|
2.
The
Revisionist claim:
There
is no proof that the Holocaust, as depicted by
the Holocaust Promotion Lobby and the highly
politicized Hollywood industry, actually
occurred.
Revisionists don't claim that Jews didn't
suffer. They don't argue the fact that Jews
were, in fact, unwanted in Germany, and that
there was a state policy to remove them as a
"parasitic people" harmful to the country.
It is absolutely true that Jews were
incarcerated and often treated cruelly. They
were seen as the enemy, just as in our times the
"Nazis" are seen as the enemy of entrenched
oligarchies.
Revisionists do claim and argue that there was
no state policy that called for the "mass
extermination of the Jews" or any other unwanted
minorities. The Allies, independently and
singly, interrogated 26,000 functionaries of the
National Socialist regime immediately after
Germany's defeat, all based on the same set of
questions. Some people might have thought of
lying for their own benefit by implicating
others.
Not one German official reported knowing of such
a program. They all said that the first time
they heard about it was from the Allies after
the war.
This really gets down to the nitty-gritty of
where the story of the mass extermination came
from - which is the Rudolf Hoess
"confession."
The Rudolf Hoess Confession is an incredibly
"incriminating" document. All evil stems from
it. Here is the background story.
Rudolf Hoess, the former wartime commandant of
Auschwitz "confessed" to the most incredible
things during the Nuremberg Trials in this
widely used and much-quoted "document." A good
overview from a human interest story point of
view of how that was accomplished is given in
the Zundelsite Internet editorial: "Nuremberg:
The Crime that Will Not Die" It is a summary
worth reading.
Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere where
they were made to stand trial for "war crimes."
have "confessed" to brutalities under "duress"
or inducements. Documents, testimony and
confessions as well as affidavits presented at
Nuremberg and elsewhere were frequently produced
and signed after psychological and physical
torture of its authors.
For proof of torture of captured Germans by the
Allies, read Legions of Death, a book by Rupert
Butler, an English writer, who gives a vivid
description of how the wartime, one-time
Concentration Camp Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, was
beaten mercilessly and drugged with alcohol for
several days before he signed his famous
"confession" admitting to two-and-a-half million
of people gassed in gas chambers in
Auschwitz.
Suffice it to say here that
this so-called "confession" was written in
English, and that Hoess did not speak or even
understand English. (2Butler, Rupert, Legions
of Death, Hamlyn Paperbacks, Great Britain,
1983, pp 10-12)
Julius Streicher, to name another German
official who was savagely tortured by American
interrogators to extract a "confession,"
reported that he was beaten so badly that he
lost 40% of his hearing. He was kept naked in an
unheated cell and was made to drink from the
latrine. Guards forced his teeth open with a
stick so as to spit in his mouth. ("Streicher
Opens His Case,", London Times, April 27.
1946)
This information was later expunged from the
Nuremberg Trial transcripts, with the consent of
the president of the Tribunal and even the
"defense" lawyer.
Yet another source is the Simpson van
Rhoden Commission of Enquiry into the
conduct of US interrogators during the
Malmedy-Dachau trials. This commission reported
mistreatment and tortures, including mock
trials, the administering of fake confessions by
equally fake "priests," beatings, hoodings etc.
to get forced confessions out of prisoners. (The
Progressive, written by Judge Edward L. Van
Rhoden in February of 1949 entitled
American Atrocities in
Germany)
Here is a sample of how such "confessions" were
routinely obtained:
"American investigators at the U.S. Court in
Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to
obtain confessions:
Beatings and brutal
kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking
jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement.
Posturing as priests. Very limited rations.
Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal
(ed. expl: if the victim implicated fellow
prisoners to corroborate the Allied trial
scenarios) . . . All but two of the Germans,
in the 139 cases we investigated, had been
kicked in the testicles beyond repair." (Did
Six Million Really Die? Report of the
Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial
of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by
Barbara Kulaszka, pp 44-45)
U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone,
referring to the Nuremberg trials and speaking
of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, had
this to say, as quoted in a Viking Press hard
cover, "Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of
the Law:"
"Jackson is away conducting
his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg,"
he 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." (Mason, Thomas,
Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law,
Alpheus The Viking Press, page 746)
An accusation does not make a fact. A
headline does not make a fact. A tortured
prisoner making a "confession" cannot make his
words a fact.
Here is another good example of a
"well-documented" crime:
The Germans were accused at Nuremberg of having
killed 15,000 Polish officers and members of the
Polish elite at Katyn. Seven German military
officers and soldiers were executed by the
Soviets after a trial in which more than 4,000
(!) sworn affidavits and dozens of "experts" and
"witnesses" were proffered by the Stalinist
prosecutors.
In 1989, Soviet leader Gorbachev admitted
publicly that the Stalin regime was responsible
for these mass murders of the Poles. Not the
Germans. America's ally - Joseph Stalin! - had
ordered the killings!
So if Judge Thomas T. Johnson of the California
Superior Court, and Judge Thomas of the Toronto
District Court took smug "Judicial Notice" of
the Holocaust, they based it on "readily
available" documentation tortured and coerced
out of the victims of Allied torture
masters.
What kind of "documented evidence" is that? It
would not be permissible in any U.S. or Canadian
Court.
In Nuremberg and in many subsequent trials
against so-called "Nazi war crimes" these
methods were routinely accepted and "acceptable"
as a matter of policy and "the rules."
|