The Genie is out of the bottle!
 

April 22, 2006

Written by Horst Mahler on Apr 20, 2006

Zündel’s defense attorney Sylvia Stolz, responding to the statement by the Mannheim Holocaust Judiciary:

“The Holocaust Laws of the OMF-Bundesrepublik (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule of the Federal Republic of Germany) are pure treason!”

Following Schaller, Sylvia Stolz addressed the court as follows:

“The defense rejects the accusations against Ernst Zündel, a citizen of the German Reich. This is not a legal prosecution under the laws of the Reich or any other legal system. It is an exercise of power that is illegal under international law, by a puppet government called “Federal Republic of Germany.”[1] To use the expression coined by the professor of international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid, the Federal Republic of Germany is an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.” Henceforth we shall refer to this foreign occupation government as “OMF-FRG.”

I described the legal structure of OMF-FRG in the court document dated 18 October 2005, complete with lengthy quotations from the founding speech of the OMF-FRG Parliamentary Council presented by Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid. I also quoted pertinent remarks by the professors of International Law Prof. Friedrich Berger and Prof. Otto Kimminich and elucidated the conclusions to be drawn as they relate to the case of Ernst Zündel. In its meeting outside the main trial, that is, in the absence of the presiding judges, the “Sixth Superior Criminal Court of Mannheim District has given notice that it intends to simply ignore the duly submitted argument made by the defense. The decision of the Criminal Court states that “The legal profferings that the defendant submitted in his petition cannot be accepted by this Chamber. They and the conclusions at which they arrive, appear to be ultimately devoid of judicial relevance.”

The defense refuses to accept this peremptory dismissal. Every layman with at least a primary school education should be able to understand the arguments developed therein, as well as the significance of their conclusions for the Zündel trial. As counterproposal, the defense will read its submission dated 18 October 2005 in the main trial, including basis for its arguments, so that the hesitant attitude of the ‘professional judges’ will be recognizable and the court of appeals will be able to correct their capricious refusal to accept our submissions.

The signers of the ruling of 7 November 2005, Dr. Meinerzhagen, Dr. Hamm, and Mrs. Krebs-Dörr are conducting themselves in the tradition of the International Military Tribunal of the victors over the German Reich, who agreed to disregard all discussion about whether their actions were violations of international law. Those so-called ‘judges’ and ‘prosecutors’ resolved that ‘we will simply declare what international law is so that there can be no discussion of whether it is international law or not.’[2] The persons responsible for that atrocity propaganda show had expressly abandoned any quest for truth and concept of justice in order to make their lynchings of leading Reich personalities appear to be legal. I shall return to this later in my presentations.

In my motion of 18 October 2005 (page 26) I gave notice that the defense would attack the dogma of 'Offenkundigkeit' (Manifest Obviousness) of the ‘Holocaust’ with all the resources at its disposal. I said the defense would show that in the continuing war against Germany by the enemies of the Reich, ‘manifest obviousness’ has been feigned and assumed from the very beginning.

The above mentioned jurists have taken this statement as occasion to, express their intent for mendacious procedure in the main trial as follows:

‘As far as manifest obviousness of the Holocaust is concerned, the motion recapitulates familiar pseudo arguments that have been proffered and continue to be proffered by so-called revisionists (see BGHSt 47,278) without raising bona fide doubt about the historically proven and therefore manifestly obvious genocide, particularly of the Jews, by the National Socialist Dictatorship (stdg. Rspr. des Bundesverfassingsgerichts und des Bundesgerichthofs vgl. BVerfGE 90, 241, 249; BGHSt 40,97, 99,; 46, 36, 46 f.; 47, 278.) This genocide is factually assumed in Paragraph 130 III of the Penal Code (See BundesGerichthofStrafsachen, Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters, 47, 278). Thus any evidentiary exhibit that would deny this is forbidden in Reports of the High Court in Criminal Matters and other publications.

With this reasoning, Dr. Meinerzhagen and his colleagues have obviously abandoned the dogma of Manifest Obviousness. That is the good news. The bad news is the withdrawal of permission to submit evidence, which took place despite the abandonment of ‘manifest obviousness.’ What is going on inside the heads of these judges? What is the definition of Scheinargumente (show arguments)? In imitation of the Nuremberg Tribunals, these jurists use the term ‘show arguments’ to designate arguments that are likely to prove, in support of the will of the foreign occupation government, any previously established ‘verdict’ as illegal and unjust. Such arguments have to be repressed. And what are ‘familiar show arguments?’ ‘Familiar show arguments’ are apparently arguments on which OMF/FRG judicial arbitrariness has been successfully tested.

And what in Heaven’s name are ‘factual presuppositions? The term ‘factual presupposition’ or ‘presumed factuality’ refers to the court’s complete disregard of the criminal law. In criminal law, punishment is court ordered compensation for a debt. Debt is a deficit appearing in a transaction that should not be there. But if there is no transaction, there can be no debt. In order to distinguish terror from punishment, the penal code typifies certain transactions as punishable by designating them “Tatbestandsmerkmale“ (factual characteristics), thereby separating them from permissible activity. The facts of the case extend to the transaction in the narrower sense of an act or failure to act, as well as to accompanying circumstances that are significant for determination of the demerit. In a narrower sense, the action classified in Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code is an expression of opinion. The circumstance accompanying the misdeed is a certain contemporary historical fact (called ‘Holocaust.’)

It is the task of the judge to determine the given life circumstances involved in the case.) In the present instance this consists of a certain expression of opinion, along with accompanying circumstances. The judge must determine what is to be considered as “given” and whether the facts of the case correspond to an action that can be classified as punishable. The citizen under the law can adapt his intent to avoidance of the classified action.

The statement of facts of a punishment norm also guarantees the freedom from punishment of all actions that do not meet the criteria of punishable (nulla poena sine lege – “no punishment without law.”) Within the realm of actions classified as nonpunishable, one can live free from fear of being punished. This is what distinguishes a nation of laws from tyranny. However, the statute of the victors’ tribunal at Nuremberg violated this basic principle (that is unanimous opinion.) Egged on by the High Court of the OMF/FRG, Dr. Meinerzhaben and his colleagues are likewise engaged in tearing down the boundary between justice and tyranny. Where “Holocaust” is concerned, they intend to set aside the burden of proof that is obligatory on the judge. They intend to do this with allegation of a fiction that does not even appear as such in “the law” (Paragraph 130 III of Penal Code.)

What is the source of this legalistic and dogmatic mistake of Dr. Meinerzhagen and the High Court of OMF/FRG? In their “argumentation,” they dogmatically assume that the so called Holocaust is a given fact in time and space. They postulate that any and all doubts concerning “Holocaust” are unthinkable. They have defected from the ranks of the truth-seekers and joined the ranks of the religion-founders. Religion requires that we rule out doubt and substitute belief in its stead. The true believer vehemently crushes every attempt to introduce reason into his consideration, since reason is the harbinger of doubt. Believing demands unquestioning trust in the priestly caste, which functions simultaneously as the faith police.

Within the hazy realm of Holocaust religion, the legal apparatus of the OMF/FRG has degenerated into an inquisition. There is a cynical calculation of power in this. Following World War II, world Jewry recognized the possibility of using the Holocaust lie to found Israel and create a world empire to support and secure it against all opposition. World Jewry knows from experience that almost everyone can be made to believe almost anything if it can be suggested to them that most people believe it. Through the power of suggestion combined with Jewish control of world media the “Holocaust” has indeed become the suggested belief of almost everyone.

When he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI said the following on the subject of this power of world Jewry:

‘The feeling that democracy is not yet the proper form of freedom is rather common, and is continuing to spread… Is there not an oligarchy consisting of those who determine what is “modern” and “progressive,” and what the enlightened person should think? The cruelty of this oligarchy, and its power to make the public do its will, is all too familiar. Whoever blocks its path is an “enemy of freedom” for the reason that he is allegedly hindering free expression of opinion… Who can have doubts about the power of these interests, whose dirty hands become more visible all the time? And besides: is the system of majority vs. minority a system of true freedom?’[3]

If it is to be suggested that the Holocaust lie is to be “believed by nearly everyone,” then the real truth must be sunk in a bottomless spiral of silence. And this can succeed only if the contradiction of the “Holocaust” lie is forcibly suppressed -- obviously through a modern inquisition. Criminal law serves the cause of justice through atonement for crime by punishment, while inquisition serves the enforcement of a particular belief through destruction of heretics. However, it is the general will of Western civilization that involuntary belief of all kinds should be abolished. That is precisely what comprises the substance of freedom of belief, the nucleus of recognizing the individual as a person. This general will constitutes the difference between modern and medieval times.

Inquisition is the purest atrocity, since it destroys freedom of belief. Inquisition has nothing to do with the application or reestablishment of justice through punishment. The enforcement of “Holocaust” law is inquisition, hence unmitigated crime. As Plato pointed out, inquisitory law is in fact the worst kind of injustice because it pretends to be justice.

Exclaiming “ Enough of that!” Dr. Meinerzhagen then interrupted Attorney Stolz, taking away her right to speak and terminating the session. He fled into the conference room with his colleagues and returned after a quarter hour. Dr. Meinerzhagen then proclaimed the directive of the court that in future, Attorney Stolz would have to submit all her motions in writing, and would not be allowed to read them aloud before the court.

With this ruling, the show trial has become another “Ghost Trial” (Rainer Hamm, Counsel for Defense, 94, 457.) The public will no longer be allowed to hear the arguments of the defense. The Holocaust judges are attempting to introduce the “silence of the grave” in the courtroom (see Scheffler, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 94, 2194.) However, their attempt to disguise their illegal action as legal procedure is still doomed to failure. They are chanting the allegation that the Holocaust has been “proven many times” into empty space. The undeniable fact that the opposite has long been proven, is enough to completely disqualify it.

The court appointed expert witness Prof. Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the University of Vienna Institute for Contemporary History (A 1090 Wien, Rotenhausgasse 6) demonstrated that the opposite is true in his written report submitted to the Landesgericht für Strafsachen (District Criminal Court), Vienna, on 10 January 1991. See Az. (Archiv für Zivile Praxis): 26 b Vr (Verwaltungsrundshau)14 184/86.)

Prof. Jagschitz presented his findings as follows: “…in the course of research into the literature on the subject, it developed that a relative scarcity of scientific and objective literature is offset by an abundance of eyewitness accounts and subjective summarizations. I found numerous contradictions, retractions, omissions and inadequate references to sources. Furthermore, substantial doubts about basic questions have been reinforced by a number of court exonerations in relevant trials. These exonerations resulted from expert reports presented to both national and international courts. Thus the mere extrapolation of court verdicts and evocation of judicial notoriety of the familiar stories of gassings of Jews at Auschwitz no longer suffice as a basis for reaching verdicts -- at least not in the context of any democratic concept of justice. Thus in this expert report, it was proven necessary to undertake the necessary corrections of relevant literature as well … In the course of this research it became clear that resources from certain archives were inadequately utilized in previous research. Thanks to political events of the last few years, resources that were heretofore unavailable to us in the West have now been made available. I am referring in particular to documents of the Reichssicherheitshauptamtes (Central Reich Security Office) in Potsdam, a huge resource of Auschwitz documents (several tons) that are stored in various archives in Moscow…”

The historian Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte also refers to the baselessness of using this inquisitorial device of assumed manifest obviousness in order to protect the Holocaust lie against consideration by the court:

“Not until the rules of examination of witnesses have been generally applied and testimony is no longer evaluated according to political criteria, will secure ground be won for any attempt at scientific objectivity regarding the ‘final solution’.[4] The widely disseminated notion that all doubt concerning the prevailing concept of a ‘Holocaust’ with six million victims is to be automatically treated as though it were maliciousness and inhumanity, and therefore repressed by all means, can under no circumstances be accepted by objective science. This is because of the fundamental significance of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est’ (everything is to be doubted) for objective science… This attitude must be rejected as an attack on the principle of freedom of research. [5]

Although I consider myself more challenged by ‘Revisionism’ than most contemporary German historians, I soon arrived at the conviction that the Revisionist school has been treated in a subjective and unscientific manner. In established literature it has met rejection, suspicions about the motivation of its authors and above all, dead silence.[6]

Radical revisionism is much more prevalent in France and the USA than in Germany. There can be no doubt that its forerunners are well informed and have carried out extensive investigations in the field.

As far as mastery of source material is concerned, and especially criticism of source material, these investigations probably surpass those of established historians in Germany.[7] At any rate we must give the radical Revionists and their provocative theories credit for having forced established historiography to reassess its positions and find firmer basis for their assumptions and conclusions, as Raul Hilberg has done.[8] “…The questions about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the significance of documents, technical impossibility of certain procedures, credibility of numbers quoted, the and persuasiveness of the circumstances are permissible and legitimate. Not only are they permissible, but they are procedurally indispensable, and every attempt to dispense with Revisionist arguments and evidence by imposing total science or banishing them from the world, has got to be illegitimate.[9]

If radical revisionism were correct in its assertion that there was no ‘Holocaust’ in the sense of a comprehensive and systematic program of annihilation ordered by the highest levels of government, I would have to arrive at the conclusion that National Socialism was not a ‘bizarre copy of Bolshevism,’ but rather that it was simply leading the struggle for survival of a Germany that had been forced into the defensive worldwide. No author wants to admit that nothing of his work has survived except rubble and so I too have a vital interest in proving that Revisionism is incorrect, at least in its most radical manifestation.[10]

The above formulation provides the key to understanding our present world. It is not just the scientific work of Ernst Nolte that would be lying in ruins. The very foundations of the Jewish American world empire would be shaken. The German Empire would again be perceived as the power that had defended the Christian West “to the last drop of its blood” against talmudic mammonism (Satan.) Adolf Hitler would no longer be the devil, he would be the savior. The world would recognize the profound truth concerning the Nuremberg Tribunal as proclaimed by the Portuguese expert on international law, Dr. Joao das Regas: “In actuality, two mutually incomprehensible worlds faced each other at Nuremberg. The materialistic world of Mammonism and hypocritical democracy opposed to the idealistic and heroic conception of a nation that was defending its right to exist… How could the sated and materialistic world understand the unflinching and heroic will to survive of a nation that, despite its exasperation over diminished territory, had presented our culture with immortal works for centuries, and before the Second World War had stood at the forefront of critical scientific progress in our century?

It was characteristic of the depraved mentality of the international press to continue their attacks against the leaders of the German nation despite the noble manner in which they conducted themselves throughout their disgraceful treatment and unjust death sentences. As precursors of social justice built on a national basis, the condemned German leaders went to their deaths at Nuremberg with a glowing confession of love for their nation and their ideals. Theirs was a truly heroic deportment, worthy of our highest admiration.”[11]

The Evil Empire that, true to its nature, is forever demonizing others (the goys) has mobilized all the material and intellectual resources at its disposal in the effort to hinder dissemination of the truth. The truth can no longer be held back, however. For the first time, the leader of a large and wealthy nation is directing his country’s national policy toward exposing the Holocaust lie. His intention, born of self defense, is to remove the Zionist settler state of Israel from the map, thereby making it possible for Jews and Arabs to once again coexist in peace. It marks the beginning of the end for the Great Lie that has long held our nation in bondage. The reaction of world Jewry to Achmadinedschad’s announcement of the convocation of an international commission to investigate the “Holocaust” shows that the conspiracy of silence surrounding Revisionism has finally been broken. The Jews are no longer able to suggest that “nearly everybody believes in the Holocaust.” We are witnessing the end of the greatest lie in the history of mankind. He who still continues to defend the lie and thereby soils his hands will be left behind. In the words of Michael Gorbachev, “Life punishes those who get left behind.”

Some other remarks by Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte on the subject of Revisionism are noteworthy: “I do indeed feel challenged by Revisionism, but I am unable to join those who demand that the state and the police intervene to repress Revisionism. For this very reason I find myself compelled to ask the question of whether Revisionism has/represents real arguments, or really does consist of mere deceptive agitation. The general all around quality of the individual historian comes into play here. The real historian knows that revision is the daily bread of scientific history.

Real historians also know that in the final analysis, some Revisionist theories are going to be acknowledged by established historians, or at least taken into the discussion… For example, during a recent congress of historians it was not specifically mentioned that during the War and immediately afterwards there were many allegations that the Germans had carried out mass executions by the use of hot steam in sealed chambers, electric shocks on giant electrical plates, and quicklime. By its complete silence, the congress declared these allegations to be as irrelevant as the rumor of soap made from Jewish corpses. (Incidentally, a well known film director has recently resurrected those rumors in German newspaper announcements.)[12]

Even the testimony of the SS leader and Bekennende (Confessing) church member Kurt Gerstein, probably the most widely circulated “Holocaust” account of the 1950s, is no longer accepted in documentary collections, even by the most orthodox scholars. And it is well known that Jean-Claude Pressac, who despite his peculiar precedents is still acknowledged to be a serious researcher, recently reduced the number of Auschwitz gas chamber victims from four million down to around half a million. Their abandoned allegations do not differ fundamentally from individual corrections of the kind that, to my knowledge, have been brought forward only by ‘Revisionists:’ The corrections that the first confessions of the Auschwitz commandant Höß were extracted under torture; that giant flames leaping from crematory chimneys, reported by numerous eyewitnesses, are best explained by mistakes of visual perception; that the technical prerequisites for cremating up to 24,000 corpses per day were simply not available; and that the cellar morgues in crematories of camps that had to accommodate around 300 “natural” deaths per day were indispensable during the typhus epidemics of those days and could not have been utilized for mass murders, at least not during epidemics.

Such ideas can hardly surprise a historian. He knows from his own day to day experience that, since Herodotus’ time, it has been necessary to treat large figures with suspicion, insofar as they do not originate with official statistical bureaus. The historian understands no less well that large groups of people exposed to stressful circumstances and confusing events that are now and have always been rumor incubators…[13]

The testimony of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höß was obtained under torture. Without doubt, his confessions contributed greatly to the collapse of the defense in the Nuremberg trials. His testimony would not have been admissible in any court of law that complied with Western legal and judicial standards. The so-called Gerstein documents contain so many contradictions and objective impossibilities that they must be discarded as worthless, while the few actual eyewitness accounts consist of hearsay and mere assumptions.

Thanks to the Soviet and Polish communists, a thorough investigation of Auschwitz by an international commission of experts did not take place after the end of the War. This stands in contrast to the case of the mass graves at Katyn Forest discovered by the Wehrmacht in 1943. The publication of photographs of crematoria and some cans with the label "Zyklon B Poison Gas" has no value as proof of murder since crematoria had to be constructed near large camps and Zyklon B was the best know disinfestant of the time. Zyklon B was indispensable wherever masses of people were forced to live under crowded conditions.

The integrity of the scientific discipline of historiography demands that it be allowed to question the established and “politically correct” version of history – namely that mass murder in gas chambers has been proven by numerous eyewitness accounts and incontrovertible facts, and therefore is not open to doubt. If historiography is not allowed to do this, then science as such is inadmissible.[14]

The basic issue is the assertion that on the basis of scientific findings or technical facts, either there were no mass gassings or else they could not have taken place, certainly not in the scope and number heretofore assumed. Here I am referring to the chemical investigations or expert reports on the residues of cyanide in the disinfection chambers on the one hand and the cellar morgues of the crematoria on the other. I have in mind the reports of Leuchter, Rudolf, and Luftl as well as the unusually detailed studies of Carlo Mattogno on extremely detailed questions such as the length of time to burn corpses, the coke required, et al.

No fundamental objection can be made against the Revisionist argument that the scientifically or technically impossible cannot have occurred, even though hundreds of witness reports and testimonies might have stated the opposite. The conclusion is unavoidable that humanities people and ideological critics have absolutely nothing to say in this matter.”[15]

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung expressed a similar opinion in the following:[16] "Raul Hilberg and Ernst Nolte agree that one must read the eye witness reports of the celebrated Elie Wiesel with extremely critical attention. Hilberg`s most recent book and grandiose work of his elder years, ‘Sources of the Holocaust, has silently taken leave of many of the most familiar but obviously unreliable witnesses, such as Kurt Gersten and Jan Karsky… liars and propagandists must be seen as complementary to our age.”

What effect does the following confession of Raul Hilberg, the Pope of the Holocaust Church, have on the minds of holocaust believers?

"But what began in 1941 was not a previously planned annihilation (of the Jews), organized centrally by a single office, there were no plans and no budget for these annihilation measures. These measures developed step by step, one after the other; and not through the execution of a plan, but rather by an extraordinary meeting of minds, a coincidence of views within a comprehensive bureaucracy." [Quoted in Rudolf, Vorlesungen, Page 187.]

Did not all the world believe that the annihilation of the Jews was centrally planned and decided in the "Wannsee Villa" on January 20, 1942? [18] How are we to reconcile all this? The Jewish historian Yehuda Bauer, director of the International Institute for Holocaust Research in Jerusalem, ridicules the fact that “…Just as before, the public keeps repeating the foolish story that the annihilation of the Jews was agreed upon at Wannsee.”[19] Professor Dr. Eberhard Jackel, co-editor of the official Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, addressed the issue in the Frankfurter Allgemeine on 22 June 1992:

“Historian Jacke: Purpose of the Wannsee Conference Disputed: The decision to murder the European Jews was made earlier… Jackel said that the protocol for the Conference does not contain a single word about a decision to murder Jews. Furthermore the participants at Wannsee lacked authority to do make such a decision… He pointed out that the actual purpose of the Wannsee Conference is disputed. He stated that an English colleague had remarked forty years before that the Conference was simply ‘a sociable lunch, and that the list of participants proves the conference played no role whatsoever in the deportations, since there were no representatives of the Wehrmacht or the Reich Ministry for Transportation present. Jaeckel is of the opinion that a corresponding order of Hitler’s to annihilate the Jews followed the meeting that took place between Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich on September 24, 1941, i.e. three months before the Wannsee Conference.

Conjectures, absurdities, forgeries, and lies - thus the foundations of the " Manifestly Obvious Holocaust" were created, and now we are supposed to swallow this swindle as "factually presumed." Just how stupid do you think that we Germans really are, Dr. Meinerzhagen? Can’t you see what you are representing to the entire world, and for the history books yet to be written? Does the High Court still want to hold fast to the assertion that the Holocaust has been completely and undeniably proven? How are the “Redrobes” [High Court judges] setting themselves up to be characterized in future? Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen, "the emperor has no clothes." Or do you really see clothes where there are none? How do you propose to cover your own nakedness? You should take to heart the knowledge that there are insurmountable limit for every lawmaker: he can not decree facts. This is what distinguishes politicians from magicians and Almighty God.

Do you think this limitation does not apply to judges as well? The legislator -- not the judge -- can under certain circumstances manipulate facts. Legislative fictions can never be used to establish guilt, however, since only real guilt -- not pretended guilt -- can be punished. Or do you want this principle to no longer apply? Who are you to arrogate such power to yourself? Should German law and justice be sacrificed to the delusions of a few jurists of that government of foreign occupation, the Federal Republic of Germany?

Kleinmachnow,10 February 2006

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

• [1] zu diesem Begriff vgl. Berber, Friedrich, Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts, Band II Kriegsrecht, 2. Aufl., C.H. Beck Verlag München 1969, S. 132 f. 

• [2] Heydecker, Leeb, Der Nürnberger Prozeß – Bilanz der Tausend Jahre, 6. Aufl., Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln 1962, S. 94 

• [3] Kardinal Ratzinger „Freiheit und Wahrheit“ in Jürgen Schwab, Otto Scrinzi, Über die Revolution von 1848 Aula-Verlag, Graz 1998 

• [4] Ernst Nolte, Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit, Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 1987 S. 594 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 136) 

• [5] Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin 1993 S. 308 (Vorlesungen S. 137) 

• [6] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 9 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 137) 

• [7] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 304 

• [8] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 31; (Rudolf Vorlesungen S.138) 

• [9] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 309 

• [10] Ernst Nolte, Frangois Furet, Feindliche Nähe, Herbig, München 1998 S. 222-224 

• [11] Joao das Regras, „Um nuovo Direito International, Nuremberg“, 1947 zitiert bei Maurice Bardèche, „Nürnberg oder die Falschmünzer“, Verlag Karl Heinz Priester, Wiesbaden 1957 S. 62 

• [12] “Atze” Brauner, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 6.5.1995. 

• [13] Ernst Nolte, Feindliche Nähe, S. 74-79 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 138 f.) 

• [14] Ernst Nolte, Der kausale Nexus, Herbig. München 2002, . 96 f. (Rodolf Vorlesungen S. 140 f.) 

• [15] Ernst Nolte a.a.O. S. 122 (Rudolf Vorlesungen S. 141) 

• [16] Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 7.10.2003, S. L 37. 

• [17] R. Hilberg, Die Quellen des Holocaust. Entschlüsseln und Interpretieren, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2002; vgl. Jürgen Grafs Rezension, “Der unheilbare Autismus des Raul Hilberg”, VffG 7(1) (2003), S. 107-114. 

• [18] vgl. die offizielle Enzyklopädie des Holocaust, Argon Verlag, Bd. III, S. 1516ff. 

• [19] Nachweis bei Rudolf, Vorlesungen S. 126

Photo of Horst Mahler from:

 http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Horst_Mahler.htm

Contribute to Ernst Zündel's Defence

Table of Contents for additional articles

Revisionism 101: Basic Revisionism

Revisionism 201 for Holocaust Skeptics

"David against Goliath": Ernst Zündel, fighting the New World Order

"Lebensraum!": Ingrid Rimland, pioneering a True World Order