"Holocaust 101"

 

This document below was prepared and posted on the Zundelsite as an "Introduction to Revisionist Thought" during the first week of January, 1996. It was meant to be a lead-in to an Internet debate with another website, Nizkor, a "Holocaust Promotion Lobby" website.

 

This debate was aborted after the Simon Wiesenthal Center was notified of this debate and immediately went into an all-out offensive, starting with an article in the New York Times January 10, 1996, followed by 2000 letters to ISP's and university presidents in an attempt to prevent Revisionist material from being published on the Web.

 

In response to this censorship move, "computer kids" and cyberspace journalists worldwide took up the "sheltering" of the Zundelsite by creating Zundelsite Mirrors. From mid-January to mid-February, it was high electronic drama as in the most prestigous universities, "Zündel-Mirrors" sprang up spontaneously. We know of Zündel-Mirrors as far away as Australia.

 

The eventual outcome of this "first ever" Internet Cyberspace Stand-off and similar battles for Freedom of Speech on the Net was the US Communications Decency Act, rammed through the US Congress by special interest groups but recently dismissed as unconstitutional by three Philadelphia judges.

 

This judgment, presently, is on appeal.

 

The struggle for Freedom of Speech on the Net continues.

 

Ernst Zündel Replies:

Rebuttal #1:

 

Before I get into the actual rebuttal, I would just like to call attention to a few important points in (Nizkor's) detailed, elaborate summary:

 

1. I am described by Nizkor, citing Canada's Security Intelligence Review Committee, as a ". . . prolific publisher of hate literature." That is not quite correct.

 

In Canada, the distribution of hate literature is a criminal offense, as is bank robbery and child molestation. If you call me a bank robber in print and I am not a bank robber, that is called libel. If you call me a child molester and I am not a child molester, that is called libel also.

 

You called me in electronic print a ". . . prolific publisher of hate literature." You have just libeled me.

 

I have lived and worked in Canada for almost 40 years and have never been convicted of having published and/or distributed hate literature in that country. I have never even been charged with having published and/or distributed hate literature in Canada, although in Canada there are such things as "hate laws."

 

In point of fact, various judicial and police bodies, after extensive study, have specifically cleared me of that charge. Had there been proof, my enemies would have made sure I would have been charged and convicted.

 

I have been charged with ". . . spreading false news," a frivolous charge a malcontent, multi-millionaire Jewess brought against me. It cost Canadians approximately $6 million . . . and all, for what? The Supreme Court of Canada decided in the end that society may be enriched by cultural and intellectual diversity, which does include unpopular views on history and other matters of discomfort to certain minorities.

 

Below I summarize 8 points to serve as "Holocaust" Revisionism 101. Before I do so, I would like to state what I mean when I refer to certain individuals and groups collectively as the "Holocaust Promotion Lobby."

 

I use the phrase as a generic term to describe those people who have a vested interest in keeping the Holocaust Myth alive and who will act politically to make sure that this happens.

 

The Holocaust Promotion Lobby is a summarizing construct meant as a shortcut to describe a subset of the human race, most but not all of whom are Jews, with unique and identifying social and political characteristics and dedicated to the maintenance and enhancement of a dogma called the "Holocaust."

 

I use this phrase for summarizing purposes, as in "The Flower Generation" describing a hedonistic youth culture or "The Jet Set" describing the rich.

 

I will leave it up to each individual, Gentile or Jew, to decide for himself whether or not he belongs in that group.

 

What Revisionists are offering below is the state of the art on Revisionism as of right now. The final word is not yet in; it will come when more people in all kinds and sorts of disciplines will kneel into the murky matter of the "Holocaust" and find out for themselves was is and isn't true.

 

To capture the essence of what follows below, readers will need to understand that, after years of insisting that ". . . the Revisionists don't MERIT a response!" and refusing to engage in debate, at the beginning of the year a serious debate was actually planned - or so, at least, we thought.

 

A world-wide censorship move was unleashed to stop this debate from happening. Part of this effort by our opposition apparently caused Nizkor to back out of the debate, insisting that they merely talked of "linking." It is unfortunate that a debate didn't happen, but that is now water under the bridge.

 

The Nizkor folks now say that they prefer to "link," so we will let them "link." We would have liked a real debate with mutual and respectful cooperation. However, that was not to be, but since we promised we would answer a rebuttal, that is what we are doing now.

 

___

 

By way of introduction, Revisionism has taken hold as an intellectual revival movement all over the world. People are beginning to ask questions about the Holocaust. These questions are uncomfortable. No longer can the Holocaust Promotion Lobby ignore the global interest in the TRUE facts surrounding very murky claims pertaining to the "Holocaust" by shouting "Anti-Semitism!"

 

In essence, Revisionism claims can be grouped into eight fairly distinct topics. They are, as elaborated below:

 

1. The Revisionist claim: The Holocaust is useful postwar propaganda that started as a systematic, insidious campaign during World War II as one of the tactics employed by moneyed interests to rally the troops and engage the world, specifically America, in what turned out to be, essentially, a fratricidal war.

 

The principle behind this propaganda was: "Let's get an enemy to kill an enemy."

 

How was this done? In old-fashioned, time-tested ways.

 

Sophisticated war-time propaganda about an enemy's alleged "atrocities" is nothing new. It is an effective psychological weapon, routinely employed to keep the home-grown troops fired up so that they believe that they are fighting for a righteous, patriotic cause. The enemy is demonized with systematic atrocity stories. The media repeats over and over and over again how cruel and demonic he is.

 

This tactic was used by the Allies - extensively. Here is one piece of evidence:

 

On February 29, 1944 the British Ministry of Information sent the following note to the higher British clergy and to the BBC:

 

Sir,

 

I am directed by the Ministry to send you the following circular letter:

 

It is often the duty of the good citizens and of the pious Christians to turn a blind eye on the peculiarities of those associated with us.

 

But the time comes when such peculiarities, while still denied in public, must be taken into account when action by us is called for.

 

We know the methods of rule employed by the Bolshevik dictator in Russia itself from, for example, the writing and speeches of the Prime Minister himself during the last twenty years. We know how the Red Army behaved in Poland in 1920 and in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Galicia, and Bessarabia only recently.

 

We must, therefore, take into account how the Red Army will certainly behave when it overruns Central Europe. Unless precautions are taken, the obviously inevitable horrors which will result will throw an undue strain on public opinion in this country.

 

We cannot reform the Bolsheviks but we can do our best to save them - and ourselves - from the consequences of their acts. The disclosures of the past quarter of the past quarter of a century will render mere denials unconvincing. The only alternative to denial is to distract public attention from the whole subject.

 

Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of "Corpse Factory." the Mutilated Belgian Babies," and the "Crucified Canadians."

 

Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry.

 

Your expression of belief in such may convince others.

 

I am, sir, Your obedient servant

(signed)

H. Hewet, Assistant Secretary

 

There was even a postscript, as follows:

 

The Ministry can enter into no correspondence of any kind with regard to the communication which should only be disclosed to responsible persons. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, John Wiley and Sons, NY. page 209-210)

 

This is quite an astounding document. This letter is ample evidence that during World War II, the Allies used atrocity propaganda against Hitler Germany to distract their own people from the atrocities being committed primarily but not exclusively by the Red Army - their "comrades"! - in the invasion of Europe as Hitler's war drew to an end.

 

Note, though, that there was nothing in this letter that talked of gassing people.

 

Why not? Because foolish atrocity propaganda is something else again. The gas chamber claim was floated briefly as a propaganda test kite but was quickly abandoned as too "unbelievable." If atrocity fiction is found to be so gross, outlandish and implausible that thinking, feeling people simply cannot swallow it, it is not in an army leader's interest to peddle such a "crime."

 

This was the case originally with the "gas chamber" claim.

 

In point of fact, the British Ministry of Information at first requested British clergy to help spread the "gas chamber" story which was planned to be put in circulation by the Ministry. (Rozek, Edward J., Allied Wartime Diplomacy, pp 108-110. John Wiley and Sons, New York ) However, from the start, it was judged to be too problematic and bizarre and, therefore, it was quickly withdrawn as a potential strategic embarrassment.

 

Some of the "lesser" so-called "crimes" that people were willing to swallow did survive and thrive for a while, both during World War I and World War II - some of them for longer periods than others.

 

For example, many of the older generation, both in Europe and America, still vividly remember the macabre World War I Allied propaganda claims of the German ". . . cadavers-into-soap factories," the ". . . chopped-off hands of Belgian babies," the ". . . crucified Canadian soldier" stories - all of which proved to be lies, and for some of which post WWI Allied statesmen even apologized to the Germans.

 

Some even remember the incredible, hysterical claim made by the then-Governor of New York State, even in 1917-18, (!) that the Germans had been ". . . exterminating millions of Jews."

 

Even more telling was the claim about the ". . . six million"! (Glynn, Martin, The Crucifixion of the Jews Must Stop The American Hebrew, October 31, 1920.)

 

So you see - the "six million" story is old. Very old.

 

It had been peddled before. In a recent book entitled "Keystone of the New World Order: The Holocaust Dogma of Judaism," the author, Ben Weintraub makes the point that the number has, in fact, mythical significance because it is based on cabalistic sources. (Weintraub, Ben, The Holocaust Dogma: Keystone of the New World Order, Cosmos Publishers, 1994)

 

Unfortunately, it took a gullible, systematically miseducated populace such as we have today, coupled with relentless brainwashing by a corruptible lap dog media, to peddle the lie for decades the way it has been peddled. In World War I, there was no electronic media. After WWII, this handy tale was dusted off and heaved once more against the German people.

 

The massive psychological onslaught really only started, however, with the fictitious television series, "Holocaust," shown worldwide to an estimated 100 million people. Next there was "Schindler's List." There were thousands of other production not nearly as vicious in impact, but cumulatively destructive.

 

Let us be very clear on one point: There would have been no hesitation to use the story of the "gassings" even during the war - had it been plausible. However, even during the war, the leadership of the Allied Nations - such as Churchill and Roosevelt as well as those of the Catholic hierarchy, including the then-Pope Pius XI - knew from their various intelligence agencies, spies on the ground, inmates with radio transmitters inside various camps (including inmate soldiers, inmate priests, even those who took confessions of local military, police and guard personnel) that no organized mass exterminations by gassing or any other means were going on inside these camps.

 

How did they know?

 

The Allied leaders had detailed aerial photos, none of which corroborated the hysterical claims then made by Zionist agitators like Rabbi Stephen Wise and others around the world. It simply wasn't true. There were no gassings of people going on - only of lice! The story was a cheese with many, many holes. And it was judged as problematic.

 

As a consequence, the Allied leadership specifically removed any reference to "gas chambers" in their wartime atrocity propaganda, even in their diplomatic dispatches, because there was no proof. (Allied Diplomacy in Wartime, Samisdat Resource Book, pp 108-110)

 

In August of 1943, the Allies decided officially not to make this specific allegation of "gas chambers" against the Nazis in a published declaration on the grounds of "insufficient evidence to justify the statement regarding execution in gas chambers." ( Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1943. Samisdat Resource Book)

 

The Allies and the Pope thus did not need to deny what did not take place - except in the feverish brains of the Zionists who were jockeying through unique "victimhood" for the creation of the State of Israel and postwar political advantage (including massive reparations payments from Germany) which needed the accusation of genocide against the Jews.

 

And, as we will explain in more detail, the trials at Nuremberg were based on those accusations. The Zionists needed a conviction, in order to leverage the guilt money out of a craven government created by the Allies.

 

 

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."

 

 

 

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.