2. The Revisionist claim : 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 a "parasitic people" harmful to
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
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."