Dr. David Duke exposes the Jewish role in the African and global slave trade.
The dishonest label “Holocaust denier” is used to prevent questioning.
Source: American Dissident Voices broadcast, February 8, 1997; reprinted in Free Speech magazine, March 1997, Volume III, No. 3
by Dr. William L. Pierce
There has been a lot of commotion in the controlled media recently about Swiss bankers who supposedly are hiding the assets of various Jews who perished more than 50 years ago, during the Second World War, in the so-called “Holocaust.” The idea is that during the war Jews in Germany, France, and other European countries squirreled their money away in secret Swiss bank accounts so the Germans couldn’t get it. Then the Jews were hauled off to concentration camps or otherwise came to an end, and their money still remains in the secret Swiss accounts. The news stories have hinted that the Swiss bankers have been remiss in simply keeping the money in the accounts, rather than searching for heirs or turning it over to Jewish organizations. It has been suggested that billions of dollars of Jewish money is being kept from the Jews to whom it rightfully belongs. Jewish groups are demanding that the Swiss set up a fund immediately to reimburse “Holocaust” survivors.
The Swiss, who are proud of the integrity of their banking system, are naturally indignant about these Jewish allegations that they have behaved improperly. The outgoing president of Switzerland, Jean-Pascal Delamuraz, called the Jewish media campaign “extortion” and “blackmail.” The Jews and the media have responded by clamoring even more insistently that the Swiss should pay billions of dollars to the Jews. In fact they now have begun making demands against Sweden as well. The Jews claim that the Germans bought raw materials from Sweden during the war using gold that had been confiscated from Jews, and that now Sweden owes that gold to Jewish “Holocaust” survivors.
It’s really an amazing campaign. The Swiss bankers have said repeatedly that they have checked their inactive accounts in the past, and that they are holding at most a few million dollars which may belong to the relatives of Jews who died during the war, that it could not possibly amount to the billions of dollars the Jews are claiming, and that they have treated the accounts of their Jewish depositors just like they treat all of their accounts. Yet the media virtually ignore what the Swiss say and continue to raise a huge hullabaloo about the poor, persecuted Jews and how they are being done wrong by the Swiss and the Swedes. And, of course, the U.S. politicians are jumping into the act, demanding that the Swiss and the Swedes satisfy the Jews. It’s really amazing.
You know, I haven’t talked much in the past about the so-called “Holocaust,” because I’ve felt that really is a job for the historians, and I’m not a professional historian. Unfortunately, however, the “Holocaust” is one of those politically sensitive subjects which makes professional historians very nervous. Jews – and apologists for the Jews – have written literally thousands of “Holocaust” books during the past 50 years, and many of the claims made in these books are patently false. The professional historians know that, but they hesitate to say anything, lest they be branded as “Holocaust deniers” by the powerful Jewish organizations and by the controlled news media.
Because of this timidity on the part of the professionals, perhaps we amateurs really have an obligation to speak out more. This whole “Holocaust” business is a fascinating subject, and there’s much to be learned from looking into it, even if one isn’t a professional historian. Take, for example, the label of “Holocaust denier,” which is pasted on anyone who dares to ask questions about the “Holocaust.” If I comment publicly that the official figure for the number of Jews who died in the big concentration and labor camp at Auschwitz, in Poland, has been revised downward recently by the Polish government from an earlier figure of four million to about one million, and I suggest that perhaps that means that the famous figure of “six million” Jews killed by the Germans also needs to be revised downward – if I make such a suggestion, then I’m immediately denounced as a “Holocaust denier.” That’s the standard phrasing that’s been agreed on by all of the big Jewish outfits, the news media, the bought politicians, and so on: “Holocaust denier.” That’s what you’re called if you question anything about the official myth. It’s a crooked tactic. It deliberately makes it look like you’re denying that there ever was any such thing as a “Holocaust.” It’s a label that’s designed to make any questioner look like some sort of extremist who denies that anything at all happened to the Jews during the Second World War. That’s crooked, isn’t it?
I know that Jews were killed during the war. I’ve talked with German soldiers who shot Jews. In the war against the Soviet Union and Communism, the Germans found that virtually all of the Jews they encountered on the Eastern Front were Communist partisans, that Jews were heavily involved in Communist guerrilla activities, in sabotage, and in other hostile actions against the Germans. Often the only way to pacify an area was to round up all of the Jews and ship them off to a concentration camp or to shoot them. Most of the other folks on the Eastern Front – the Poles, the Ukrainians, often even the Russians – were happy enough to have the German Army get the Communists off their backs, but the Jews were fanatically pro-Communist. The Soviet Political Commissars who were attached to all Red Army units to spy on ordinary Russian soldiers and look for any signs of Political Incorrectness nearly always were Jews, and the German Army in many cases separated these Jewish Political Commissars from their Russian prisoners of war and shot the commissars.
I also know that Germans didn’t like Jews, and Hitler especially didn’t like them, and as a consequence the German government tried very hard to encourage Jews to leave Germany, even before the war. Laws were passed limiting Jewish participation in some professions – such as the law and publishing – where they were heavily overrepresented.
So I know that something did happen to the Jews in Europe both before and during the Second World War, and if they want to call that something a “Holocaust,” that’s all right with me. I don’t deny that something did happen. I don’t deny that there was a “Holocaust.” I’m just interested in checking the details, in checking the facts. But as soon as I or anyone else does that, we’re called “Holocaust deniers.”
That’s interesting, because the obvious intent of the people who use that label is to discourage us from asking questions. They don’t want the details checked. They don’t want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts they present to us. And after being called a “Holocaust denier” a hundred times or so, I’ve come to believe that the reason they don’t want their facts checked is that they know that in many cases their facts are false. That’s really crooked – but I believe that to be an accurate assessment of the situation.
I first became interested in the “Holocaust” enough to want to check it out when I encountered some especially fanciful accounts by so-called “survivors.” I read accounts by Jews who claimed that they saw German soldiers grabbing Jewish babies by their legs and swinging their heads against brick walls to smash out their brains. One Jewess told of witnessing German soldiers carrying Jewish children one at a time up the stairs to the top of a building, throwing them off, and laughing when they hit the pavement below and were killed. Other Jews made the claim that they saw German guards separate Jews out from prisoners arriving at concentration camps, pour gasoline on them, and set them afire, right on the train platform. And there were other stories about Jewish prisoners with colorful tattoos being selected from the camps and then skinned so that their tattooed skin could be made into lampshades. Now, these stories just didn’t jibe with what I knew about the German Army and the German government during that period. I knew that the Germans didn’t like Jews, but I also knew that the German Army was the best-disciplined army in the world. I knew that they had a better record of behavior in the countries they occupied than any other army in the Second World War – including the U.S. Army. I had until that point believed the stories that the Germans had methodically herded the Jews into gas chambers. But I really doubted that any disciplined army would tolerate its soldiers just killing prisoners for sport.
If you saw the anti-German propaganda film which came out a couple of years ago, Schindler’s List, you will remember that it portrayed the German commandant of a labor camp shooting Jewish inmates with a hunting rifle from his balcony. That was the sort of thing I had questioned when I first encountered these stories. And yet, very few other people were questioning these accounts. Newspapers and magazines and books were reporting them as if they were unquestionably true.
I began looking into the matter in detail, and I discovered many interesting things. I discovered that some Jews had been killed, and I discovered the circumstances under which they were killed. I discovered that many more Jews simply died under the conditions that existed toward the end of the war, when malnutrition and disease were rampant in the prison camps. I discovered that the total number of Jews who were killed and who died of disease was substantially less than the six million claimed by the Jewish propagandists. Most important, I discovered that a great many lies had been told about what had happened during the “Holocaust.” I discovered that most of the tales about gas chambers – that is, the ones that could be checked out – were not true. I discovered that not a single one of the stories about bashing out babies’ brains or throwing children off buildings or shooting prisoners with hunting rifles for sport, à la Schindler’s List, could be substantiated, and that they were all almost certainly false.
All of this is interesting in itself; at least, it is interesting to me. It is a part of our history. I could talk all day about the details, about the facts that I discovered when I began looking into the “Holocaust,” but I don’t want to bore you. If you really want to know the details, write to the Institute for Historical Review. They’re experts, and they’re honest. Their address is:
Institute for Historical Review
P.O. Box 2739
Newport Beach, CA 92659
To me what’s even more interesting about the “Holocaust” story than all of the holes in it is the motivation behind it, the way the story is being used today, and the response of various elements of our society to it. Let’s go back for a moment to that deliberately misleading label of “Holocaust denier” that I mentioned earlier. If you’ve spent any time exploring the Internet – especially some of the political discussion groups on the Internet – you’ll have heard that term “Holocaust denier” often enough. It’s not that the “Holocaust” is a hot topic of discussion on the Internet. It isn’t. But it is discussed occasionally, along with just about every other topic under the sun, and it’s discussed openly, without fear. The Internet is just about the only place left where one can discuss politically sensitive topics openly. And that just drives the big Jewish censorship organizations crazy. They don’t want any open discussion of the “Holocaust.” They’re terrified of it. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been especially loud in its complaints about the lack of censorship on the Internet. Without censorship, they complain, the “Holocaust deniers” can say anything they want. If we don’t censor the Internet, the “Holocaust deniers” can come right into your home and contaminate your child’s mind while he’s using his computer to do his homework.
They’ve tried to intimidate people into silence. They’ll have one of their own people claim to be a World War II veteran, and his standard line will be, “Hey, don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust. I was there. I saw the bodies. So don’t try to tell me there wasn’t a Holocaust.”
Now, that sort of tactic may work on television, where they control the whole medium and no one can contradict them. But on the Internet people have been contradicting them. People have been saying, “Hey, we’re not trying to tell you there were no bodies. We just want to know how many bodies. We want to know how they died.” But they will not engage in a rational discussion with you. If one trick won’t silence you, they’ll try another. They’ll say, “What difference does it matter how many? If only one Jew were killed just for being a Jew, that’s a terrible crime. That’s a Holocaust.” That’s supposed to embarrass you into shutting up. But on the Internet you can come back and say, “Well, what about the Germans who were killed just because they were Germans. What about the Russians and the Ukrainians and the Hungarians who were killed by some Jewish Commissar just because they were anti-Communists? Don’t they count? Wasn’t that a crime for which someone should be held accountable?”
They don’t like to hear that. They really don’t. Try it sometime, if you have a thick skin and don’t mind having them shriek insults at you.
Their final line of defense is governmental force, governmental repression. If they can’t embarrass you into silence, they turn to the politicians and demand laws to make you shut up. That’s what they’ve already done in Europe and in Canada, where you can be jailed for being a “Holocaust denier” – which means, for questioning anything at all about what really happened. There are many people in German prisons now who made the mistake of saying, “Hey, I was a guard at such and such a prison camp during the war, and there was no gas chamber there.” In Britain, they already have laws against criticizing Jews, but they want the laws toughened, and so they’ve turned to the politicians. And, I’m sorry to say, the politicians in Britain are just about as crooked a lot as we have here. The chairman of the British Labor Party, Tony Blair, is a real piece of filth, of about the same quality as Bill Clinton. He hopes to be the new prime minister after the parliamentary elections coming up in May. He has announced, with a little prodding from the Labor Party’s Jewish backers, that when he is prime minister he will propose a new law making “Holocaust denial” a specific crime, so that anyone who questions whether or not there was a gas chamber in such and such a place can be locked up, just as in Germany.
And that’s what they want in America too. The Jewish lawyers and journalists and professors – and their Gentile collaborators – already are working hard to persuade people that the First Amendment to our Constitution needs to be scrapped, or at least rewritten. The Founding Fathers never intended to protect all types of speech, they say. They never intended to protect indecent or hurtful speech. And to deny the “Holocaust” is indecent and hurtful. They’re working hard on it. The trendier Gentiles already are falling into line. Believe me, they’ll be making a strong push to abolish free speech in America soon. They’ll tell us that it’s for our own good.
But it’s for their own good, not ours. That’s the most interesting insight I gained from checking out the “Holocaust.” I learned why they push it so hard, why they’ve made so many Hollywood propaganda films like Schindler’s List, why they’ve told so many whoppers about bashing out babies’ brains and making lampshades out of skinned Jews, why they talked the politicians into letting them have a Holocaust Museum in Washington, why they’ve gotten politicians at the state level to pass laws requiring that the public schools carry “Holocaust” indoctrination courses, and why they’re so desperate to stop people from asking questions.
It’s not just because they’re afraid of being exposed as liars if they stop defending their old lies with new lies. It’s not just because they hate the Germans and like to beat them over the head with the “Holocaust.” And it’s not just because they find the “Holocaust” a convenient excuse for the crimes they have committed and still are committing against the Palestinian people. There’s a much bigger reason than all of these things – and a much more dangerous reason for us, for our people. But you are an intelligent person with at least a little bit of open-mindedness, a little bit of mental independence, or you wouldn’t be reading this magazine. Why don’t you discover for yourselves why the Jews are so defensive about the “Holocaust,” why they are so afraid for anyone to ask questions about it? It’s an easy thing to do, and I believe it’ll be much more convincing if you find out for yourselves, instead of having me tell you. There are thousands of books out there that they’ve written. Go into any large bookstore or library and you’ll find books about the “Holocaust” by the top “Holocaust” promoters, Jews like Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal. Read these books with an open mind, with a questioning mind. Think about the claims they make. Then get a copy of our book catalog and read a couple of the books we sell – or read some books from the Institute for Historical Review – and think about what you read in these books too. Make up your own mind. I believe you’ll find it an illuminating and rewarding experience.
* * *
By Johannes Peter Ney
This paper is part of the series Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of „Truth“ and „Memory“. Click below for the previous or next item of the series. Click on „up“ to return to the series’ Table of Contents
„WANNSEE CONFERENCE: conference of chief representatives of the highest Reich and Party bodies, held on January 20, 1942 in Berlin at ‘Am Großen Wannsee 56/58’ under the chairmanship of R. Heydrich. On the order of A. Hitler, the participants decided on measures for the annihilation of the Jews in those parts of Europe under German control (‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’): the establishment of extermination camps (concentration camps) in Eastern Europe, where Jews were to be killed.“ 
1. On Document Criticism
Documents are objects containing encoded information about a process or condition. For example, one differentiates between photographic and written documents as well as, recently, between all kinds of data storage (sound carriers, electronic data carriers, and many more). The present discussion will focus on the criticism of written documents, which represent the main of the documents relating to the Holocaust.
If a document is to prove anything, it is first necessary to establish that the document is genuine and the information it contains is factually correct. The authenticity of a document requires, for one thing, that the materials and techniques of information encoding and storage involved already existed at the alleged time of document creation. Today, technical, chemical and physical methods frequently permit the verification of whether the paper, the ink, the writing tools etc. that make up the document or went into its production even existed at the alleged time of creation. If this is not the case, the document has been proven to be fake. For example, a document allegedly dating from the 1800s but typed on a typewriter from our own century would definitely be a fake. Unfortunately this kind of analysis is not generally possible where the items to be analyzed are Holocaust documents, since in those few cases where original documents are known to exist, these originals are jealously guarded in archives and any attempt at scientific and technical analysis is nipped in the bud.
Another element in the verification of authenticity is the determination of whether the form of the document at issue corresponds with that of similar documents of the same presumptive origin. For handwritten documents this means a similarity of handwriting and style of expression to other documents by the same author, while for official documents it requires the congruence of official markings identifying the issuing body, such as letterheads, rubber stamps, signatures and initials, reference numbers, titles and official names, notices of receipt, distributors, correctness of the administrative channels and authority etc., as well as, again, similarity to the regional and bureaucratic style of expression. The greater the discrepancies, the more likely it is that the document is a fabrication.
And finally, it must also be determined whether the contents of the document are factually correct. One aspect of this is that the conditions and events described in the document must agree with the information we already have from other reliable sources. But the fundamental question is whether what is described in the document is physically possible, and consistent with what was technically feasible at the time and whether the contents are internally logical and consistent. If this is not the case, the document may still be genuine, but its contents are of no probative value, except perhaps where the incompetence of its author is concerned.
Concerning document criticism in the context of the Holocaust, we encounter the remarkable phenomenon that any such practice is dispensed with almost entirely by the mainstream historians around the world. Even a call for impartial document criticism is considered reprehensible, since this would admit the possibility that such a document might be false, in other words, that certain events which are backed up by such documents may not have taken place at all, or not in the manner described to date. But nothing is considered more reprehensible today than to question the solidly established historical view of the Holocaust. However, where doubts about scientific results are deemed censurable, where the questioning of one’s own view of history or perhaps even of the world is forbidden, where the results of an investigation must be predetermined from the start, i.e. where research may produce only the ‘desired’ results – where such conditions prevail, the allowed or allowable lines of inquiry have long since forsaken any foundation in science and have instead embraced religious dogma. Doubt and criticism are two of the most important pillars of science.
The present volume contains many instances of criticism of a wide range of documents, frequently proving them to be fabrications. No one will deny that particularly after the end of World War Two a great many forgeries were produced in order to incriminate Germany. That opportunities for such forgeries were practically limitless is a fact also undisputed in view of all the captured archives, typewriters, rubber stamps, stationery, state printing presses etc. etc. And considering these circumstances, no one can rule out beforehand that the subject of the Holocaust may also have been the object of falsifications. Unconditionally honest document criticism is thus vitally important here. In the following, the Wannsee Conference Protocol – the central piece of incriminating evidence pertaining to the Holocaust – is subjected to an in – depth critical analysis such as all historians worldwide ought to have done for decades but failed to do. At the same time, this analysis may serve as challenge to all conscientious historians to finally subject all Holocaust documents – be they incriminating or exonerating – to professionally correct and unbiased document criticism.
2. The Material About the Wannsee Conference
2.1. Primary Sources – the Material to be Analyzed
In any analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the other documents directly related to this Protocol must of course be considered as well. These documents are:
2.1.1. Proof of Origin
According to his own statements, Robert M. W. Kempner, the prosecutor in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial of Ernst Weizsäcker, had been expecting a shipment of documents from Berlin in early March 1947. Among these papers, he and his colleagues discovered a transcript of the Wannsee Conference. The author of the protocol, it was claimed, was Eichmann. In 1983 the WDR (West German Radio) broadcast Kempner’s original taped statement, according to which he had discovered the protocol in autumn of 1947. Beyond Kempner’s verbal statements quoted here, no other documentation verifying the place and circumstances of the discovery were found. Kempner: „Of course no one doubted the authenticity [of the protocol].“ The Court, he said, introduced the protocol as Number 2568. In the court records it appears as G – 2568.
2.1.2. Different Versions
The Wannsee Conference Protocol which Kempner submitted to the Court always writes ‘SS’ in this way, i.e. in Latin letters, not as the runic which was customary in the Third Reich. It would appear to be the oldest copy in circulation.
Hans Wahls has mentioned numerous other versions which are also in circulation. The Political Archives at the Foreign Office in Bonn maintains that the version held there is the definitive one. This version uses the runic . When and how this version came to be in the archives of today’s Foreign Office remains unknown. Since the other versions can also not be traced back to their origins, we will dispense with any further details here. The present compilation is thus based only on the copy held by the Foreign Office.
Where the letter accompanying the protocol is concerned, two versions have surfaced to date, one using ‘SS’, the other with the runic as well as other differences.
2.2. Secondary Sources – Literature About the Wannsee Conference Protocol
The literature pertaining to the Wannsee Conference Protocol fills many volumes. The following summarizes the most important analyses and critiques, all of which prove conclusively that all the various versions of the protocol as well as all the versions of the letters accompanying the protocol are fabrications. As yet, no proof of the authenticity of the protocol, nor any attempt at refuting the aforementioned analyses and critiques, has been advanced by any source.
This discussion draws on:
3. Document Criticism
3.1. Analysis of the Prefatory Correspondence
Form: We only have a copy of this document, as no original has ever been found. This copy is missing the letterhead, the typed – in sender’s address is incorrect, and the date is incomplete, missing the day. The letter has no reference number, no distributor is given, and there is no line with an identifying ‘re.:’ (cf. Ney).
Linguistic content: The repetition in „all necessary preparations as regards organizational, factual, and material matters“ and „general plan showing the organizational, factual, and material measures“ is not Göring’s style, and is beneath his linguistic niveau. The same goes for the expression „möglichst günstigsten Lösung“ [grammatically incorrect, intended to mean „best possible way“].
Form: The classification notice „top secret“ is missing (cf. Ney and Tiedemann). It is also strange that the letter took 24 days, from November 29, 1941 to December 23, 1941, for a postal route within Berlin (Ney).
Linguistic content: „Fotokopie“ was spelled with a ‘ph’ in those days; the spelling that is used is strictly modern German. „Auffassung an den […] Arbeiten“ (≈“opinion on the […] tasks“) is not proper German; it ought to read „Auffassung über die […] Arbeiten“. „Persönlich“ [„personal“] was scorned as classification; the entire style of the letter is un – German (Ney, ibid.).
Form: This document exists only in copy form, no original has ever been found. The letter bears the issuing office’s running number „3076/41“, while the letter accompanying the protocol, dated later, bears an earlier number, „1456/41“ (Tiedemann). The letterhead is different from that of the first invitation (Tiedemann, ibid.). The letter is marked only as „secret“ (Ney).
Linguistic content: On one occasion the letter „ß“ is used correctly („anschließenden“), but then „ss“ is used incorrectly („Grossen“). (Ney, ibid.)
Stylistic howlers: „Questions pertaining to the Jewish question“; „Because the questions admit no delay, I therefore invite you….“ (Ney, ibid.)
3.2. Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol
While it is claimed that the copy of the Wannsee minutes held by the Foreign Office is the original, this cannot in fact be the case, since it is identified as the 16th copy of a total of 30. Regardless whether it is genuine or fake, however, its errors and shortcomings as to form render it invalid under German law, and thus devoid of documentary value:
The paper lacks a letterhead; the issuing office is not specified, and the date, distributor, reference number, place of issue, signature, and identification initials are missing (Wahls and Walendy). The stamp with the date of receipt by the Foreign Office, which is (today!) named as the receiver, is missing (Tiedemann). The paper lacks all the necessary properties of a protocol, i.e. the minutes of a meeting: the opening and closing times of the conference, identification of the persons invited but not attending (Tiedemann, ibid.), the names of each of the respective speakers, and the countersignature of the chairman of the meeting (Tiedemann, ibid., and Ney). The paper does, however, bear the reference number of the receiving(!) office, namely the Foreign Office – typed on the same typewriter as the body of the text (Tiedemann). The most important participant, Reinhard Heydrich, is missing from the list of participants (Wahls and Walendy).
3.2.2. Linguistic Content
The Wannsee Conference Protocol is a treasure – trove of stylistic howlers which indicate that the authors of this paper were strongly influenced by the Anglo – Saxon i.e. British English language. In the following we will identify only the most glaring of these blunders; many of them have been pointed out by all the authors consulted, so that a specific reference frequently does not apply.
The expressions „im Hinblick“ („considering“,* 8 times), „im Zuge“ („in the course of“, 5 times), „Lösung“ („solution“, 23 times), „Fragen“ („questions“, 17 times), „Problem“ (6 times), „Bereinigen“ („to clarify“, 4 times), frequently even more than once in the same sentence, bear witness to such a poor German vocabulary that one may assume the author to have been a foreigner.
Further, the expressions „Lösung der Frage“ („solution of the problem“), „der Lösung zugeführt“ („brought near to a solution“), „Lösungsarbeiten“ („tasks involved“ [in a solution; – trans.]), „Regelung der Frage“ („to settle the question“), „Regelung des Problems“ („to settle the problem“), „restlose Bereinigung des Problems“ („absolutely final clarification of the question“ [i.e. the „problem“; – trans.]), „Mischlingsproblem endgültig bereinigen“ („securing a final solution of the problem presented by the persons of mixed blood“), „praktische Durchführung“ („practical execution“; is there such a thing as a theoretical execution?), and especially the frequent repetition of these expressions, are not at all the German style (Walendy).
„der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand […]“ („the possible final remnant“)
may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference. The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as;
„Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung“ („in order to bring general activities into line“) (Tiedemann)
and nonsensical claims such as;
„Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in […] Durchgangsghettos gebracht […]“ („The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into […] transit – ghettos […]“).
Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:
„Die zu evakuierenden Juden […]“ („The Jews to be evacuated […]“).
„Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung“ („Regarding the handling of the final solution“)
How does one handle a solution? (Walendy)
„Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands […] verhalten […]“
„Italien einschließlich Sardinien“ („Italy incl. Sardinia“)
Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.
„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der […] Juden: […] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%“ („The breakdown of Jews […] according to trades […]: […] communal workers 14.8%“ [i.e. „municipal“ workers; – trans.]
Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney) „Salaried employees“ is probably what the author meant here. „[…] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt“ (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as „employed by the state“, which glosses over the difference between „Arbeiter“, i.e. blue – collar workers, and „angestellt“, i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; – trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)
„In den privaten Berufen – Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw.“ („in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc.“).
In German these are called „freie Berufe“, not „private Berufe“. Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. „usw.“ is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English „etc.“ almost always is.
„Die sich im Altreich befindlichen […]“
Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)
3.2.3. Contradictory Content
„[…] werden die […] Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt“: literally, „the Jews will be taken to these districts, constructing roads as they go“.
„Im Zuge dieser Endlösung […] kommen rund 11 Millionen Juden in Betracht.“ („Approx. 11,000,000 Jews will be involved in this final solution […].“
Even the orthodox prevailing opinion holds that there were never more than 7 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence. In actual fact there were only about 2.5 million. (Wahls and Walendy)
„[…] teilte [Heydrich] eingangs seine Bestellung zum Beauftragten für die Vorbereitung der Endlösung […] durch den Reichsmarschall mit“ („Heydrich gave information that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution […])
Göring did have the authority to appoint Heydrich to the position of his choice, but he would have done so via the proper channels. Heydrich’s superior was Himmler, and it would have taken Himmler’s orders to appoint („ernennen“, not „bestellen“, which means „to summon“) Heydrich to anything. (Ney)
„Mit der Endlösung im Generalgouvernement zu beginnen, weil hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt […] Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden“ („[…] the implementation of the final solution […] could start in the Government General, because the transportation problem there was of no predominant importance. […] The Jews had to be removed as quickly as possible from the territory of the Government General […]“
„To be removed as quickly as possible“ and „constructing roads as they go“ is quite a contradiction. But none of those attending the conference spoke up. Clearly Germany could muster only mental defectives as her Under Secretaries of State! (Walendy)
„Von den in Frage kommenden 2
„[…] Dr. Bühler stellte weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt […]“ („[…] Bühler further stated that the solution of the Jewish question in the Government General as far as issuing of orders was concerned was dependent upon the chief of the Security Police and the SD […]“.
On the date of the conference at Wannsee Bühler could not have known this, for according to the ‘Protocol’ Heydrich had only just „announced his appointment as delegate“ and his overall authority for the preparations involved. Dr. Bühler certainly did not have the authority to simply declare his superior, Dr. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, removed from office! (Walendy, ibid.)
„Der Beginn der einzelnen Evakuierungsaktionen wird weitgehend von der militärischen Entwicklung abhängig sein“ („The carrying out of each single evacuation project of a larger extent will start at a time to be determined chiefly by the military development“).
This statement is false, for the eastward evacuation transports of Jews from the Reich territory, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, had already been ongoing since October 1941 – as Heydrich’s first invitation to the Wannsee conference had explicitly stated, by the way. (Walendy, ibid.)
„Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der im europäischen Gebiet der UdSSR ansässigen Juden war etwa folgende […]“ („The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR, according to trades, was approximately as follows […]“
This clearly gives away the forger, at work years after the conference; at the time of the Wannsee Conference one would not have written „was“, but „is“. (Tiedemann)
3.2.4. Internal Consistency
Why were only the „seconds – in – command“ invited to this conference if it was really so crucial, and why did not even these seconds – in – command bother to attend? Why, for example, would Dr. Hans Frank send, as his stand – in, Dr. Bühler, who lacked the authority to make any decisions since he was obliged to report anything of significance to his superior? (Tiedemann, ibid.)
Is it conceivable that subordinates decided on the genocide? (Tiedemann, ibid.)
Why was no one invited from offices whose cooperation would have been indispensable to the implementation of such an enormous murder scheme, such as the top management of the German Railway? (Tiedemann, ibid.)
3.3. The Accompanying Letter
Like the Wannsee Conference Protocol, the accompanying letter reveals at first glance that it cannot be genuine: the letter is dated January 26, 1942, but the letterhead shows reference number 1456/41. Thus the letter was registered at the office of the Chief of the Security Police and the SD in 1941, before the protocol that it was to accompany (Weckert, Ney, Tiedemann). There are 35 days between the date of the letter and the date of its arrival at the Foreign Office, given a delivery route within Berlin and a subject matter Heydrich has called urgent! (Weckert, Ney, Tiedemann) Luther, however, added a handwritten comment (to be examined later) to this letter even before it was received by the correspondence department of the Foreign Office; this handwritten comment is dated with the month „II“, i.e. February (the day is illegible). (Weckert, Ney) Like the conference protocol itself, the letter bears a rubber stamp recording its receipt at the Foreign Office, with the reference number D.III29g.Rs, which, however the Foreign Office had already assigned to a different document it had received, namely to a report dated January 6, 1942, sent by the German envoy in Copenhagen. (Ney, ibid.)
The letter is missing the sender’s address, which is normally printed on the stationery. The new meeting place in the Kurfürstenstraße is incorrectly spelled with an „ss“ rather than an „ß“. The typed – in sender’s reference number, „IV B 4“, indicates Eichmann’s office, but Eichmann used stationery which had this identifier already printed on it. The letterhead is different from that of the two letters of invitation. The letter lacks a „re.:“ – line and a distributor. This „accompanying letter“ makes no mention of 30 copies of the protocol whose 16th copy it allegedly accompanies. The space to indicate enclosures – though provided for in the stamp of receipt – is empty, even though this letter was supposed to accompany an enclosure of momentous importance. (Ney, ibid.) Ripske has criticized that there were no „Undersecretaries of State“ („Unterstaatssekretär“) at the German Foreign Office; this rank had been done away with during the Weimar Republic, and was never reintroduced.
3.3.2. Linguistic Content
The accompanying letter as well shows a pathetically un – German style: „practical execution of the final solution“ – is there any such thing as a theoretical execution? (Tiedemann(11)) And again we encounter this redundant sentence with its long – winded description of the tasks involved: „[…] the organizational, factual, and material prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved.“ What this calls for, then, is: the detailed discussion of the preparation of the submission of the prerequisites for the practical commencement of the tasks involved. (Ney) No comment necessary.
3.3.3. Contradictory Content
The protocol is titled „Minutes of Discussion“, and if it were genuine, that would be precisely the right description. Today even the officially sanctioned historians concede that nothing at all was decided at the conference, in other words, that it was not as highly significant as is sometimes claimed. The accompanying letter, however, now suddenly refers to „arrangements made“. It further claims that „the essentials have been decided on.“ But nothing could be decided there. (Tiedemann, Walendy)
3.3.4. Internal Consistency
Even though Göring is said to have called for haste in July 1941 („soon“), his orders are carried out in rather lackadaisical fashion. But suddenly speed is of the essence: the next discussion is set for March 6. (Ney,(10) Tiedemann)
3.3.5. The Slip – up
Two versions of the accompanying letter are in circulation. The first was submitted by Kempner, while the second is held at the Foreign Office in Bonn. In terms of content they are identical, but there is incontrovertible proof that both versions are fabrications:
Each of the two versions was typed on a different typewriter. The typists tried to make their keystrokes, line breaks and text format identical, and it is unknown who copied from whom in the process. But even this did not quite work: the „Heil Hitler“ is shifted by one space, the „Ihr“ preceding the signature by another. The signature itself – whether genuine (not likely) or done with a facsimile stamp – has slipped badly.
On closer examination one finds even more differences: the spacing between the two major paragraphs; the underlines, which are supposed to be identical but don’t quite manage to be so; the slightly different „6“ in the meeting date. The discrepancy between ‘SS’ in the one version and the runic ‘ ‘ in the other is already familiar to us from the protocol itself. Typing mistakes galore populate the second half of this line:
„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr , in Berlin,Kurfürsten – “.
The other version reads:
„ich am 6. März 1942, 10.30 Uhr. in Berlin, Kurfürsten – “.
To expose this fraud conclusively, one needs a ruler. This reveals: the rubber stamp on each version is perfectly identical, but in the ‘SS’ version it is stamped precisely parallel to the typed lines while in the version it droops down and to the left at about a 3 degree angle.
And the most conclusive proof: no one can write a multi – line text by hand twice in such a way that both versions are precisely and absolutely identical! But the handwritten comments added by Luther, running diagonally across the page in both versions, are identical. However, these handwritten comments are not in the exact same position on both versions, and are of different size. This proves irrefutably that both versions are fake. The forger had separate access to the three text elements – text, stamp, and handwriting. He compiled both versions, but unfortunately he could not make them exactly alike. It’s not difficult to guess why he might try this in the first place, though: the older version, submitted to the IMT by Kempner, has the Latin – font ‘SS’, while the version that surfaced at the Foreign Office later has the runic , which seems more genuine; the forger no doubt wished to correct his earlier carelessness, and in the process went a little overboard!
4.1. The Legal Situation
„36. Classified documents are to be gathered by the departments or sections in complete files.
4.2. Witness Testimony
In his analysis, Udo Walendy cites many examples of witness statements made by participants in the Wannsee Conference, of which only a few examples shall be mentioned here. Dr. G. Klopfer, for example, testified with respect to this conference:
„Therefore no decisions could be reached at this session […]. After the session on March 3, 1942, I learned from a letter from the Chief of the Reich Chancellery that subsequent to a report by Dr. Lammers Hitler had deferred the ‘final solution of the Jewish question’ until after the War.“
According to his testimony, Secretary of State Ernst von Weizsäcker of the Foreign Office never saw the conference protocol during his time in office, even though his office allegedly received one of the 30 copies (specifically, that 16th copy). He also made no mention of any such conference to the traitor Canaris, to whom he leaked, or claims he leaked, everything else of importance.
Dr. H. – H. Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery, testified:
„I announced the report [to Hitler] and got it after some time. I managed to learn [his] view of the matter. This time once again, the Führer would not enter into any discussion of the matter with me and cut short my intended, lengthy report with words to the effect of ‘I don’t want to hear any more reports about Jewish matters during the War. I have more important things on my hands right now, and others should, too.’ And then he said quite bluntly that he wished to finally see the end of all these Jewish issues. He added that he would decide after the War where to put the Jews.“
Dr. Bühler, testifying before the IMT, said:
„I gained the definite conviction from this message [of Heydrich’s] that the resettlement of the Jews would proceed in a humane manner – if not for the sake of the Jews themselves, then for the sake of the reputation and the status of the German people.“
4.3. The Fate of Participants in the Conference
Oddly enough, the Wannsee Conference was considered of no importance at all immediately after the War and at the ‘War Crimes Trials’. Even though charges of genocide would have been the logical consequence of the accepted reading of the protocol, none of the alleged or actual participants in the conference were convicted (not even on minor issues). See Walendy.
Like all other persons in leading positions, G. Klopfer was under arrest from 1945 to 1949 and was charged with war crimes in Nuremberg. However, the Allies dropped their charges for lack of evidence (in 1949, in other words after Kempner’s discovery of the Wannsee Conference Protocol). After Klopfer’s release from custody, the Attorney General tried again to obtain an indictment in 1960; preliminary proceedings were abandoned on January 29, 1962 on the grounds that despite Klopfer’s participation in the conference there was no evidence on which to convict him of any indictable offense. Klopfer was later able to resume his work as attorney.
In 1949, in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, W. Stuckart was convicted for other alleged misdemeanors, and sentenced to 3 years and 10 months in prison. He died in a car accident in 1953, a free man.
Ernst von Weizsäcker was sentenced to 7 years in prison at the Wilhelmstraßen Trial, also for other reasons: not because of his participation in the Wannsee Conference, which was never proven anyhow, but for his role in the ‘deportations’. He was granted an early discharge and died shortly afterwards.
Neumann was classed as ‘less incriminated person’ by a German Denazification Court following his discharge from automatic arrest.
Even in the Jerusalem Trial of Adolf Eichmann, his participation in the conference was of not even the slightest importance. He was interrogated only for his alleged function as secretary i.e. author of the protocol, but his conviction was for other crimes.
None of the other alleged participants, whom we shall not mention individually here, were ever charged with or convicted for war crimes.
4.4. Public Impact
For a long time the Wannsee Conference was also of no significance where the public condemnation of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen – SS, the ‘Nazis’ and, ultimately, the entire German people was concerned. The ‘proof’ of German atrocities in the ‘50s were so – called lampshades from human skin, shrunken heads, gas chambers in Dachau, soap from dead Jews, the ‘Bitch of Buchenwald’ Ilse Koch, and Katyn. The Wannsee Conference Protocol lived on in Holocaust literature, not in public awareness. This only changed gradually, and eventually culminated in the endeavors of parties with vested interests to publicize the villa on the Große Wannsee and the conference that had been held there by means of the creation of a memorial site.
Meanwhile, judicial notice has all but been attained in German courts with respect to the Wannsee Conference Protocol. While it is not an indictable offense to ‘qualify’, to ‘trivialize’, to question or to dispute the authenticity of the conference or the protocol, it has by now become useless in court to cite the axiom that, to quote Emil Lachout, „for historians fabricated documents are proof that the opposite [in this case, no ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ in the sense of deliberate mass extermination] of the forger’s claim is true“, even if this theorem could be substantiated with reference to document science, whose principles are binding for historians.
The constant repetition of the allegation that the Wannsee Conference represents the act of planning the genocide of the Jews, as the media have injected it into the conscious and (what is worse) the subconscious minds of mankind for many years now, has resulted in this allegation being considered to be gospel truth today.
In recent times, however, more and more persons who previously regarded the Wannsee Conference Protocol as one of, if not the most significant proof for the ‘Führer order for the destruction of the European Jews’ have been changing their minds. In early 1992, for example, the renowned Israeli Holocaust researcher Yehuda Bauer dismissed the significance of the Wannsee Conference, which hardly deserved the title ‘conference’. He said that the claim that the destruction of the Jews had been decided there was nothing more than a ‘silly story’, since ‘Wannsee’ was „but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder“ (op. cit., Note ). Bauer’s remark corresponds with the interpretations advanced by several German historians who have since also dared to disassociate themselves from the established position regarding the Wannsee Conference. K. Pätzold reports (cf. Bauer, ibid.):
„The unbiased study of the conference protocol convinces one that those assembled there decided nothing that could be considered to be a theoretical or directive starting point for the crime. – Nevertheless, there now appears to be a growing realization that the decision to kill the European Jews […] was already made prior to the Wannsee Conference, and that the gruesome deed was already in progress before the SS Generals and the Secretaries – of – State gathered for their conference on January 20, 1942.“
In short, what both authors are saying is: the Wannsee Conference Protocol doesn’t prove anything, but that which it was supposed to prove is true anyway:
„Whether presented authentically or inauthentically [in other words: whether it is genuine or fabricated…], the Holocaust has become a ruling symbol of our [whose?] culture.“ (Bauer, ibid.)
And if there is no evidence for it, then it’s just simply true without evidence. Case closed.
5. Summary and Evaluation
5.1. Documentary Evidence for the Planned Genocide?
To substantiate the claim that millions of Jews were deliberately murdered in concentration camps during World War Two, on the orders of German authorities, two and only two contemporaneous papers have been presented: the ‘Franke – Gricksch Report’ and the ‘Wannsee Conference Protocol’. The Franke – Gricksch Report was recently exposed as fabrication by Canadian researcher B. A. Renk. It is a particularly clumsy fabrication and is thus hardly ever cited any more today.
5.2. The Wannsee Conference
That a conference between high officials and Party leaders took place in January 1942 in the villa ‘Am Großen Wannsee’ is probably true, although the precise date is unknown. No other documentation of this conference exists other than the ‘protocol’ and its accompanying letter(s). There is no entry in a guest book, an appointment calendar, or any other kind of incidental evidence.
The invitations specify thirteen invitees. According to the ‘protocol’, however, eighteen persons showed up. Whether the discussion pertained to the Jewish question is not certain, but it is likely. What actually was discussed there is unknown.
5.3. The Protocol
No legally valid transcript or protocol of the discussion exists. The ‘Minutes of Discussion’ of unknown origin, first submitted in 1947 by Kempner, deposited in the Foreign Office and copied repeatedly, is a fabrication in the sense that the text of this paper was concocted years after the alleged discussion, by a person not involved in the conference, and this assessment is supported not only by the as yet unrefuted analysis by the five authors quoted herein, but also by the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers.
– In English: Fabrication;
– German: Fälschung;
– French: Falsification;
– Spanish: Falsificacion.
The crucial points which the media, leading politicians of all political parties in Bonn, and Holocaust experts allege time and again as being at the heart of the discussion in the Wannsee villa are not even present in this fabricated protocol. Specifically, the commonly – held opinions about the protocol, and the most common allegations, are:
For the actual text of the ‘protocol’, the reader is referred to the Appendix.
6. The Wannsee Memorial Site
On the fiftieth anniversary of the „Wannsee Conference“, on January 20, 1992, the Memorial Site „Haus der Wannsee – Konferenz“ [„House of the Wannsee Conference“] was inaugurated in Berlin/Großer Wannsee 56/58, as „the place of the perpetrators“. On this occasion Federal Chancellor Kohl called for the remembrance of the „countless victims of National – Socialist race mania“. Rita Süßmuth, President of the Bundestag, gave the commemorative speech. Among those present were the Mayor of Berlin, Eberhard Diepgen, and the Chairman of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, H. Galinski. In 1990, „Erinnern für die Zukunft“ [„Remembering for the Future“] was founded as society sponsoring the Memorial Site; the society’s staff are paid out of tax funds. The founding members of this society are: the Association, the Land [province] of Berlin, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the Jewish Community of Berlin, the Diocese of Berlin, the Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg, the German Historical Museum, and the Association of Persons Persecuted by the Nazi Regime.
In August 1992 the Society „Remembering for the Future“, the Diocese of Berlin, and the Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg requested and were sent the report published in the Huttenbrief. (cf. Ney)
First, the Chair of the German Episcopal Conference responded on behalf of the Diocese of Berlin:
Second, the Berlin Diocese itself replied:
„In my opinion there is not the slightest doubt about the authenticity of the original protocol of the Wannsee Conference that is held by the Foreign Office in Bonn […]. I am not in the position to adequately assess matters of detail, […] as I do not have access to the documents you refer to. [signed] Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.“
The Protestant Church of Berlin – Brandenburg did not respond.
Dr. Klausa, who is also the Head of the Department „Memorial Sites for Victims of National – Socialism“ of the Senate of Berlin, responded via telephone:
„Our experts do not consider this report interesting enough to examine it. Objections to the authenticity of this protocol have been refuted. This sort of thing keeps being brought up by the lunatic fringe of the radical right.“
It is strange enough that one would presume to pass judgement on the quality of an expert report before ever having bothered to look at it. Further, it is an untruth, plain and simple, to claim that such objects have already been refuted. A free discussion between the advocates of the standard view of the Holocaust (most of them civil servants) and the subject experts summarized in this chapter has not taken place to this day: U. Walendy received no factual reply; J. P. Ney is still waiting for a relevant response; H. Tiedemann was not favored with any reply; neither was I. Weckert; and H. Wahls is also still waiting for a statement.
In the villa Am Großen Wannsee 56/58, however, it is business as usual. Entire school classes are being led through the rooms, which have been remodeled into a museum, and are told the tales of Hitler’s order, of the plan for mass murder in extermination camps, and of the refreshments served after the conference to the participants. Foreign groups are also routinely shown through the Museum. At the commemorations held at all the various sites of German collective guilt, untrue allegations continue to be happily spouted to all the world, yet could not be supported with details from the protocol even if it were genuine. This is how freedom of thought is valued today in the land of Schiller and Friedrich the Great!
7. Falsification of Documents and Misdocumentation
According to the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, the falsification of documents includes the creation of a fabricated document (eg. a document indicating an incorrect issuer), the falsification of an authentic document, as well as the use of a forged or falsified document when doing so is intended to facilitate deception under the law (§267 StGB [German Criminal Code]).
Anyone who causes legally significant statements, agreements or facts to be documented in public books or registers as having been given or as having taken place, without these actually having been given, or having taken place at all or in the manner or by the person specified, commits the crime of indirect misdocumentation (§271 StGB). The falsification of documents carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine; indirect misdocumentation is subject to up to one year’s imprisonment, or monetary fine, and up to five years’ imprisonment where the offense was committed for personal gain or with the intent to cause injury to others (§272 StGB).
Misdocumentation by holders of public office carries a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, or monetary fine (§348 StGB). Further, the Criminal Code provides for terms of imprisonment and for monetary fines for the use of false documentation i.e. misdocumentation of the kind described under §271 StGB (§273 StGB), and for the destruction or suppression of official documents (§274 StGB)…
 Der Große Brockhaus, Wiesbaden: F. A. Brockhaus, 1979.
 To name just a few examples: the Hitler diaries (Die Hitler – Tagebücher and Rauschnings Gespräche mit Hitler – both: K. Corino, ed.; Gefälscht!, Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1992; cf. also E. Jäckel, A. Kuhn, H. Weiß, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 32 : 163 – 169), Katyn (F. Kadell, Die Katyn – Lüge, Munich: Herbig, 1991), SS identification card for Demjanjuk (D. Lehner, Du sollst nicht falsch Zeugnis geben, Berg: Vowinckel, n.d.).
 According to Sozialdemokratischer Pressedienst of Jan. 21, 1992, p. 6.
 R. Derfrank, Ihr Name steht im Protokoll, WDR broadcast manuscript, January 1992.
 R. M. W. Kempner, Eichmann und Komplizen, Zurich: Europa – Verlag, 1961.
 Akten zur deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918 – 1945, Serie E: 1941 – 1945, v. I, Dec. 12, 1941 to Feb. 28, 1942 (1969): 267 – 275.
 Hans Wahls, Zur Authentizität des ‘Wannsee – Protokolls’, Ingolstadt: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle, 1987.
 Udo Walendy, „Die Wannsee – Konferenz vom 20.1.1942“, in Historische Tatsachen no. 35, Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1988.
 Ingrid Weckert, „Anmerkungen zum Wannseeprotokoll“, in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(1) (1992): 32 – 34.
 Johannes Peter Ney, „Das Wannsee – Protokoll“, in Huttenbrief, special issue, June 1992.
 H. Tiedemann, „Offener Brief an Rita Süßmuth“, Moosburg, March 1, 1992; pub. in Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 40(2) (1992): 11 – 18.
 E. Lachout, Gutachten – Begleitschreiben vom 26.(1.)(2.)1942 zum Wannseeprotokoll vom 20.1.1942, Vienna, Aug. 6, 1991; W. Stäglich, Der Auschwitz – Mythos, Tübingen: Grabert, 1979; Bund der Verfolgten des Naziregimes (BVN), Das Wannsee – Protokoll zur Endlösung der Judenfrage und einige Fragen an die, die es angeht, Bundesvorstand des BVN, 1952; R. Aschenauer (ed.), Ich, Adolf Eichmann, Leoni: Druffel, 1980, pp. 478ff.; H. Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Leipzig: Reclam, 1990; J. G. Burg, Zionnazi Zensur in der BRD, Munich: Ederer, 1980; G. Fleming, Hitler und die Endlösung, Wiesbaden: Limes, 1982; W. Grabert (ed.), Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Tübingen: Grabert, 1984; L. Poliakov, J. Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden, Berlin: Arani, 1955; P. Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1978; G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1989; R. Bohlinger, J. P. Ney, Zur Frage der Echtheit des Wannsee – Protokolls, Viöl: Verlag für ganzheitliche Forschung und Kultur, 1992, 1994; W. Scheffler, „Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der ‘Endlösung’“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 3(43) (1982): 3 – 10.
 Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Inland IIg, v. 117, copy; cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, p. 78.
 During the International Military Tribunal proceedings the date was arbitrarily set as July 31, cf. Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof Nürnberg 14. November 1945 – 1. Oktober 1946 (IMT), Nuremberg, 1947, photomechanical reprint: Munich: Delphin, 1984; v. IX pp. 518ff., v. XXVI pp. 266f.
 cf. Göring’s letter to Heydrich, Jan. 24, 1939, in: U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.
 J. P. Ney, op. cit. (Note 10), based on the white – on – black copy in the Wannsee Museum. P. Longerich, op. cit. (Note 13), and W. Stäglich, op. cit. (Note 12), mistakenly write „möglichst günstigen Lösung“.
 Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, K 2104 – 19, – 20.
 ibid., K 2104 – 15.
[T0] Except where otherwise specified, the translations of phrases from the Protocol are taken from the official Nuremberg translation of this document. – trans.
[T1] The Nuremberg Translation contains a reasonably corrected version: „The Jewish financial establishments in foreign countries were […] made responsible […]“; „were urged“ might have been more accurate. In any case, „verhalten“ makes no sense. – trans.
[T2] Note that, strictly speaking, the Nuremberg Translation is incorrect at this point, giving a „corrected“ version instead of an accurate translation of the absurd original; – trans.
 cf. G. Rudolf’s chapter, this volume. The Basler Nachrichten of June 13, 1946 mentioned approximately 3 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence.
 pers. comm., W. Ripske, former Reich official holding various Reich government offices.
 Y. Bauer, The Canadian Jewish News, Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8; K. Pätzold, „Die vorbereitenden Arbeiten sind eingeleitet“, in Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 42(1 – 2) (1992); cf. E. Jäckel, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 22, 1992, p. 34.
[T3] The first line of the body of the text is also shifted by one letter. – trans.
 Wehrmacht – Dienstvorschriften, Verschlußsachenvorschriften HDv 99, MDv 9, LDv 99, revision of Aug. 1, 1943.
 Affidavit of Dr. G. Klopfer, IMT Doc. 656, Doc. – v. VI, Case 8; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 27.
 Weizsäcker Exh. 273; Doc. v. 5, summation, H. Becker, Case 11. Re. Canaris, cf. his wife’s sworn statement, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 28f.
 Case 11 of the war crimes trials, protocol, H. Lammers, pp. 21470 – 73; quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), pp. 29f.
 Testimony of Dr. Bühler, April 23, 1946, IMT v. XII p. 69, quoted from U. Walendy, op. cit. (Note 8), p. 21.
 Prosecuting Attorney, District Court Nuremberg, Ref. 4 Js 15929/60.
 re. document science cf. K. Fuchs, H. Raab, Wörterbuch zur Geschichte, v. 2, Munich: dtv, 1993.
 B. A. Renk, „The Franke – Gricksch ‘Resettlement – Action Report’. Anatomy of a Falsification“, in Journal of Historical Review 11(3) (1991): 261 – 279.
 S. Wiesenthal, Doch die Mörder leben noch, Munich: Droemer Knaur, 1967, p. 40.
 G. Reitlinger, Die Endlösung, Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1953, p. 106.
 cf. W. Derfrank, op. cit. (Note 4), p. 1, as well as R. M. W. Kempner, op. cit. (Note 5).
 cf. P. Longerich, Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Munich: Piper, 1990, pp. 92ff.
 Director: Dr. Klausa; Managers of the Memorial Site: Dr. Schönberner and Dr. Tuchel.
 Letter of the Secretary of the German Episcopal Conference to the author, Bonn, June 2, 1992, Ref. IL/le, sgd. Dr. Ilgner.
 Letter of the Berlin Diocese, Bishop’s Palace, Broadcast Section, to the author, Oct. 14, 1992, Ref. Kn/De, sgd. Wolfgang Knauft, Counsel, Bishop’s Palace.
There’s a big difference
THIS IS NATIONAL SOCIALISM — On a 1936 inter-Aryan friendship visit to England, Scotland and Wales, clean-cut, squared-away members of the Hitler Youth demonstrate the spirit of a regenerate new age to their British Scout counterparts during a brisk morning march
In the ideological discourse of our time, no term is more emotionally charged than the epithet “Nazi.” Is it an accurate descriptive label for the National Socialist philosophy and those who embrace it, or does it carry connotations that suggest something else—something quite different, in fact? In the following editorial, which appeared in the November 1980 issue of White Power, NEW ORDER Commander Matt Koehl discusses this question, as he sets the record straight
IS A “NAZI” the same as a National Socialist?
The news media, our opponents and an uninformed public would all say so. But are they correct?
This is more than a mere academic question. On the proper answer hinge certain significant implications for us as National Socialists.
It is true, of course, that in its early phase our Movement was referred to as the “American Nazi Party.” This designation was consciously and deliberately exploited for its publicity value.
Some have questioned the feasibility of this approach, arguing that it would have been better if the term National Socialist had been employed exclusively and consistently from the very beginning. Whether or not this argument is correct is rather moot at this point. Whatever utility the name “Nazi” may or may not have had in the past, the important point is that for our present and future work as National Socialists it is useless.
A device coined by the enemy
It is a fact that the label “Nazi” was originally used by a hostile press during the Weimar period [in Germany] as a term of contempt and derision against Adolf Hitler and his Movement. Nowhere did the Leader himself use this designation, either in his speeches or in Mein Kampf.
Not only is the expression a distortion of our true name, but it connotes a certain lack of substance and seriousness, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone to take our message seriously. Indeed, if the public is to gain a credible perception of us, then we must present ourselves honestly and forthrightly as exactly what we are—National Socialists—and not as some sort of political caricature. Otherwise we can expect to have as much credibility as dedicated Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries would if they were to go around referring to themselves as “Commies.”
There is perhaps a more important reason, however, why we National Socialists must reject the term “Nazi.” If this label was originally used to belittle the National Socialist cause, subsequent wartime propaganda introduced sinister new connotations. Conjured up was the monstrous image of hate and evil, an image which every decent person must find repulsive.
Good people repulsed
But if the “Nazi” image has repelled good people, too often it has had another unfortunate effect: it has attracted the very ones who fit the “Nazi” stereotype—the unstable, the unsavory, the mentally sick and spiritually defective—marginal typeswho may make good Hollywood props, but who have absolutely no place in a true National Socialist movement.
Therefore, we can only conclude that at best, continued use of the term “Nazi” is self-defeating. At worst, it is nothing but an opportunistic gimmick by misfits and mini-fuehrers craving lots of personal attention—little boys who don’t have the slightest idea what real National Socialism is all about.
We, of course, have no control over what our enemies may decide to call us. But what we choose to call ourselves is quite another matter.
The truth is that we don’t need any nicknames. We are National Socialists, not “Nazis.” There’s a BIG difference!
THIS IS A “NAZI” — This lovely specimen of the “master race” is, in fact, a disgrace to the race. In an act of ultimate desecration, this particular character chose Hitler’s birthday on April 20 to get married—to someone who is half-Hawaiian and half-Mestizo! In NS Germany defective types such as this would have been taken out of society before they even got so much as a single tattoo!
The 2nd World War?
The Sequence of Aggression
By Michael Walsh
One of the great mysteries of life is that despite the evidence to the contrary millions of otherwise intelligent people still believe that Germany was the all powerful aggressor during the 2nd World War. Nothing better than these myths illustrate the mind-bending power of propaganda. The provable facts suggest that Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of naked neighboring aggression. The subsequent allied military triumph was followed by the triumph of the propagandists whose pressing need was to depict the victor nations as being the victim.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE:
“Germany is too strong. We must destroy her.” – Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.
“In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results.” – Harry Elmer Barnes. – American Historian.
“The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets.” – Winston Churchill. March, 1946.
“Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance.” – Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics.
“I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit.” – Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.
On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. ‘Do you still have hope?’ he asked. ‘If you mean hope for war,’ answered Halifax, ‘then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. ‘God be thanked!’ replied the representative of the British Labour Party. – Professor Michael Freund.
“In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being ‘redeemed’. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked.” – H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To?
“In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. … When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: “‘what of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising.” – – Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American.
“I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning – and we had the force to carry out our plans – to obliterate a once mighty nation.” – Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador.
MYTH 1. THE GERMAN NATION IS AN AGGRESSIVE NATION
The facts prove otherwise. A Study of War by Prof. Quincy Wright, shows that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there were 278 wars involving European countries whose percentage participation was as follows:
|GERMANY (INCLUDING PRUSSIA)||8%|
Likewise, Pitirim Sorokin, Vol.111, Part.11, Social and Cultural Dynamics, shows that from the 12th Century to 1925 the percentage of years in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows. (p.352).
COUNTRY PERCENTAGE OF YEARS AT WAR
Sorokin concludes therefore, “that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the largest percent of years at war.” Of leading modern European states, England, France and Russia show clearly twice the aggressive tendencies of Germany.
From the years 1815 to 1907 the record stands as follows:
GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR
“I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’ around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right.” – Attorney General, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984.
“The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war.” – Sir. Basil Liddell Hart.
“I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them.” – Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.
Winston Churchill agrees: “We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.” – Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.
MYTH.2 THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES
OUTNUMBERED THEIR NEIGHBOURS
30 Active Divisions
10 Reserve Divisions
12 Large Cavalry Brigades
Poland had nearly 2,500,000 trained men available for mobilisations.
65 were active divisions
Including 5 cavalry divisions, two mechanised divisions, one armoured division, the rest being infantry. On the German borders stood the French command stood 85 Divisions and could mobilise 5,000,000-armed troops. These were supported backed by five British divisions.
Britain’s relatively small but high quality Regular Army was supported by the Territorial Army consisting of 26 Divisions with plans well in hand to boost this to 55 divisions. This of course was in turn supported by the then world’s largest conscription army holding an empire ‘upon which the sun never set.’
The British Empire consisted also of the former German ‘empire’ of New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa, South West Africa, Quattar, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, Iraq, Togoland and the Cameroons. These territories stolen from Germany added another 1,061,755 square miles to the British Empire, the equivalent of 35 Scotlands
Against these formidable forces Germany was able to mobilise just ninety-eight divisions of which only fifty-two were active (including Austrian divisions). Of the remaining 46 divisions only 10 were fit for action on mobilisation and even in these the bulk of them were raw recruits who had been serving for less than one month.
The other 36 divisions consisted mainly of Great War veterans over the age of forty who were unfamiliar with modern weapons and up to date military techniques.
THE BALANCE SHEET
On the balance sheets it can be seen that the Poles and French alone, not counting Britain and its Empire, had the equivalent of 130 divisions against a total of 98 German divisions of with 1/3rd were virtually untrained men.
In terms of trained soldiers the Germans were at an even bigger disadvantage. (Note at the outbreak of war over 50% of the German armed forces was horse drawn).
WAR IN THE AIR
“The superiority of the Luftwaffe has been greatly exaggerated to create the impression that Britain was the underdog; a David fighting Goliath. In the run up to the Battle of Britain (August 10th 194) the Luftwaffe had 929 fighters available; mostly single-engine Messerschmitt 109s. Of these 227 were twin-engine long-range Me110s which had a top speed of 350mph. Although it had a faster rate of climb it was inferior when turning or manoeuvring.
The ME109’s range restricted its field of operation. Their real fields of operation – out and back – was a little over 100 miles, a flight time of barely 95 minutes and a tactical flight time of just 75 minutes. This was a sever handicap when it is considered that whereas the Luftwaffe pilots were operating scores of miles from their base, British pilots were often within sight of their own. This handicap was made more critical by the fact that downed RAF pilots could be rescued whilst Luftwaffe pilots were of course – if they were lucky – imprisoned.
The twin-engine ME110 was a slow flyer able to cruise at a little less than 300mph and was easily outpaced by the RAF’s Spitfires. It was also ‘sluggish in acceleration and difficult to manoeuvre.’
The greatest handicap for the Germans however was there primitive radio equipment. Unlike the British versions it was poor in air-to-air operation and could not be controlled by the ground.
On the British side a total surpassing 650 fighter aircraft had been amassed by mid-July, mostly Hurricanes and Spitfires although including nearly 100 of the older types. During that whole year Britain produced 4,238 fighters compared with a derisory 3,000 manufactured by Germany.
In terms of armaments the noted British military historian, B.H Liddell Hart noted: “What is quite clear, and became evident at the start, was that the German bombers were too poorly armed to be able to beat off the British fighters without a fighter escort of their own.” – History of the Second World War.
GERMANY AND OTHER FREE COUNTRIES ATTACKED
Poland carried out the first acts of aggression. In March 1939 Poland, already occupying German territory ‘acquired’ in 1919 invaded Czechoslovakia. During the months running up to the outbreak of war Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. On August 31st 1939 Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz.
Within hours Germany retaliated resulting in Britain and France’s declarations of war on the German nation on 3rd Sept 1939. In Britain’s case this declaration of war was constitutionally illegal. It was not as it should have been ratified by parliament.
Despite her borders being constantly attacked by the numerically superior armies of France and England, and economically strangled by world finance, Germany refused to be drawn, negotiated for peace and turned the other cheek for ten months.
Only when it accurately learned that England intended to broaden the western front by occupying the Low Countries and Norway, thus surrounding and threatening Germany’s entire borders, did Germany carry out a pre-emptive strike.
Germany’s defensive counter attack was launched on 10th May 1940. This resulted in the rout of 330,000 British and French troops by a significantly smaller army. It was one of the worst debacles in military history. (The British press called it ‘a miracle).
Russia invaded Finland on Nov 30th 1939. Britain (not for the first time) and France invaded Norway’s neutrality on 8th April 1940. To avoid attack via the Baltic Sea Germany counter-attacked. In the small battles that followed (Trondheim) 2,000 German troops routed 13,000 British troops. They were evacuated on 1st May. To save face Churchill disembarked 20,000 British troops at Narvik. They were driven out by 2,000 Austrian Alpine troops.
Canada declared war on Germany on 10th Sept. 1939. In June 1940, Soviet Russia invaded Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Rumania. In May 1940, Britain occupied defenseless Iceland. All of these acts of aggression in gross violation of international law and previously signed treaties.
On May 10th 1940, in brazen defiance of international law Britain occupied Iceland. Icelanders regarded the British armed forces as an occupying force. On 27th March 1941 a British backed coup overthrew the Yugoslav government. On 7th March 1941 British troops enter Greece. On 6th April 1941 Germany retaliated and Britain retreated again. In June 1940 Britain prepares to invade neutral Portugal. The United States, supposedly neutral, consistently attacks German shipping and arrests or otherwise kidnaps German citizens, even those living in South American countries. In August 1941. Germany retaliated.
In 1940 alone Britain, supposedly standing alone and at bay, added 1.6 MILLION SQUARE MILES TO ITS WORLD EMPIRE occupying Italian and French colonies; Syria, Iraq and Persia. Britain’s foremost military historian, A.J.P. Taylor conceded: “There can be no doubt that he (Hitler) broadened the war in 1941 only on preventive grounds.”
Footnote on casualties: In terms of military casualties the United Kingdom came in at number seven. Russia came first at 14,6 million, Germany 5,53, China 4,7, Japan 2,12, Romania 450,000, United States 427,000, UK 383,000, Italy 311,000, Hungary 300,000, France 217,000, Poland 240,000, Finland 82,000, India 48,700, Canada 42,700, Australia 37,600, Greece 35,100, Bulgaria 22,000, Netherlands 17,000, Belgium 12,100, New Zealand 12,150 (another country threatened by Germany no doubt!), South Africa 11,900, Czechoslovakia 7,961, Norway 3,000, Denmark 1,800, Brazil 943.
A FINAL EPITAPH FROM ONE OF ENGLAND’S FINEST POETS:
A curse for England, false and base,
Where nothing can prosper but disgrace,
Where crushed is each flower’s tender form,
And decay and corruption feed the worm ….
… Sounds familiar?
by Mark Weber
Ilya Ehrenburg, the leading Soviet propagandist of the Second World War, was a contradictory figure. A recent article in the weekly Canadian Jewish News sheds new light on the life of this „man of a thousand masks.“ 
Ehrenburg was born in 1891 in Kiev to a non-religious Jewish family. In 1908 he fled Tsarist Russia because of his revolutionary activities. Although he returned to visit after the Bolshevik revolution, he continued to live abroad, including many years in Paris, and did not settle in the Soviet Union until 1941. A prolific writer, Ehrenburg was the author of almost 30 books. The central figure of one novel, The Stormy Life of Lazik Roitschwantz, is a pathetic „luftmensch,“ a recurring character in Jewish literature who seems to live „from the air“ without visible means of support.
As a Jew and a dedicated Communist, Ehrenburg was a relentless enemy of German National Socialism. During the Second World War, he was a leading member of the Soviet-sponsored Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. (At fund-raising rallies in the United States for the Soviet war effort, two leading members of the Committee displayed bars of soap allegedly manufactured by the Germans from the corpses of murdered Jews.)
Ehrenburg is perhaps most infamous for his viciously anti-German wartime propaganda. In the words of the Canadian Jewish News: „As the leading Soviet journalist during World War II, Ehrenburg’s writings against the German invaders were circulated among millions of Soviet soldiers.“ His articles appeared regularly in Pravda, Izvestia, the Soviet military daily Krasnaya Zvezda („Red Star“), and in numerous leaflets distributed to troops at the front.
In one leaflet headlined „Kill,“ Ehrenburg incited Soviet soldiers to treat Germans as sub-human. The final paragraph concludes: 
„The Germans are not human beings. From now on the word German means to use the most terrible oath. From now on the word German strikes us to the quick. We shall not speak any more. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day … If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, or if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German in the meantime. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another — there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days, do not count kilometers. Count only the number of Germans killed by you. Kill the German — that is your grandmother’s request. Kill the German — that is your child’s prayer. Kill the German — that is your motherland’s loud request. Do not miss. Do not let through. Kill.”
Ehrenburg’s incendiary writings certainly contributed in no small measure to the orgy of murder and rape by Soviet soldiers against German civilians.
Until his death in 1967, „his support for the Soviet state, and for Stalin, never wavered,“ the Canadian Jewish News notes. His loyalty and service were acknowledged in 1952 when he received the Stalin Prize. In keeping with official Soviet policy, he publicly criticized Israel and Zionism.
The Canadian Jewish News further writes:
„ … The recent disclosure that Ehrenburg arranged to transfer his private archives to Jerusalem’s Yad Vashem library and archive, while still alive, comes as a stunning revelation. The reason this information has come to light only now is that Ehrenburg agreed to transfer his archive on condition that the transfer, and his will, remain secret for 20 years after his death. On Dec. 11 , with the 20-year period expired, Israel’s daily Maariv related Ehrenburg’s story…”
The collection includes material about the important wartime Jewish partisan movement. Among the documents in the collection is one concerning a pogrom in Malalchovka, a village near Moscow, which took place in 1959.
This new revelation about one of the most influential figures of the Stalinist regime shows that, whatever he may have said for public consumption, Ehrenburg never privately disavowed Zionism or forgot his ancestry.
From: The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1988-89 (Vol. 8, No. 4), pp. 507-509.
By Darius Cierpialkowski
64 years after the end of World War Two, construction workers have unearthed a mass grave with the bones of 2,000 people near Marienburg Castle in Malbork,Poland, the former Marienburg. The evidence suggests the bodies are mostly of German civilians — men, women and children — killed in early 1945 towards the end of the war.
By John Wear
August 5, 2018 marks the one-year anniversary of Ernst Zündel’s passing. He was essentially kidnapped from the U.S. and forced to remain in Germany. His wife, Ingrid Rimland, was unable to leave the U.S. to be with him. She risked jail time in Germany despite having no previous criminal convictions.
His crime? Ernst Zündel was deemed a “security threat.” Not because he was ever violent or ever incited violence, but because he created a legal precedent in which:
For the first time ever, “Holocaust” survivors and “Holocaust” historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.
Few Canadians realize that Zündel did them “a favor by wiping off the books [the] disgraceful False News laws” strangling free-speech.
What They Do Not Tell You About the Life and Work of Ernst Zündel
An adapted extract from Revisionists. com.
Ernst Zündel (1939-2017) was a German-born publisher, author and civil rights activist, who emigrated to Canada at the age of 19. He became a successful graphic artist, with his work appearing, for example, on the front cover of Canada’s national news magazine, Maclean’s. Setting aside his thriving career, he dedicated himself to the great task, as he saw it, of redeeming the sullied reputation of his fellow Germans.
For seven years he was held behind bars, first in Canada and then in Germany, solely for the peaceful expression of non-conformist views. For some time he was the most prominent political prisoner in the western world.
Zündel was an outgoing, good-humored man who was blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and practical ability. He was perhaps best known as the defiant defendant in the much-publicized “Holocaust Trials” of 1985 and 1988. He was brought to court in Toronto on a charge of “publishing false news,” and specifically for publishing a reprint edition of a booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die?
Zündel’s two lengthy trials were something close to full scale debates on the Holocaust issue.
For the first time ever, “Holocaust” survivors and “Holocaust” historians were closely and critically questioned under oath about their claims and views.
To wage the legal battle that was forced upon him, he brought together an impressive international team of researchers, legal specialists, scholars, and many others. From numerous libraries and archives in North America and Europe, this group assembled at the “Zündelhaus” in Toronto one of the most extensive collections of evidence anywhere on this chapter of history.
Among those who testified on Zündel’s behalf in the trials were Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Mark Weber, William Lindsey, Udo Walendy, and Bradley Smith. As a result of the two trials, an enormous quantity of evidence and testimony challenging the prevailing Holocaust narrative was presented to the court and thereby was made part of the permanent public record. Perhaps the most important evidence was the historic testimony of American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter concerning his on-site forensic examination of the alleged extermination gas chambers in Poland.
Zündel was found guilty in the 1985 trial, but the verdict was set aside by the provincial appeals court. It ruled that the judge in that trial had, among other things, given improper instructions to the jury, and had improperly excluded defense evidence. At the conclusion of the second Zündel trial in May 1988, a jury declared him guilty. A few days later, he was sentenced to nine months imprisonment.
French scholar Robert Faurisson wrote at the time:
Zündel may once again go to prison for his research and beliefs or be threatened with deportation. All this is possible. Anything may happen when there is an intellectual crisis and a realignment of historical concepts of such a dimension. Revisionism is the great intellectual adventure of the end of this century. Whatever happens, Ernst Zündel is already the victor.”
On appeal, Canada’s Supreme Court threw out the 1988 conviction, declaring on August 27, 1992, that the archaic “false news” law under which Zündel had been tried and convicted was a violation of the country’s Charter of Rights. This was more than a personal vindication by Canada’s highest court; Ernst Zündel secured an important victory for the rights of all Canadians.
His next great legal battle was fought before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal [which operates outside of normal legal standards] in Toronto. The charges, instigated by Jewish groups, accused Zündel of promoting “hatred or contempt” against Jews through the “Zündelsite” website operated by Ingrid Rimland from the United States. In this legal action, as the Tribunal’s presiding Commissioner declared, the truth or validity of the supposedly “hateful” items was not a consideration. (Ultimately the Tribunal declared the “Zündelsite” to be unlawful, but because it is based in the U.S., the ruling has been unenforceable).
During the 42 years he lived in Canada (1958-2000), Ernst Zündel was never convicted of a crime. He was, however, repeatedly a victim of violence and hate. He survived three assassination attempts, including by arson and pipe bomb. Even Irv Rubin, the American Jewish Defence League leader, was caught breaking into Zündel’s home with a member of the “Jewish Armed Resistance Movement” who had previously claimed responsibility for one of the arson attacks. He also endured years of legal harassment and repeated imprisonment.
After more than four decades in Canada, including a failed effort to acquire Canadian citizenship, Zündel moved to the United States. On February 5, 2003, Ernst Zündel was arrested at home in the mountain region of eastern Tennessee. U.S. authorities seized him on the pretext that he had violated immigration regulations, or had missed an interview date with U.S. immigration authorities, even though he had entered the U.S. legally, was married to Ingrid Rimland, an American citizen, had no criminal record, and was acting diligently, and in full accord with the law, to secure status as a permanent legal resident.
After being held for two weeks, he was deported to Canada. For two years — from mid-February 2003 to March 1, 2005 — he was held in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre as a supposed threat to national security.
His arrest and detention generated widespread media attention. A few Canadian newspapers and several independent analysts acknowledged the injustice of his incarceration. The country’s most prestigious daily, the Toronto Globe and Mail, affirmed in an editorial (“Zündel doesn’t warrant a security certificate,” March 6, 2004) that he posed no risk to people or property, and that he was being held unjustly on a bogus “guilt by association” pretext.
He has never been charged with a violent crime and does not urge others to commit violence,” the editorial noted. “The real danger to Canadians,” it concluded, comes not from individuals like Zündel, “but from a government that casually discards their most precious rights.”
In another editorial (“The Zündel Case,” Oct. 23, 2004) the influential paper called Canada’s treatment of Zündel an “abuse of the secret-trial legislation.”
Bill Dunphy, a veteran investigative journalist and editor for the daily Hamilton Spectator, also protested the injustice. He spent six years probing Canada’s “white supremacist” movement, and got to know Zündel well. Although he has no sympathy for Zündel’s views, in a hard-hitting column (Hamilton Spectator, May 14, 2003) he told readers:
Our government has seized and branded Ernst Zündel, stripped him of his human rights, tried him in secret and found him wanting, and will now hand him over to a foreign government anxious to throw him in jail …
… Zündel – who did this country a favor by wiping off the books our disgraceful False News laws – has never once been convicted of a criminal offense in this country, never once found to have violated the hate crime laws that rest snugly around the throat of free expression in this country.
Calculating correctly that there was no political cost, no ‘down side’ to slipping on the jackboots to kick a reviled old man out of our country, our government cobbled together their best insults and innuendo, and Lord knows what secret ‘evidence,’ and branded Ernst Zündel a threat to national security.
I know this man, his local and international contacts and I know this movement. And after reading the 58-page ‘unclassified’ summary of the government’s case, I can assure you there is no justice here. Their ‘evidence’ is riddled with errors and misinformation, hearsay and inflammatory innuendo. Dead men walk again, and the shattered bits of shoddy secret networks long since collapsed under the weight of their own ineptitude are made whole and menacing once again. It is a shameful piece of dishonest, unreliable tripe.”
Zündel was held in Canada not because his views are unpopular, or because he was a “security risk.” He was in prison because Jewish groups wanted him there, and because he promoted views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.
This lobby was the decisive, critical factor in the decades-old campaign to silence him. The only sustained and institutionalized effort in Canada to imprison Zündel came from this lobby, which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith (Canada’s counterpart to the U.S.-based “Anti-Defamation League”).
On March 1, 2005, Zündel was deported to Germany, just as Jewish groups had been demanding. Upon his arrival at Frankfurt airport, he was immediately arrested and taken to Mannheim prison to await trial for the “thought crime” of “denying the Holocaust.”
A few months later the public prosecutor in Mannheim formally charged Zündel with inciting “hatred” by having written or distributed texts that “approve, deny or play down” genocidal actions carried out by Germany’s wartime regime, and which “denigrate the memory of the [Jewish] dead.” …. The 14 specific violations cited by the court included postings on the U.S.-based “Zündelsite” website. The court thus upheld efforts by German authorities to punish individuals for writings that are legal in the country where they are published. Jewish groups quickly, and predictably, expressed approval of the verdict.
Zündel was released from prison on March 1, 2010 — five years after his deportation to Germany, and three years after his conviction by a court in Mannheim. Banned from returning to either Canada or the U.S., he went to his family home in Germany’s Black Forest region, where he resided until his death. Unable to leave the U.S. and be with him, his wife Ingrid Rimland died two months later.
After years of private research and study, Dr. Faurisson first made public his skeptical views about the Holocaust extermination story in two items published in December 1978 and January 1979 in the influential Paris daily Le Monde. This documentary is a recounting of events since that terrible and wonderful December 1978.