The extreme importance of the “Holocaust” in advancing zionist/jewish interests and making money ensures that jewish groups and individuals will continue to promote this falsification of history in the future.
The Jewish Conspiracy to Promote the “Holocaust”
by John Wear
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.”
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. 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.
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.
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:
“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.
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….”
U.S. Sen. Robert A. Taft courageously denounced the IMT trial in an October 1946 speech:
“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:
“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:
“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:
“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:
“‘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. 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 Clarkeand 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.
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:
“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:
“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:
“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:
“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.
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.
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.
Kempner bribed Under Secretary Friedrich Wilhelm Gaus, a leading official from the German foreign office, to testify for the prosecution in the Ministries Trial. The transcript of Kempner’s interrogation of Gaus reveals that Kempner persuaded Gaus to exchange the role of defendant for that of a prosecution collaborator. Gaus was released from isolation two days after his interrogation. A few days later a German newspaper reported a lengthy handwritten declaration from Gaus in which Gaus confessed the collective guilt of the German government service. Kempner had given Gaus’s accusation to the newspaper.
Many people became critical of Kempner’s heavy-handed interrogation methods. In the case of Friedrich Gaus, Kempner had threatened to turn Gaus over to the Soviets unless Gaus was willing to cooperate. American attorney Charles LaFollete said that Kempner’s “foolish, unlawyer-like method of interrogation was common knowledge in Nuremberg all the time I was there and protested by those of us who anticipated the arising of a day, just such as we now have, when the Germans would attempt to make martyrs out of the common criminals on trial in Nuremberg.”
Kempner also attempted to bribe German State Secretary Ernst von Weizsäcker during the Ministries Trial. However, von Weizsäcker courageously refused to cooperate. Richard von Weizsäcker, who helped defend his father at the trial, wrote:
“During the proceedings Kempner once said to me that though our defense was very good, it suffered from one error: We should have turned him, Kempner, into my father’s defense attorney.”
Richard von Weizsäcker felt Kempner’s words were nothing but pure cynicism.
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.
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:
“[T]he major portion of the witnesses for the prosecution in the concentration-camp cases were what came to be known as ‘professional witnesses,’ and everyone working at Dachau regarded them as such. ‘Professional,’ since they were paid for each day they testified. In addition, they were provided free housing and food, at a time when these were often difficult to come by in Germany. Some of them stayed in Dachau for months, testifying in every one of the concentration-camp cases. In other words, these witnesses made their living testifying for the prosecution. Usually, they were former inmates from the camps, and their strong hatred of the Germans should, at the very least, have called their testimony into question.”
An embarrassing example of perjured witness testimony occurred at the Dachau trials. Jewish U.S. investigator Josef Kirschbaum brought a former concentration-camp inmate named Einstein into the court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother. Menzel, however, foiled this testimony—he had only to point to Einstein’s brother sitting in the court room listening to the story of his own murder. Kirschbaum thereupon turned to Einstein and exclaimed:
“How can we bring this pig to the gallows, if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into the court?”
False jewish-eyewitness testimony has often been used to attempt to convict innocent defendants. For example, John Demjanjuk, a naturalized American citizen, was accused by eyewitnesses of being a murderous guard at Treblinka named Ivan the Terrible. Demjanjuk was deported to Israel, and an Israeli court tried and convicted him primarily based on the eyewitness testimony of five jewish survivors of Treblinka. Demjanjuk’s defense attorney eventually uncovered new evidence proving that the Soviet KGB had framed Demjanjuk by forging documents supposedly showing him to be a guard at Treblinka. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the five jewish eyewitness accounts were not credible, and that Demjanjuk was innocent.
Another example of false jewish testimony of the Holocaust story occurred in the case of Frank Walus, who was a retired Chicago factory worker charged with killing jews in his native Poland during the war. An accusation by jew 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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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 lawsuits. Faurisson believed that revisionist historians are up against a religion. Faurisson said:
“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:
“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 Leaguethreatened 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.” 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.
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.
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.
The jewish organizations and people mentioned in this article who have conspired to promote the myth of the so-called holocaust include:
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.
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.
Jewish Sgt. Bernard Clarke and other British officers, who tortured Rudolf Höss into making his famous confession at the IMT.
Jewish attorney Benjamin Ferencz, who acknowledges that he used torture and intimidation tactics to help convict German defendants at the Allied postwar trials.
Jewish attorney Robert Kempner, the chief prosecutor in the Ministries Trial at Nuremberg, who used bribes and threats to prosecute defendants.
The jewish israeli Mossad agents near Buenos Aires, who illegally captured Adolf Eichmann in May 1960.
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.
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.
False jewish eyewitness testimony at the trials of John Demjanjuk, Frank Walus and Feodor Fedorenko.
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.
The Jewish Defense League, which attacked David Cole and then threatened him into recanting his views on the “Holocaust”.
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.
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.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) also actively works to advance pro-Israel policies and support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. All American politicians are so aware of AIPAC’s power that they would never publicly question the official Holocaust narrative.
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.
|||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.|
|||Goldmann, Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, pp. 122-123.|
|||World Jewish Congress, Unity in Dispersion, New York: WJC, 1948, pp. 141, 264, 266, 267.|
|||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.|
|||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.|
|||Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, pp. 167-169.|
|||Mason, Alpheus T., Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, New York: Viking, 1956, p. 716.|
|||Delivered at Kenyon College, Ohio, Oct. 5, 1946. Vital Speeches of the Day, Nov. 1, 1946, p. 47.|
|||Congressional Record-House, Vol. 93, Sec. 9, Nov. 28, 1947, p. 10938.|
|||Blumenson, Martin, (ed.), The Patton Papers, 1940-1945, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974, p. 750.|
|||Foust, Hal, “Nazi Trial Judge Rips Injustice,” Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1-2.|
|||Remy, Steven P., The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017, p. 134.|
|||Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992, p. 363.|
|||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.|
|||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.|
|||Brzezinski, Matthew, “Giving Hitler Hell”, The Washington Post Magazine, July 24, 2005, p. 26.|
|||Jardim, Tomaz, The Mauthausen Trial, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2012, pp. 82-83.|
|||Ibid., p. 83.|
|||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.|
|||Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 92, 97.|
|||Ibid., pp. 97-98.|
|||Maguire, Peter, Law and War: International Law & American History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2010, p. 117.|
|||Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, p. 108.|
|||Weizsäcker, Richard von, From Weimar to the Wall: My Life in German Politics, New York: Broadway Books, 1997, pp. 98-99.|
|||Staeglich, Wilhelm, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence, Institute for Historical Review, 1990, pp. 238-239.|
|||Halow, Joseph, Innocent at Dachau, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1992, p. 61.|
|||Ibid, pp. 312-313; see also Utley, Freda, The High Cost of Vengeance, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949, p. 195.|
|||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.|
|||“The Nazi Who Never Was,” The Washington Post, May 10, 1981, pp. B5, B8.|
|||Weber, Mark, “The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Summer 1992, p. 186.|
|||Frei, Norbert, Adenauer’s Germany and the Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002, pp. 110-111.|
|||Sworn and notarized statement by Stephen F. Pinter, Feb. 9, 1960. Facsimile in Erich Kern, ed., Verheimlichte Dokumente, Munich: 1988, p. 429.|
|||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.|
|||Zündel, Ernst, Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell #7, Pigeon Forge, Tenn.: Soaring Eagles Gallery, 2004, pp. 80-81.|
|||Davies, Norman, No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945, New York: Viking Penguin, 2006, p. 489.|
|||The Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2013, p. 9A.|
|||The Dallas Morning News, Jan. 28, 2014, p. 2A.|
|||Duke, David, Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question, Mandeville, La.: Free Speech Press, 2003, p. 334.|
|||Wear, John, “Why the Holocaust Story Was Invented,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2017 https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4881.|