The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
Justice, where art thou?
THE RUDOLF VERDICT AS PRONOUNCED BY MANNHEIM DISTRICT COURT On 2 May 2007
Translated by J. M. Damon
[Page 1 of Verdict]
Case Number: 2KLs 503 Je 17319/01
Official Seal: Mannheim Landgericht (District Court)
Zweite Große Strafkammer (Second Superior Criminal Chamber)
In the Name of the People: Verdict
In the criminal trial of Germar Rudolf, born 19 October 1964 in Limburg/Lahn, presently incarcerated in Heidelberg prison, married, diploma-engineer of German citizenship;
On suspicion of inciting the masses among other things, the Mannheim District Court, Second Superior Chamber, in its session of 14 November 2006 through 15 March 2007, in which the following named persons participated:
District Judge Schwab, Presiding;
District Judge Becker and District Judge Beck, Associate Judges;
Sylvia-Andrea Anders and Wolfgang Voit, jurors;
District Attorney Grossmann, Chief District Attorney Seiler and District Attorney Skopp, of the District Attorney’s Office;
Attorneys for the Defense Bock of Mannheim, Stolz of Ebersberg, and Pauls of Munich; and
[ Page 2 of Verdict ]
Court Secretary Fritz, Court Reporter on the day the verdict was announced;
Pronounced the following legal verdict on 15 March 2007:
The accused Germar Rudolf is sentenced to a cumulative sentence of two years and six months incarceration for two counts of Volksverhetzung (Inciting the Masses) and Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener (Disparagement of the Memory of the Dead.)
In consideration of the amount of 21,600 euros, the court orders no additional fine.
The accused shall pay the cost of the trial.
The book by Germar Rudolf, >>Lectures on the Holocaust: Cross Examination of Controversial Issues<< is hereby banned.
Laws and Regulations applied in this verdict:
Sections 130 Paragraph 1 Numbers 1 and 2; Paragraph 3, 185, 189, 194; Paragraphs 1 and 2, 54, 52. 53, 73a, 74d of Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code)
[Page 3 of Verdict]
Grounds for this Verdict (abbreviated according to Section 267, Paragraph 4 of Strafprozessordnung (Rules of Criminal Procedure).
1. Germar Rudolf was born 29 October 1964 in Limburg/Lahn and spent his childhood in his parents’ home with an older sister and a younger brother, with exception of a period in which his parents were provisionally separated and he lived with his mother. His father was a Sozialpädoge (“worker in social education”) and his mother a certified sales representative whose last position was secretary to the pastor. Both parents are now retired.
Rudolf began school in 1970 and graduated with Abitur in 1983.
He then began studying chemistry at the University of Bonn in 1989, which he concluded with grade average 1 (the best.) After concluding his university studies he performed his year of military service. After this, in conjunction with Promotionsstudiengang (graduate studies), he was occupied as a doctorial candidate at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart. During the years 1991 through 1993, he began moving in rightist circles and authored a research paper with the title Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz (Expert Report on the Formation and Provability of Cyanide Compounds in the “Gas Chambers” of Auschwitz), in which he concluded that mass murder of humans with cyanide gas (Cyclon B) cannot have occurred as alleged, since no residue of the gas is to be found in the masonry walls. In Spring of 1993 this paper was mailed to leading persons in the legal, political, economic and scientific establishments. In the course of events surrounding his expert report, which led to public outrage, Rudolf lost his position at the Max Planck Institute. He concluded his dissertation, but a date for the defense of his dissertation was never set, and he was unable to complete his doctoral degree. In May of 1994 he married and assumed the name of his wife, Scheerer. Two children were born of this marriage, a daughter Tamara (born September 1994) and son Kay (January 1996.) After October 1994, he worked as consultant for the Dill firm, which was owned by a supporter of Wehrmacht Major
[Page 4 of Verdict]
General Otto-Ernst Remer. This position was dissolved after his employment with the Dill firm was made public in a television exposé in May of 1995. On 23 June 1995, following a trial lasting seven months, Stuttgart District Court sentenced Rudolf to a prison term of one year and two months (see I. 2). When the appeal of his sentence was rejected, he avoided serving his sentence by fleeing to Spain by way of France. When he learned that Spain was about to criminalize “Holocaust Denial,” he left that country in June of 1996 and settled in England. After a month his wife and children joined him there. He then relocated from Pevensey Bay to East Dean, under a false name. He did not inform officials of his correct address. In 1998 he founded Castle Hill Publishing House with Internet site, through which he distributed Revisionist literature. He had adopted the mission of promoting, distributing and educating the public in Holocaust Revisionism, that is, the thesis that during the Third Reich, there was no nationally organized and systematic genocide of Jews. In 1999 he and his wife separated, and she returned to Germany with the children. They were divorced in August of 2000, with the mother retaining custody of the children. Before his incarceration he telephoned his children regularly. One of the children visited him in the summer of 2004, the other in summer of 2005. Following his divorce, Rudolf re-assumed his name. When in Fall of 1999 a British journalist traced him and made his address public, he fled England to avoid extradition to Germany and made his way to the United States, where he accepted a position under Dr. Robert Countess at the inactive Theses and Dissertations Press, through which he published revisionist literature in the English language. Since he had no work visa, he left the US in July of 2000 and went to Mexico, where he remained pending solution of his visa problem. He was unsucessful in this endeavor. In October 2000 he again entered the US and requested political asylum. Following this he changed his address several times, supporting simself as author and
[Page 5 of Verdict]
publisher of mostly Revisionist literature. In September 2004 he married his present wife, a citizen of the United States. Their daughter Natalie was born in February 2005. In August his wife resumed her profession of teacher. Since he had already reduced his publishing activities and closed his office, he applied himself to caring for their daughter and keeping house. On 19 October 2005 Rudolf was arrested during a visit to an office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and extradited to Germany on 15 December 2005, as his appeal for political asylum as well as request for Daueraufenthaltsgenehmigung (long term resident alien status) had been refused. Federal German Police arrested him on his arrival in Frankfurt am Main on the basis of an outstanding warrant issued by the office of the District Attorney of Stuttgart, for failure to serve a prison sentence. Since that time he has remained in custody. On 14 January 2007 he completed the sentence of one year and two months imposed by Stuttgart District Court. During the time of his incarceration in Stuttgart Prison and continuing after his transfer to Heidelberg Prison Heidelberg before the beginning of his trial in Mannheim, both children of his first marriage visited him every month. He maintains intensive contact with his wife in the United States by telephone and correspondence. She visited him numerous times during a two month stay in Germany between June and August 2006.
Rudolf’s income consisted of approximately one third subscriptions to the magazines which he published, Viertelsjahrehefte für frei Geschichtsforschung (Quarterly Publications for Free Historical Research) and The Revisionist magazine. Another third consisted of sales of his books, the remaining third of donations from supporters. His income averaged around 1500 US dollars per month. He contributed approximately 500 dollars per month to the support of his two children by his first marriage. He gave power of attorney to an unnamed person for the management of Castle Hills Publishing House during his incarceration.
[Page 6 of Verdict]
2. Rudolf has the following criminal record:
Stuttgart District Court (Case number Az. 17 KLs 83/94) sentenced him on 23 June 1994 to a prison term of one year and two months for the crimes of Incitement of the Masses in conjunction with Disparagement of the Memory of the Dead as well as Aufstachelung zum Rassenhass (Urging Racial Hatred).
The verdict was based on the following circumstances:
Rudolf is the author of a work entitled Gutachten über die Bilding und Nachwiesbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern von Auschwitz” (“Expert Report on the Formation and Provability of Cyanide Compounds in the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz,”) hereinafter called “Expert Report.” In this report, he demonstrates that mass murders using hydrogen cyanide could not have taken place in the National Socialist murder camp of Auschwitz. He prepared this study during the years 1991 through 1993 in support of his rightwing opinion, that refuses accept the negative consequences of the National Socialist regime for Germany. In early April 1993 Rudolf, along with other persons of rightwing persuasion, sent the Expert Report, along with polemic commentaries in forewords and postscripts, to at least 1000 persons in the Federal Republic. These persons, among whom were all professors of Inorganic Chemistry, occupied prominent positions in the judiciary, politics, economics and science.
In his Expert Report, Rudolf develops the thesis inspired by a report written by the American Fred Leuchter (the “Leucher Report.”) The report maintains that if testimony of witnesses concerning mass murders using hydrogen cyanide (Cyclon B) were true, cyanide compounds would still have to be present in the ruins of the walls of the alleged gas chambers (morgues of the crematoria) at Auschwtiz Murder Camp. Such compounds cannot be detected, however, in contrast to the delousing chambers at Auschwitz in which Cyclon B is known to have been used, but in which it has not been alleged that murders took place. Therefore, Rudolf contended that mass murders could not have taken place as witnesses have claimed.
The introduction to the Expert Report, which relates to the Holocaust, was written under the name of the witness Otto Ernst Remer. Remer alleged that Holocaust claims are lies designed to mainpulate, defame and blackmail the German nation. In addition, he claims, they are an “unbelievable, satanic perversion of history” in which vassal politicians and venal media have collaborated for decades, to the great detriment of the German people. In a Nachbetrachtung (discussion) written under the name of E. Haller, which appeared in the November 1992 issue of the Revisionist periodical “Remer Dispatches,” he understated the conditions in Auschwitz Concentration Camp. He denied that Auschwitz was a murder camp and he maintained that that Holocaust stories have created a myth to justify the Allied rape and plunder of the German people, as well as create an identity for the Jews and Israel. The discussion was presented in the form of a report on the Remer trial for “Incitement” that took place in Schweinfurt District Court in October 1992.
[Page 7 of Verdict]
The Expert Report with foreword and postscript represents a unified work. The totality of the work disputes the persecutions of the victims of National Socialism, thereby injuring the dignity that resulted from their unique fate. In addition, the work disparages the memory of those who died as a result of National Socialist persecution. Finally, the work alleges that Holocaust is a mere invention of interested circles designed for the purpose of carrying out an economic and political agenda. In cryptic form, its antisemitic tone insinuates that domestic and foreign Jews have ulterior motives for accusing the German people in a conspiratorial action, knowingly and untruthfully committing a monstrous crime. It insinuates that Jews in general are particularly culpable and dishonest. In this way its antisemitc tone deliberately incites and directs hate against the present Jewish population.
The mailings during the months of April and May 1993 were made under the name of the witness Ernst Otto Remer, a major general in the Wehrmacht who is highly regarded in rightwing circles on account of his radical writings and his role is suppressing the revolt against Hitler on 20 July 1944. He maintained in the foreword that Rudolf had nothing to do with the mailings. He stated that Rudolf strictly forbade release of the Expert Report, which had been prepared specifically and exclusively for his Schweinfurt trial. He stated that, despite Rudolf’s admonition, he (Remer) had published it anyway. He did this as an emergency measure, since Schweinfurt District Court had rejected the Expert Report, thereby denying him access to forensic evidence that mass murders by gassing did not occur at Auschwitz. Since Remer had been sentenced to a prison sentence of 22 months without probation, he was attempting to defend himself by bringing the Expert Report to public attention.
In reality, the release of the Expert Report and commentary was a publicity trick to advertise and publicize it. Rudolf wanted to release it while avoiding criminal or professional consequences for himself, if possible. It was part of a larger campaign on the part of Rudolf and close affiliates, including Anne Marie and Otto Ernst Remer and Kari Philipp. In the spring 1993 they were hoping to release writings in several areas denying Holocaust in hopes of creating the public support for which they had long striven but which they had not gained.
[Page 8 of Verdict]
The Remer version served primarily to prepare the way for publication of the “authorized” Expert Report, which appeared without commentary. It was published by Cromwell Press in England in July 1993. In order to gain access to the international market, Rudolf had originally intended to release his report through a publisher that would not be associated with the rightwing political scene, but he could find no such publisher. In the fall of 1992 Rudolf decided to act as his own publisher. In order to avoid adverse professional or legal consequences he and his associates developed a plan to feign an “emergency defense” with assistance of a third party. He wanted to demonstrate a purely scientific intent, and so was compelled to contrast the politically slanted, obsolete Remer version with a “scrubbed” and current version. In addition to this, Rudolf was motivated by the desire to publicize and advertise his Report, and he intended to do this by means of a more spectacular method: the ostensible emergency defense of Remer. Even outside the rightwing milieu, Remer’s defense had a degree of recognition. In this way, the Report woul circulated through influential circles of the Federal Republic. Finally, by mailing the Report to all professors of inorganic chemistry (from whom he expected no reaction), Rudolf was building support for the phony claim that it contained no scientific errors.
With regard to this plan, Rudolf from the beginning falsely denied having anything to do with the release of the Remer version of his Expert Report or other releases (except the Cromwell version.) He even denied having anything to do with Remer. Instead, he undertook phony protection measures in order to make his denial appear plausible, doing everything possible to hide his part in the Remer action. In support of this he engaged in numerous manipulations, including pretended correspondence and letters containing false contents.
3. After completing the prison term imposed by Stuttgart District Court on 23 June 1995 (Case no. 17 KLs 83/94), Rudolf has remained under investigatory arrest at Heidelberg Prison since 15 Jan 2007. This is primarily because of a warrant issued by Mannheim District Attorney dated 14 July 2004 in conjunction with a court order by Mannheim District Court dated 7 February 2006. Since 29 January 2007 he has remained in custody on basis of a warrant issued by Mannheim dated 29 January 2007 that replaced the warrant of 14 July 2004.
[Page 9 of Verdict]
Since the mid 1980s, Rudolf has been preoccupied with the political and cultural consequences of World War II and the collapse of National Socialism in Germany. According to his convictions, German postwar development, as well as the self image of the Germans and their repute in the world has been determined by the manner in which the Hitler regime has been presented, especially the depiction of the systematic killings of Jews in murder camps. Rudolf was not prepared to accept the consequences for Germany and the Germans, and he increasingly moved in rightwing circles He encountered the theories of socalled Holocaust Revisionism, according to which no nationally organized systematic mass murders of Jews was committed during the Third Reich, particularly in gas chambers of concentration camps. Fascinated, Rudolf compulsively devoted himself increasingly to the literature on the subject. He contacted persons in the Revisionist scene. In the years 1991 to 1993 he wrote his Expert Report, which resulted in his conviction by Stuttgart District Court on 13 June 2005 and a prison sentence of one year and two months (see I.2. above).
Despite his conviction, Rudolf persisted in assisting Holocaust Revisionism to make a breakthrough in public consciousness, dedicating himself almost exclusively to this mission. His principal approach was presenting Revisionist findings as the results of serious scientific research. In September 1997 he established the Internet site < www.vho.org> in conjunction with Siegfried Verbeke, who with his brother Herbert was responsible for the foundation Vrij Historisch Onderzoek (VHO, Foundation for Free Research) and affiliated publishing house. Their purpose was to popularize and distribute worldwide, and especially in the German speaking realm, theories and information that disputed or understated the genocide of Jews committed under National Socialism. They intended to do this with printed material, brochures, books etc., which they would also distribute over the Internet. In this way they hoped to create income as well. From the beginning. Rudolf was responsible for all technical aspects of the Internet site, which advertised and promoted Revisionist materials offered for sale by VHO and Castle Hills Publishers (CHP) located in Hastings, England, which Rudolf founded in 1998.
[Page 10 of Verdict]
In 2000 Rudolf assumed legal responsibility for the website by placing the domain in his name. He organized this domain gradually, mostly in conjunction with transfers to other servers (that were always located in the US) into the website of his Castle Hills Publishers. Mostly he sold German language materials that he had published, plus some that he had written. This was in addition to the materials published by the Theses and Dissertations Press and listed on the Internet site www.tadp.org, which consisted primarily of literature in the English language.
Rudolf sold and distributed German language literature mostly in Germany, where around 90% of his 1500 regular customers resided. Until its seizure by German criminal police in 2004, his German customers paid mostly through account he had set up for this purpose with the Heidenheimer Volksbank. He posted his works on the Internet where they could be downloaded free of charge. In doing this he was aware that these were works that disputed or downplayed Holocaust. Because they endangered youth and incited the masses, they had also been placed on the index of banned books. He also knew that he was violating German criminal law by distributing Revisionist content over the Internet and sending forbidden printed materials through the German postal service.
Within the framework of these activities Rudolf committed the following crimes:
1. He posted on the Internet site < www.vho.org>, which he himself designated the leading Revisionist website, two articles in which he introduced and promoted Revisionism as well as advertisements for Revisionist literature. Moved by the desire and intent to relieve National Socialism and therewith -- in his view -- the German nation from the obloquy of the unique crimes of murders of millions of Jews, In these works he questioned the mass murders of Jews as planned and systematically carried out by National Socialist rulers. He did this possibly knowingly and in defiance of the truth. At the very least he did it in deliberate contradiction to the official historical Holocaust,
[Page 11 of Verdict]
Rudolf questioned the existence of homicidal gas chambers designed for the mass murder of Jews. He depicted Holocaust as having been invented or greatly exaggerated by Jews and the Allied victors of World War II, designed to further their political aims while oppressing and plundering Germany. He professed that the allegations he raised rested on the results of serious scientific research. By doing this, Rudolf was ridiculing, as he knew, the personal dignity and experience of persecution of the Jews living in Germany who had been persecuted under National Socialism on account of their Jewish origins and who survived the persecution. He also violated the right to respect of the Jews who were murdered in concentration camps. Rudolf’s allegation that Jews invented the Holocaust Jews for political gain and to exploit Germans was intended to create in the reader a hostile attitude toward the Jewish part of the German population. It was in fact intended to increase this hostile attitude beyond mere disdain and disrespect. It was clear to Rudolf that he was inferring to Jews, including the Jews living in Germany, a particularly despicable dishonesty. By depicting them as inferior and worthy of disdain, he denied their right to live as equals in the national community. Rudolf intended for the articles to reach a broader audience in Germany over the Internet. He was also aware that he was endangering peaceful coexistence between Jews and other segments of the German population with his allegations.
He was aware that he was limiting the Jews’ sense of personal security and their faith in security under the law. The following articles were involved:
a) The article that he wrote for the Internet site < www.vho.org> entitled “Welcome to Our Introduction to Historical Revisionism,” posted around the end of 2001, was downloaded in Germany on 2 July 2004. In this article, he answers various questions about Holocaust Revisionism, including the following:
[Page 12 of Verdict]
# 1 What is Revisionism?
# 2 Why is historical Revisionism important?
# 3 Why is Holocaust Revisionism necessary?
# 4 What is meant by "The Holocaust" or "Shoah?"
# 5 What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
# 6 What about those pictures of mountains of dead bodies in the concentration camps?
# 7 Does it really matter whether prisoners died from disease or poison gas?
# 8 Does it matter how many Jews were killed during the Third Reich since even one thousand would have been too many?
# 9 Whatever the circumstances, don't Jewish victims deserve respect and compensation?
# 10 Who are the Holocaust Revisionists?
# 11 What do Holocaust Revisionists want?
# 12 Is Holocaust Revisionism illegal?
# 13 Where can I learn more about Holocaust Revisionism?
The following is excerpted from the article: # 5: What does Holocaust Revisionism claim?
“First of all, because of false representations by the media, it is necessary that we first clarify what Holocaust Revisionism does not maintain.
* it does not deny that Jews were persecuted under the Third Reich;
* it does not deny that Jews were deprived of civil rights;
* it does not deny that Jews were deported;
* it does not deny the existence of Jewish ghettos;
* it does not deny the existence of concentration camps;
* it does not deny the existence of crematoriums in concentration camps;
* it does not deny that Jews died for a great number of reasons;
* it does not deny that other minorities were also persecuted such as gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and political dissenters;
* and finally, it does not deny that all the above mentioned things were unjust.
None of these crimes of the National Socialist regime are doubted by Holocaust revisionists. In the view of the Revisionists, however, all these injustices have nothing to do with the Holocaust, which is defined as planned and organized mass murder, carried out specifically in homicidal gas chambers (see Question 4).
[Page 13 of Verdict]
Holocaust revisionists believe the following to be correct:
1. There was no National Socialist order for the physical extermination of Jews (cf. R. Widmann);
2. Likewise, there was no National-Socialist plan for physical extermination of Jews;
3. There was no German organization and no budget for carrying out the alleged extermination plan. Consider the statement by the world-renowned Holocaust researcher R. Hilberg.
Raul Hilberg: “...But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures of the Jews. The measures were taken step by step. Thus came about not so much a plan being consistently carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind-reading by a far-flung German bureaucracy.”
4. In detailed investigations of former German concentration camps, expert researchers have established: The internment camps had no homicidal gas chambers or sophisticated methods for mass murder (see G. Rudolf, J. Graf (summarized in English by Mattogno, C. Mattogno, F. Berg). Furthermore, the reports of mass shootings were greatly exaggerated and taken out of context (see H. Tiedemann und G. Rudolf/S. Schröder);
5. There were neither adequate industrial facilities nor sufficient fuel to cremate such a huge number of corpses. In fact, the capacity of the crematories was barely sufficient to cremate the bodies of those who died from starvation and uncontrollable epidemics (see the investigations by C. Mattogno and A. Neumaier).
6. There is no documentation for the existence of homicidal gas chambers (see G. Rudolf and W. Rademacher), and no material traces of alleged mass murders (see sources given under nos. 4 & 5, R. Krege as well as J.C. Ball, also here). All the "proofs" rely on eyewitness accounts, whose unreliability is widely acknowledged (see F. Faurisson, M. Köhler and J. Graf).
7. Despite massive observation by spies and resistance groups in areas in the near vicinity of the German concentration camps, all of Germany's wartime enemies conducted themselves as if no exterminations of Jews were taking place. The charges of genocide
[Page 14 of Verdict]
were not raised until after Germany's defeat, when there was no functioning German government to dispute them (see A. Butz).
8. Statistical investigations of living Jews worldwide show clearly that the losses of this ethnic group during the Second World War were nowhere near six million. The exact number is probably well under half a million (see the research by W.N. Sanning and G. Rudolf.
# 6 What about those pictures of mountains of dead bodies in the concentration camps?
[Page 15 of Verdict]
Here is a photograph of victims of the typhus epidemic in a mass grave on the concentration camp in Bergen-Belsen, taken by the British Army. It is typical of a large number of such photos often shown on TV Holocaust documentaries either without commentary or else with allegations that the dead are victims of the Holocaust. In fact, it is a photograph of victims of an epidemic which occurred at war's end. The cause of death is evident from the condition of the corpses. If they had been gassed they would not be emaciated and if they had died of starvation they would have swollen joints and stomachs. Any medical professional will see at first glance that these people died of typhus.
All photographs of heaps of corpses were taken in Western camps around the end of the war, such as Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, and Buchenwald, where historians now agree no mass murders took place. Significantly, there are no such photographs taken at the camps in which mass murder is alleged to have occurred (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek.) These eastern camps were all in areas which came under Soviet control at war's end. It is very telling that the Soviets released no pictures of mass graves or heaps of corpses and allowed no journalists, medical professionals, or other experts to examine the camps. Since the end of the 1980s, Revisionists have been investigating these sites for evidence of mass murder, but the officials have obstructed their efforts by all possible means.
In the absence of authentic photographs documenting mass murder, it frequently happens that photographs of those who died in the Western camps at war's end of malnutrition and typhus are presented as evidence of deliberate mass murder. To be sure, the hellish conditions in the Western camps at war's end convinced many Allied observers that mass murder had taken place, as initial reports indicate. In reality, these conditions resulted from a situation for which the German government was not solely responsible. Toward the end of the war, Himmler illogically ordered the evacuation of the eastern camps as the Red Army approached, which led to hopeless overcrowding in the western camps. By that time, Allied bombing had completely destroyed the German infrastructure, making it impossible to supply the camps with food, medicines, and sanitation supplies. Misunderstandings about the causes of the massive die-off continue to this day, especially among Americans.
The respected leftist historian Norbert Frei has given the following reason for misinterpretation, (from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 35 (1987) page 400): "The shock of these discoveries [of mountains of corpses] often led to false conclusions which turned out to be enduring."
There is no denying that a government which imprisons people in camps is responsible for them and so the unjustly imprisoned were therefore victims of the Third Reich, even if they died "only" of disease. However, one should not overlook the fact that by the war's end, mountains of corpses had become commonplace throughout Germany. In German cities there were 600,000 victims of Allied terror bombings. Millions more died of starvation and disease, which continued rampant through 1949. In Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia, three million Germans were murdered by Serbs, Czechs, Poles, and Russians in the course of history's bloodiest ethnic cleansing. In the POW camps of the western Allies, a million young German men died and millions more vegetated. Hundreds of thousands more were shipped to the labor camps of the Soviet GULag never to be seen again. But the media show only one variety of corpse piles, those in the concentration camps. We should all ask ourselves why this is so.
Should the dignity and respect that we owe the victims of atrocities, depend on their nationality?
9. Whatever the circumstances, don't Jewish victims deserve respect and compensation?
Everyone who is treated unjustly is entitled to reparations and every victim of crime deserves respect commensurate with human dignity. Revisionism is concerned solely with determination of objective historic fact and has no desire to deny either respect or restitution to anyone who has suffered injustice. In case the evidence shows that a particular historical event did not have
[Page 16 of Verdict]
anywhere near as many victims as was previously believed, this is simply a historical determination, which has no effect on the fate of anyone. Objective evidence could even be of assistance to newly discovered victims.
Since the end of World War II, Germany has paid well over 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion) marks in reparations to Jewish individuals and institutions. In the course of these reparations, over five and a half million applications by Holocaust survivors have been processed. Obviously, the number of survivors is very large. Since the German obligation has no statute of limitations, demands for reparation have been uninterrupted and have even escalated in recent years. However, we are not addressing the question of whether those who are demanding still more money are entitled to it, after fifty-five years. Much more important is the question of why the present day German taxpayer should pay these sums. 99.9% of all German taxpayers today are sixty-five or younger and thus were at most small children when World War II ended.
Let us direct a somewhat provocative question to you, dear reader:
How many Jews have you murdered in your lifetime, how many foreigners have you enslaved, how many members of minorities have you persecuted?
It is an absurd question, of course, because the answer is always "none" (at least I hope so). Why then should German taxpayers contribute billions upon billions in reparations? Why are they condemned to eternal extortion, penance, and humility? Does anyone really wonder why taxes and unemployment in Germany are constantly rising?
Perhaps you remember a basic Christian principle which is the law in every constitutional state: accountability does not extend to our relatives: there is no such thing as hereditary guilt! In Germany, this principle is violated. In case of Germany, someone is cashing in on the alleged guilt of German parents, grandparents, great-grandparents.
In passing, wouldn't it be interesting to know when the millions of Germans who were exploited as slaves by Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Englishmen, Belgians, Jugoslavs, Poles, Danes, Russians, Czechs, for years and even decades after the end of WWII, will finally be allowed to claim reparations? When will the 12 million eastern German victims of ethnic cleansing and the survivors of the three million who were murdered in the process, the six hundred thousand victims of Allied terror bombings, the five million who died of starvation under Allied blockage and de-industrialization and Eisenhower's withholding of food to them, be given proper memorialization? (Please refer to the work by J. Bacque.)
Do not all victims of injustice deserve the same respect and reparations? Or is it the case that some are more equal than others?
[Page 17 of Verdict]
At the end of this article was attached a sticker with the words “The Holocaust Never Happened,” (copied from pro Holocaust literature), which was designed to be removed and stuck up in public places.
b) Around the end of 2001, Rudolf posted on the Internet website < www.vho.org> the German translation of a flyer in the English language “The Holocaust Controversy and the Case For Free Speech” which could still be viewed in Germany as of 2 July 2004 and which read in part as follows:
THE HISTORICAL ISSUE
Revisionists agree with establishment historians that the German National Socialist State singled out the Jewish people for special and cruel treatment. In addition to viewing Jews in the framework of traditional anti-Semitism, the National Socialists also saw them as being an influential force behind international communism and behind the so-called international "finance capital," which they held responsible for the worldwide economic crisis and for the impoverishment of German workers. During World War II, Jews were considered to be enemies of the German State and a potential danger to its war efforts, much like the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were viewed in the U.S. Consequently, Jews were stripped of their rights, forced to live in ghettos, conscripted for labor, deprived of their property, deported, and otherwise mistreated. Many tragically perished.
In contrast to establishment historians, Revisionists claim that the German State had NO policy to exterminate the Jewish people (or anyone else) in homicidal gas chambers or by killing them through abuse or neglect. Revisionists also maintain that the figure of six million Jewish deaths is an irresponsible exaggeration, and that no execution gas chambers existed in any camp in Europe which was under German control. Fumigation gas chambers, both stationary and mobile, did exist to delouse clothing and equipment to prevent disease at POW, labor, and concentration camps and at the fighting front. It is highly likely that it was from this lifesaving procedure that the myth of extermination gas chambers emerged.
Revisionists generally hold that the Allied governments, and in particular the Soviets, decided to carry their wartime "black propaganda" of German monstrosities over into the postwar period. This was done for essentially three reasons.
[Page 18 of Verdict]
1. The Allies felt it necessary to continue to justify the great sacrifices that were made in fighting two world wars. 2. The Allies wanted to divert attention from, and to justify, their own particularly brutal crimes against humanity. Soviet atrocities alone caused the death of uncounted millions of civilians in the Soviet Union and in all countries of eastern and central Europe. American and British saturation bombings of German and Japanese cities causing over a million civilians to be burned or buried alive. 3. The Allies needed justification for postwar arrangements involving the total dismantling of German industry, a policy of starvation causing the deaths of many millions of German civilians, the robbing of German patents worth trillions of dollars, and the annexation of large parts of Germany into Poland and the USSR. These territories were not disputed borderlands but consisted of 20% of the entire German territory. The twelve million Germans living in these regions were robbed of their property and brutally expelled. More than two millions perished during this most heinous ethnic cleansing of world history.
During the war, and in the postwar era as well, Zionist organizations became deeply involved in creating and spreading Holocaust stories. Their purpose was to drum up world sympathy and support for Jewish causes, especially for the creation of the State of Israel. Today, the Holocaust story, which is perceived as a crime of a right-wing regime, plays an important role for leftist-internationalist groups, for Zionist organizations, and for groups within Jewish communities. It is the leaders of these political and propaganda organizations who continue to work to sustain the orthodox Holocaust legend and the myth of German monstrosity during World War II.
Those who claim that these interpretations are anti-Jewish are reading into them something which simply is not there. Revisionists do not claim that Jewish leaders or organizations did anything in the war and postwar era which the Allied Governments themselves did not do.
For those who believe that the Nuremberg Trials revealed the truth about German war crimes, it is a terrible shock to discover that the then Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Harlan Fiske Stone, described the Nuremberg court as "a high-grade lynching party" for Germans (Alpheus T. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, New York: Viking, 1956, p. 716).
[Page 19 of Verdict]
We’ve all seen "The Photographs." Endlessly. Newsreel photos taken by U.S. and British photographers at the liberation of the German camps, and especially the awful scenes at Dachau, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen. For instance, look at the one at the top of this leaflet. These photos and films are usually presented in a way in which it is either stated or implied that the scenes resulted from deliberate German policies. The photographs are real, but their interpretation is false.
Even mainstream historians admit that there was no German policy at any of those camps to kill the internees. In the last months of the war, while Soviet armies were invading Germany from the east, British and U.S. bombers were destroying every major city in Germany with saturation bombing. Transportation, the food distribution system, medical, and sanitation services all broke down. That was the purpose of these air raids, which was the most barbaric form of warfare in Europe since the Mongol invasion.
Millions of refugees fleeing the Soviet armies were pouring into central and western Germany. As a result of the ongoing war, of starvation, and epidemics, millions of civilians were dying all over Germany. The camps were not exempted from this tragedy. Camps that were still under German control were overcrowded with internees evacuated from the east. By early 1945, these inmates suffered from malnutrition and epidemics like typhus and cholera, to which many succumbed. When the press entered the camps with British and U.S. soldiers, they found the results of that. They took "The Photographs."
Still, at camps such as Buchenwald, Dachau, and Bergen-Belsen tens of thousands of relatively healthy internees were liberated. They were there in the camps when "The Photographs" were taken. There are newsreels of these internees walking through the camp streets laughing and talking. Others picture exuberant internees throwing their caps in the air and cheering their liberators. It is only natural to ask why you haven’t seen those particular films and photos while you’ve seen the others hundreds of times.
It is often claimed that there are "tons" of captured German documents proving the Jewish genocide. When challenged on this, however, only a handful of documents are produced, the authenticity or interpretation of which is highly questionable. If pressed for reliable documentation, it is then claim that the Germans destroyed all the relevant documents to hide their evil deeds, or the absurd claim is made that the Germans used code language, whispered verbal orders, or conveyed orders through a meeting of minds.
[Page 20 of Verdict]
As a matter of fact, all available documentation and material traces indicate that there was no order for a mass murder of Jews, no plan, no budget, no weapon—that is, no gas chamber—and no victim—that is, not a single autopsied body has been shown to have been gassed.
During medieval witch trials, many witnesses told similar accounts about broom-riding witches and the devil. Since most statements were made independently of each other and without pressure, this was taken as evidence that the stories must be true; material evidence was never produced. "Common knowledge," a word invented in those days, and social expectations formed the basis of these accounts, not the truth.
Today, we face the same "common knowledge" produced by 60 years of one-sided mass media propaganda and massive social and sometimes even legal pressure to conform to certain views. To support their theories, anti-Revisionists depend almost exclusively on "eyewitness" testimony produced in this poisoned atmosphere.
During the war crimes trials many "eyewitnesses" testified that Germans made soap out of human fat and lamp shades from human skin. Allied prosecutors even produced evidence to support these charges. For decades, highly respected scholars at the most prestigious universities in the world sanctioned these stories, leading us to believe that such stories were "irrefutable truths." But within time, many such stories have become untenable: In 1990, Yehuda Bauer, director of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University, Tel Aviv, admitted: "The Nazis never made soap from Jews…" (Jerusalem Post, Int. Ed., 5 May 1990, p. 6).
Bruno Baum, a former communist inmate in Auschwitz, was allowed to brag in summer 1945 in a Soviet newspaper: "The whole propaganda which started about Auschwitz abroad was initiated by us [German communist inmates] with the help of our Polish comrades." (Deutsche Volkszeitung, Soviet paper in occupied East Germany, 31 July 1945). Thus, it is not surprising to learn that during several trials in Germany, it emerged that the testimony of witnesses from eastern Europe had been orchestrated by communist authorities.
[Page 21 of Verdict]
During a trial of an alleged former camp guard in Jerusalem, even the Israeli court had to admit that all witness testimony was not credible, which resulted in the defendant’s acquittal.
The only two witnesses who were ever cross-examined had to admit in 1985 that their accounts were not true: Arnold Friedman confessed of never having experienced what he had claimed, and Rudolf Vrba admitted of having used poetic license to "embellish" his statements. Vrba is one of the most famous Auschwitz witnesses. However, once asked if all claims Vrba had made about Auschwitz in the famous movie Shoa were true, Vrba replied: "I do not know. I was just an actor and I recited my text." He told this with a sardonic smile to his Jewish friend Georg Klein (G. Klein, Pietà, Stockholm, p. 141).
During and after the war there were "eyewitnesses" to mass gassings at Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, and other camps in Germany proper. Today, virtually all recognized scholars dismiss this testimony as false.
Establishment historians, however, still claim that mass gassings happened at several camps in Poland. The evidence for this claim is, in reality, qualitatively no different to the false testimony and evidence for the alleged mass gassings at the camps in Germany proper.
With regard to confessions by Germans at war crimes trials, it is now well documented that many were obtained through coercion, intimidation, and even physical torture, just like during the medieval witch trials.
The Hidden Genocide
Those who promote the Holocaust story complain that "the whole world" was indifferent to the genocide which allegedly was occurring in German occupied Europe. They claim that this was due to some great moral flaw in the nature of Western man, or that people did not realize the enormity of what was happening. It is true that the world responded with indifference. But perhaps it was because they did not believe it.
It is certain that if there had been "killing factories" in Poland murdering millions of civilians, then the Red Cross, the Pope, humanitarian agencies, the Allied governments, neutral governments, and prominent figures such as Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Eisenhower, and many others would have known about them and would have often and unambiguously mentioned it, and condemned it. They did not! The promoters admit that only a tiny group of individuals believed the story at that time—many of whom were connected either with Jewish or with Communist propaganda
[Page 22 of Verdict]
agencies. The rise of the Holocaust story reads more like the success story of a PR campaign than anything else.
Winston Churchill wrote his six volume work The Second World War without mentioning a program of mass-murder and genocide. In his book Crusade in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower also failed to mention gas chambers. Was the weapon used to murder millions of Jews unworthy of a passing reference? Was our future president being insensitive toward Jews?
2. In 2005, Rudolf published through his firm “Castle Hill Publishers” a work he had himself had written entitled “Lectures on the Holocaust -- Controversial issues Cross Examined.” Around the end of March and beginning of April he posted this work on the homepage of < www.vho.org>, making it available for free download. This work could still be view in Germany as of 20 March 2006. The printed version, which contained the same content appeared in an edition of 2,000 copies. Rudolf mailed at least 720 copies to his customers in Germany, for which they customers paid a purchase price of 30 Euros.
As is stated in the Introduction (page 9), the “Lectures on Holocaust” were supposed to constitute “an introduction into the problems and questions confronting scientific research into Holocaust as well as an attempt to summarize the present state of knowledge.” According to the title page “the usual moralistic, political and pseudo scientific arguments against Revisionism would be discussed and authoritatively disproven.” The 566 page work (including appendix) is organized into an Introduction and five “Lectures,” bearing the following titles. “First Lecture: Food for Thought; Second Lecture: Public Controversies; Third Lecture: Material and Documentary Evidence; Fourth Lecture: Witness Testimony and Confessions; Fifth Lecture: On Science and Freedom.” There is also a section on acknowledgements, a bibliography and an index of names. The individual lectures, in which Rudolf presents Revisionist arguments, are presented in the form of a fictitious dialog between Rudolf (R) and his Listeners (L).
The reader is told that the lectures are in part based on actual lectures that Rudolf had presented.
[Page 23 of Verdict]
The use of quotation marks and extensive footnotes, as well as the inclusion of a voluminous bibliography in the appendix, give the book the appearance of a scientific work. On page 18 Rudolf defines the officially designated Holocaust as follows. “I will call it the premeditated murder of 6 million Jews who had come under the German sway, carried out systematically, almost totally, and on an industrial scale by the National Socialist government of Germany, primarily by means of gas chambers, that is, chemical slaughterhouses, with subsequent obliteration of all traces through incineration of the victims.”
Here he presents the Holocaust as untruthful and he disdainfully injuring the honor of its victims. In numerous passages he disputes the fact of systematic and state organized mass murder of Jews during World War II, committed primarily in gas chambers of concentration camps. He suggests to the reader that the Holocaust was invented in many details as well as its entirety, by interested parties, including Jews, in furtherance of their financial and political interests. He suggests that the interested parties have overstated misdeeds and and falsified history to the disadvantage of the German nation. Despite his allegations of scientific objectivity, the book does not present an honest depiction and accurate description of the present state of Holocaust research: it is interspersed with numerous polemical and even cynical passages and remarks. In ridiculing sufferings of victims of the Holocaust, Rudolf is motivated by propagating the theories of Holocaust Revisionism rather than searching for truth.
For example, the book includes the following expressions and passages:
a) “First Lecture: Food for Thought”
a) Under “Part I.1.: An Honest Error?” (pages 15 – 18, Rudolf refers to an article that appeared in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 1992 entitled “Evidence of the Crime: Shoes, Shoes and even Children's Shoes.” It is a reporter’s visit to Stutthof Concentration Camp near Danzig, now part of Poland, which has been converted to a museum. Rudolf, speaking as “R,” attacks a passage in the article (framed in quotation marks) in which the reporter states that
[Page 24 of Verdict]
in such surroundings, six million Jews and a total of 26 million prisoners were killed in the installations of the murder camps. Rudolf states that this number is “a blatant exaggeration” and goes on to say: “A closer look tells us that this passage is in quotation marks. It has thus been taken from a source which the author does not mention. We may assume that it is a statement made by a Polish guide or that it has been copied from a commemorative plaque in the Stutthof Museum, and that the author of the article simply did not know any better when he used that figure uncritically. However, for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung it is more than just a black mark when it circulates such nonsense without any critical qualification, thus joining the ranks of the propagandists who proffer moral charges against the German people, which far exceed any reasonable measure. Unfortunately, such an uncritical attitude seems to have become the standard for our journalists. The critical reader will notice more such shameful slips: the title of the article insinuates that the existence of shoes proves the crime. However, a pile of shoes prima facie proves nothing but the fact that someone put them there.... The piles of old clothing and discarded shoes that we come across in charity drives and thrift stores do not prove that their former owners were murdered.”
Rudolf’s “Listener” then relates that during a visit to the Auschwitz Museum, he saw “...one of these famous piles of shoes” in a large glass showcase that had been left open. The visitor was surprised to find that the showcase was filled with wooden boards placed at odd angles and covered with a single layer of shoes, thus a “display” designed to resemble a large pile. “R” then asked “L” what time of the year he had visited the museum and “L” replied that it was in the winter. “R” then explained that this was “...completely understandable. The Auschwitz Museum has very few visitors in winter and do their renovating and arranging during that time.
Probably the staff at that time felt quite safe.” “L” then said that after he had related this incident to relatives, an elderly acquaintance of theirs, who was a native of Upper Silesia, recalled that after the war, they had been required by the occupying powers to collect shoes and deliver them to the concentration camp. “R” added that the Soviets found huge piles of shoes when they liberated the camp at Majdanek. They photographed the shoes and used the photos as evidence of the mass murder of prisoners. Subsequently it turned out that a local firm that hired Majdanek
[Page 25 of Verdict]
internees had conducted a shoe repair business there. This business reconditioned shoes sent by internees of all the other concentration camps. The shoes had been stored in the area used as a warehouse. Asked by “L” whether he was implying that all personal objects displayed in the various camps had not belonged to prisoners, “R” answered as follows:
“No, I simply meant to stress the fact that in the heated atmosphere of the final months of the Second World War, people sometimes came to conclusions which later turned out to be erroneous. You should also be aware that what the media tell you, what books try to teach you, or what museums sell you as truth is not necessarily the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is not really anything new, but let me underline the fact that this also holds true for the Holocaust. At first glance, a collection of objects should be taken for what it proves: somebody collected them and placed them there. Such a collection proves very little about the fate of their former owners. But let us return to the newspaper article just quoted. Even if we disregard those uncritical details, which undermine the reputation of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, we are left with statements of ostensible fact, undeniable and unassailed by conventional historiography: the Holocaust with its perfectly tuned annihilation machine was a unique crime against humanity. The problem we face is the difficulty we have in salvaging truth from the rubble of fanciful embellishments and the mountains of propagandistic exaggeration that have been piled over it.
bb) Under number 1.3, “Since When Do We Know About the Holocaust?” (pages 19-28). Rudolf (“R”) asks “When did the world at large first become aware of the fact that six million Jews in central and eastern Europe were either threatened by death or had already been killed? Is there anyone who can answer that question?” He thereupon opines that it was not until the military tribunal in Nuremberg was under way, that is, sometime in 1946, that mention was heard of the number of six million. He continues as follows:
“That is the standard view of things. And if you consider that an investigation into what happened in the territories occupied by Germany became possible only after the War, this seems to be a reasonable assumption. But let us look more closely into the matter. An analysis of the proceedings of the Nuremberg Tribunal tells us that the figure of six million Jewish victims was based neither on statistical evidence from census data nor on the results
[Page 26 of Verdict]
of an investigation into the material evidence connected to the crimes, but merely on hearsay statements given by two SS bureaucrats. One of these statements, given by Wilhelm Höttl, was produced only in writing. The other, by Dieter Wisliceny, was given orally before the tribunal. However, Wisliceny was never cross-examined. Both witnesses assert that they heard the figure of six million mentioned by Adolf Eichmann, but the latter denied this during his trial at Jerusalem in 1961. Both Höttl and Wisliceny were originally held in the defendants’ wing of the Nuremberg prison because of their involvement in the mass deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. Their statements, however, allowed them to be moved to the witnesses’ wing –- a life saving switch in many cases. Whereas Wisliceny and Eichmann were later tried and hanged, Höttl was never prosecuted, even though he had been just as active in th deportations. It seems obvious that he was promised leniency for his services, that is to say, for his incriminating testimony, and that the promise was eventually kept, contrary to what happened to Wisliceny. What Höttl says in his autobiography, though, when he tries to justify his original statements, clashes with his own earlier statements and makes him appear a dubious witness.
L: In other words, Höttl and Wisliceny tried to save their hides by collaborating with the prosecutors?
R: We can’t say that with certainty. The only thing certain is that the noose was dangling in front of the mental eye of many prisoners, both in the defendants’ and the witnesses’ wing of the Nuremberg prison. So it is not surprising, for one or the other to have struck a deal to save his life.
L: Were the witnesses who appeared before the Nuremberg Tribunal also held in the prison?
R: Yes, at least to the extent that they had something to hide, that is, to the extent that they had themselves belonged to an organization the Allies treated as criminal, such as the German government, German military, the SA, SS, etc. These were “forced witnesses” so to speak. They were not free to decide whether or not to remain in Nuremberg and testify.
L: That doesn’t paint a very pretty picture, does it?
R: That’s right, and we’ll speak later on about the general procedures applying to this and other trials. But now let’s return to the six million figure. In the work on the Nuremberg Tribunal that he published in 1996, David Irving, now blacklisted on account
of his controversial views, wondered how some Zionist leaders were able, in June 1945, immediately after the cessation of hostilities in Europe, to present Washington with a precise figure for the number of Jewish victims. That was six million, of course. course, even though it was plainly impossible to take any sort of census in the chaotic conditions prevailing in Europe at that time.
[Page 27 of Verdict]
L: Well, maybe these Jewish organizations had been in touch with Jewish groups in Europe and realized that these no longer existed.
R: Maybe. But let me continue. A year earlier than Irving, the German historian Joachim Hoffmann, who had worked for decades in the German Federal Research Office for Military History, noticed that Ilya Ehrenburg, the chief atrocity propagandist for the Soviets, had published the figure of six million in the Soviet foreign language press at least as early as December 1944, more than four months before the war came to an end. In May 1944, Zionist activist Rabbi Dov Weissmandel stated that as of that time, six million European and Russian Jews had been annihilated. And Wilhelm Höttl found an article in the February 1943 issue of Reader’s Digest which stated that at least half the six million Jews under Hitler’s control had been murdered. A look into the pages of the New York Times shows us that this was far from being an isolated estimate. Here are a few quotations from the New York Times:
“13 December 1942m page 21:
‘...Authenticated reports point to 2,000,000 Jews who have already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism, and plans for the total extermination of all Jews upon whom the Nazis can lay their hands. The slaughter of a third of the Jewish population in Hitler‘s domain [3x2,000,000=6,000,000] and the threatened slaughter of all is a Holocaust without parallel.’”
“20 December 1942, page 23:
What is happening to the 5,000,000 Jews of German-held Europe, all of whom face extermination? …Early in December 1942 the State Department in Washington gave some figures showing that the number of Jewish victims who were deported and who have perished since 1939 in Axis-controlled Europe, has now reached the appalling figure of 2,000,000; and that 5,000,000 were in danger of extermination.”
“2 March 1943, pages 1 and 4:
Rabbi Hertz said to secure freedom to live for 6,000,000 of their fellow Jews by readiness to rescue those who might still escape Nazi torture and butchery.”
“10 March 1943, p. 12:
2,000,000 Jews killed in Europe… The four million remaining to be murdered are being murdered according to plan.” (2+4=6 million)”
“20 April 1943, p. 11:
Two million Jews have been wiped out… Five million more are in immediate danger of execution.” (2+5=7 million)
L: So it was known for a long time that some 6 million were threatened by extermination. This is not really surprising, since it must have been widely known just how many Jews were living in the areas later occupied by German troops.
R: That’s a good observation. It means that the source of the figure of 6 million was not a factual determination of the number of
[Page 28 of Verdict]
victims, but was rather based on the assumption that all Jews in the sway of the Reich were threatened by extermination. There is, however, an argument against this theory. The argument is based on a quotation from the year 1936, a time when Hitler reigned only over the Jews who were then living in Germany, and no one could as yet predict the war and Germany’s initial victories. At that time there was a hearing organized by the Peel Commission, which was envisioning the partitioning of Palestine. Chaim Weizmann, who was at that time President of the Zionist world organization, appeared before the Commission and asserted that 6 million Jews were living in Europe as though they were in a prison and were regarded as undesirable. Here again, we have the presumption shared by all European Jews, including those in the Soviet Union. In 1936, one could say that only Germany and Poland were following a fundamentally anti-Semitic policy, and together those two countries accounted for some 3+ million Jews. The remaining 2+ million Jews mentioned by Weizmann certainly did not feel that they were living in a prison specifically erected for Jews. The Jews in the Soviet Union may not have been free, but their oppression was part of the general policy of the totalitarian regime there, not a movement directed specifically against them and no one else.
L: It was still a prison where many different peoples were locked up.
R: I will grant you that, but this was still no argument for giving the Jews part of Palestine, and that was the background of Weizmann’s statements before the Peel Commission. If the oppression of the Jews in the Soviet Union had been sufficient grounds for conceding them a section of Palestine – that is, to take it away from the Arabs living there – what could the other peoples of the Soviet Union have claimed for themselves -- the Christians, Muslims, Ukrainians, Germans, Georgians, Armenians, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Mongols, and countless others? Another part of Palestine? Or other parts of the Arab world? The fact is that Weizmann was using this impressive figure of 6 million suffering and oppressed Jews in his effort to reach a political goal, a Zionist goal. We also know that he failed, at that time.
L: Now we are getting away a bit from our original question, because, after all, Weizmann did not speak of a holocaust or an impending or ongoing extermination. That was said only later, in press accounts during the war.
R: During which war?
L: Excuse me? During the Second World War, of course!
R: That is precisely where you are wrong. In fact, similar accounts were circulated during the First World War and, in particular, in the immediate post-war period of that war. I see that many of you are looking at me with astonishment and disbelief. Well then, allow me
[Page 29 of Verdict]
to go a little deeper into what was happening at that time. I refer to the results of research done by U.S. author Don Heddesheimer, who wrote a book on this subject. From about 1915 onwards, various American newspapers, especially the New York Times, were reporting that the Jews in central and eastern Europe in particular were suffering under the conditions brought about by the war. Between 1919 and 1927, in the U.S., massive campaigns were organized by Jewish circles to collect money, claiming that five to six million Jews in central and eastern Europe were near death. I will quote a few relevant passages from those press reports and campaign ads, starting with the most recent one known to me:
New York Times, Dec. 4, 1926: “five million starving people… half the Jews of the world, smitten by pestilence and famine.”
New York Times, April 21, 1926: “This is the cry that comes from the Jews of Europe… a whole people is dying… Millions of Jews are trapped in Europe.”
New York Times, Jan. 9, 1922, p. 19: “...unspeakable horrors and infinite crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people. Dr. Hertz declared that 1,000,000 human beings had been butchered and that for three years 3,000,000 persons in the Ukraine had been made ‘to pass through the horrors of hell.’”
L: Is that the same Mr. Hertz you referred to a while ago who claimed on March 2 1943 in the same newspaper, that six million members of the Jewish people were on the verge of being slaughtered by the Nazis and had to be rescued (p.21)?
R: Yes, it is the same man.
L: The similarity between the two statements is striking.
R: I shall show you more similarities in a minute. But first, let me produce some quotations from the 1920s and from WW1 and the post-war months:
New York Times, May 7, 1920: “Jewish war sufferers in Central and
Eastern Europe, where six millions face horrifying conditions of famine, disease and death.”
New York Times, May 5, 1920, p. 9: “...To save six million men and women in Eastern Europe from extermination by hunger and disease.”
New York Times, May 5, 1920, p. 19: “Six million starving, fever-stricken sufferers in war-torn Europe appeal to us.”
New York Times, May 3, 1920, p. 11: “Your help is needed to save the lives of six million people in Eastern and Central Europe.”
New York Times, May 3, 1920, p. 12: “In Russia and the neighboring countries the Jews have been subject to a particularly
[Page 30 of Verdict]
malignant persecution. It is estimated that more than five millions are actually starving or on the verge of starvation, and a virulent typhus epidemic is raging among them and already spreading among neighboring populations.”
New York Times, May 2, 1920, p. 1: “...Six million human beings, without food, shelter, clothing or medical treatment.”
New York Times, May 1, 1920, p. 8: “But the lives of 6,000,000 human beings are waiting for an answer.”
New York Times, Apr. 21, 1920, p. 8: “In Europe there are today more than 5,000,000 Jews who are starving or on the verge of starvation, and many are in the grip of a virulent typhus epidemic.”
New York Times, Dec. 3, 1919, p. 19: “nothing on earth except a miracle can prevent the death by freezing and starvation of from 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 people in Europe and the Middle East this winter. …atrocious Jewish massacre.”
New York Times, Dec. 3, 1919, p. 24: “Five Million Face Famine in Poland… The war has left 5,000,000 destitute and stricken Jews in Eastern Europe.”
New York Times, Nov. 12, 1919, p. 7: “...tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth. …a million children and five million parents and elders.”
The American Hebrew, Oct. 31, 1919, pp. 582-.: “From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help. …six million human beings… Six million men and women are dying. …in the threatened holocaust of human life. …six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying…” (see Appendix)
L: Look at that! We have it all together. The 6 million and the notion of a holocaust.
R: Yes, this source is perhaps the one where the parallels with later accounts are most striking, but let me go a little further back in time.
New York Times, Oct. 26, 1919, p. 1: “4,000,000 Starving Jews of Eastern Europe.”
New York Times, Sept. 29, 1919, p. 7: “tragically unbelievable poverty, starvation and disease... about 6,000,000 souls, or half the Jewish population of the earth.”
New York Times, Aug. 10, 1917: “Germans Let Jews Die. Women and Children in Warsaw Starving to Death… Jewish mothers, mothers of mercy, feel happy to see their nursing babies die; at least they are through with their suffering.”
L: Oh my God, now we have the Germans as villains!
[Page 31 of Verdict]
R: Yes, but this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, various German agencies helped, during and after the war, to channel the funds collected by the Jewish organizations to eastern Europe. The branding of Germans as villains was part of the war propaganda and came to an end soon after the war. From then on, the focus was on actual or invented atrocities in the countries of eastern Europe. In this connection, I have this article dated May 23, 1919, that appeared on p. 12 of the New York Time, about alleged anti-Jewish pogroms in Poland. In an ironical twist of history, the editors of the NYT somehow doubted the veracity of the report, for they said
“It has been pointed out that some of these reports may have originated with German propagandists or may have been exaggerated by them with the obvious purpose of discrediting Poland with the Allies, in the hope that Germany might be the gainer thereby. Germany might have assisted in spreading
these stories, may have invented them, although it would be a cruel deception to wring the hearts of great multitudes of people in order to gain such an end.”
R: If we follow the NYT, false reports regarding Jewish sufferings are cruel. We should remember that.
L: All that is begging the question of whether those sufferings and deaths reported by the NYT as having befallen the Jewish population of eastern Europe actually reflected the truth.
R: Don Heddesheimer has analyzed this in his book and has come to the conclusion that the Jews, on the whole, were the only population group of eastern Europe to come out of the First World War relatively unscathed. I guess that answers the question.
But come along with me on this trip into the depths of history.
New York Times, May 22, 1916, p. 11: “[…] of the normal total of about 2,450,000 Jews in Poland, Lithuania, and Courland, 1,770,000 remain, and of that number about 700,000 are in urgent and continuous want.”
R: As early as 1916, a book entitled The Jews in the Eastern War Zone describing the alleged plight of the European Jews was sent to 25,000 important persons of American public life. The book asserted that Russia had transformed a certain area into something like a penal colony where six million Jews were forced to live miserably and in constant fear of being massacred, without any rights or social status: “[…] a kind of prison with six million inmates, guarded by an army of corrupt and brutal jailers.”
R: This book The Jews in the Eastern War Zone was at the time quoted extensively in the media, e.g. in the NYT.
[Page 32 of Verdict]
The earliest report found so far dates from the first year of the war:
New York Times, Jan. 14, 1915, p. 3: “In the world today there are about 13,000,000 Jews, of whom more than 6,000,000 are in the heart of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow […].”
R: But let us go one step further back. In 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise made the following statement before Jewish welfare organizations in the USA: “there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”
L: It would seem that we are dealing with a constant in Jewish suffering, the figure of 6 million.
R: There is a specific reason for that. Benjamin Blech tells about an ancient Jewish prophecy, promising the Jews the return to the Promised Land after the loss of six million of their people.
L: The passages you quoted would indicate that Jewish sufferings were useful to various Jewish leaders as an argument to bring about that very aim – the return to the Promised Land.
R: Right. We must not forget that Palestine had been promised to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration by England during the First World War. That was, no doubt, a major reason for the holocaust propaganda during and after the First World War.
L: Why would the NYT publish so many of those reports, as opposed to other newspapers?
R: Well, first of all, I have quoted here the NYT because, then as now, it is taken to be one of the most widely read, the most respected, and the most influential newspapers. That is not to say that other newspapers did not report similar accounts, but those other archives have not yet been searched by anyone for such items, as far as I know. On the other hand, we must remember that the NYT was at the time already in Jewish hands. In this regard, let me quote its former chief editor, Max Frankel: “Exploiting this atmosphere [of anti-fascism], and Gentile guilt about the Holocaust, American Jews of my generation were emboldened to make themselves culturally conspicuous, to flaunt their ethnicity, to find literary inspiration in their roots, and to bask in the resurrection of Israel… Instead of idols and passions, I worshiped words and argument, becoming part of an unashamedly Jewish verbal invasion of American culture. It was especially
[Page 33 of Verdict]
satisfying to realize the wildest fantasy of the world’s anti- Semites: Inspired by our heritage as keepers of the book, creators of law, and supreme storytellers, Jews in America did finally achieve a disproportionate influence in universities and in all media of communication… Within a few years of Punch’s ascendancy [“Punch” Sulzberger, Owner of the NYT], there came a time when not only the executive editor – A. M. Rosenthal – and I but ALL the top editors listed on the paper’s masthead were Jews. Over vodka in the publisher’s back room, this was occasionally mentioned as an impolitic condition, but it was altered only gradually, without any affirmative action on behalf of Christians... And I wrote in confidence that The Times no longer suffered from any secret desire to deny or overcome its ethnic roots.”
L: I guess that is sufficient to explain this one-sidedness.
R: You can say that again. The origin of this figure of six million – which has meanwhile been assigned the status of a “symbolic figure” by respected historians even as far as the Holocaust of the Second World War is concerned – is therefore, not based on any kind of factual knowledge regarding Jewish population losses. It is thus not surprising that well-known statisticians world-wide stated that the question of the number of victims had, for a long time, not been clarified at all. Meanwhile, however, this has changed on account of two studies into this topic, which I will deal with later.
1.4. Wartime Propaganda, Then and Now
R: Let me now go into the causes given by the media for the Jewish sufferings in the years 1915 – 1927 and 1941 – 1945, respectively. Whereas the main reasons cited in connection with the first holocaust (the invented one) were by and large poverty, general oppression, and epidemics, the second one (the real one) was ascribed to mass murder in gas chambers and large-scale shootings. While it is generally true that gas chambers were not part of the standard propaganda weaponry during and following WW1, there is one exception.
The London Daily Telegraph reported on March 22, 1916, on p. 7: “Atrocities in Servia; 700,000 Victims from Our Own Correspondent. Rome, Monday (6:45 p.m.) The Governments of the Allies have secured evidence and documents, which will shortly be published, proving that Austria and Bulgaria have been guilty
[Page 34 of Verdict]
of horrible crimes in Serbia, where the massacres committed were worse than those perpetrated by Turkey in Armenia… Women, children, and old men were shut up in the churches by the Austrians and either stabbed with the bayonet or suffocated by means of asphyxiating gas. In one church in Belgrade 3,000 women, children, and old men were thus suffocated. […]”
R: Of course, today no historian claims that the Austrians or any of their allies ever committed mass murder with poison gas in Serbia during World War One. This was nothing but black propaganda issued by the British government and eagerly disseminated by the British media. But juxtapose this with an article that appeared in the same London Daily Telegraph on June 25, 1942, p. 5, that is, five days before the Jewish owned and controlled New York Times reported about the alleged mass murder of Jews in German controlled Europe for the first time:
“GERMANS MURDER 700,000 JEWS IN POLAND --
TRAVELLING GAS CHAMBERS -- DAILY TELEGRAPH REPORTER
More than 700,000 Polish Jews have been slaughtered by the Germans in the greatest massacre in world history!
R: We all know that these claims were true, don’t we? And it is also true that at the end of the 20th century nobody would seriously accuse any country in the world of having built gas chambers and used Zyklon B to murder all Jews, hence, that the Jews would once more face a holocaust, an extinction of millions. After all, that was something uniquely German and “Nazi,” which does not happen again, right? If you think that it is obvious that nobody would make such outrageous claims, I have to teach you another quite astounding lesson: Let me bring up only two examples from a war that took place almost 50 years after the second “Holocaust” propaganda started, in 1991. It is about America’s first war against Iraq to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. The New York based Jewish Press, then calling itself “The largest independent Anglo-Jewish weekly newspaper,” wrote on its title page on February 21, 1991: “IRAQIS HAVE GAS CHAMBERS FOR ALL JEWS”
R: Or take the front cover announcement of volume 12, number 1 (spring 1991), of Response, a periodical published by the Jewish Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles and distributed in 381,065
continue Page 35 of Verdict
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute