
They came back from a devastating war and found themselves not only criminalized
but deprived of their civic and human rights by cruel conquerors who all
the while kept on prattling incessantly in their propaganda about the wonderful
Allied New Order.
-
- If, against tremendous odds, you finally found yourself
screened, interrogated, and accredited as a lawyer at the Nuremberg Trials
- what did you face, in fact? Let's take a cold, hard look at this so-called
International Military Tribunal. How righteous and noble that sounds! A
label like that can hide many a sore. That Nuremberg sore is still running.
-
- Here is what Nuremberg was:
-
- It was not an "international military tribunal"
at all. It was not even international in composition. The victors, instead,
sat in judgment over the vanquished. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who was
then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Jackson's
[the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg] boss in that role, had this
to say while speaking to a reporter for Fortune Magazine, as quoted in
Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Viking
Press, p. 715:
-
- For your information, but not for publication as coming
from me, I would like to advise you that the Supreme Court had nothing
to do, either directly or indirectly, with the Nuremberg Trials, or the
governmental action which authorized them. I was not advised of Justice
Jackson's participation until his appointment by the Executive was announced
in the newspapers.
-
- "So far as the Nuremberg trial is an attempt to
justify the application of the power of the victor to the vanquished because
the vanquished made aggressive war," (Stone) explained, "I dislike
extremely to see it dressed up with a false facade of legality. The best
that can be said for it is that it is a political act of the victorious
States, which may be morally right, as was the sequestration of Napoleon
about 1815. But the allies in that day did not feel it necessary to justify
it by an appeal to nonexistent legal principles. As a practical matter,
it seems to me that the difficulties and uncertainties of saying who is
the aggressor under the conditions which produce modern war should make
us hesitate to lay down for the future a principle which would always require
that question to be answered by the victor.
-
- All wars are in fact aggressive. The real source of authority
is the powers of the victors over the vanquished.
-
- "It would not disturb me greatly," he wrote,
"if that power were openly and frankly used to punish the German leaders
for being a bad lot, but it disturbs me some to have it dressed up in the
habiliments of the Common Law and the constitutional safeguards to those
charged with crime. It looks as though we were committing ourselves to
the proposition that the outcome of every war must be that the leaders
of the vanquished must be executed by the victors."
-
- That was the reality. Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution
of Nuremberg's most important trials was a man with presidential ambitions
who needed a high profile carved out of a self-serving stage. The Nuremberg
Trials were to be the launching pad for his presidential race.
-
- The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed
of, judges of the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant
African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges to
a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges - not military career
officers, who might have had some understanding and compassion for what
the military leaders and the civilian government under extreme war time
conditions lived through. They could have undoubtedly had a greater appreciation
of why some of the wartime measures were undertaken by Germany in the desperate
days of the war. The "liberal country club" experienced set of
small town American judges could not.
-
- Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on
their war against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had
stopped - not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely "diagnosing"
psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal
investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip, starve,
suffocate and mutilate their prisoners into giving confessions and statements
which were as cruelly extracted as were the confessions from witches during
the disgusting witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.
-
- The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to
not only by Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, but also by Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum,
a man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged
Nazi war criminals after the war.
-
- Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial
interview given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently
the interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi
Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on
the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European
living space because they considered them harmful to the war effort and
to Western European civilization.
-
- Here is how the article described the rabble that came
to post-war Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice Wennerstrum's
eyes, after he quit in disgust:
-
- "If I had known seven months ago what I know today,"
[Wennerstrum] told friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would
never have come hereThe initial war crimes trial here was judged and prosecuted
by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort
and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame
for World War II upon Germany.
-
- "What I have said of the nationalist character of
the tribunals," the judge continued, "applies to the prosecution.
The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has
not been evident.
-
- "The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity
aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions.
It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world
to avoid future wars.
-
- The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists
were needed. The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks,
interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in
recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices.
. . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)
-
- In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators,
most of them Jews - as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience
in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us
who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of
some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, even
in radio broadcasts and news reels.
-
- Most of the "evidence" in the trials was "documentary,"
selected by the Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The
document selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access
only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the
case and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to
release, hide, or destroy any documents which did not fit their post-war
strategy or plans at Nuremberg.
-
- Furthermore, the Allies admitted elsewhere that their
Propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi
stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, orders, ID cards etc. which fooled
the Nazis many times because they were so perfect and over which the Allied
propagandists gloat to this day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination
to surmise what these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel
and forgers of documents could do now with all the captured genuine German
document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps
and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of any National
Socialist organization you care to mention.
-
- Even setting aside questionable "documentary"
evidence, let's look at some of the accused's "testimony" - how
it was extracted, and what it really means.
-
- Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg
Tribunal stand certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber"
"Six million." These words, and the embedded moral judgment,
were derived largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf
Hoess, the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.
-
- Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness.
His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution
and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the press. It
was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim of
the "extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz."
Hoess's "confession" is heavily relied upon by historians like
Raul Hilberg and others as a primary documentary source to this day.
-
- It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous
"atrocities," and he also confirmed the "truth" under
oath of an affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it,
he confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of victims.
This affidavit was in English, a language he did not speak or understand,
according to family members.
-
- We now know from the book Legions of Death that Rudolf
Hess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field
Police Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter, until he gave
this very devastating "testimony" and "affidavit" used
by the Allies propagandists ever since.
-
- You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by
Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:
-
- At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front
door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall
and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques
of sustained and merciless investigation.
-
- No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely
necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's tone
was deliberately low-key and conversational.
-
- He began mildly: "I understand your husband came
to see you as recently as last night."
-
- Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since
he absconded months ago"
-
- Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone
of reproach: "You know that isn't true." Then all at once his
manner changed and he was shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn
you over to the Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your
son will go to Siberia."
-
- It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau
Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the
man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son
and daughter produced precisely identical information.
-
- Here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one of the
participants, recalls it vividly:
-
- "[Hoess] was lying on top of a three-tier bunker
wearing a new pair of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost
the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much
chance to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth.
-
- Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British
uniforms.
-
- Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"
-
- With each answer of "Franz Lang", Clarke's
hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened,
Hoess broke and admitted who he was.
-
- The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the
Jewish sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz
following an order signed by Hoess.
-
- The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped
from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables,
where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
-
- Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call
them off, unless you want to take back a corpse."
-
- A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to
Clarke's car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down
his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.
-
- Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids
and ordered in German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine" ()
-
- The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning.
The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he
was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It
took three days to get a coherent statement out of him."
-
- This statement, tortured and terrorized out of the man,
was the one we are all familiar with - the "proof" for the so-called
"gassing of the Jews."
-
- Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess was
a totally unreliable witness - and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration
camp "Wolzek" which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000
people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died
of disease, for a total dead of three million.
-
- The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million.
The Washington Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted
from an article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:
-
- "Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people
killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just
over 1 million.
-
- The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have
been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that
as many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp ()
-
- The new study could rekindle the controversy over the
scale of Hitler's final solution.
-
- Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party
member of the Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates,
saying: "It sounds shocking and strange." ()
-
- Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem
memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures
were correct.
-
- "The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf
Hoess, the death camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was
exaggerated." . . .
-
- But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of
the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized
by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives."
-
- A most convenient excuse.
-
- In 1989, I organized a write-in campaign to persuade
the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers
captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few
months afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these all-important
documents to the -Red Cross, which showed in minute detail the cause and
time of death, their birth, address etc.
-
- The following was found:
-
- 74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which
only approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number
of Poles and members of other nationalities.
-
- The incredibly shrinking Holocaust.
-
- The "millions" that we have heard about for
half a century and that we still hear and read about today all started
with the "testimony" beaten out of Hoess on that horrible night
in defeated Germany.
-
- Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in
a recent Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning
stated that
-
- "Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness.
The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try
and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust Revisionism
Source Book, 1994, p. 1)
-
- Hoess's testimony was used as the skeleton on which the
entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was constructed. Revisionists
have concentrated on Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important
source for Holocaust historians' conclusions and exaggerations about the
Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the "Bible" of the Holocaust,
The Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition,
1985) relies on Hoess's testimony heavily - and Hoess was the primary witness
relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the "extermination
of the Jews," even though he told the court of having been savagely
tortured.
-
- What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the
total unreliability of his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't
know how many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated,
since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was expunged
from the record. An example is Julius Streicher's testimony. Streicher
was reported in the London Times as having testified that he was tortured,
whipped, spat on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens
His Case, The Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged
from the record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution,
the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer.
-
- Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg
prisoners, however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter
Sauckel's reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the transcript.
During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified that he signed a
document, even though he did not know what was in that document, after
his family of 10 children was threatened with deportation to Russia.
-
- And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the
only judicial proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where
there was no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review
of the proceedings - or any verdicts arrived at by this so-called International
Military Tribunal. Their judgments over the leadership of Europe's most
populous state, against whom they had just fought a murderous, near genocidal
war, were final and deadly.
-
- Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to
all the emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these
days. And for what? The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you
in his astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to
the mother of all frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the agreement
Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German vassal state's first Allied-appointed
chancellor:
-
- " the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion
() Without the German reparations that started coming through during its
first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure.
All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same
goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel's industryand
that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel
today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each
yearIn some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has
been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from
international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the
principle."
-
- Not anywhere you look.
-
- After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped
of the hyperbole and smoke screens which surround them, it can be put quite
bluntly:
-
- The Allies fought a war on foreign shores - in part to
establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political
ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the Nuremberg
Trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing of Israel.
-
- So, as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel
became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and executioners
- all in one! The Allies supplied the "experts" who sifted through
the German documents, which were all totally in Allied control, highlighting
incriminating documents, discarding exonerating evidence. These investigators
were told only to "find" incriminating documents against the
accused, as I was told by the American scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who
had been one of these Allied researchers, and who testified at my own trials.
These researchers were told to ignore the documents that might have spared
the lives of the accused German leaders. When all was said and done, there
was not even an appeal.
-
- U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the
American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned
in the Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746:
-
- "Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching
party in Nuremberg," [Stone] remarked. "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 common law.
-
- "This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet
my old-fashioned ideas."
-
- Some sanctimonious fraud, indeed. That's how America
and the "free world" have showed their gratitude to the defenders
of Europe and Western Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who
tried so valiantly for so long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy
of what we now call, shuddering, the coming "New World Order."
-
- I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially
murdered at Nuremberg. They were the world's martyrs, not villains. Not
one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial - not one.
They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western
civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform
- and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern
Europe.
-
- Ernst Zündel (1996)
|
