March 15, 1997

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

To follow up on yesterday's ZGram making the point that Zionist interests needed convictions at Nuremberg so as to leverage guilt money out of a defeated nation, Germany, it is is an axium of Revisionist writings that 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 an "alien people" harmful to the country. This was a policy pursued during World War II by the Canadians against the Japanese, for instance, using almost the same laws, rules, means and methods - internment without trial leading to ultimate deportation! Germany was not unique at all in that respect!

It is absolutely true that Jews were incarcerated and sometimes treated cruelly. They were seen as the enemy, just as in our days and times the "Nazis" or "Neo-Nazis", lumped in with "Revisionists" of all ideological sorts and stripes, are seen as the enemies of entrenched oligarchies - human beings with a minority point of view on history who get hounded and persecuted mercilessly with very little recourse.

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. Revisionists don't deny concentration camps - they deny planned genocide!

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. In fact, to save their skins, some weak or utterly exhausted men like Hoess eventually did cave in. Not one German functionary out of 26,000, however, reported knowing of such a genocidal program against the Jews. They all said to a voice that the first time they heard about it was from the Allies at Nuremberg one or two years later 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. It 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 "confession." A good overview from a human interest story point of view of how this was accomplished is given in the Zundelsite Internet editorial written by Ernst Zundel: "Nuremberg: The Crime that Will Not Die" It is a summary worth reading.

Many Germans, at Nuremberg and elsewhere, having been made to stand trial for "war crimes," have "confessed" to brutalities under "duress" or "inducements". Torture might be a better word.

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 an English writer, Rupert Butler, 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.

(Butler, Rupert, Legions of Death, Hamlyn Paperbacks, Great Britain, 1983, pp 10-12)

Suffice it to say here that this so-called "confession" was written in English, and that Hoess did not speak or even understand English.

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, and there were other cruelties.

("Streicher Opens His Case,", London Times, April 27. 1946)

Did it help Streicher even one iota when this information was made available prior to his execution? Far from it. It was expunged from the Nuremberg Trial transcripts - with the consent of the president of the Tribunal and even his own "defense" lawyer while the trial of Streicher was going on!

Would you like to be defended by such a lawyer who would consent to such an order? It throws a glaring light onto the so-called "fairness" of that trial!

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."

(Zundelsite - 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 of the Supreme Court at the time, 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 book, "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)

In Summary: In Nuremberg and in many subsequent trials against so-called "Nazi war crimes", methods of torture were routinely accepted and "acceptable" as a matter of policy and "the rules" - just as is true in Israel today.

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 as something that cannot be argued, 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 was "information" obtained under duress. It would not be permissible in any U.S. or Canadian Court.

Ingrid

Thought for the Day:

'You never know what the past may bring."

(Armenian Radio, as quoted in the Barnes Review, Aug. 96, p. 28)

Comments? E-Mail: irimland@cts.com

Back to Table of Contents of the March 1997 ZGrams