George S. Patton, commander of the U.S. Third Army: “I have been at
Frankfurt for a civil government conference. If what we are doing (to
the Germans) is ‘Liberty, then give me death.’ I can’t see how Americans
can sink so low. It’s the Jews, and I am sure of it.”
Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S. – Israeli Covert Relationship
excerpt Magazine article Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
The premise is that there’s a side to the relationship between the U.S. and Israel which goes much beyond just the sentimental links and the links forged by supporters of Israel in this country.
What we say, what we explain is that there has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, a secret link between them, basically by which the Israelis — the Israeli intelligence — did jobs for the CIA and for the rest of American intelligence.
You can’t understand what’s been going on around the world with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations until you understand that the two countries have this secret arrangement. Andrew Cockburn
Two hundred pages into this 416-page fact-filled book, I recognized that it is the best compendium of information about the multifaceted secret relationships between Israel and private American citizens, and with the U.S. government itself, ever assembled.
This is reason enough to recommend the book. As I continued reading the second half, however, I found it also contained much information that was new to me, despite 30 years of full-time involvement in U.S.-Middle East affairs.
For a serious student of the history of Israeli dirty tricks, U.S. voluntary and involuntary involvement in them, and their results in making the Middle East into what it is today, there can be no more useful book.
This husband-and-wife journalistic team sketches in seven short sentences the essential fact about the U.S.-Israeli relationship that could give the U.S. the power to control it, instead of being controlled by it. Describing a contemptuous reaction by Israeli journalist Gideon Levi to a live-ammunition performance by Israel Defense Force soldiers on the Golan Heights for the edification of busloads of American Jewish tourists, the authors write:
“What Levi called the `masses of women with blue hair and pseudo-athletic men’ and many others like them back in the U.S. contribute at least $1 billion a year in private donations to Israel.
These donations are tax-deductible. The state raises another $500 million a year through the sale of Israel bonds. U.S. commercial banks lend an additional $1 billion.
Such generosity is dwarfed by the contributions of U.S. taxpayers overall, which amount to almost $4 billion in military and economic aid, at least, even in peacetime. All this adds up to well over $6 billion a year, or $1,300 for each and every Israeli.
Israel’s gross national product amounts to some $24 billion a year, so the country is receiving one quarter of its total income in the form of gifts from U.S. citizens, acting either as philanthropists or taxpayers.”
Closer to the theme of the book, the Cockburns point out that “the weapons trade accounts for almost 40 percent of Israel’s export earnings — S1.5 billion a year.”
How Israel has developed those weapons, with stolen U.S. technology, and markets for them, by selling arms and technology to world pariahs ranging from South Africa to Colombian drug lords while the U.S. looks the other way, is part of what the book is all about.
Ironies of tiny Israel’s gigantic weapons trade are illustrated by the book’s description of Shaul Nehemiah Eisenberg, the richest man in Israel, who, the Cockburns report, “represents the ultimate confluence of arms, intelligence and political power.”
Eisenberg supervised modernization of the Chinese army’s weaponry, an upgrading of the entire Chinese tankforce, and even an improvement of the Chinese “Eastwind” ballistic missiles, which ultimately were purchased by Saudi Arabia, “whose defense purchases from the United States have always met with strenuous Israeli objections.”
The fact that while the Israeli government, through its Washington, DC lobby, blocks the access of major Arab states to U.S. weapons, it actually works with the other arms-producing countries which ultimately get the arms orders of some of the same Arab countries is the kind of thing that is unbelievable to most Americans, but carefully documented in this book.
The Cockburns present seldom-recalled historical facts. Most of the founding fathers of Israel “were born within 500 miles of the city of Minsk.”
The best known among them, Plonsk-born David Gruen, who renamed himself David Ben-Gurion upon arriving in Palestine in 1906, was “an atheist who refused to attend a synagogue; he adopted Zionism as his religion.”
Among those early leaders who became Israeli prime ministers, Ben-Gurion rival Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi had split from its revisionist parent group, Lehi, over the issue of opposing Hitler during World War II. …
Until the present day, wide-spread confusion regarding the meaning of the terms Judaism and Zionism persists both inside and outside Israel. As the popular opinion that the terms are synonyms implies the false assumption that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism, the Israeli right-wing regime uses this dangerous shortcut in order to justify its ongoing colonization of Palestine. Based on the work of Israel’s New Historians, this master thesis aims at deconstructing the mainstream mindset concerning Judaism and Zionism by analysing the nature of the principal ideological streams and their complex interconnections before and after 1948; focussing on orthodox Judaism, religious Zionism, Jewish radical messianism, Jewish fundamentalism, the ideological change of traditional Zionism and, last but not least, the role of Christian Zionism in the United States.
The establishment of the State of Israel would have been possible without the Holocaust due to the Zionist movement, however the reparations from the Holocaust given by West Germany gave Israel the resources necessary to survive.
The Holocaust played an important role in the founding and long term visibility of the State of Israel in three respects: The Holocaust motivated large numbers of immigrants to move to the new country, providing the necessary population; secondly, the Holocaust enabled Israel to pressure Germany into supplying the economic base necessary to build infrastructure and support those immigrants; and finally, the Holocaust swayed world opinion so that the United Nations approved the State of Israel in 1948.
“The Zionist movement did not send any assistance, financial or otherwise, for the victims of Nazism and it did not allow any other side to provide any kind of aid.
The Zionist movement concealed the information that came from within the ghetto walls and concentration camps, news that shed light on what was really happening.
If it had to publish anything, it did so by questioning that information and diminishing its importance.”
“Zionism adopted the Nazi selection principle, when it went to save Jews from the slaughter.
It made itself the ultimate arbiter regarding Jewish life, deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die.”
“The Zionist movement did not make any effort to convince Western countries to take in the Jewish refugees escaping the horrors of the Holocaust.
It even placed obstacles I the way of efforts made by Christian groups or by non-Zionist Jews or a number of countries that saw fit to find a solution to this humanitarian problem.”
“All of this wasn’t enough – the Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule to arouse the government’s hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them.”
From Mahmoud Abbas’ book “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism” (Billsan Publising House, Ramallah, 2011), based on his doctoral dissertation.
Among other things, “How can one believe that the Zionist movement, which set out to protect a nation, would later become the reason for its destruction?
History teaches us about (the Emperor) Nero who torched Rome.
But Nero was mad, and his madness rids him of the responsibility to his actions.
History also teaches us about leaders who betrayed their people and their country and sold them out to their enemies.
But these leaders are isolated. They alone carry the responsibility for their actions.
But when a large national public movement conspires against its ‘people,’ well that is embarrassing…
“An Arab proverb says: ‘If a dispute arises between thieves, the theft is discovered.’
This is what happened with the Zionist movement.
When ‘Labor’ (Mapai) was in power in the State of Israel, it refused to include the revisionists and those started exposing facts and blowing away the smoke screen of lies.
We cannot fail to mention that many of the Zionist movement’s people during the war were amazed of the results of the cooperation between the Zionists and the Nazis, and the massive amount of victims struck them with terror…
To this one must add that many documents from the Third Reich had reached many hands, which allowed us to present these documents that illustrate the nature of the relations and cooperation between the Nazis and the Zionist movement.”
Though the history of war-crime trials in postwar Germany and the representation of the Holocaust in Allied proceedings currently find widespread interest among historians, the roles that Jews played in and around the Nuremberg tribunal have largely been neglected.
Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the “number three man in making American policy” in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government’s War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials. He was a United States Armycolonel — later Israel‘s first general — who was a principal architect of the U.S. military’s World War II civil affairs policies, including the organization of the war crimes trials in Germany and in Japan. (He later became a commander of Zionist “Haganah” military forces in Palestine.)
Germany’s wartime treatment of the Jews figured prominently in the Nuremberg trials. In their condemnation of the defendants, the Allies gave special emphasis to the alleged extermination of six million European Jews. [That was the first lie.] [ Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany: Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301.]
The Nuremberg enterprise violated ancient and fundamental principles of justice. The victorious Allies acted as prosecutor, judge and executioner of the German leaders.
The charges were created especially for the occasion, and were applied only to the vanquished. Defeated, starving, prostrate Germany was, however, in no position to oppose whatever the Allied occupation powers demanded.
As even some leading Allied figures privately acknowledged at the time, the Nuremberg trials were organized not to dispense impartial justice, but for political purposes.
Sir Norman Birkett, British alternate judge at the Nuremberg Tribunal, explained in a private letter in April 1946 that “the trial is only in form a judicial process and its main importance is political.”
Robert Jackson, the chief US prosecutor and a former US Attorney General, declared that the Nuremberg Tribunal “is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations” against Germany. He added that the Tribunal “is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional system …”
Judge Iola T. Nikitchenko, who presided at the Tribunal’s solemn opening session, was a vice-chairman of the supreme court of the USSR before and after his service at Nuremberg.
In August 1936 he had been a judge at the infamous Moscow show trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev. At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise:
We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments… The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime…
The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment — the sentences.
Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials.
Nahum Goldmann signing the Reparations Treaty with Germany, 1952
Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials.
Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added.
The World Jewish Congress also played an important but less obvious role in the day to day proceedings.
Above all, the powerful but secretive organization made sure that Germany’s persecution of the Jews was a primary focus of the trials, and that the defendants were punished for their involvement in that process.
Two Jewish officers in the US Army — Lieutenant Colonel Murray Bernays and Colonel David “Mickey” Marcus — played key roles in the Nuremberg enterprise.
In the words of historian Robert Conot, Bernays was “the guiding spirit leading the way to Nuremberg.” Bernays, a successful New York attorney, persuaded US War Secretary Henry Stimson and others to accept the idea of putting the defeated German leaders on trial.
Marcus, a fervent Zionist, became the “number three man in making American policy” in occupied Germany. As chief of the US government’s War Crimes Branch in 1946 and 1947, he selected almost all of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the Nuremberg NMT Trials.
(He later became a commander of Zionist “Haganah” military forces in Palestine.)
Some of the Americans who participated in the Nuremberg trials became disillusioned with the entire business.
One of the few to make public his feelings was Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals.
“If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here,” he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced.
“The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident,” he added.
Wennerstrum cautiously referred to the extensive Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process.
“The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome … Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices.”
He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. “Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records.
The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case.”
He concluded that “the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors.” Wennerstrum left Nuremberg “with a feeling that justice has been denied.”
America’s leading jurist was dismayed by the Nuremberg process. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked with irritation: “[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg.
[Many people were and are still convinced that these trials were purely a creation of the victors to exercise vengeance on the Germans. The term victor’s justice is strongly connected with the concept of vengeance.]
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.” In a private letter he wrote: “… I wonder how some of those who preside at the trials would justify some of the acts of their own governments if they were placed in the status of the accused.”
On another occasion Stone specifically wondered “whether, under this new [Nuremberg] doctrine of international law, if we had been defeated, the victors could plausibly assert that our supplying Britain with fifty destroyers [in 1940] was an act of aggression …”
In Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: “The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history … The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst.”
“israel” Now that the victors have taken over beautiful historic Palestine which is what world wars 1-2 led up to: “If the Jews were alone in this world, they would stifle in filth and offal; they would try to get ahead of one another in hate-filled struggle and exterminate one another, in so far as the absolute absence of all sense of self-sacrifice, expressing itself in their cowardice, did not turn battle into comedy here too.”-Mein Kemf
Average Israeli family chucks away thousands of shekels a year in food that is still edible, non-profit says
Another Congressman, John Rankin of Mississippi, stated: “As a representative of the American people I desire to say that what is taking place in Nuremberg, Germany, is a disgrace to the United States… A racial minority, two and a half years after the war closed, are in Nuremberg not only hanging German soldiers but trying German businessmen in the name of the United States.”
Probably the most courageous condemnation was by US Senator Robert A. Taft, widely regarded as the “conscience of the Republican party.” At considerable risk to his political career, he denounced the Nuremberg enterprise in an October 1946 speech.
He also emerged as a prominent non-interventionist and opposed U.S. involvement into World War II prior to the 1941 Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor. Taft’s non-interventionist stances damaged his 1940 candidacy, and the 1940 Republican National Convention nominated Wendell Willkie. Taft sought the presidency again in 1948, but he lost to Dewey at the 1948 Republican National Convention. He opposed the creation of NATO and criticized President Harry Truman’s handling of the Korean War.
“The trial of the vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice,” he said. Taft went on:
About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice.
The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we will long regret. In these trials we have accepted the Russian idea of the purpose of trials — government policy and not justice — with little relation to Anglo-Saxon heritage.
By clothing policy in the forms of legal procedure, we many discredit the whole idea of justice in Europe for years to come.
Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal “defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process.”
He went on: “Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department’s policy… The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish.”
In the years since, distinguished figures in both the United States and other countries have expressed similar views. US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote: “I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled.
Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time.”
US Rear Admiral H. Lamont Pugh, former Navy Surgeon General and Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical Center, wrote: “I thought the trials in general bordered upon international lunacy.
I thought it particularly unfortunate, inappropriate, ill-conceived and dupably injudicious that the United States should have been cast in the leading role as prosecutors and implementators of the trials of German participants or principals.”
Another indictment of the Nuremberg trial appeared more recently in the pages of the liberal New Republic:
The whole majesty of the Western heritage of the law was used to subvert that heritage in the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Weighty jurists in every Western country (but not Russia) protested against this travesty of the Western legal system. So did historians.
So did merely cultured and moral men and women. If the victors were to “try” the vanquished for war crimes, then they should try themselves for often committing the same crimes.
Who would try [British] Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Travers “Bomber” Harris, the architect of the policy of saturation bombing of German cities? But it was not only a matter of our own “war crimes.”
If it was right to use the apparatus of the law to punish those responsible for exceptional crimes like the Holocaust, it was wrong to use it to punish errors of judgment and statecraft such as every defeated regime seems to have committed.
“We used the methods of the enemy” — and used them in peace at Nuremberg.
While the Nuremberg trials were underway, and for some time afterwards, there was quite a lot of talk about the universal validity of the new legal code established there. A new age of international justice had begun, it was claimed. Many sincerely believed that the four Allied powers would themselves abide by the Tribunal’s standards.
As it happened, none of the four powers that participated in the Tribunal ever made the slightest effort to apply the principles so solemnly and self-righteously proclaimed at Nuremberg either to their own leaders or to those of any other country.
No Soviet leader was executed for the Soviet military interventions in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968. No British leader was put on trial for the British invasion of Egypt in October 1956. President Eisenhower was not tried for his invasion of Lebanon in 1958.
President Kennedy was not hanged for his ill-fated 1962 “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba.
President Johnson was never called to judicial account for his conduct of the war in Vietnam or his invasion of the Dominican Republic.
President Nixon was not brought before a tribunal for his armed “incursion” into Cambodia.
When (North) Vietnamese officials threatened to put captured US airmen on trial in 1966, US Senator Everett Dirksen was moved to remark that the Nuremberg trials “may have been a ghastly mistake.”
A double standard
In conducting the Nuremberg trials, the Allied governments themselves violated international law. For one thing, their treatment of the German defendants and the military prisoners who testified violated articles 56, 58 and others of the Geneva convention of July 1929.
Justice — as opposed to vengeance — is a standard that is applied impartially. At Nuremberg, though, standards of “justice” applied only to the vanquished.
The four powers that sat in judgment were themselves guilty of many of the very crimes they accused the German leaders of committing.
Chief US prosecutor Robert Jackson privately acknowledged in a letter to President Truman that the Allies
have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of [German] prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them [for forced labor in France]. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest.
In violation of the first Nuremberg count of “planning, preparation, initiating or waging a war of aggression,” the Soviet Union attacked Finland in December 1939 (and was expelled from the League of Nations as a result).
A few months later the Red Army invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, and ruthlessly incorporated them into the Soviet Union.
The postwar French government violated international law and the Nuremberg charge of “maltreatment of prisoners of war” by employing large numbers of German prisoners of war as forced laborers in France.
In 1945 the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly agreed to the brutal deportation of more than ten million Germans from their ancient homes in eastern and central Europe, a violation of the Nuremberg count of “deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population.”
While Allied prosecutors charged the defendants with a “crime against peace” in planning the German invasion of Norway in 1940, the British government eventually had to admit that Britain and France were themselves guilty of the same “crime” in preparing a military invasion of Norway, code-named “Stratford,” before the German move.
And in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, a neutral nation.
Given this record, it is hardly surprising that the four governments that organized the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 included no definition of “aggression” in the Tribunal’s Charter.
Mikhail Vozlenski, a Soviet historian who served as a translator at the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946, later recalled that he and the other Soviet personnel felt out of place there because the alleged crimes of the German leaders were “the norm of our life” in the Soviet Union.
The Soviet role in the proceedings, which the United States fully supported, moved American diplomat and historian George F. Kennan to condemn the entire Nuremberg enterprise as a “horror” and a “mockery.”
Nuremberg’s double standard was condemned at the time by the British weekly The Economist.
It pointed out that whereas both Britain and France had supported the expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in 1939 for its unprovoked attack against Finland, just six years later these same two governments were cooperating with the USSR as a respected equal at Nuremberg.
“Nor should the Western world console itself that the Russians alone stand condemned at the bar of the Allies’ own justice,” the Economist editorial went on. It continued: /31
… Among crimes against humanity stands the offence of the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. Can the Americans who dropped the atom bomb and the British who destroyed the cities of western Germany plead “not guilty” on this count?
Crimes against humanity also include the mass expulsion of populations. Can the Anglo-Saxon leaders who at Potsdam condoned the expulsion of millions of Germans from their homes hold themselves completely innocent?… The nations sitting in judgment [at Nuremberg] have so clearly proclaimed themselves exempt from the law which they have administered.
An official with the postwar US military occupation administration in Germany commented: “What good are the high-flown morals enunciated at Nuremberg if the Americans have agreed to such things as deportation in documents which bear official signatures, and which, therefore, give the Allies the legal right to do the things which at Nuremberg they described as immoral?”
If the Nuremberg Tribunal’s standards had been applied to the victors of the Second World War, American General and supreme Allied commander in Europe Dwight Eisenhower would have been hanged.
At the end of the war Eisenhower ordered that German prisoners in American military custody were no longer to be treated according to the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.
This violation of international law removed masses of Germans from the protection of the International Red Cross (ICRC), and condemned hundreds of thousands of them to slow death by starvation and disease.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the essentially unfair character of the Nuremberg proceedings than the treatment of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment even though he alone of leading figures of the countries involved in the Second World War risked his life in a dangerous but fruitless effort to conclude peace between two of the warring nations.
British historian A.J.P. Taylor once succinctly summed up the injustice of the Hess case and, by implication, of the entire Nuremberg enterprise:
Hess came to this country in 1941 as an ambassador of peace. He came with the … intention of restoring peace between Great Britain and Germany.
He acted in good faith. He fell into our hands and was quite unjustly treated as a prisoner of war.
After the war, we should have released him. Instead, the British government of the time delivered him for sentencing to the International Tribunal at Nuremberg … No crime has ever been proved against Hess … As far as the records show, he was never at even one of the secret discussions at which Hitler explained his war plans.
The problem of evidence
The victorious Allies thoroughly scoured Germany for every scrap of paper that might be used to incriminate the defeated regime. Never before or since have a nation’s records been so completely ransacked.
In addition to official government papers, including countless secret documents tracing Germany’s wartime Jewish policy, the Allies confiscated the records of the National Socialist Party and its affiliated organizations, as well as those of numerous private business firms, institutions and individuals.
The sheer quantity of paper seized is staggering. For example, the records of the German Foreign Office confiscated by US officials amounted to some 485 tons of paper.
From this mountain of paper, US military personnel alone selected some two thousand documents considered most incriminating for use in the main Nuremberg trial.
The tons of confiscated records were later shipped to the United States. It is estimated that in the US National Archives alone, more than one million pages of documents on the Third Reich’s Jewish policy are on file.
Many hundreds of these Nuremberg documents have since been published, most notably by the U.S. government in the 42-volume “blue series” record of the main Nuremberg trial, the 15-volume “green series” record of the “second string” Nuremberg trials, and in the 11-volume “red series.”
It is as if governments hostile to the United States were to seize the top secret files of the Pentagon and CIA, and then selectively publish the most embarrassing and incriminating documents from the vast collection.
In the years since the Nuremberg trials, historians of many different countries have carefully sifted through the German records, including countless documents that were not available to the Nuremberg prosecutors.
Historians have been able to compare and cross-check the records of different ministries and agencies, as well as numerous private diaries and papers.
And yet, out of this great mass of paper, not a single document has ever been found that confirms or even refers to an extermination program.
A number of historians have commented on this remarkable “gap” in the evidence. French-Jewish historian Leon Poliakov, for example, noted in his best-known Holocaust work:
The archives of the Third Reich and the depositions and accounts of its leaders make possible a reconstruction, down to the last detail, of the origin and development of the plans for aggression, the military campaigns, and the whole array of procedures by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their liking.
Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness.
No documents of a plan for exterminating the Jews have ever been found, he added, because “perhaps none ever existed.”
At Nuremberg, the German documents were in the custody of the Allied prosecutors, who did not permit defense attorneys to make their own selections of the material.
Historian Werner Maser has pointed out that at Nuremberg “thousands of documents which seemed likely possibly to incriminate the Allies and exonerate the defendants suddenly disappeared… There is much evidence that documents were confiscated, concealed from the defense or even stolen in 1945.”
Other important documents suddenly “disappeared” when specifically requested by defense attorneys.
Officials at the National Archives in Washington have confirmed to this writer on several occasions that the originals of numerous Nuremberg documents remain “lost” to this day.
The Tribunal refused to allow in evidence several collections of German and captured foreign documents published during the war as German Foreign Office “White Books.”
Most of the 1,809 affidavits prepared by the Nuremberg defense have never been made public.
Among the documents that the defense was not permitted to bring to light was the secret supplement to the German-Soviet treaty of August 23, 1939, which divided eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.
After the Nuremberg Tribunal pronounced its sentence, Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop pointed out some of the obstacles put up in his particular case:
The defense had no fair chance to defend German foreign policy. Our prepared application for the submission of evidence was not allowed … Without good cause being shown, half of the 300 documents which the defense prepared were not admitted.
Witnesses and affidavits were only admitted after the prosecution had been heard; most of them were rejected… Correspondence between Hitler and Chamberlain, reports by ambassadors and diplomatic minutes, etc., were rejected.
Only the prosecution, not the defense, had access to German and foreign archives. The prosecution only searched for incriminating documents and their use was biased. It knowingly concealed exonerating documents and withheld them from the defense.
The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible “evidence.” Article 19 specified that “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence… and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value.” Article 21 stipulated:
The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.
It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United [Allied] Nations, including acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military and other Tribunals of any of the United [Allied] Nations.
On the basis of these articles, the Tribunal accepted as valid the most dubious “evidence,” including hearsay and unsubstantiated reports of Soviet and American “investigative” commissions. For example, the Tribunal accepted an American congressional report that “proved” gas chamber killings at Dachau, and a Polish government report (submitted by the US) that “proved” killings by steam at Treblinka.
(No reputable historian now accepts either of these stories.)
In addition, the Tribunal validated Soviet reports about Auschwitz and Majdanek (documents USSR-8 and USSR-29), which explained in detail how the Germans killed four million at Auschwitz and another one-and-a-half million at Majdanek. (These days, no reputable historian accepts either of these fantastic figures.)
German guilt for the killing of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn forest near Smolensk was similarly confirmed by Nuremberg document USSR-54.
This detailed report by yet another Soviet “investigative” commission was submitted as proof for the charge made in the joint indictment of the four Allied governments.
As a Soviet prosecutor explained: “We find, in the Indictment, one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war shot in the Katyn forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders.”
(Interestingly, two of the eight members of the Soviet Katyn Commission were also members of the Soviet Auschwitz commission: Academician N. Burdenko and Metropolitan Nikolai.)
It wasn’t until 1990 that the Soviet government finally acknowledged that the Katyn massacre was carried out, not by a German unit, as “proven” at Nuremberg, but by the Soviet secret police.
It is sometimes claimed that the evidence presented by the prosecution to the Nuremberg Tribunal was so incontrovertible that none of the defense attorneys ever disputed the authenticity or accuracy of even a single prosecution document.
This is not true. Not only did defense lawyers protest against the prosecution use of spurious documents, but some of the most important Nuremberg documents are now generally acknowledged to be fraudulent.
For example, defense attorney Dr. Boehm protested to the Tribunal that Nuremberg document 1721-PS, which purportedly confirms attacks by stormtroopers against Jewish synagogues in November 1938, is a clumsy forgery. He went on to explain his reasons at some length.
Several Nuremberg documents based on the purported “death bed confession” of Mauthausen commandant Franz Ziereis, are demonstrably fraudulent.
(Nuremberg documents 1515-PS, 3870-PS, and NO-1973.) These documents supposedly prove systematic killings of hundreds of thousands of people by gassing and other means at Mauthausen and Hartheim.
Almost forty years after the Tribunal handed down its verdicts, Nuremberg document USSR-378 was definitively exposed as a fraud. It is a purported record of numerous private conversations with Hitler by Hermann Rauschning, a former National Socialist official in Danzig.
In brutal language, the Führer supposedly revealed his most intimate thoughts and secret plans for world conquest. Rauschning’s “memoir” was published in 1939 in Britain under the title Hitler Speaks, and in the United States in 1940 as The Voice of Destruction.
It was this US edition that was accepted in evidence at Nuremberg as proof of the “guiding principles of the Nazi regime.”
Chief British prosecutor Sir Hartley Shawcross and his Soviet colleagues cited numerous quotations from it.
Defendant Baldur von Schirach contested its authenticity, but defense attorney Pelckmann (who did not know any better) accepted this “evidence” as authentic. /50 In 1983 Swiss historian Wolfgang Hänel established that the “memoir” is entirely fraudulent.
Rauschning never had even a single private meeting with Hitler.
Another fraudulent Nuremberg document is the so-called “Hossbach protocol” (document 386-PS), a purported record of a high-level 1937 conference at which Hitler supposedly revealed his secret plans for aggressive conquest.
US Nuremberg prosecutor Sidney Alderman called it “one of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents,” and told the Tribunal that it removed any remaining doubts about the guilt of the Germans leaders for their crimes against peace. It was largely on the basis of this document that Göring was condemned to death.
Similarly spurious is Nuremberg document L-3 (US-28), supposedly a record of a bellicose speech by Hitler to armed forces commanders on August 22, 1939.
It contains a widely cited quotation attributed to Hitler, “Who talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?”
Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews, acknowledged that “There are also Holocaust documents that are outright falsification and some that purvey myth rather than historical fact.”
Much of the evidence for the Holocaust story presented at Nuremberg and in subsequent trials has been “survivor testimony.”
As numerous historians have acknowledged, though, such testimony is often defective.
Gerald Reitlinger cautioned readers of his detailed study, The Final Solution, that Holocaust evidence, including Nuremberg documents and testimony, cannot be accepted at face value: “A certain degree of reserve is necessary in handling all this material, and particularly this applies to the last section (survivor narratives) … The Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician, speaking in flowery similes.”
French historian Jean-Claude Pressac likewise warned in his detailed book about Auschwitz that “extreme care is required with the testimony of survivors …”
Jewish historian Hannah Arendt observed in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem that the “eyewitnesses” who testified in the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann were only rarely able to distinguish between what actually happened to them years earlier and what they had read, heard or imagined in the meantime.
Holocaust historian Lucy Dawidowicz similarly noted that “the survivor’s memory is often distorted by hate, sentimentality, and the passage of time. His perspective on external events is often skewed by the limits of his personal experience.”
French historian Germain Tillion, a specialist of the Second World War period, has warned that former camp inmates who lie are, in fact,
very much more numerous than people generally suppose, and a subject like that of the concentration camp world — well designed, alas, to stimulate sado-masochistic imaginations — offered them an exceptional field of action.
We have known numerous mentally damaged persons, half-swindlers and half fools, who exploited an imaginary deportation.
We have known others of them — authentic deportees — whose sick minds strove to even go beyond the monstrosities that they had seen or that people said happened to them.
Jewish historian Samuel Gringauz, who was himself interned in the ghetto of Kaunas (Lithuania) during the war, criticized what he called the “hyperhistorical” nature of most Jewish “survivor testimony.”
He wrote that “most of the memoirs and reports are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks and apologies.”
Shmuel Krakowki, archives director of the Israeli government’s Holocaust center, Yad Vashem, confirmed in 1986 that more than 10,000 of the 20,000 “testimonies” of Jewish “survivors” on file there are “unreliable.”
Many survivors, wanting “to be part of history” may have let their imaginations run away with them, Krakowski said.
“Many were never in the places where they claimed to have witnessed atrocities, while others relied on second-hand information given them by friends or passing strangers.”
He confirmed that many of the testimonies on file at Yad Vashem were later proved to be inaccurate when locations and dates could not pass an expert historian’s appraisal.
We now know that witnesses at the main Nuremberg trial gave false testimony. Perhaps the most obvious were the three witnesses who ostensibly confirmed German guilt for the Katyn massacre of Polish officers.
Stephen F. Pinter of St. Louis, Missouri, served as a US Army prosecuting attorney from January 1946 to July 1947 at the American trials of Germans at Dachau. Altogether, some 420 Germans were sentenced to death in these Dachau trials.
In a 1960 affidavit Pinter stated that “notoriously perjured witnesses” were used to charge Germans with “false and unfounded” crimes. “Unfortunately, as a result of these miscarriages of justice, many innocent persons were convicted and some were executed.”
A tragi-comic incident during the Dachau proceedings suggests the general atmosphere. US investigator Joseph Kirschbaum brought a Jewish witness named Einstein into court to testify that the defendant, Menzel, had murdered Einstein’s brother.
But when the accused pointed out that the brother was, in fact, sitting in the courtroom, an embarrassed Kirschbaum scolded the witness: “How can we bring this pig to the gallows if you are so stupid as to bring your brother into court?”
August Gross, a German who worked as a civilian employee for the U.S. Army at the Dachau trials, later declared:
The American prosecutors paid professional incrimination witnesses, mostly former criminal concentration camp inmates, the amount of one dollar per day (at that time worth 280 marks on the black market) as well as food from a witness kitchen and witness lodging.
During the recess periods between trial proceedings the US prosecuting attorneys told these witnesses what they were to say in giving testimony. The US prosecuting attorneys gave the witnesses photos of the defendants and were thereby able to easily incriminate them.
A young US Army court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947, Joseph Halow, later recalled the unwholesome situation:
The witnesses in the concentration camp cases were virtually all of the sort we court reporters termed “professional witnesses,” those who spent months in Dachau, testifying against one or another of the many accused… It was to their economic advantage to testify, and many of them made a good living doing so.
As one might well imagine, the motive of the professional witnesses was also one of spite and revenge… In many instances their vengeance included relating exaggerated accounts of what they had witnessed. It also included outright lying.
In one case, testimony provided by the prosecution witnesses “appeared to raise more questions then provide answers. Some of it was obviously fabricated, or so grossly exaggerated as to render it unbelievable.
There were repeated instances of mistaken identity of the same accused, and vague, uncertain statements about some of the others.” Moreover, Halow reported, the US courts paid “scant attention to testimony by and for the accused.”
American defense attorney Major Leon B. Poullada
In the 1947 “Nordhausen-Dora” case, American defense attorney Major Leon B. Poullada protested against the general unreliability — and frequent outright lying — of prosecution witnesses in this US military trial of former concentration camp officials.
Use of such unreliable testimony continued in “Holocaust” trials in later years.
Federal district judge Norman C. Roettger, Jr., ruled in 1978 in a Florida case that all six Jewish “eyewitnesses” who had testified to direct atrocities and shootings at Treblinka by Ukrainian-born defendant Feodor Fedorenko had wrongly identified the accused after being misled by Israeli authorities.
New York “Nazi hunter” Charles Kremer visited Israel in 1981 looking for Jews who could confirm atrocities allegedly committed by a former Ukrainian SS man living in New Jersey.
But Kremer cut short his visit, bitterly disappointed by the numerous Jews who offered to provide spurious “testimony” in return for money.
As the Brooklyn Jewish Press reported, “Kremer was stricken with gastronomic pains — a malady he attributes to his difficulties in dealing with hucksters who tried to use his search for their personal gain.”
One of the most blatant examples of perjury by Jewish Holocaust witnesses in recent years was in the case of a retired Chicago factory worker named Frank Walus who was charged with killing Jews in his native Poland during the war.
A December 1974 letter from “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal that accused Walus of working for the Gestapo prompted the US government’s legal campaign.
During his trial, eleven Jews testified under oath that they personally saw Walus murder Jews, including several children.
After a costly and bitterly contested four-year legal battle, Walus was finally able to prove that he had actually spent the war years as a teenager quietly working on German farms.
A lengthy article copyrighted by the American Bar Association and published in 1981 in the Washington Post concluded that “… in an atmosphere of hatred and loathing verging on hysteria, the government persecuted an innocent man.”
We are all familiar with the pictures and film footage of piles of dead “Jews” discovered at the liberated “death camps” Dachau and Buchenwald at the end of World War II, but what we were never told is that most of those corpses were actually dead German soldiers that were dumped there as part of an elaborate psy-op by British Intelligence, and many of those ghastly images were filmed by none other than horror film master, Alfred Hitchcock.
The following is an excerpt from the corroborated eye witness testimony of a captured German soldier:
In 1977, during a visit to New York and Cape May, I recounted the story of the trainload of dying German prisoners to two former US officers.
They had both been stationed in Heidelberg shortly after the war and they knew all about it. They agreed that the cattle cars were filled with captured German soldiers who were infected with typhus and dysentery.
…On a sunny day in mid-June 1945, I hopped on a freight train and went to Erfurt. The train stopped about a kilometer and a half before the station, so I shouldered my rucksack and began walking toward the station. I soon noticed a freight train of about 20 cattle cars sitting on a side track.
A bad odor was coming from that direction. As I came closer I saw hands protruding from ventilation holes and heard sounds of moaning, so I crossed several tracks and approached the cattle cars. The people inside noticed me and began crying “Water, comrade, water!”
Then I reached the train and recognized the terrible stench of feces and rotting corpses. The sliding doors and ventilation holes were crisscrossed with barbed wire securely nailed.
Urine and partially dried feces oozed from under the sliding doors and between the boards.
…They were in fact unwitting extras in a movie being made by Alfred Hitchcock, the Hollywood horror-film specialist. He had been awarded a contract to make a movie about concentration camps for the Nuremberg tribunal.
At night the dead prisoners would be unloaded at Buchenwald, Dachau and other concentration camps by those who were still alive. Hitchcock would then film them, depicting the heaps of corpses as victims of German atrocities.
A large number of corpses were dumped at Buchenwald at night, and next day the citizens of Weimar were forced to walk past the heaps of rotting corpses and smell the sickening stench.
Some of them actually believed the American propaganda, that the corpses had been concentration-camp inmates. It was all filmed as part of Hitchcock’s movie.
Afterwards the corpses were shoved into mass graves in the vicinity. That too was part of the script. This is the explanation that the two former officers of the US Army gave me concerning the trainload of dying German prisoners that I witnessed on June 16, 1945.
I certify that my testimony is a true account of what I myself have personally seen and experienced.
[Note: Alfred Hitchcock was persuaded by his friend and movie producer the British Jew, Sidney Bernstein, to leave Hollywood to assist on project “F3080.” F3080 was the name British Intelligence gave to a project to compile a documentary film on German atrocities.
The project originated in February 1945 in the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force). Hitchcock was recorded expressing his primary concern that “we should try to prevent people thinking that any of this was faked.”]
The testimony of the German soldier can be verified by multiple other witnesses, including British Ministry Of Information, which admitted that the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) would be involved in an ongoing anti-German propaganda campaign to distract the public from the horrifying atrocities committed by the Soviet army.
And Victor Cavendish-Bentick, the Head of British Psychological Warfare Executive (Propaganda), in a handwritten note, written on Aug 27th, 1943, confirmed that the alleged mass murder of Jews in the so-called ‘death camps’ was indeed a psy-op:
“We have had a good run for our money with this gas chamber story we have been putting about, but don’t we run the risk eventually we are going to be found out and when we are found out the collapse of that lie is going to bring the whole of our psychological warfare down with it?
The Director of the Holocau$t – Khazar Expatriate Billy Wilder accidentally steps in while camera still rolling.
So isn’t it rather time now to let it drift off by itself and concentrate on other lines that we are running.” [Public Record Office Document F0371/34551 revealed by Stephen Mitford Goodson, Inside the South African Reserve Bank]
Of course, it would be very easy to confirm the ethnicity of the bodies in the mass graves at Dachau and Buchenwald simply by exhuming some of the bodies and running DNA tests on them. Any simple DNA test could confirm that the remains were Jewish or German.
But as we know from all over Europe, Jewish groups have absolutely forbidden any of these “Jewish mass graves” to be disturbed because to do so would allegedly violate their “religious” beliefs, except where it’s convenient to them.
And now governments in America and Europe are spending tens of millions of dollars every year to make sure each and every impressionable school-age child is shown these faked images for one simple purpose: to transform the victimizers of World War II into the victims, to essentially illicit sympathy for the devil.
Boston University’s director of the Elie Wiesel archive, Bar-Ilan University’s Institute of Holocaust Research historian Joel Rappel has discovered the origin of the infamous “6,000,000” number: a 1944 meeting of Zionist pioneering organizations in what is now known as the state of Israel.
For years, supporters of the Holocaust narrative have held that the number first appeared at the Nuremberg trials using highly discredited testimony by Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss.
The 6,000,000 figure was again repeated by Adolf Eichmann, who was kidnapped by the Mossad and forced to participate in an internationally televised 1962 show trial in Israel.
According to documents in the Central Zionist Archive, the first mention of the 6 million claim was at a meeting of high ranking Zionist political figures in Palestine on January 19th, 1944 — more than a year before the war in Europe ended and a census could be taken, and a year before the Red Army entered Auschwitz.
Rappel names Eliezer Unger, a Polish-Jew who helped lead the Hashomer Hadati religious Zionist youth organization, as the major figure in developing the count of Jews killed by the Nazis. Unger claimed to have escaped from his Polish ghetto through Eastern Europe.
After arriving in Palestine, he stated his intention “to shock the entire world, all of humanity and our brothers the Children of Israel in particular.”
Unger had no evidence for what he was saying, but he did not believe Rabbi Stephen Wise’s assertions in the international media in 1943 of 2 million Jews being killed was making enough of an impact.
After Unger met with the Jewish groups and got them all on the same page, Haaretz published a small article a few days later that for the first time put the 6 million figure on the record, preceding German military leaders tortured into making confessions after the war.
It doesn’t appear that Unger mentioned anything about homicidal gas chambers.
The Haaretz article ends the revelation by quoting Eichmann’s chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner, who on the 6 million number stated: “In the consciousness of the nation the number 6 million has become sanctified.
It’s not so simple to prove that. We did not use this number in any official document, but it became sanctified.” In other words, it’s a lie.
After decades of killing, imprisoning, firebombing and bankrupting Holocaust revisionists, it seems that the Jewish community is now being forced to recalibrate their narrative and give more and more ground.
That they are now beginning to concede that the “6 million” is nothing more than Zionist propaganda is a major blow to the myth.
The Foundation was established in 2005 following the First International Holocaust Forum in Krakow, Poland and marked the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of KL Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Recognizing that the world will soon lose the last survivors of the Holocaust, and in light of the troubling upsurge of global antisemitism, the World Holocaust Forum Foundation is committed to preserving the memory of the Holocaust and to fostering tolerance between religions and nationations in the aspiration of eliminating all forms of antisemitism, racism, and xenophobia.
“This is a historic gathering, not only for Israel and the Jewish People, but for all humanity,” Rivlin said. “This evening as we remember the victims of the Holocaust, and World War Two, we also mark the victory of freedom and human dignity.” He added that at Thursday’s ceremony at the Yad Vashem memorial, the leaders will gather to “remember and to promise ‘never again’.”
Israel constitutes the largest undeclared military base in the world.
The illegal and deceitful Balfour Declaration will soon be 100 years old. This imperial agreement made by the British government cbecome a Jewish national homeland with total disregard to the will of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living there.
The colonization process of Palestine was not characterized by military occupation of an imperialist country as the French did in Algeria. It was also not the European model used to colonize the U.S. and Australia that committed genocide against indigenous people in the nation building process.
Palestine, which was colonized by the Zionist project, was a model more like what happened in Latin America where national independence struggles fought back against racist regimes and did not accept the colonial nature of the conquering nations.
These struggles have taken on different forms but continue to this day. Cuba for example fought 2 wars of independence against Spain and then went on to defeat the United States in the great victory of the Cuban Socialist Revolution.
Under the most severe form of apartheid oppression the Palestinian people have never given up or accepted the conditions of the Balfour Declaration.
What makes the Palestinian struggle even more complex is that it is fighting against a regime that is supported and operates on the behalf of the U.S. in the Middle East and visa versa.
The essence of the Balfour Declaration in all its arrogant content contradicted and violated the Charter of the League of Nations, making it false and illegal for the following reasons.
The declaration was issued in 1917 when Great Britain had no legal international link to Palestine. The British occupation mandate was not declared until after the end of the First World War on July 24, 1922.
The Balfour statement was issued by an elite English Zionist of Jewish origin who had no right nor any legitimacy to declare anything on a territory that did not belong to them. And it did not have the right to surrender the Palestinian territory to a select group of Zionists alien to the Arab world as it did not belong to them either.
The statement was not considered as a pact or treaty between States and recognized Nations, consequently the Zionist claim has neither legitimacy nor obligatory character from the point of view of International Law.
The statement ignores and violates the historical rights of the national permanence of the Palestinian population in their native territory for more than 7 thousand years.
The Balfour Statement contradicts and violated article 20 of the Charter of the League of Nations. In there the obligation of all members of the League was to maintain respect while applying the principles and objectives of the Charter “to help in the advancement of peoples and facilitate the freedom of their homelands, while respecting the cultures, religions and socio-economic development, in order to establish a national and independent Government”.
The history of foreign military bases has always been a direct form of intervention of foreign powers into the internal affairs of other States and the usurpation of sovereignty and national independence, as well as the dignity of the people.
It is a way of enforcing colonization and occupation to maintain a military and or economic condition favorable to the imperial powers. In other cases military bases occur at the request of governments who for reasons of military and economic dependence submit to this condition.
However there is an extremely serious form of installation of foreign military bases, with catastrophic consequences for the geography, demography, history and the very existence of the people of the region and that is the case of the Zionist State of Israel, artificially created in 1948 in the historic land of Palestine.
In the period of 1917 – 1947 there was a process of gradual multiplication of the installations of settlers that went from 50 thousand to 650 thousand. It was an invading army aided by mercenaries from 37 countries occupying 78% or the greater part of the territory of Palestine.
What followed was a reign of terror of Nazi-Zio style ethnic cleansing. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were massacred, another 850 thousand were expelled from their homeland, 532 cities and villages were either burned or bulldozed.
The holocaust was designed to distribute European Jews to Palestine as a labor force and to falsely legitimize a state before the world.
The same forces that created the holocaust now conducts it’s business in Palestine.
Later in the war of expansion that began on June 5, 1967 Israel seized the rest of historic Palestine and Arab territories in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.
In 1948, the Zionist entity was formed primarily by Ashkenazi ( non-Semitic) Jews from various European groups, primarily Polish and Russian. But the project has never been about religion but rather culture and geographic location.
Since the beginning Israel has been a political, economic, ideological project, complex and globalized, inseparably organic and functional to imperialism and capitalism in its different phases that has gone from mercantilism to neoliberal globalization.
The militarization of the Israeli state with the help of regional powers created a country that in itself is essentially an occupying military base that has served the interest of U.S. Imperialism by participating in endless wars in the region with the most modern of weaponry.
Gaza: A Cruel Testing Ground for Israel’s Weapons-Marketing Campaign
War, or rather maintaining an ongoing conflict, is for Israel a lucrative business. The label “combat proven” translates directly into “healthy global sales” of firearms, drones and rockets.
This reality has been the decisive factor in the destabilization of peace and security in the area. In nearly seven decades of its spurious and illegal existence Israel has waged at least 11 wars against Palestinians and Arabs.
From its position of quantitative and qualitative military supremacy, backed by U.S. imperialism, this rogue state has become a nuclear power without declaring it.
Israel has been a conventional and nuclear military base of the U.S. without any control or supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (AIEA) since it has refused to sign their Protocols, alleging lacking foreign policy, according to Henry Kissinger, “Israel has no foreign policy; only domestic politics”.
The racist mindset of the founders of Israel can be seen in David Ben Gurion when he said, “We can only become Arabs as much as the Americans became Redskins..
Our war against the Arabs is to be or not to be; it is not for borders; Israel lives with war and dies with peace.”
Paul Findley took it further when he said, “The doctrine of Christian fundamentalists stipulates that the existence of a strong Israel is a necessity for the designs of God in Palestine. The United States has the duty to make Israel very strong until the last day of the judgment.”
Prisoner support and human rights organizations claim that approximately 700 Palestinian children under the age of 18 from the occupied West Bank are being prosecuted each year in Israeli military courts following their arrest, interrogation, torture and detention by the Israeli army.
More recent Zionist leaders are no less fanatical. On 13 March 1992, the Israeli newspaper Haartz, echoed a statement from the former NATO Secretary, Joseph Linz when he said, “Israel is the least expensive mercenary in our era”.
Meanwhile, Simón Pérez said that “Israel could not survive without the help of the United States”. Since 1973 the U.S. has been the real guarantor of the existence and technology-military superiority of Israel.”
Currently there are no tensions in bilateral diplomatic and political relations and the Presidents of the United States and Israel, at the economic-military level have grown and has experienced improvement especially since the W. Bush administration.
The U.S. has command has posts and military warehouses, including nuclear weapons in Israel – there are at least 150 nuclear weapons according to former President Carter – at the service of the war fighting needs of both powers in the Middle East.
Billions of U.S. tax dollars has propped up the Israeli infrastructure and build up the largest military force in the Middle East. Each consecutive president since 1950 has followed suit including Obama who, on his way out the door, signed an agreement with Israeli that would include $38 billion in military aid over the next decade.
The current situation in the Palestinian territories occupied in the West Bank continues to deteriorate. The Jewish settlements continue to escalate and push Palestinians off their land to the point that they only control 15% of it and movement is extremely restricted.
In the West Bank there are some 700,000 settlers in more than 600 Zionist colonies. These are militarized areas controlled by state sanctioned paramilitary groups.
There are also more than 1000 military check points along the 720 km. wall.
The Zionist entity of the State of Israel with its racist colonial role against the Palestinian people and all Arab people is a major threat to global peace. It constitutes the largest undeclared military base in the world. Israel is a constant violator of all human rights agreements and continues to mock all UN resolutions.
Today the 1975 UN resolution declaring Zionism as form of racism and racial discrimination is truer than ever before.
To do any justice for the cause of the Palestinian people this artificial entity has to be dismantled. Today there are 7 million Palestinians who are either refugees or exiled.
We demand the right of return for all Palestinians to their homeland and an end to occupation, looting, prison, torture and death.
While preparing this presentation I thought of the seven thousand Palestinian prisoners who remain in Israeli jails under administrative detention without any legal protection.
Many of them are children, young people and women.
On April 17 over 1,500 of these political prisoners began an open ended collective hunger strike. The demands are basic; an end to administrative detentions, solitary confinement and torture, the right to receive medicines and medical care and to install public telephones for maintaining contact with their families.
The Zionist response to the strike is alarming. Israeli Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz, urged on his Twitter account the “necessity” that the Parliament of Israel, as soon as possible, pass a bill authorizing the death penalty of Palestinian prisoners being held.
This is the same Israeli Parliament, which adopted a resolution to legalize all the colonies that they occupy and currently usurp the land of Palestine.
The question for all justice loving people is how can we build peace with an occupant of this nature?
* Bassel Ismail Salem, is a Palestinian journalist and member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) living in Cuba
The Zionist Jews (Rothschild’s Ashkenazi army) will not accept anyone other than them to explain Holocaust™. All others will be arrested or marginalized.
Oh no you din’t! No one can have their own version even if it’s the truth as it distorts the Zionist narrative which makes them liars!
Zionist narrative: Careless Holocaust analogies may demonize, demean, and intimidate their targets. But there is a cost for all of us because they distract from the real issues challenging our society, because they shut down productive, thoughtful discourse.
At a time when our country needs dialogue more than ever, it is especially dangerous to exploit the memory of the Holocaust as a rhetorical cudgel. We owe the survivors more than that. And we owe ourselves more than that.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s eldest son appeared this week at an event in Budapest put on by a Hungarian historian who has been accused of distorting the Holocaust.
According to a Channel 13 news report Thursday, Yair Netanyahu addressed the event hosted by Maria Schmidt, who is close with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s right-wing government.
Schmidt, who has repeatedly equated and lumped together the Holocaust and the Soviet domination of Hungary, had been set to head Hungary’s new House of Fates museum on the Holocaust, prompting Yad Vashem and other Jewish groups to boycott it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center called Schmidt’s assertions a form of Holocaust distortion.
Ursula Haverbeck points out that with mainstream historical authorities now accepting that Auschwitz was not the scene of the murder of millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers, there is no established “scene of the crime”. She has challenged official bodies including ministers of the various German states (Länder) to provide an answer – to define the scene of the crime. They have so far failed to do so, and she must therefore conclude that there is no substantiation to the official history of Auschwitz.
In a speech at the event, Yair Netanyahu railed against Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire George Soros, whom Orban accuses of fomenting migration flows to Europe.
“George Soros’s organizations are destroying Israel from the inside. Soros’s organizations are working day and night in order to rob Israel of its Jewish identity,” he was quoted as saying by Channel 13.
Yair Netanyahu defended his appearance at the event, calling Schmidt a supporter of Israel.
“Mrs. Schmidt is a true friend of the State of Israel who supports in every European forum she takes part in,” he told the network.
The elder Netanyahu has forged close ties with Orban, whom he has hailed for his support of Israel.
Orban has been criticized for promoting anti-Semitic stereotypes in his country, including through his campaign against Soros. He has also been chastised for his efforts to rehabilitate the reputation of Hungarian wartime leader Miklos Horthy, who deported hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, left, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, February 19, 2019. (Amos Ben Gershom)
Orban’s government vehemently insists on its good faith toward the Jewish community, which at around 100,000 is the largest in central Europe.
It introduced Holocaust education in schools, has supported another Holocaust museum in Budapest, and the renovation of several synagogues.
Netanyahu has also lauded Orban for his proclamation of “zero tolerance” of antisemitism. Criticism of Israel is antisemitism, researching the holocaust is antisemitism.
NEW BRITAIN – City officials are asking residents to contact the General Haller Post to encourage the group to cancel a Friday speaking engagement by a well-known Holocaust denier.
Edward Reid, described in promotional materials as a history researcher and movie producer of films that “reflect the truth about Poland and Polish history” is actually a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite, according to City Council members Carlo Carlozzi and Kate Breslin.
“This guy wants to revisit history and twist around the facts and deny what happened to our Jewish brothers and sisters during World War II and the Holocaust,” Carlozzi said in a Facebook post early this Thursday morning. “This type of hate must not be allowed in the city of New Britain, a city with a rich immigrant history.”
The Haller Post on Broad Street is nestled in the heart of the city’s “Little Poland” section now known for its wide array of Polish markets, restaurants and shops which draws visitors from around the country. The post is dedicated to serving and providing social activities for Polish-American veterans.
“It is hardly a surprise that the many people who adhere to the holocaust are engaged in the destruction of Palestine and its indigenous people.”
Photo inserts mine.The Israelites never changed their heart condition nor ceased to worship Baal their master. Part of the NEW Jews follow this order. They are the ones in power today over Jew and gentile.
‘Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the philosopher who was an observant Orthodox Jew, told me once: “The Jewish religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around the world apart from the Holocaust.”’ Remember What? Remember How? – Uri Avnery
In The Wandering Who I argue that the Holocaust discourse in its current form contains numerous essential religious elements. It has priests and prophets.
It has commandments and dogmas (e.g. ‘Never Again’) and rituals (memorial days, pilgrimage to Auschwitz, etc.).
It has an established, esoteric symbolic order (good, evil, death, liberation). It also has a temple, Yad Vashem, and shrines – Holocaust museums in capital cities worldwide.
The Holocaust religion is also maintained by a massive global financial network, what Norman Finkelstein terms the ‘Holocaust industry’.
This new religion is coherent enough to define its ‘antichrists’ (i.e. Holocaust deniers), and powerful enough to persecute them (through Holocaust-denial and hate-speech laws).
I also argue that the Holocaust religion is the conclusive and final stage in the Jewish dialectic; it is the end of Jewish history.
The new religion allocates to Jews a central role within their own universe. In the new religion: the ‘sufferer’ and the ‘innocent’ march toward ‘redemption’ and ‘empowerment.’
God is out of the game and has been sacked, having failed in his historic mission. He wasn’t there to save the Jews, after all. In the new religion ‘the Jew’, as the new Jewish God, redeems himself or herself.
I indeed denounce the new religion and for the obvious ethical and humanist reasons. The holocaust religion adheres to the primacy of one people.
It is an anti-universal precept that offers no hope, mercy or compassion.
It instead produces a rationale for more oppression, global conflicts and havoc. It is hardly a surprise that the many people who adhere to the holocaust are engaged in the destruction of Palestine and its indigenous people.
As far as I can say, the Holocaust religion is a blind, non-empathic precept.
He recently held an experimental Eastern European Jewish-style dinner event for a Berlin food festival that he called Strictly Non-Kosher, featuring unorthodox recipes such as traditional gefilte fish cakes made of non-kosher eel.
“Israelis are made to feel very welcome in Berlin,” said his friend Nirit Bialer. She runs a Berlin-based initiative called Habait to acquaint Germans with Israeli culture.
Some young Israelis apply for German, Polish or other European passports, gaining the citizenship that was stripped from their grandparents during the Nazi era.
Often, Germans express gratitude that so many Israelis have made Berlin their home, despite the history.
“It’s great that they find it cool to live here,” said Felix Klein, the German government’s commissioner for Jewish life in Germany and the fight against anti-Semitism.
“They are contributing very much.”
“The Germans always talk about reviving Jewish life in Germany. Of course, there’s no way to reconstruct what they killed,” said Alon, editor of the magazine catering to Israelis in Germany.
“But with time, they start to understand they have to live with substitutes.
Israelis in a way are a substitute for the big Jewish German ethos that was destroyed.”
This propaganda of pogroms—“thousands upon thousands of Jews killed”—amounts to nothing except as it illustrates the gullibility of the press. No one believes this propaganda, and governments regularly disprove it. But the fact that it continues indicates that something besides facts is necessary to keep the scheme going.- Henry Ford
The Israeli State did not yet exist. The vast bulk of “evidence” at the Nuremberg trials was
provided by the Jews of Russia .
About the author of this article provided by Morris
There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews. Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion. I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists. You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In the aftermath of a war, history cannot be written. The losing side has no one to speak for it.Historians on the winning side are constrained by years of war propaganda that demonized the enemy while obscuring the crimes of the righteous victors.
People want to enjoy and feel good about their victory, not learn that their side was responsible for the war or that the war could have been avoided except for the hidden agendas of their own leaders. Historians are also constrained by the unavailability of information.
To hide mistakes, corruption, and crimes, governments lock up documents for decades.Memoirs of participants are not yet written.Diaries are lost or withheld from fear of retribution.
It is expensive and time consuming to locate witnesses, especially those on the losing side, and to convince them to answer questions.
Any account that challenges the “happy account” requires a great deal of confirmation from official documents, interviews, letters, diaries, and memoirs, and even that won’t be enough.
For the history of World War II in Europe, these documents can be spread from New Zealand and Australia across Canada and the US through Great Britain and Europe and into Russia.
A historian on the track of the truth faces long years of strenuous investigation and development of the acumen to judge and assimilate the evidence he uncovers into a truthful picture of what transpired. The truth is always immensely different from the victor’s war propaganda.
Truth is seldom welcomed.David Irving, without any doubt the best historian of the European part of World War II, learned at his great expense that challenging myths does not go unpunished.Nevertheless, Irving persevered.
David Irving files a libel suit in the UK against Lipstadt and Penguin Books, publisher of Denying The Holocaust, after claiming that his Goebbels biography was turned down by US publishers following the publication of the book.
If you want to escape from the lies about World War II that still direct our disastrous course, you only need to study two books by David Irving: Hitler’s War and the first volume of his Churchill biography, Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power .
Irving is the historian who spent decades tracking down diaries, survivors, and demanding release of official documents. He is the historian who found the Rommel diary and Goebbles’ diaries, the historian who gained entry into the Soviet archives, and so on.He is familiar with more actual facts about the second world war than the rest of the historians combined.
The famous British military historian, Sir John Keegan, wrote in the Times Literary Supplement: “Two books stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War.
Despite many such accolades, today Irving is demonized and has to publish his own books.
I will avoid the story of how this came to be, but, yes, you guessed it, it was the Zionists.You simply cannot say anything that alters their propagandistic picture of history.
In what follows, I am going to present what is my impression from reading these two magisterial works.Irving himself is very scant on opinions.He only provides the facts from official documents, recorded intercepts, diaries, letters and interviews.
World War II was Churchill’s War, not Hitler’s war.Irving provides documented facts from which the reader cannot avoid this conclusion.
Churchill got his war, for which he longed, because of the Versailles Treaty that stripped Germany of German territory and unjustly and irresponsibly imposed humiliation on Germany.
Hitler and Nationalist Socialist Germany (Nazi stands for National Socialist German Workers’ Party) are the most demonized entities in history. Any person who finds any good in Hitler or Germany is instantly demonized.The person becomes an outcast regardless of the facts.
“History is a constantly growing tree – the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989,” the BBC reported him saying.
Irving is very much aware of this. Every time his factual account of Hitler starts to display a person too much different from the demonized image, Irving throws in some negative language about Hitler.
Similarly for Winston Churchill.Every time Irving’s factual account displays a person quite different from the worshiped icon, Irving throws in some appreciative language.
This is what a historian has to do to survive telling the truth.
To be clear, in what follows, I am merely reporting what seems to me to be the conclusion from the documented facts presented in these two works of scholarship.I am merely reporting what I understand Irving’s research to have established.You read the books and arrive at your own conclusion.
World War II was initiated by the British and French declaration of war on Germany, not by a surprise blitzkrieg from Germany. The utter rout and collapse of the British and French armies was the result of Britain declaring a war for which Britain was unprepared to fight and of the foolish French trapped by a treaty with the British, who quickly deserted their French ally, leaving France at Germany’s mercy.
Germany’s mercy was substantial. Hitler left a large part of France and the French colonies unoccupied and secure from war under a semi-independent government under Petain.For his service in protecting a semblance of French independence, Petain was sentenced to death by Charles de Gaulle after the war for collaboration with Germany, an unjust charge.
In Britain, Churchill was out of power.He figured a war would put him back in power.No Britisher could match Churchill’s rhetoric and orations.Or determination. Churchill desired power, and he wanted to reproduce the amazing military feats of his distinguished ancestor, the Duke of Marlborough, whose biography Churchill was writing and who defeated after years of military struggle France’s powerful Sun King, Louis XIV, the ruler of Europe.
In contrast to the British aristocrat, Hitler was a man of the people.He acted for the German people.The Versailles Treaty had dismembered Germany. Parts of Germany were confiscated and given to France, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
As Germany had not actually lost the war, being the occupiers of foreign territory when Germany agreed to a deceptive armistice, the loss of approximately 7 million German people to Poland and Czechoslovakia, where Germans were abused, was not considered a fair outcome.
Hitler’s program was to put Germany back together again.He succeeded without war until it came to Poland.
Dated 1902. We have heard the story of “False Cry of Wolf”, “6 million Jewish Holocaust” is a similar story being told since 1899, only difference is, that, in this story, there was never any wolf, only Rothschild’s desire to have possession of Palestine and Jewish homeland ‘Israel’ .
Hitler’s demands were fair and realistic, but Churchill, financed by the Focus Group with Jewish money, put such pressure on British prime minister Chamberlain that Chamberlain intervened in the Polish-German negotiations and issued a British guarantee to the Polish military dictatorship should Poland refuse to release German territory and populations.
The British had no way of making good on the guarantee, but the Polish military dictatorship lacked the intelligence to realize that.Consequently, the Polish Dictatorship refused Germany’s request.
From this mistake of Chamberlain and the stupid Polish dictatorship, came the Ribbentrop/Molotov agreement that Germany and the Soviet Union would split Poland between themselves.
When Hitler attacked Poland, Britain and the hapless French declared war on Germany because of the unenforceable British guarantee.But the British and French were careful not to declare war on the Soviet Union for occupying the eastern half of Poland.
Thus Britain was responsible for World War II, first by stupidly interfering in German/Polish negotiations, and second by declaring war on Germany.
Churchill was focused on war with Germany, which he intended for years preceding the war.But Hitler didn’t want any war with Britain or with France, and never intended to invade Britain. The invasion threat was a chimera conjured up by Churchill to unite England behind him.
Hitler expressed his view that the British Empire was essential for order in the world, and that in its absence Europeans would lose their world supremacy.
After Germany’s rout of the French and British armies, Hitler offered an extraordinarily generous peace to Britain.
He said he wanted nothing from Britain but the return of Germany’s colonies.He committed the German military to the defense of the British Empire, and said he would reconstitute both Polish and Czech states and leave them to their own discretion.
He told his associates that defeat of the British Empire would do nothing for Germany and everything for Bolshevik Russia and Japan.
Winston Churchill kept Hitler’s peace offers as secret as he could and succeeded in his efforts to block any peace.Churchill wanted war, largely it appears, for his own glory.Franklin Delano Roosevelt slyly encouraged Churchill in his war but without making any commitment in Britain’s behalf.
Roosevelt knew that the war would achieve his own aim of bankrupting Britain and destroying the British Empire, and that the US dollar would inherit the powerful position from the British pound of being the world’s reserve currency.
Once Churchill had trapped Britain in a war she could not win on her own, FDR began doling out bits of aid in exchange for extremely high prices—for example, 60 outdated and largely useless US destroyers for British naval bases in the Atlantic.
FDR delayed Lend-Lease until desperate Britain had turned over $22,000 million of British gold plus $42 million in gold Britain had in South Africa.Then began the forced sell-off of British overseas investments.
For example, the British-owned Viscose Company, which was worth $125 million in 1940 dollars, had no debts and held $40 million in government bonds, was sold to the House of Morgan for $37 million.
It was such an act of thievery that the British eventually got about two-thirds of the company’s value to hand over to Washington in payment for war munitions. American aid was also “conditional on Britain dismantling the system of Imperial preference anchored in the Ottawa agreement of 1932.”
For Cordell Hull, American aid was “a knife to open that oyster shell, the Empire.”Churchill saw it coming, but he was too far in to do anything but plead with FDR: It would be wrong, Churchill wrote to Roosevelt, if “GreatBritain were to be divested of all saleable assets so that after the victory was won with ourblood, civilization saved, and the time gained for the United States to be fully armed against all eventualities, we should stand stripped to the bone.”
A long essay could be written about how Roosevelt stripped Britain of her assets and world power. Irving writes that in an era of gangster statesmen, Churchill was not in Roosevelt’s league. The survival of the British Empire was not a priority for FDR.
He regarded Churchill as a pushover—unreliable and drunk most of the time. Irving reports that FDR’s policy was to pay out just enough to give Churchill “the kind of support a rope gives a hanging man.”Roosevelt pursued “his subversion of the Empire throughout the war.”
Eventually Churchill realized that Washington was at war with Britain more fiercely than was Hitler.The great irony was that Hitler had offered Churchill peace and the survival of the Empire. When it was too late, Churchill came to Hitler’s conclusion that the conflict with Germany was a “most unnecessary” war.
Hitler forbade the bombing of civilian areas of British cities.It was Churchill who initiated this war crime, later emulated by the Americans.Churchill kept the British bombing of German civilians secret from the British people and worked to prevent Red Cross monitoring of air raids so no one would learn he was bombing civilian residential areas, not war production.
With her book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt tried to show the flawed methods and extremist motives of “Holocaust deniers.” Among other things, she utterly fails to use generally recognized standards of evidence. Given the way she handles documents and data, it is clear that she has no interest in scholarship or reason. In fact, truth has been the antithesis of her enterprise.
The purpose of Churchill’s bombing—first incendiary bombs to set everything afire and then high explosives to prevent firefighters from controlling the blazes—was to provoke a German attack on London, which Churchill reckoned would bind the British people to him and create sympathy in the US for Britain that would help Churchill pull America into the war.
One British raid murdered 50,000 people in Hamburg, and a subsequent attack on Hamburg netted 40,000 civilian deaths.Churchill also ordered that poison gas be added to the firebombing of German civilian residential areas and that Rome be bombed into ashes. The British Air Force refused both orders.
At the very end of the war the British and Americans destroyed the beautiful baroque city of Dresden, burning and suffocating 100,000 people in the attack. After months of firebombing attacks on Germany, including Berlin, Hitler gave in to his generals and replied in kind. Churchill succeeded.
The story became “the London Blitz,” not the British blitz of Germany.
Like Hitler in Germany, Churchill took over the direction of the war.He functioned more as a dictator who ignored the armed services than as a prime minister advised by the country’s military leaders.
Both leaders might have been correct in their assessment of their commanding officers, but Hitler was a much better war strategist than Churchill, for whom nothing ever worked.
To Churchill’s WW I Gallipoli misadventure was now added the introduction of British troops into Norway, Greece, Crete, Syria—all ridiculous decisions and failures—and the Dakar fiasco.
Churchill also turned on the French, destroying the French fleet and lives of 1,600 French sailors because of his personal fear, unfounded, that Hitler would violate his treaty with the French and seize the fleet.
Any one of these Churchillian mishaps could have resulted in a no confidence vote, but with Chamberlain and Halifax out of the way there was no alternative leadership.Indeed, the lack of leadership is the reason neither the cabinet nor the military could stand up to Churchill, a person of iron determination.
Hitler also was a person of iron determination, and he wore out both himself and Germany with his determination. He never wanted war with England and France.This was Churchill’s doing, not Hitler’s.
Like Churchill, who had the British people behind him, Hitler had the German people behind him, because he stood for Germany and had reconstructed Germany from the rape and ruin of the Versailles Treaty.
But Hitler, not an aristocrat like Churchill, but of low and ordinary origins, never had the loyalty of many of the aristocratic Prussian military officers, those with “von” before their name.He was afflicted with traitors in the Abwehr, his military intelligence, including its director, Adm. Canaris.On the Russian front in the final year, Hitler was betrayed by generals who opened avenues for the Russians into undefended Berlin.
Hitler’s worst mistakes were his alliance with Italy and his decision to invade Russia.He was also mistaken to let the British go at Dunkirk. He let them go because he did not want to ruin the chance for ending the war by humiliating the British by the loss of their entire army.
But with Churchill there was no chance for peace. By not destroying the British army, Hitler boosted Churchill who turned the evacuation into British heroics that sustained the willingness to fight on.
It is unclear why Hitler invaded Russia.One possible reason is poor or intentionally deceptive information from the Abwehr on Russian military capability. Hitler later said to his associates that he never would have invaded if he had known of the enormous size of the Russian army and the extraordinary capability of the Soviets to produce tanks and aircraft.
Some historians have concluded that the reason Hitler invaded Russia was that he concluded that the British would not agree to end the war because they expected Russia to enter the war on Britain’s side.Therefore, Hitler decided to foreclose that possibility by conquering Russia.
A Russian has written that Hitler attacked because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany. Stalin did have considerable forces far forward, but It would make more sense for Stalin to wait until the West devoured itself in mutual bloodletting, step in afterwards and scoop it all up if he wanted. Or perhaps Stalin was positioning to occupy part of Eastern Europe in order to put more buffer between the Soviet Union and Germany.
Warsaw ghetto-Zionists starved the Jews: “The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers. The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler’s people.”
Whatever the reason for the invasion, what defeated Hitler was the earliest Russian winter in 30 years. It stopped everything in its tracks before the well planned and succeeding encirclement could be completed.The harsh winter that immobilized the Germans gave Stalin time to recover.
Because of Hitler’s alliance with Mussolini, who lacked an effective fighting force, resources needed on the Russian front were twice drained off in order to rescue Italy.
Because of Mussolini’s misadventures, Hitler had to drain troops, tanks, and air planes from the Russian invasion to rescue Italy in Greece and North Africa and to occupy Crete.
Hitler made this mistake out of loyalty to Mussolini.Later in the war when Russian counterattacks were pushing the Germans out of Russia, Hitler had to divert precious military resources to rescue Mussolini from arrest and to occupy Italy to prevent her surrender.
Germany simply lacked the manpower and military resources to fight on a 1,000 mile front in Russia, and also in Greece and North Africa, occupy part of France, and man defenses against a US/British invasion of Normandy and Italy.
The German Army was a magnificent fighting force, but it was overwhelmed by too many fronts, too little equipment, and careless communications.The Germans never caught on despite much evidence that the British could read their encryption.Thus, efforts to supply Rommel in North Africa were prevented by the British navy.
Irving never directly addresses in either book the Holocaust.He does document the massacre of many Jews, but the picture that emerges from the factual evidence is that the holocaust of Jewish people was different from the official Zionist story.
No German plans, or orders from Hitler, or from Himmler or anyone else have ever been found for an organized holocaust by gas and cremation of Jews.This is extraordinary as such a massive use of resources and transportation would have required massive organization, budgets and resources.
What documents do show is Hitler’s plan to relocate European Jews to Madagascar after the war’s end.With the early success of the Russian invasion, this plan was changed to sending the European Jews to the Jewish Bolsheviks in the eastern part of Russia that Hitler was going to leave to Stalin.
There are documented orders given by Hitler preventing massacres of Jews.Hitler said over and over that “the Jewish problem” would be settled after the war.
It seems that most of the massacres of Jews were committed by German political administrators of occupied territories in the east to whom Jews from Germany and France were sent for relocation.
Instead of dealing with the inconvenience, some of the administrators lined them up and shot them into open trenches.Other Jews fell victim to the anger of Russian villagers who had long suffered under Jewish Bolshevik administrators.
The “death camps” were in fact work camps. Auschwitz, for example, today a Holocaust museum, was the site of Germany’s essential artificial rubber factory. Germany was desperate for a work force.
A significant percentage of German war production labor had been released to the Army to fill the holes in German lines on the Russian front.
War production sites, such as Auschwitz, had as a work force refugees displaced from their homes by war, Jews to be deported after war’s end, and anyone else who could be forced into work. Germany desperately needed whatever work force it could get.
Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases. Refugees were from all over, and they brought diseases and germs with them.
The horrific photos of masses of skeleton-like dead bodies that are said to be evidence of organized extermination of Jews are in fact camp inmates who died from typhus and starvation in the last days of the war when Germany was disorganized and devoid of medicines and food for labor camps. The great noble Western victors themselves bombed the labor camps and contributed to the deaths of inmates.
The two books on which I have reported total 1,663 pages, and there are two more volumes of the Churchill biography.This massive, documented historical information seemed likely to pass into the Memory Hole as it is inconsistent with both the self-righteousness of the West and the human capital of court historians.
The facts are too costly to be known. But historians have started adding to their own accounts the information uncovered by Irving. It takes a brave historian to praise him, but they can cite him and plagiarize him.
It is amazing how much power Zionists have gotten from the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein calls it The Holocaust Industry. There is ample evidence that Jews along with many others suffered, but Zionists insist that it was an unique experience limited to Jews.
In his Introduction to Hitler’s War Irving reports that despite the widespread sales of his book, the initial praise from accomplished historians and the fact that the book was required reading at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, “I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorized, my name smeared, my printers [publishers] firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens [Zionists], in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa and other civilized countries around he world. Internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves.”
So much for free thought and truth in the Western world.Nothing is so little regarded in the West as free thought, free expression, and truth.In the West explanations are controlled in order to advance the agendas of the ruling interest groups. As David Irving has learned, woe to anyone who gets in the way.
It’s official ; the moon is made of wood. And so is the WW2 narrative.
The Dutch national Rijksmuseum made an embarrassing announcement that one of its most loved possessions, a moon rock, is a fake — just an old piece of petrified wood that’s never been anywhere near the moon. The moon rock was given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 as a gesture of goodwill. If the Dutch never examined the rock and discovered the hoax, historians would have done so at a later time. Such is the WW2 and holocaust movie narrative! It’s no crime to study and examine, and announce the results! Unless it messes up a powerful someone’s agenda…
Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.
Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.
By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.
What cause could justify such sacrifices?
The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.
Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.
But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?
Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.
Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.
If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?
After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.
The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.
Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?
Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.
We would all be speaking German now.
But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?
If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?
Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?
Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?
Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?
Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.
Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.
Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.
As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?
Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.