3.

The numbers game of alleged Jewish losses is indeed a vexing one. Many, many people of all nationalities disappeared or perished in the war and cannot be accounted for. Some lie in the ashes of Allied bombings of German cities and buried beneath collapsed buildings; others were incinerated in bomb-caused Allied firestorms; still others perished in the Russian Gulags long after the shooting had stopped.

It is unfair and incorrect to claim - as is routinely claimed - that if a person cannot be accounted for, he or she perished due to genocide - or, worse yet, due to gassings.

In fact, the "Holocaust" is the best example of ". . . death proved by the stories of million of survivors."

Does that not make you think?

The media is full of "survivor" organizations existing in every major city of the Western World - from Toronto to Johannesburg; from Rio de Janeiro to Los Angeles.

Suffice it to say that the Germans have paid over 4,300,000 pension and restitution claims; 40% of those recipients live (or lived) in Israel. Others are of Jewish background but have chosen to live in other parts of the world.

If so many millions of Jewish people died at the hands of the Germans, why are there so many survivors?

Aficionados of the "Holocaust" have often called Jacob Robinson a "historian" and "internationalist jurist" and referred to him as a prime source of authoritative information on what happened to the Jews.

Jacob Robinson was, in fact, a cunning East European Jewish shyster with a diabolical plan and agenda. He was the inventor/creator of the "revolutionary concept" of the idea of the Nuremberg Trial for Germany's leaders and the German Reparations scheme.

According to Nahum Goldman, former President of the World Jewish Congress,

". . . 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 WJC (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. (Goldman, Nahum, The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p 122)

Put two and two together.

Reparation claims are based on number of victims - somewhat like an insurance claim after a plane crash and a subsequent fire. It pays to keep these numbers high. No mystery to that.

Now visualize an insurance company that has to pay for a fire in which, supposedly, some family members perished. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the insurance company is prevented from checking vital documents, such as: ". . . who was actually booked on that plane. . . ? - a non-existent "victim" uncle or aunt could conceivably materialize, defrauding the insurance company. These things are known to have been done to some insurance companies.

To trot out the old canard of the "Protocol of Wannsee" (of Jan. 20, 1942) allegedly outlining the Nazi plans to "annihilate the European Jews" shows real chutzpah. Even the Jewish Holocaust expert Yehuda Bauer of Hebrew University in Jerusalem has said that Wannsee was a meeting, but "hardly a conference," and that ". . . little of what was said there was executed in detail."

Here is the quote in full, under the title: Wannsee's importance rejected, in the Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992:

"The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at. Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder." (Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992)

According to the New York Times, November 12, 1989, (Bauer) added when chided saying that he would not want to ". . . add grist for the mills of the deniers of the Holocaust: "They can add, you know. . ." (Auschwutz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar's Case, NYT, Nov 12, 1989)

They did, and they do.

By doing so, they "shrunk the Holocaust." Let us take Auschwitz, for example. According to a December 10, 1995 summary prepared by Dr. Faurisson, here is a telling visual:

(In this graph, the tallest bar represents 9 million persons, and the smallest bar represents 630,000 - 710,000, of whom 470,000 - 550,000 were believed to have been Jews. (For the actual and detailed verification of both numbers and sources, go to Dr. Faurisson's textual document, marked Appendix A)

The ever-shrinking numbers of Auschwitz "victims" should give skeptical people - people who apply common sense to this topic - pause to ponder. Yehuda Bauer, Jewish Holocaust scholar, admitted the falsity of the 4 million figure in a November 1989 article, where he comments on the cruel manipulation of the numbers of victims in Auschwitz by Zionists and Communist propagandists and liars alike. (Auschwitz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar's Case. NYT, November 12, 1989.)

Let's mention the Red Cross here as well. This so-called "humanitarian" organization has much to do with the fact that the numbers are so unreliable.

The Red Cross played an ignoble role during and especially after the war when dealing with alleged "Nazi atrocity" stories and statistics. (See sworn testimony of Charles Biederman during the Zündel Trial. Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Ev idence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel - 1988, Edited by Barbara Kulaszka, pp 80-84. It is worth reading in its entirety.)

Below I am merely offering two excerpts of this testimony, as summarized in the Zündel Transcripts by Barbara Kulaszka in her book: "Did Six Million Really Die?":

"Access to the documents was limited by the Bonn Agreements of 1955 to former persecutees and their legal successors on the grounds that the documents were all person-related and therefore not open to the public. (11-2497, 2498). The wording used in the Bonn Agreement was that the archives were "only to be evaluated in the interests of the former persecutees themselves or their successors." (12-2676). The only exception to this rule, as provided for under the agreements, was that representatives of any of the ten Allied governments of the supervisory body had the right to inspect the documents. (11-2497) Any application by one of the ten governments for access was reviewed by the Director of the ITS (Internal Tracing System); if the Director felt it was not justified, he could submit the application to the International Commission for the final decision. He could not remember any request by Israel being denied. (12-2711)"

In other words, Israel can look at the data, but German researchers and historians cannot. Revisionists cannot. Ernst Zündel cannot. Mr. Wiesenthal, presumably, can.

The Kulaszka trial transcript summary goes on to say:

Biedermann confirmed that as of December 31, 1983, the total number of deaths registered with the Special Registry Office and various other registry offices was 373,468. (11-2515) This figure represented death certificates issued pursuant to received applications and was based, with respect to the Special Registry Office, on camp records kept by the Nazis during the war. (11-2516, 2517)

Biedermann agreed that at an international conference held by the International Committee of the Camps in Vienna in 1977, the then director of the ITS, Albert de Cocatrix, gave a speech which indicated that as of December 31, 1976 a total of 357,190 names of persons who died in concentration camps had been registered at the Special Registry Office. Biedermann confirmed that these numbers actually came from the ITS. (12-2640 to 2646) He pointed out, however, that these figures resulted from applications. If an entire family had died, there was no one to make an application for a death certificate. Secondly, the ITS had complete documentation for only two of the twenty-two concentration camps. For the remainder, it had either partial or no documentation. Therefore, if an application was made for a person who had allegedly died in one of these camps, the ITS would not have the records to justify a request to the Special Registry Office for a death certificate. (12-2647)

It is really ridiculously simple. The numbers game on which the reparations claims are based could be laid to rest tomorrow.

The Red Cross via its International Tracing Service in Arolson, headed by Red Cross delegate, Charles Biedermann, has important information on hand of every concentration camp inmate who ever went through a German prisoner-of-war or civilian concentration camp. These 14 million pieces of information could, with today's computer technology, OCR software etc. be sifted, categorized, analyzed and double-checked. In a very short time, this information could be made available to the public, which would put an effective end to all the abuse, misinterpretation, fudging and falsifying of alleged and real numbers of "Nazi victims."

The German Government can and should have checked the inmates' records 50 years ago. Why is this not being done? A good guess is that then it would have been revealed for all the world to see that false reparations claims were made and billions were paid and have been fraudulently collected for a long time.

There are letters by the Arolson Tracing Service which at least give a partial glimpse at what is available in those archives there. The Red Cross, by accepting the currently worded 10-nation agreement or mandate with which it administers this macabre but important legacy of WW II, has become a willing accomplice in obfuscating research and is, in fact, hiding historical facts.

I am on record saying that the Red Cross is deliberately stone-walling an honest investigation into one of the saddest chapters in human history. If the Red Cross does not like this justified criticism, let them get out of the business of hiding the truth from the public looking for answers.