ZGram - 1/2/2004 - Prisoner of Conscience Letter # 65

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny:  Now more than ever!

January 2, 2004

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Here is Ernst Zundel's Letter of Conscience - the first part written 
recently in Cell # 7 where he is still allowed no chair and has to 
sit on a stack of court transcripts, the rest written about eight 
years ago, prophetically:

[START]

My attorneys are nice, competent people, idealists to the extent that 
they are totally alive to the erosion of our rights and the 
unconstitutional assault on Canadian traditions this represents. 
They are learning quickly what it means to stand up to these forces 
on the loose in Canada and seem to be committed to the defense of 
freedom.  I find the working relationship respectful, efficient, and 
even human. 

Should I be released briefly on bail - which I think will only come, 
if it does come, due to public pressure or via media stories 
embarrassing to the government - my enemies will have me re-arrested 
either under a new Security Certificate or by a contempt-of-court 
charge for my wife's website.  They will find a reason.  After all, 
they crucified Christ - so it's a cinch to nail Ernst Zundel! 

Nuremberg is their style, and I am familiar with how they used forged 
documents, false affidavits, perjured testimony of witnesses - and 
that was in trials open to the public!  In my case, they present all 
these forged documents and lying witnesses in secret.  My lawyers and 
I are excluded, so it's far easier for them than even in Nuremberg to 
get a conviction - and, like in Nuremberg, no appeal is allowed!

It is clear by the persecutor's and judge's line of questioning that 
the real reason for my kidnapping and return to Canada to face this 
Kafkaesque ordeal was the Jewish anger over the Zundelsite - still 
running after all these years!  I know how vindictive these people 
are.  You know it also.  Thus, I am not surprised by any of the 
insider corruption and the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing 
going on in my case both in the United States and here. We know from 
an insider that the above scenario [about my wife's website] is the 
underlying cause.  This U.S. official said:  "We did some people in 
another country a favor by delivering this German into their hands, 
with whom they had a bone to pick."

I was the victim of an operation coming from the Privy Council and 
[Canada'a] Prime Minister's closest advisors.  The vehicle chosen to 
get me were the intelligence services of at least three, most likely 
four, countries.  In due time some of these threads and connections 
will come to light and begin to unravel. We have already begun with 
exposing the Blais-CSIS connection, but that's only the tip of the 
iceberg!  There will be much, much more!

[END]

Below is an essay that Ernst wrote in 1996 and that has become one of 
the favorite Zundelsite essays, reprinted all over the world.  It has 
particular relevance in light of what we now know of Guantanamo Bay 
and similar hell-hole prisons in so-called "civilized" countries:

Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die
By Ernst Zundel

On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, it is 
appropriate that I share with my English-speaking readerships a few 
reflections pertaining to those trials. I'd like to start with a 
revealing and thought-provoking quote coming from none other than 
Nahum Goldman, long-time president of the World Jewish Congress, in a 
book entitled The Jewish Paradox.

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 [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." (The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p. 122)

In the United States, the new specialty channel, Court TV, is 
treating the whole of the North American continent to a Special about 
Nuremberg - a television hate fest lasting about 15 hours in total 
length. Likewise, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio 
Division, recently aired a sequel using static-distorted, crackling 
old short wave newscasts from the proceedings in Nuremberg in 1946. 
Once again, newsreel commentators regurgitate ad nauseam all the 
disgusting, lying testimony of perjurers and con artists, along with 
the sad "testimony" frequently tortured out of Germany's military and 
political leaders.

I can only call these broadcasts "spreading of hate," a crime in 
Canada under its hate laws against an identifiable ethnic group, 
namely the Germans. The current German vassal state established by 
the Allies in post-war Germany - a state whose roots and foundations 
stem out of these disgusting proceedings of Allied vengeance against 
a vanquished German people - will not defend its own people against 
this avalanche of hate and lies, so I will try to do it. Be prepared 
for some food for thought.

It speaks to the tenor of our times that this may be the first time 
some of my readers may be exposed to a different historical slant on 
the Nuremberg Trials. We are so habituated to slander and libel that 
often we don't even notice it or recognize it as such. We are so used 
to seeing Germany as the convenient and deserving whipping boy for 
all its "Nazi crimes" we hardly ever give a thought to its creation - 
or its Godfathers.

Nahum Goldman writes in The Jewish Paradox, page 123:

>>During a meeting of the World Jewish Congress in London, a Russian 
>>Jew called Noah Baron, a wonderful man and great idealist (Š) 
>>talked me into taking an active part by first of all meeting 
>>Adenauer. I was very hesitant at heart, because it was no easy 
>>matter for me to talk to the Germans again. And in fact it was 
>>eventually my head, and not my heart, which decided me to 
>>negotiate. But I laid down a precondition before I would meet the 
>>Chancellor to open negotiations: Adenauer had to make a solemn 
>>statement to the Bundestag; he must say that although the Germany 
>>of those days was certainly not the Germany which had produced 
>>Auschwitz (Š) it nevertheless inherited the Nazis' 
>>responsibilities, and reparations were its duty; he must add that 
>>material reparations could not erase the evil done to the Jews by 
>>the Germans.

Let's see now how it all began - and evolved! - this matter of the 
"Nuremberg Trials" resulting in such guilt and such enormous sums of 
reparations squeezed out of a defeated country, Germany, over the 
last 50 years.

When we think of the Nuremberg Trials, we think of Auschwitz, Bergen 
Belsen, Dachau - places that the Allies "liberated" and where they 
"found those skeletons" - yielding useful photographic backdrops to 
justify what was to follow ever since.

Guilt, expertly used, is a terrible weapon, a powerful tool and also 
a handsome cash cow. There was, in fact, a policy and program locked 
in place to punish Germany for alleged war time crimes, planned and 
implemented long before the "crimes" of Nazi Germany were "revealed" 
to a stunned, shuddering, horrified world via news reels and 
sensationalized headlines.

There exist millions of words, and tens of thousands of books, 
written about the Nuremberg proceedings in response to these alleged 
crimes - publications in all kinds of languages, all borrowing its 
footnotes from each other and parroting the post-war Allied 
propaganda. A lie repeated six million times, however, does not 
become the truth by mere repetition. This essay will inspect the 
pre-conditions and the reasons for the lie.

The generations who have grown into adulthood since the end of the 
Second World War have been allowed little chance to look at the 
Nuremberg Trials critically. They have not been allowed access, for 
instance, to information showing what some important people and 
personalities at the time thought about the whole disgusting process 
of using ex post facto laws against a virtually defenseless, 
militarily defeated and still militarily occupied former enemy.

According to Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Jewish 
Congress, even during the war plans were being mapped out with great 
care and cunning - and the foundation for the lie was being laid. 
Long before America agreed to feed its young men into a fratricidal 
war fought not for American national interests but for the interests 
of an alien people and a State that did not even then exist, there 
came into being this Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York that 
cooked up a devilish brew.

Writes Goldman in The Jewish Paradox, pages 122-123, addressing this question:

>>The Institute's (Š) idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after 
>>its defeat. That still required belief in the defeat, at the time 
>>when it seemed likely that the war in Europe was lost for the 
>>Allies, but like Churchill and de Gaulle I kept my faith. I never 
>>doubted for a moment, because I knew that Hitler would never manage 
>>to moderate himself and that his excesses would draw the Allies 
>>into the conflict. According to the Institute's conclusions, the 
>>German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had 
>>lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, 
>>the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to 
>>enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was 
>>expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in 
>>Baltimore.

As we all know and are never allowed to forget, in due time Hitler 
lost the war. Now it was time to conduct Stalinist type show trials 
against the defeated German leadership. Was this merely about 
"punishment"? Think again!

Continues Goldman:

>>The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been 
>>reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was 
>>in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. 
>>It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. 
>>When he began to canvass it among the jurists of the American 
>>Supreme Court, they took him for a fool. "What did these Nazi 
>>officers do that was so unprecedented?" they asked. "You can 
>>imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are 
>>simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal 
>>soldiers." We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the 
>>Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely 
>>interested, and although they took part later they did not play any 
>>great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the 
>>Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. (The Jewish Paradox, p. 122)

What followed next? Total communications control and news 
manipulation through censorship!

The Allied powers, by virtue of having established a military 
government - one might as well call it a military dictatorship, in 
many ways more restrictive than Adolf Hitler's state had been - had a 
tight grip on all channels of communications. This fact cannot be 
overstated. From control and supervision of the mail service to the 
telegraph and telephone systems to radio stations to book, newspaper 
and magazine publishing houses, the Allies were fully in charge 
through a clever "licensing system." Anyone who did not toe the 
Allied propaganda line lost his license or had his license suspended 
as punishment. Journalists lost their accreditations. Newspapers lost 
their already very scarce paper or printer's ink allocations or 
reduced-rate postal shipping privileges. Additionally, Germany was 
divided into military occupation zones, which were like mini-states, 
issuing their own passports, food and fuel coupons as well as 
clothing and stationary ration cards. If you wanted to travel in 
occupied Germany from one zone to another in the immediate postwar 
years, you had to explain to the local military authorities in a 
written request why you wanted to travel to another zone, whom you 
wanted to see, and where you intended to stay. You had to request 
ration coupons for the period of your absence. There were other 
bureaucratic, for the Nuremberg defense team extremely inconvenient 
restrictions as well - some by design, some by default. Many trains 
didn't run on schedule or not at all for lack of coal. Most buildings 
were unheated. The populace starved. The country was largely without 
men. There were ruins wherever you looked,  misery everywhere - more 
misery than there had ever been during the bitterly fought war!

I find in my conversations and interviews and even during my court 
cases that judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers have not the 
foggiest idea what life was really like for the defense teams in 
Nuremberg in 1946-1949. Today's generation, brainwashed by the 
high-tech razzle-dazzle of the O.J. Simpson media-feeding frenzy and 
image glut-out, has not a clue under what circumstances the German 
defense lawyers worked. Not a clue! Furthermore, I suspect that the 
cynical generation of money-grubbing, self-promoting attorneys, 
prosecutors and judges of today don't give a damn about what was the 
horrible truth and the reality then. Nonetheless, some of these 
things must be recorded for history's sake.

Imagine if you told the occupation powers you wanted to go to 
Nuremberg to testify in defense of Rudolf Hess, Joachim von 
Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, Göring, Streicher or military leaders like 
Keitel, Jodl, Dönitz, Raeder or others! If the military man to whom 
you applied for permission was a Jew in the uniform of Russia, 
France, America or England, imagine the response! Would he not think 
the German applicant was still a "Nazi lover" intent on additional 
"mischief"? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why many 
people would shy away from getting politically involved as defense 
witnesses or experts after having just survived a brutal war, 
horrendous bombing raids and the raping and plundering hordes of the 
self-appointed "liberators." Who would choose voluntarily to expose 
himself to arrest, beatings, torture etc. -  considering the 
circumstances?

It is remarkable that there were defense witnesses at all who came 
forward and tried to help those hapless prisoners in Nuremberg. There 
are instances of the defense lawyers having located and convinced 
crucial defense witnesses to testify who were being held as prisoners 
in Allied prison camps, only to find them - convenient for the 
prosecution! -  getting "lost" in transfers, "lost" long enough until 
the proceedings had passed the point where their testimony could have 
been of use to the defense.

These defense lawyers themselves worked against almost insurmountable 
odds. They sat in cold, wet, bombed-out basements of half-ruined 
houses with boarded-up windows, working in overcoats, writing with 
stiffened fingers, wearing hats, scarves and gloves to guard 
themselves against the cold and creeping dampness, trying to write 
some text and formulate some argument so that a client, who was daily 
vilified in the press and on radio, in the news reels and on Armed 
Forces radio as a despicable monster and a criminal with no human 
traits, might get a semblance of a defense in those nightmarish, 
Kafkaesque proceedings called the Nuremberg Trials.

Those were truly desperate times for the Germans! The defense was 
hampered by lack of staff, space, typewriters and ribbons and even 
carbon paper as well as photocopying facilities and paper supplies. 
Remember that, in 1945, a photocopy meant exactly what it said. A 
photograph had to be taken using special line-film. A negative had to 
be developed and dried. This negative had to be projected by means of 
an enlarger onto light-sensitive photographic paper in a dark room 
and had then to be developed using chemicals not easily available and 
electric drum dryers using up precious electricity to dry the prints. 
Electricity was rationed severely to approximately two hours every 
day, with only so many kilowatt allowed per person.

Try to put yourself in the German defense teams' place, when two 
dozen lawyers, defending a great number of different clients, were 
handed a 30, 50, 100 or 200 page document by the prosecution - often 
this was the only set of a document for all the lawyers! - and you 
had a limited time until court day to study, analyze, weigh the 
charges, look for potentially exonerating witnesses, in a bombed-out 
country where tens of millions were homeless, freezing and starving. 
The old, still existing phone books and city directories were 
virtually useless, because telephone service was not yet restored in 
many places and private people hardly ever got a phone approved by 
the occupation authorities unless you were "essential" - let's say, 
like a medical doctor.

Now let's look at the defendants' rights to get the lawyer of their 
choice - a sacred right in most civilized countries. What do you 
think that meant in those hysterical, lawless days in post-war 
Germany? Which lawyer could afford to side with a "Nazi monster"? 
Many years later, my own lawyer was sometimes accused during my own 
trials in peaceful, democratic Canada for "Šbeing too closely 
associated" with me, the accused, by media commentators, other 
lawyers and even, occasionally, a judge who showed the intolerance 
rampant against a vilified accused by those in contemporary society 
who have the fate of accused people in their hands. Imagine what 
courage it must have taken for those Nuremberg defense lawyers - who 
also were fathers of children, husbands to wives - all glad to have 
survived the war, all of them trying to build new careers out of the 
rubble of defeated, devastated Germany in 1946. It took much more 
than guts. It took real dedication to a principle and a love of 
justice few in today's society could claim to have or hold.

Let's say you were a lawyer of such heroic traits. The Allies, more 
often than not, could declare you a "Nazi" as well, putting you in 
the class of "criminals," since the Nazi party was declared a 
"criminal organization" by the conquerors. Most of the mental elite 
of Germany had been members of the National Socialist Party, and 
almost all had gone to war and, chances were, had been severely 
wounded or even killed. Those who survived, were really persona non 
grata. They came back from a devastating war and found themselves not 
only criminalized but deprived of their civic and human rights by 
cruel conquerors who all the while kept on prattling incessantly in 
their propaganda about the wonderful Allied New Order.

If, against tremendous odds, you finally found yourself screened, 
interrogated, and accredited as a lawyer at the Nuremberg Trials - 
what did you face, in fact? Let's take a cold, hard look at this 
so-called International Military Tribunal. How righteous and noble 
that sounds! A label like that can hide many a sore. That Nuremberg 
sore is still running.

Here is what Nuremberg was:

It was not an "international military tribunal" at all. It was not 
even international in composition. The victors, instead, sat in 
judgment over the vanquished. Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who was 
then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice 
Jackson's [the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg] boss in that 
role, had this to say while speaking to a reporter for Fortune 
Magazine, as quoted in Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus 
Thomas Mason, The Viking Press, p. 715:

>>For your information, but not for publication as coming from me, I 
>>would like to advise you that the Supreme Court had nothing to do, 
>>either directly or indirectly, with the Nuremberg Trials, or the 
>>governmental action which authorized them. I was not advised of 
>>Justice Jackson's participation until his appointment by the 
>>Executive was announced in the newspapers.
>>
>>"So far as the Nuremberg trial is an attempt to justify the 
>>application of the power of the victor to the vanquished because 
>>the vanquished made aggressive war," (Stone) explained, "I dislike 
>>extremely to see it dressed up with a false facade of legality. The 
>>best that can be said for it is that it is a political act of the 
>>victorious States, which may be morally right, as was the 
>>sequestration of Napoleon about 1815. But the allies in that day 
>>did not feel it necessary to justify it by an appeal to nonexistent 
>>legal principles. As a practical matter, it seems to me that the 
>>difficulties and uncertainties of saying who is the aggressor under 
>>the conditions which produce modern war should make us hesitate to 
>>lay down for the future a principle which would always require that 
>>question to be answered by the victor.
>>
>>All wars are in fact aggressive. The real source of authority is 
>>the powers of the victors over the vanquished.
>>
>>"It would not disturb me greatly," he wrote, "if that power were 
>>openly and frankly used to punish the German leaders for being a 
>>bad lot, but it disturbs me some to have it dressed up in the 
>>habiliments of the Common Law and the constitutional safeguards to 
>>those charged with crime. It looks as though we were committing 
>>ourselves to the proposition that the outcome of every war must be 
>>that the leaders of the vanquished must be executed by the victors."

That was the reality. Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution of 
Nuremberg's most important trials was a man with presidential 
ambitions who needed a high profile carved out of a self-serving 
stage. The Nuremberg Trials were to be the launching pad for his 
presidential race.

The Nuremberg court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of 
the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant 
African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges 
to a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges - not 
military career officers, who might have had some understanding and 
compassion for what the military leaders and the civilian government 
under extreme war time conditions lived through. They could have 
undoubtedly had a greater appreciation of why some of the wartime 
measures were undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war. 
The "liberal country club" experienced set of small town American 
judges could not.

Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war 
against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had 
stopped - not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely 
"diagnosing" psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free 
hand: cynical and brutal investigators who could, and frequently did, 
mistreat, beat, whip, starve, suffocate and mutilate their prisoners 
into giving confessions and statements which were as cruelly 
extracted as were the confessions from witches during the disgusting 
witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.

The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by 
Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, but also by Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. 
Wennerstrum, a man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals 
trying lesser alleged Nazi war criminals after the war.

Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview 
given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the 
interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi 
Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge 
on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from 
European living space because they considered them harmful to the war 
effort and to Western European civilization.

Here is how the article described the rabble that came to post-war 
Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice 
Wennerstrum's eyes, after he quit in disgust:

>>"If I had known seven months ago what I know today," [Wennerstrum] 
>>told friends as he packed to leave for America, "I would never have 
>>come hereŠThe initial war crimes trial here was judged and 
>>prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of 
>>the time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies 
>>and placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany.
>>
>>"What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals," 
>>the judge continued, "applies to the prosecution. The high ideals 
>>announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been 
>>evident.
>>
>>"The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from 
>>vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It 
>>has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the 
>>world to avoid future wars.
>>
>>The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. 
>>The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, 
>>interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans 
>>only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's 
>>hatreds and prejudices. . . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 
>>1948)

In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them 
Jews - as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience 
in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of 
us who are German and can speak German can easily discern the 
ethnicity of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns 
of speech, even in radio broadcasts and news reels.

Most of the "evidence" in the trials was "documentary," selected by 
the Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document 
selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to 
those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case 
and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to 
release, hide, or destroy any documents which did not fit their 
post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg.

Furthermore, the Allies admitted elsewhere that their Propaganda 
Ministries and Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi 
stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, orders, ID cards etc. which 
fooled the Nazis many times because they were so perfect and over 
which the Allied propagandists gloat to this day. It does not take a 
great leap of the imagination to surmise what these same Allied 
Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of documents could 
do now with all the captured genuine German document-producing 
facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps and tons of 
letter heads of all sizes and description and of any National 
Socialist organization you care to mention.

Even setting aside questionable "documentary" evidence, let's look at 
some of the accused's "testimony" - how it was extracted, and what it 
really means.

Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal 
stand certain words: "Genocide" "Gas chamber" "Six million." These 
words, and the embedded moral judgment, were derived largely from the 
admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, the one-time 
war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

Rudolf Hoess was the Allies' most important witness. His affidavit 
and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and 
in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the press. It 
was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim 
of the "extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz." 
Hoess's "confession" is heavily relied upon by historians like Raul 
Hilberg and others as a primary documentary source to this day.

It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous 
"atrocities," and he also confirmed the "truth" under oath of an 
affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he 
confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of 
victims. This affidavit was in English, a language he did not speak 
or understand, according to family members.

We now know from the book Legions of Death that Rudolf Hoess was 
beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police 
Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter, until he gave 
this very devastating "testimony" and "affidavit" used by the Allies 
propagandists ever since.

You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert Butler, 
published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:

>>At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six 
>>intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and 
>>menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated 
>>techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.
>>
>>No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely 
>>necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke's 
>>tone was deliberately low-key and conversational.
>>
>>He began mildly: "I understand your husband came to see you as 
>>recently as last night."
>>
>>Frau Hoess merely replied: "I haven't seen him since he absconded months
ago"
>>
>>Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: 
>>"You know that isn't true." Then all at once his manner changed and 
>>he was shouting: "If you don't tell us, we'll turn you over to the 
>>Russians and they'll put you before a firing squad. Your son will 
>>go to Siberia."
>>
>>It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess 
>>betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the 
>>man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the 
>>son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

Here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one of the participants, 
recalls it vividly:

>>[Hoess] was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair 
>>of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide 
>>pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance 
>>to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth.
>>
>>Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms.
>>
>>Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"
>>
>>With each answer of "Franz Lang", Clarke's hand crashed into the 
>>face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke 
>>and admitted who he was.
>>
>>The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish 
>>sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in 
>>Auschwitz following an order signed by Hoess.
>>
>>The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his 
>>body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, 
>>where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
>>
>>Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off, 
>>unless you want to take back a corpse."
>>
>>A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke's car, 
>>where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his 
>>throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.
>>
>>Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered 
>>in German: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine" (Š)
>>
>>The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The 
>>snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he 
>>was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his 
>>cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him.

This statement, tortured and terrorized out of the man, was the one 
we are all familiar with - the "proof" for the so-called "gassing of 
the Jews."

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess is a totally 
unreliable witness - and is it any wonder? He spoke of a 
concentration camp "Wolzek" which does not even exist. He swore that 
2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further 
half million died of disease, for a total dead of three million.

The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington 
Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an 
article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:

>>Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the 
>>Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 
>>million.
>>
>>The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, 
>>despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as 
>>many Poles perished in Hitler's largest concentration camp (Š)
>>
>>The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of 
>>Hitler's final solution.
>>
>>Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the 
>>Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, 
>>saying: "It sounds shocking and strange." (Š)
>>
>>Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel's Yad Vashem memorial 
>>for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures 
>>were correct.
>>
>>"The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death 
>>camp's Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was 
>>exaggerated." . . .
>>
>>But the Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number 
>>killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by 
>>the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.

A most convenient excuse!

In 1989 I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet 
Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 
1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months 
afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these 
all-important documents to the -Red Cross, which showed in minute 
detail the cause and time of death, their birth, address etc.

The following was found:

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only 
approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of 
Poles and members of other nationalities.

The incredibly shrinking Holocaust!

The "millions" that we have heard about for half a century and that 
we still hear and read about today all started with the "testimony" 
beaten out of Hoess on that horrible night in defeated Germany.

Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent 
Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning 
stated that

>>"ŠHoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The 
>>revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try 
>>and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole." (Holocaust 
>>Revisionism Source Book, 1994, p. 1)

Hoess's testimony was used as the skeleton on which the entire 
Holocaust myth about mass gassings was constructed. Revisionists have 
concentrated on Hoess precisely because he is probably the most 
important source for Holocaust historians' conclusions and 
exaggerations about the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the 
"Bible" of the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, 
(Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition, 1985) relies on Hoess's testimony 
heavily - and Hoess was the primary witness relied upon by the 
Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the "extermination of 
the Jews," even though he told the court of having been savagely 
tortured.

What's more, Hoess's treatment by the Allies and the total 
unreliability of his "evidence" are not unusual. We don't know how 
many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, 
since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was 
expunged from the record. An example is Julius Streicher's testimony. 
Streicher was reported in the London Times as having testified that 
he was tortured, whipped, spat on, and forced to drink from a 
latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The Times, April 27, 1946). His 
testimony was later expunged from the record of the trial with the 
active participation of the prosecution, the president of the 
Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer.

Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners, 
however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter 
Sauckel's reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the 
transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified 
that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in 
that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with 
deportation to Russia.

And finally, it must not be forgotten that  this is the only judicial 
proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was 
no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of 
the proceedings - or any verdicts arrived at by this so-called 
International Military Tribunal. Their judgments over the leadership 
of Europe's most populous state, against whom they had just fought a 
murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly.

Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the 
emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these 
days. And for what? The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for 
you in his astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, 
admitting to the mother of all frauds. In his own words, at the 
conclusion of the agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the 
German vassal state's first Allied-appointed chancellor:

>>"Š the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion (Š) Without 
>>the German reparations that started coming through during its first 
>>ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present 
>>infrastructure. All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are 
>>German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great 
>>deal of Israel's industryŠand that is setting aside the individual 
>>pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of 
>>millions of dollars in German currency each yearŠIn some years the 
>>sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as 
>>double or treble the contribution made by collections from 
>>international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to 
>>the principle.

Not anywhere you look!

After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the 
hyperbole and smoke screens which surround them, it can be put quite 
bluntly:

The Allies fought a war on foreign shores - in part to establish the 
State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political 
ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the 
Nuremberg Trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing 
of Israel.

So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel became 
accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and 
executioners - all in one! The Allies supplied the "experts" who 
sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in Allied 
control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding exonerating 
evidence. These investigators were told only to "find" incriminating 
documents against the accused, as I was told by the American scholar 
Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these Allied researchers, 
and who testified at my own trials. These researchers were told to 
ignore the documents that might have spared the lives of the accused 
German leaders. When all was said and done, there was not even an 
appeal.

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief 
Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the 
Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746:

>>"Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in 
>>Nuremberg," [Stone] 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."

Some sanctimonious fraud! That's how America and the "free world" 
have showed their gratitude to the defenders of Europe and Western 
Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who tried so valiantly 
for so long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy of what we now 
call, shuddering, the coming "New World Order"!

I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at 
Nuremberg. They were the world's martyrs, not villains. Not one of 
them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial - not one! 
They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save 
Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and 
gangsters in uniform - and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters 
from the ghettos and shtetls of Eastern Europe.

Ernst Zündel (1996)

[END]