Nuremberg – katana17

Brian Ruhe Show — Monika Schaefer – One Month in the “Free World”, Nov 26, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:32:33 +0000

[Brian Ruhe from “The Brian Ruhe Show” interviews (Nov 26, 2018) Monika Schaefer in her second appearance, exactly one month since being released from a German prison. She served 10 months for a six-minute YouTube video, in which she gave a belated apology to her German mother for berating her for not doing something about the “Holocaust“, that Monika has since realized, factually never happened.

They discuss the trial in more detail, for example, how they had to fight to get the microphones turned on so that everyone could hear what was going on. How Alfred fought and succeeded in having his videos shown in full.

More importantly, Monika discusses the absurdity and injustice of the trial system, in that by attempting to defend and explain why she made her video, she runs the very real risk of being charged again for the same thought crime that she is already on trial for! That is the reason why she was advised to flee Germany, using trains, etc., as soon as she was released.

She ends, saying that she’s looking forward to doing some kind of speaking tour after the New Year.

— KATANA]

_______________________

The Brian Ruhe Show

Monika Schaefer

One Month in the

“Free World”

Click the link below to view the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsR0tPNb2n0&t=2s

Also at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbLoIegHCY&t=54s

YouTube Description

Published on Nov 26, 2018

Certain features have been disabled for this video

In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Streamed live on Nov 26, 2018

This is Monika Schaefer’s second visit on The Brian Ruhe Show since being freed from imprisonment in Germany for 10 months for the “hate crime” of Holocaust denial. To support her brother, who has been sentenced to 3 years, 2 months in prison in Germany for Holocaust denial, please write to him at:

Alfred Schaefer

JVA Stadelheim

Stadelheimer Strasse 12 81549

München Germany

http://www.brianruhe.ca https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bria…
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/brian.ruhe.92/
http://www.thulesociety.com

My BLOG: http://www.brianruhe.ca/category/blog/

You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.

http://www.brianruhe.ca/please-donate/ or cryptocurrencies below.

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/bria…
https://twitter.com/
https://www.facebook.com/brian.ruhe.92/
http://www.thulesociety.com

My BLOG: http://www.brianruhe.ca/category/blog/

You have my permission to please copy any of my videos to spread the word.

Bitcoin: 15Ls63J21zzhAPE7ke4P2JhaHyAEhUrJVe

Bitcoin Cash: qq3xdk6lfacxz0gqgxl6fk42y9ldmr0l45yhega2vs

Exodus Ripple: rpNtf3KwSAnrCBeeq4gcvMwFZCi6onm1XM

Brian Ruhe’s books are available at Amazon.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no…

Category
Education
License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(50:53)

[00:00]

Brian: Welcome to the Brian Ruhe Show. It’s November 26, 2018. It’s now one month since Monika Schaefer’s been in the free world! Since she left prison in Germany for the hate crime of “Holocaust” denial. So she’s back on the show for a second time. It’s a real honor to have you back Monika. How are you doing today?

Monika: Hello Brian! Nice to be back with you. Thank you so much. Yes, today is exactly one month since the last day of the trial and the verdict, which did set me “free”. And I’m glad you put that in quotation marks. Time served, so it was ten months. It was just under ten months, but they said ten months and now you go free.

And, of course, Alfred, unfortunately, is still in jail and will be for quite some time. They gave him thirty eight months, so just over three years. And yeah, we can talk about that some more in the show, too. About how people can support him, and write letters, and that kind of thing.

But anyway, yeah, so it’s been one month! It seems like a lot longer ago. I have to say. “time” has a way of shrinking and expanding on us depending on what we’re doing! And interestingly the way I feel now about this past month, one month going by, is kind of like my first month in jail! How I felt in terms of the time, just crawling by, like it was just this interminably long amount of time, that first month. And then time would speed up, like at the end it was shocking how fast time went by in prison! And now, here I am! You know, I was set free and so much has happened over this past month, and so many impressions, and so many emotional highs and lows, and just going through a lot.

I talked last time with you about escaping out of Germany and out of Europe, needing to do that, because, …

Brian: Eight trains you said to get out of the country!

Monika: Well, eight trains and then an airplane obviously, to get over the ocean. And I needed to do that, because I did new crimes just in trying to defend myself! That’s the crazy thing about if you’re a “thought criminal” in Germany, and you go through the court system, you cannot actually defend yourself, or explain how you reached your conclusions without doing new crime! And I think I talked about that at length last time, so I won’t go into that.

Today I thought I would talk more about the details of what did happen in the trial, not just the fact that it was a dark ages almost pseudo secret trial. We talked about that last time, quite a bit. Just all those aspects about problems with the microphones and people not being able to take notes for a while. And not being recorded. No transcript of the trial, that kind of thing.

And, by the way, there was one aspect of that I did want to update, or make a correction on., because we didn’t quite complete the narrative. And that was about the mics.

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: They did get turned on, but it took a while, right? But that first day we were struggling with that, and I think it was maybe half a day in, and finally did get the mics turned on., because I saw that in the feedback, or the comments, that people who were left with the impression that they never did get turned on. That’s not quite true. We did get them to turn them on. But it was only after, you know, I had talked about how I stood up and just said:

“Hey! This is either a public trial, or it’s not a public trial, and they’re just there for show! If you don’t care that the public can hear.”

All those things did not faze the judge. He was not fazed by any of that until, in my exasperation, I just kind of muttered, almost as an afterthought, I muttered under my breath:

“Well, I can’t hear that well, anymore.”

And that did the trick! At that point he suddenly realized:

“Oh okay, we might be a Inquisition here, or it might be a kangaroo court, but we still have to have some semblance, …”

[her telephone starts ringing] Oh dear, my telephones going! I’m gonna just bury that back here and put a pillow on it! Just a sec. Yeah. Sorry about that. I didn’t think of that before. I should have done that before and buried that. But anyway. [loud laughing]

And then the judge decided:

“Okay the defendant at least has to hear what’s going on, right?” [loud laughing]

[5:00]

So that’s when they decided, yeah, they’ll turn on the mics. It was only when I said I couldn’t hear that well, anymore.

Brian: Yeah, so you needed to hear, of course.

Monika: They had to afford us that much, that the defendant herself has to be able to hear what’s going on! [loud laughing] And that took quite a while to get that. But yeah, so just what happened during the trial? People are probably curious, and I know there were some reports, and the Barnes Review put out reports, and from Lady Michele Renouf who wrote about it, that kind of thing.

Monika: Yeah, but a lot of people felt like there was just this darkness about what actually went on in the trials. So I’ll just give a little bit of a summation of what did go on, why it took so long, 20 days in total.

It was basically a giant education for anybody who was there. [Brian holds up the latest Barnes Review with an article on the trial] Oh my goodness! Wow!

Brian: This is a current issue of the Barnes Review and you’re in it. This is the current issue. Yeah Lady Michele Renouf’s write up is in here. Yeah I could just show the audience. Here it is “History and Free Speech Holocausted in Germany”. This is a current issue. This is the write up about you.

Monika: Oh fantastic!

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: I must get that!

Brian: Yeah,

Monika: Okay, well I’ll deal with that later. So thanks Brian for showing that.

It was basically a giant education, so that nobody who was in that courtroom could say afterwards:

“We just didn’t know! We just didn’t understand!”

So, at first they were just going to show little snippets, little tiny portions, of the offending parts of the videos. There were multiple charges against Alfred, there were multiple charges against me, more against Alfred. He’s created more videos. And so they would outline, you know, minute three, or minute ten, out of this video, this kind of thing. And they’d only scheduled four days at first for the trial, and they just thought they’d show these little offending bits, and:

“They broke the law! And this is what the law says and these are ‘inciting hatred’ and riling people up.”

And whatnot. And not show them in their entirety. And then they would be done with it, and bingo, lock them away!

But Alfred was very strategic, and it was brilliant how he forced them to show the videos in their entirety, so that they would be in context. Sort of like reading a book from front to back, instead of just reading a little paragraph here, and a little paragraph there. So you take everything out of context.

Brian: He did he manage to convince the judge to do that? Because I know he did long videos, he’s playing.

Monika: Yeah. He just simply did not answer questions that the judge was asking him, which pertain to the technicality of when, and where, did you produce these, or push the button to send it out into the internet? That kind of thing. And those were the questions that they were very, very interested in. They, of course, are not interested in the contents pertaining to reality, or history. They don’t want to know those things, in fact, they would deny us the opportunity to bring this kind of evidence into the court, over, and over, again. No, they’re more interested in:

“When did you push that button, and push that send? And where were you exactly? And what was the date? And what was the minute and second of when it was released to the world?”

And this kind of thing, because that then can be used to show:

“Oh! We broke their law!”

Right? So Alfred just simply refused to answer those questions. He just said:

“Well, I’m not gonna answer that. We have to see the whole video. I’m not gonna answer that, we have to see the whole video!”

Eventually we won that, or he won that. And the judge just decided:

“Yep! We’ll see the videos.”

So we saw a lot of videos. And then, of course, most of these are in English and they needed to be translated. So they were translated into German and those translations were read out. So those were prepared, they weren’t just simultaneous translations. No, they were prepared. We would see the video in its entirety, and then hear the translation. And those, of course, since they are on paper, they are on the record. Those are now, …

Brian: Oh, so it is part of the record. That’s good.

Monika: Yeah. That is good. So that was a good chunk of time taken up by the watching of those videos. But after each video there would be questions and answers. An opportunity for all of us who wanted could speak. Like whether it was Alfred, or his lawyer, or me, or my lawyer, or the prosecutor. Everybody had a chance to speak. So most of, …

Brian: I remember in your letters, you said there’s a bit more mutual respect between Alfred and the judge, you know, when they’re going through all these videos. Sort of like teaching them, explaining. I mean, he said those were a real education for the court.

[10:15]

Monika: Well, that’s how we perceived it. They evidently, … I mean, we knew this wasn’t going to go, … They were quite likely not going to do us a personal favor. Alfred knows that. We all knew that. However, I mean, we’re doing this for all of us, our enlightenment, for truth. This is just really important historically to, hear it is!

So then a lot of the time, also, was taken up by these motions for evidence, or I don’t know what you would call it in English. It was “xxx”. So these documents, some of them were quite thick, to be read in court. Now the judge didn’t always allow these to be read, because he said:

“Oh, that’s too long, we don’t have time. It’s the end of the day.”

But this was ridiculous! There were more days scheduled! It has to take as long as it has to take. But so, when they were not read out loud, the judges were supposed to read these on their own, and the prosecutors too. And that was the sort of their promise, or their covenant, or whatever, that they would say. Yes, that we will take these for our own reading. But then it doesn’t go to the public, nobody hears it. And then there’s the opportunity for the press that’s there, you know, the mainstream press. I mean, they could just interpret these things however they want, because it’s not actually out there for the public to hear, what, is in it.

Then you only hear the interpretation of the prosecutor afterwards, and in the final judgement, of course, the judge, … But, some of these things did get read out loud. And to give you an example what those would be, one of the accusations against Alfred was this term that he used, “parasite”, okay. And they accused him “that’s hatred”. Well no! He wanted to get a biologist, an expert in to describe exactly what that means.

Brian: [laughing] What a parasite is! If it’s realistic, if it’s straightforward and honest, how could you call it hate?

Monika: In a very biological sense, what is a parasitic relationship with a host? Okay. So that kind of request for expertise. Or a request for an historian to verify that the things that Alfred is saying, either in the videos, or in these long documents, these motions for evidence.

The quotes that are being given by, you know, people who want to do away with us, the White race, for example. So quotes by Noel Ignatieff, or these books, you know, the Hooton Plan, or the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan, or Kaufman, you know, Theodore Kaufman, or countless books, or papers. Or, you know, positions that have been taken and are widely documented and they’re known of but Alfred was requesting that there be an expert historian to verify that these are actually out there in the public record.

See: Ursula Haverbeck – The Hooton Plan and the Migrant Crisis — TRANSCRIPT

[In this 28 minute video, recorded in September 2015, Ursula Haverbeck, a German woman who lived through WWII discusses how the “migrant” invasion is part of larger plan to destroy Germany and is a continuation of the WW II era Hooton Plan (and similar schemes) created by organized jewry as part of their larger goal of world domination, aka, the Jew World Order — KATANA.]

That these things have been said by these people. So that it’s not us making it up. It’s not us just making up things. That, you know, whether the jewish people are saying this about us, or we’re saying this about them, or whatever. No! If we’re quoting somebody else, we want to know that was actually what they said! So these kind of requests. But, of course, those were all dismissed, put aside.

Also at towards the end of the trial my lawyer did make a request for Fred Leuchter to appear in court. Now not in person, because that would be very dangerous for him to come to Germany. He’d end up in the gulag, too! But — via videoconferencing — to bring him back on, because his evidence had been used in the videos, and in the written submissions. And that was also dismissed, pushed aside.

“No! We don’t need him to come!”

So anything that we requested to verify our positions, the things that they are using against us, to incarcerate us, to call us the “haters”, but we’re just presenting it to the world. But any of these things that we wanted to prove and show, they just dismissed it!

“Nope! No! No! You guys are bad! You’re the haters! We don’t like what you’re saying and full of your hatred! And your undermining confidence in the justice system!”

[15:06]

That is in each charge. Then they say you are basically “inciting hatred” and:

“Undermining confidence in the justice system!”

Brian: What’s wrong with undermining confidence in the justice system, or a political system? If you don’t have confidence in it, that’s freedom of speech! Right? Like criticizing the government, anyone can do that, right?

Monika: Well, not only that, isn’t in an irony that these things they’re doing to us, like raiding Alfred’s home three times, over the past three years, and taking all his equipment, and whatnot. And then if you point that out:

“Oh! You’re undermining confidence!”

Well aren’t they just undermining confidence in the justice system by locking people away for freedom of expression, and stealing their equipment from their homes? And, you know, appearing any time of night, or day. I mean, they can come in the middle of night. In those cases they came early morning. But they’re the ones doing all these things to undermine our confidence!

Brian: That’s a double standard!

Monika: And then they tell us we’re undermining the confidence in the system! Right. So yeah.

I wanted to also talk about some of the specific points that I was charged on, and they’re just crazy! And I talked about these during the “last word”, you know, the final, what do you call it? When I gave the last word, four hour speech that I gave. [final words from the defendant at the end of the trial]

So one of the charges against me originally, and actually this one, I think, it was dropped in the end, but I don’t have my legal, all the legal documents with me here. Hopefully they will be sent to me. I wasn’t able to take everything along with me when I fled quickly. I couldn’t fit it all on my suitcase! But the CODOH video that was produced, in which we answer the question:

“Why do you support open debate on the “Holocaust”?”

Brian: Oh! I remember that when you made it. Yeah.

Monika: Yeah, it’s a less than four minute video, which we just sent sound clips, we didn’t actually produce that one. It was produced in the States, and I don’t have to go further with that. But it’s CODOH, the Committee for Open Debate on the “Holocaust”. And this little video, it just turned out really great, I think. Because really, we’re just answering this question, that if you substituted that “H” word with any other word, anything else, everybody would say:

“Well, of course, you should be able to debate that! Of course, you should be able to talk about these things! Why wouldn’t you?”

I mean, this is really the only historical event that is legislated by law. That there’s one version of it, and you’re not allowed to talk about it. But so, this is just answering the question:

“Why do you support open debate on this taboo subject?”

And so I was delighted actually, that if they were going to charge us, and charge me at all, well good that they included that one in there. Because it just is one of these things that demonstrates incredibly well how they are defending and supporting lies! I mean, really! I don’t think you can watch that video without shaking your head and saying:

“Well that’s logical! Of course, you should be able to debate it!”

We don’t even talk about things happening, or not happening. We’re just saying:

“Yeah, we should be able to discuss it!”

Brian: Yeah just to discuss it. Ask questions about it.

Monika: That’s not allowed! That’s not allowed! And they just proved it by putting that in the charges.

Okay, another one that they charged me with, that which they definitely kept in, and I was awarded several months of incarceration, you know, verdict for. Was the video that was with Gerd Ittner, who just was released not that long ago from prison, another prison sentence.

See: Alfred Schaefer – A Dissident Speaking Out – Gerhard Ittner — TRANSCRIPT

And Gerd Ittner and Alfred, they had this video called “Dissidents Speak Out” [“A Dissident Speaking Out — Gerhard Ittner”] and they had a version in German and a version in English. And I think the English version was entitled “Dissidents Speak Out”. In German it was “Dissidenten sprechen sich aus”. And the German version of my offending video the “Sorry Mom” video, the German version in Germany disappeared very quickly, because they censor things like crazy. And so they had wanted, like Gerd Ittner, wanted that video to show up more — and mine’s just short, right, that’s six minutes and theirs was already half an hour, so to add six minutes to their half hour video that was just a little addition — and so they put that one in there, mine, into their video, into the dissidents video. And I didn’t know about it, but I was charged with having collaborated to do this!

Brian: Oh! You weren’t aware of it?

Monika: No! I wasn’t aware of it until afterwards. Now it’s irrelevant what I think about the idea. I don’t even need to comment on that. Do I think that was good that they did that, or not, good? It’s irrelevant! But the relevant part is that they charged me! That I spent time in jail for having participated in doing that! You know, to — what’s the word — to “conspire” with them to do that. Conspire, that’s the word I was actually wanting to use. Because, they keep talking about “conspiracies”! And “conspiracy theories” and all this! Making it sound like that’s some kind of a, like crazy thing!

Brian: Well, like you’re a nut!

Monika: Yeah, yeah! Anyway, so I made it very, very clear, as did my lawyer. And we were able to show that I had no foreknowledge, I had no knowledge of them doing this, to put that video in there. But they kept it in there, and, you know, that was part of my verdict.

Brian: So were you out of prison at the time? When they put it in.

Monika: Of course! Of course. So this is all, …

Brian: So there was no way to discuss it, …

Monika: This is just the verdict on me, because I did get the verdict of guilty. Just, because I was released, doesn’t mean I got “not guilty”. I got “guilty”, but ten months prison sentence. And I had already served it, so then they released me. But that charge remained. So I got a guilty verdict on that charge, even though I was able to prove, really, … I mean, I guess I don’t know how does one prove something like that? :

“Did know about it in advance?”

So they are going to read your mind? But I was able to make a strong case for the fact that I had no knowledge about, …

Brian: What about, they know your letters in prison. It wasn’t in your letters, right, they we’re doing this? So isn’t that evidence of nothing, you didn’t know? You just you didn’t have much communication, right?

Monika: No. That video was produced like a couple of years ago! So it’s not produced while I was in prison, right?

Brian: Right okay.

Monika: But anyway, I made an analogy in the “last words”. I said:

“Okay, let’s say we go out into the woods and I’m gonna instruct people on how to build a fire out in the woods, you know, using the lichen off the tree. And just making a fire where you don’t have a blowtorch, you know. [loud laughing] You might just have a match, if that. And I teach people how to make a fire on a survival course. And so everybody’s happy. And then we come back. And then maybe a month later there’s a case of arson. Somebody burnt down a building. And then they find out, oh it was somebody that happened to go on that survival course and learned how to make a fire from Monika Schaefer! Oh we’re gonna charge Monika Schaefer with that arson!”

Brian: Yeah. Good analogy.

Monika: You know, it’s kind of crazy! Like they’re making some kind of a weird connection that makes no sense. And maybe that’s not even a good analogy, because that was a destructive act, and that I don’t want to make that a comparison with putting that video into the “Dissident” video, at all! But just the logic, the step of logic, just doesn’t exist, it’s crazy! But this is the kind of thing they were doing. And that’s why I was always saying with delight to my friends in prison:

“Gee, every day they’re proving to us how truth, and justice, and right, and righteousness, lies on our side, and they’re defending lies!”

So. Anyway. One of the things that they did also do, they did stop some letters going in and going out, and they stopped those letters, or sometimes they just photocopied them, and then still sent them onwards. But they read one of my letters in court. One letter that I had written to somebody, and it was in German this letter. And at first I was quite nervous. And my lawyer had wanted to stop them from doing that, because he hadn’t seen it. And his argument was:

“It’s always the right the right of the defense to see the evidence before it’s brought out into the court.”

But I said:

“No. No. Let them read it.”

Because I was quite confident, even though I didn’t remember specifically what I’d put into that letter, you know, because I wrote so many letters. But I was quite confident that it should be suitable for reading in court. But still, you get nervous, you know, here they are going to read this letter in court and it’s supposed to be very incriminating!

Anyway I was quite delighted after they read it. And I did translate it, and I want to read that now.

Brian: Very good. Yeah, let’s hear it! Thanks.

Monika: So this was read out in the court, in the Inquisition of the Schaefers. [loud laughing]

[25:00]

“Dear Doctor R.”

I’ll just call him that to protect his identity.

“Thank you for your letter dated July 15th, which I received July 27th. You are not alone in thinking about the witch persecutions. I have often thought of them. I am very grateful that there is no death penalty, at this point, in time, because we both know what would then be. One thing occurs to me, just like today there are many helpers, or quislings, or followers.”

I wasn’t sure of the English word to use here, “Shabbat goy”, maybe.

“Just like today, there are many “Shabbat goy” who firmly believe they are doing good when they betray people who are actually telling the truth. I would think it was that the same back then. It is likely that people sometimes betrayed as “witches”, their own relatives and believed they were doing good. I suspect there were a lot of lies, deceptions, indoctrination, and brainwashing at that time, as well. And that fear played a large role. Or, I probably know far too little about the history.

I don’t think that the letters written to me, as per your concern, harm me, more than help me. The authorities have to catch on eventually, that the more they just lock people up simply for saying inconvenient things, or asking questions, the more it rattles the people awake out there. At some point it just gets to be too much. The servants of the system just don’t know when to stop.

Sure, sometimes letters in both directions are confiscated, copied, either forwarded, or not, used as evidence against me, but I have to say it sometimes has very little to do with contents regarding history. They are not interested in history, and truth! Only whether we bumped up against some thought control law, or pushed a button in the Internet. That’s what I mean.

The law itself is so intangible and unclear. Well, it has to be, for their purpose of serving a regime built on lies. The whole thing makes me think of Kafka and the book, or the film, 1984 by George Orwell. When I read 1984, back in the 70s, I never could have imagined that I would one day find myself in the middle of that book, …”

Then I wrote a little bit about stamps, which is now irrelevant. And then I continued:

“In the meantime the trial continues. Maybe I’ll be out of here soon see, dot, dot, dot.”

And I signed off.

And so, that was a letter that they read out loud. And I’m telling you when they finished reading that I just about jumped up and down for joy, because I was proud of that letter! You know? I mean, I thought:

“Maybe they’re on my side?”

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: It made me think;

“Maybe?”

That like, there’s there are two main judges and two lay judges. And the one who was tasked with going through the mail, was the one of the main judges, but not the head judge. You know, it was the woman. And at first it was that prosecutor who was reading all the mail. And they got way behind, and they couldn’t handle it anymore! And they were just complaining, that’s all they were doing anymore, is reading this mail for Monika Schaefer! And they were frustrated.

Anyway, they finally passed it off to the judge, and she was reading all the mail. And she just looked so friendly, I have to say. I just thought:

“She’s on my side! That letter was in my favor, I thought.”

But evidently not! For their final result, the verdict — especially when the head judge was saying at the very end:

“Every day we proved what haters we were!”

My goodness!

Brian: Yeah, what really stuck with me, the judge was saying:

“It doesn’t matter whether the “Holocaust” happened, or not. What matters is that it’s illegal in Germany to deny it!”

Monika: That was the judge for the Ernst Zündel case — just to be clear. I was making comparison in our last show. About how our judge handled it and how that judge handled it quite differently. Right?

Like our judge never said anything of that sort, and did not let on at all that he might have realized that, very same thing.

Brian: Okay. Yeah I misunderstood that, yeah.

Monika: That was the Ernst Zündel [Trial], at the end of that. And I thought that was pretty interesting actually, because it makes it clear that judge understood.

Brian: Yeah. It would be huge admission for a judge to say that. It’s good that he said that at the Zundel trial.

Monika: Some people make the commentary that was actually quite risky for that judge to have said that. But then, of course, he slapped on the maximum sentence, five years, for Ernst Zündel. So he still, you know, did that. But just by making that admission, just to say that:

“It doesn’t matter if it happened, or not, and what matters is that it’s against the law to question it, and you broke the law.”

[30:15]

But no, our judge didn’t do that at all. No! No, our judge was actually, well the head judge, the one who then spoke, you know, sort of like a chairman. Oh my goodness! No you didn’t get that impression at all!

And I know partway through, after that first wild week when things were just a “gong show”, there. After that it settled down a bit and all the videos were being shown, and then the question/answer and all that. And that’s when Alfred made the comment that he thought there was this mutual respect developing between them. And Alfred is the eternal optimist! Who really does have this positive outlook, thinking, you know:

“These people, they will know, and they will all learn, and they will understand it. And at some point they’re going to turn. And turn around and to come over to our side. To do the right thing!”

And Alfred has that huge, you know, he just radiates that optimism too, which gives him the strength too, to carry on! And it’s wonderful! Like that is an infectious and wonderful energy that he has. To have that outlook!

Brian: Yeah, I can see that in his videos, as well. But I guess it didn’t pan out that way. You know, others were responding to that.

Monika: But at some point it will happen! And then it’s just going to be this domino and avalanche effect! That somebody, some judge is just going to be courageous enough to do that, even if it means that they themselves suffer some dire consequences.

See: Ursula Haverbeck “The Greatest Problem of Our Time” — TRANSCRIPT

And I think that it has happened in some forms, or other, in Germany. Like I can’t remember the specifics, but there was some case that was going on and it wasn’t exactly like ours. But people in all these positions, they know what’s going on. At some point that dream, that prophetic dream, that Ursula Haverbeck had, while in prison already. I don’t know if you heard about that dream? But it was this wonderful prophetic dream in which they, all these military type people, and the jail type people, the inquisitors, the judges, they, … Somebody just at some point said:

“I’m not going to participate in this anymore!”

And in her dream there was torture going on, and all this thing. So it really was a dream that she wrote down. And this has gone out maybe, it’s more, you know, even more, … I don’t know if it’s been translated into English, but it was a wonderful dream. And they just stopped participating, in this dream. And to cut to the chase, you know, in the end she woke up great really relieved, that:

“Oh thank goodness! They have just stopped participating! And now it’s gonna turn.”

At some point, it’s going to turn!

Brian: Yeah it good! Yeah, I guess we don’t know when. I guess they’re firmly in the saddle at this time. But it’s good that you, you know, people are making the sacrifices to do this. But certainly I guess, within Germany there’s more truth amongst the people, about World War Two and the role of Adolf Hitler. There are these groups of Germans which are patriotic and know about that. And they get together and they meet, you know.

Monika: Yeah, it’s hard to know how many people know, they’re in Germany, what’s going on. But it’s more and more, all the time. It really is. Like people are waking up. I know that, for instance, the driver going back and forth between the courthouse and the prison, I know that some of them are very aware, just from some of the comments I was getting from them in my interactions. Because I went back and forth so often that then they started to get more comfortable.

And I just know that they can see what’s going on! They’re driving prisoners back and forth all day, so they see who’s doing all these things. Why are they in jail? And, who are they? [loud laughing]

Brian: Is there any idea of just how many people are in jail in Germany for “Holocaust” denial, for this “hate crime”? It’s hard to get any figures. Maybe they don’t want us to know? Do you have any idea?

Monika: I don’t think it’s that many that are actually, … But I shouldn’t even say that. I don’t know how many there are. But I do know that there’s a lot of charges on the same law, this 130, this paragraph one thirty. Two thousand a year is what I was told. Two thousand charges a year, which means that people are paying fines, people are forced to do this, or that, or the other thing. I don’t know what some of the other conditions are.

[35:00]

Brian: So that’s 2,000 people for “Holocaust” denial and Germany, you mean?

Monika: Well they don’t even have the words “Holocaust denial” in their law. The word “Holocaust” does not appear in that law. But it is always about that. That paragraph 130. That is what it’s about! And there are 2,000 cases a year being processed! And that law has existed since 1994. It did not exist before 1994. So, you know, my lawyer argued very well that they got along without a law for 40 years, after the war. And they were actually encouraged, when he was in his, you know, schooling.

“Yes debate these things! Talk about these things! We should be able to discuss these things.”

And they did without fear of persecution.

Brian: That’s surprising that in Germany they could talk openly about that until 1994. You think they would have prevented any doubts about the “Holocaust”?

Monika: Well, the reeducation program was in full swing.

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: And there too, you know, that really got into swing, I guess the whole “Holocaust” thing, in the 70s, right? It wasn’t right after the war. It was too close to events. But then those people who went through the school system, people of my age, our age, they really got hit with it. And subsequently to that they’re just getting really, you know, the triple, quadruple, dose of that, the poison of the mind! You know, the poison that gets put into the mind, of these lies.

Brian: Yeah. I met, with Germans I’ve met here, you can really see that strong reaction. They are convinced that way. So of these 2,000, you would say probably few would go to jail? They would get a fine, or something else like that?

Monika: Yeah, and I don’t know how many are in jail, specifically for this. I think there’s probably quite a few in jail for related, you know, “inconvenient truths”. I don’t know, though.

Brian: I think the person who has been in jail the longest for this is Wolfgang Fröhlich, about 14 years in jail!

Monika: In Austria.

Brian: Yeah it’s in Austria, yeah. Because he was like a pest-control expert, and he testified in Switzerland and he, while in jail, keeps writing letters to authorities saying:

“No it couldn’t have happened this way, you know, because like this Zyklon B needs about 25 degrees fahrenheit to evaporate to kill people. But they these chambers were only like 15 degrees. It was too cool, so wouldn’t have happened.”

So I think that’s so threatening, because he knows his chemistry! That’s why they keep putting it back in jail. It’s a tragedy, like 14 years in jail! He gets the record, Wolfgang Fröhlich!

(Click on image to enlarge)

Monika: Yes and I’m so glad you brought up his name, because it’s really important that we don’t forget any of these people. And that we support these people. They are, I mean, what a sacrifice he’s made! And he’s not bending, he’s not bowing down, just because they put him in jail. Right? He just keeps speaking the truth. And this, I mean, they just keep putting him in, back in. Or they keep him in there for the repeat offense. Well, that’s like us in our trial. We couldn’t go through that trial, without repeat offending! It’s rather, … That alone should wake people up, that there’s something deeply wrong with this!

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: Because you can’t defend yourself! Now shouldn’t there logically be the provision that at least during your trial you can speak about these things without “re-offending” making a new crime? No, you’re defending yourself for what they’ve already charged you with! And yet you’re incurring “new crimes” that they’re going to put you in longer for!

Alfred is facing a new court date, January 28th.

Brian: Oh, for what? What’s the charge for January 28th?

Monika: For the things he said and did during the trial!

Brian: Oh gosh!

Monika: This is what I’m saying! He got three years two months. And that doesn’t mean he’s going to, like, they just want to keep him there for a long time! It’s, it’s, … [shaking her head]

Brian: So they can add to it? He’s on trial, so they can add to it?

Monika: Yes. And I mean, it leaves me speechless, literally! So but what can people do? I mean, there’s a lot of things people to do, and we don’t want to prescribe. Everybody has their own imagination, and everybody has their own capacities, and these could be little things, big things. But one of the things you could do to help the political prisoners is write letters to them, or write letters to embassies, or consulates, or whatever. Because that puts the pressure on! And it shows the authorities that these people have support. You know, if the letters just dried up, then it’s:

“Ha! See we can get away with this!”

No! People should be writing lots and lots of letters and keep doing it!

[40:01]

Brian: Well I’ll put the address for Alfred below this video, like it did in the last video. Yeah. I guess maybe your demeanor in court was different than Alfred’s? Was he more challenging and you’re a bit calmer? I guess they treated you differently than they did Alfred, it seems, right?

Monika: Well the verdict was less, because there were less counts against me, as well. And yeah, we have our different styles and that’s perfectly natural too, we’re two different people. I say to people:

“Look we’re on exactly the same page, but we have our different styles of communication and all that.”

And plus it was important for me to get out. I was already there, and so there was a different strategy. I didn’t speak as much during the trial. But I did do quite a speech at the end, there! [loud laughing]

Brian: I think you had a good strategy. You did get out! I was impressed, you know, like, I thought they’d hold you for a year, or more. So I guess your strategy worked.

Monika: Well, the persecutor, sorry prosecutor, [loud laughing] I accidentally said “persecutor”. The prosecutor called for thirteen months for me, and for three years, seven months for Alfred, something like that. So that is one thing you could say. The judges did go lower in both cases, you know, that’s one thing you could say. [chuckling]

Brian: Okay, well, …

Monika: Yeah anyway, I don’t remember what else I was gonna talk about today, but I think that’s probably, … Is there anything else that you wanted, that comes to mind?

Brian: Well there’s a few comments and questions in the chat. One person asked:

“What was your first meal in prison.”

Do you remember that?

Monika: You know, the first food that I was offered was actually in the holding cell, right in the courtroom on January 3rd. When they just grabbed me, and handcuffed me, and took me against my will. And I protested that I was a free Canadian citizen. And they threw me in this hole, in the basement, like it’s just this little holding cell. And then a number of hours later they came by with a trolley, and in the trolley they, in the little cooler box. They had sandwiches and apples. So I had a sandwich and an apple. That would have been my first meal while incarcerated. [chuckling]

Brian: Another comment in the chat, or someone saying. This is from “purple carnation”. He said:

“Can you appeal Monika? How can you not be allowed to produce your own evidence to support your innocence? This is what happened in Nuremberg! You’re really a conquered people!”

Monika: Thank you! That is just, … Thanks so much for that question and comment. And I did want to say this, and I’ve forgotten, both times, both interviews with you Brian. It is being appealed! My lawyer is appealing my verdict! And Alfred’s lawyer is appealing Alfred’s verdict! And people might, at first glance, say:

“Well, why appeal? You’re out! You’re free! Right!”

Well, it’s the wrong verdict, right? They pronounce me guilty, I served months and they pronounced me guilty, plus costs. Can you imagine court costs? Oh my goodness! That’s gonna be a bundle of money! But it’s being appealed! So I haven’t been sent a bill yet, or anything like that. It’s being appealed, because it’s the wrong verdict.

So that’s going to go up to the Supreme Court in Germany. And we talked at the very beginning about the title, you know, being set out into the “free” world. It’s kind of going, you know, one prison cell to another. None of us are free! If there are political prisoners. If there’s one person in jail, we’re all in jail really. Because we’re in this mind prison, we’re in the prison of the mind. Like we are in a virtual prison. So I kind of wanted to throw that comment in there.

And what was the other part of that person’s comment? So it was about this appeal, and, … I don’t hear you.

Brian: Yeah, sorry. Yeah, are you going to appeal? And he said this is like the Nuremberg Trials.

Monika: Oh yeah, that was the other part I wanted to comment on.

Brian: Yeah.

Monika: The Nuremberg trials! At that trial how many people are aware that there they just proclaimed that you do not need evidence to prove something that is “common knowledge”?

Brian: Oh yeah! So they put out the propaganda, people believe it, therefore it’s “common knowledge”. [shaking his head]

Dachau display table. Human skin lampshades, shrunken heads, bone ashtrays — all “common knowledge” with enough propaganda!

Monika: It’s “common knowledge” that this thing happened! We’re just gonna proclaim that it’s “common knowledge” and that set the bar for evermore! I mean, this is just something that drives me crazy! That kind of thing, we need to tell people over, and over again! And we need to spread that. But if you just declare at that first very infamous trial, post World War Two, and it really was a terrible thing that happened there!

[45:03]

They just said:

“This is ‘common knowledge’. We don’t need evidence.”

And then, in fact, they just had all this “counter evidence” which was a bunch of lies, and distortions. And then they hanged these people!

Brian: Yeah. It’s like they create their own realities, kind of jewish thinking, you know, this subjectivism. They create their own reality, and then they impose that upon us.

Monika: Yes! And then forever more, … Like I get this so much in town here people saying, or on social media, people are always saying:

“Oh! This is the most well-documented event in history! This is just so well documented! It’s just got to be the most studied event in history!”

But then they never say:

“No. Where’s where’s the evidence? Where is it?”

No! They just keep repeating that statement. It’s just an empty shell of a statement! Which is a complete and utter lie!

Brian: Yeah. They’ve thoroughly studied the lies and repeated the lies. That’s why they call it one the most documenting crimes in history! [chuckling] Because they document a bunch of lies!

See: Nuremberg and Other War Crimes — Part 1

Monika: You could exactly just invert that, because they invert everything, and they say it’s the most repeated lie in history! And it really is. Or it’s the most repeated documentation of non evidence, or false evidence, or whatever! It, that drives me crazy! And they started with out at the Nuremberg Trials. Just look up articles 19 and 21 of the Nuremberg trials and you will find it in more legalese language, but that is basically is where they say:

“We’re not going to have evidence for this. We don’t need evidence, because it’s common knowledge.”

Brian: I want to ask, how are you doing back home, in Jasper, Alberta? How is the town treating you? How does it feel?

Monika: Yeah, it definitely has gotten better since I last talked to you, on November 15. Like at that point, I had some encounters that just made me feel:

“Whoa! What am I coming back into?”

And there still is that fear in people’s eyes. And I just try to be friendly to them and ask them how are the kids doing, or whatever! [chuckling] It sort of disarms that fear, a little bit. But I’ve also had some really nice “welcome home” hugs, you know. And people really meaning it when they say “welcome home Monika”. And that’s good! I mean, life is not like it was before. It never will be, but I’m not looking for that. We’re in a different kind of a world than what I was perceiving before I started waking up to this, to all these deceptions.

Brian: Because I remember you were barred from the Legion, but you’re not barred from anyone else, right? You are free, right?

Monika: Well, no. I haven’t really tested that out, and actually I haven’t tested that out. And I was barred, I was banned from a couple of other places too, actually. There was a breakfast kind of a place where she was extremely hostile to me and then threw me out, and barred me from ever coming in there.

Brian: Gosh! Gosh.

Monika: But the Legion was the big one, because it’s a sort of a central, it’s a focal point in this town for all kinds of events. Lots of stuff goes on there.

Brian: You’re not barred from the Legion now, right? You used to perform music there, right? [Brian was breaking up here and was hard to hear.]

Monika: Oh yeah. In fact, our band helped bring that up from, you know, at the time that was a pretty dead place and then the guy that — well, Ken Kuzminski, the President there — he wanted to bring live music in. And he approached me with my band to come in. And we came in on a regular basis for about a year. We came in about once a month and performed, and then other groups did. And then he started going with bands that were traveling from elsewhere, not just local bands. But yeah we kind of kick-started that. Helped to kickstart, getting that place a “happening” place. [chuckling]

And now I’m forbidden! But I don’t know if I am, like I say, … Anyway I don’t want to talk too much more about that in case I want to go down there and try it out.

Brian: Yeah. What about going on tour, [words unclear] go across Canada and talk about your experience?

Monika: Oh yes, I’m looking forward to that! I think in the new year there will be a little bit of a speaking tour happening in Canada! So don’t know the details yet. But definitely want to do a little bit of speaking. I would love to do that. And I will.

Brian: Very good! Yeah, anything else? It’s been a good interview, a good follow up on our first talk, when it’s so fresh on your mind. So do you feel you’re adjusting, you’re getting on with your life? Maybe things will never be the same, of course, after this.

Monika: Yeah, like I say, it’s been exactly a month today. And like I said at the beginning, that time, it seems like a long time ago, because so much has happened, and I’m just finding my feet. But I expect that things will go a little smoother going forward from here and maybe normalize a little bit in terms of just day-to-day life. And I’m feeling pretty good!

And yeah, again remember about Alfred, writing letters to him. And yeah, I’m okay! I’m doing well, thank you! And thanks for doing this Brian. I really appreciate you doing these kinds of interviews and doing all the work you do. Thank you so much!

Brian: Well I appreciate having you on my show. It was an honor to be the first to interview last time. I like to do more of these as things change, and talk on other subjects as well. Thanks for being on the show!

Monika: Thank you.

Brian: Okay. Until next time.

Monika: Bye!

[50:53]

END

============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 9,020
* Total images = 16
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 6: Nov 4, 2019 — Completed re-uploading images.

Version 5: July 20, 2019 — Updating image links for this new site: katana17.com/wp/

Version 4: Dec 30, 2018 — Added See Also links.

Version 3: Dec 3, 2018 — Added 3 images.

Version 2: Dec 2, 2018 — Added 9 images.

Version 1: Dec 1, 2018 — Published post.

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:28:36 +0000

[Alain Soral, a leading French dissident, talks about his association with Robert Faurisson and the impact that his Revisionist work had on him, awakening him to the power of organized jewry and their persecution of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship their “Shoah”.

NOTE: The English voice-over in the video is provided by the talented musician Alison Chabloz, another admirer of the late Faurisson, and who expresses her disbelief of those historical lies through stinging satirical songs!

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Alain Soral

My Homage to

Robert Faurisson

Oct 2018

Click the link below to view the video:

https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/10/29/alain-soral-my-homage-to-robert-faurisson/

Alison Chabloz’s Description

Published on October 29, 2018

Of the many moving tributes following the recent death of Robert Faurisson, the video below is one of the most pertinent I have seen so far. Using today’s technology — featuring a mise en scène and dresscode worthy of note and which would certainly have met with Robert Faurisson’s approval — Alain Soral regales viewers with his in-a-nutshell analysis of the crucial importance of historical revisionism and the inestimable contribution made by Robert Faurisson.

Alain Soral is the founder of Égalité et Réconciliation, the leading dissident publication in France with seven million monthly clicks. He is also head of the publishing house Kontre Kulture. Mr Soral kindly granted me permission to translate his incisive impromptu text and redistribute the video below with voiceover in English. You can find the original here.

Many thanks to all who continue to support the revisionist cause.

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(19:24)

[00:31]

Well, it brings great sadness, as well as the end of an era. I could talk about this in different ways, but I’d like to use the occasion to try and make others understand how one might come to the Revisionist’s school of thought. Because this sensibility, which eventually leads to asking questions and to looking into the professor’s work, needs to be explained. I wish to emphasis that I’m sad that he’s gone. At the same time I’ve been in his company fairly often recently.

And just to note that Égalité et Réconciliation supported him by way of my barrister, as well as ensuring his security. And he was surrounded by friendship and affection. Friends presented him with the “Quenelle d’or”, the “Golden Quenelle” awarded to him by Dieudonne. And he sent me a very kind voice mail.

Now that he’s gone, aside from the Revisionist’s combat, we can say we accompanied him, I think, with warm and tender affection right to the end. And that is really important. He was someone, how to put it, we simply can’t imagine what he had to suffer! Ten times worst than what I was subjected to. And admittedly I sometimes have trouble keeping my calm.

There’s a price to pay for the organism, physically and psychologically. And he was someone who needed to be surrounded by love and affection in order to bring some kind of balance. I insist that not withstanding his combat, which is non-debatable, because we do not have the right to debate it, let’s say it as it is.

Apart from his non-debatable combat, there was the whole human aspect that was extremely important. And here I must mention Dieudonne. Dieudonne did a lot, a lot for Robert Faurisson.

Perhaps I also did a lot in order that Dieudonne found out about Faurisson, which some people reproached me for. But how could I be ashamed of that? He’s someone we accompanied during his final years, which was very important because he succeeded in transferring his combat to another generation. Meaning there were people who were interested in him, from the 1970s onwards, and in the generations that followed, 20 or 20 years down the line. People do burn out, but thanks to Dieudonne the younger generation became interested in Professor Faurisson.

If we look at his trials which took place toward is the end of his life, he was surrounded by people in their 20s and 30s. And it was a fountain of youth which he found both very useful and agreeable. That is the first aspect.

[03:10]

Now, let’s talk about Revisionism in a more fundamental way. How does one arrive at the point of becoming interested in his work? From my part, it so happened that I came to Paris with no knowledge of any of these issues. And I believed that reality corresponded to what I saw on TV and at the cinema in war films broadcast in continuity on TV channels, since I was a child.

The Second World War, the Germans, the Allies, the Resistance, the Americans. What we were shown in the cinema, a world with goodies and baddies. Aged twenty I firmly believed in all that!

And then I arrived in the capital, Paris, where I immediately became part of society, that might be referred to as the “superstructure”. First of all fashion, then journalism, publishing, and cinema.

And there I met members of a powerful community, which, by way of its own psychological interactions, bore no resemblance to those people of that particular community as depicted in Hollywood films. And therefore at one point I told myself, either there are two different categories when it comes to this kind of people, or else I’ve been sold something which doesn’t really correspond to reality.

And at that moment, one of those times when things seem to happen for a reason, by chance, I think, in 1983 I discovered a certain professor, whose work was based on alternative theories relating to critical studies of historical events.

And who was trying to show that the history of the “good and evil”, this caricature of “goodies and baddies” wasn’t quite as clear cut as that. And I became interested.

Just as I was interested in lots of other things. For example, the question of the workers struggle according to Marx. Questions of nationalism, by way of nationalist thinkers. I’ve always looked at things from all sides.

And I became fascinated at that time with Revisionism. And back then it wasn’t on the internet! It was physical. I went foraging at Laveletor [sp]. And there, I discovered a place which needed iron bars on its shop front, because of attacks by militants. And it’s there I learned that there weren’t only jews who were victims.

There were cultural jews and artistic jews. But there were also aggressive and violent leagues, thuggish and vitriolic with no concern for the debate of ideas.

We are here, present. Proud, noble and cruel jews. We’re well trained, We’re well-equipped. We are utterly fearless. Our enemies are more afraid of us than we are of them.

So I discovered the other side of the story. I discovered other kinds of jews, than the ones portrayed by the American film industry. Ultra-violent zionist jews shunning all debate! And I also discovered people who studied history dispassionately, with far fewer ideological overtones. And that things were far more complicated than they appeared.

Professor Faurisson never spoke about “the truth”. And he was vigorous in his conviction that only God knows the truth. And that it always boiled down to a question of opinion.

Faurisson: I am not looking exactly for what people call “truth”. Because I think that “truth” is too vague and pretentious. What I am looking for is “exactitude”. And for me history is to try to be exact! To deliver, to try to find some little truths that I can verify.

On the other hand, he stood firmly by what he called “exactitude”. The violence that he was subjected to is proportional to the thoroughness of his work. If his work had been more approximative and ideological, rather than exemplifying exactitude, it would have been easier to counter him on the grounds of exactitude, meaning serious historiography.

But he was exact to such a point that it was necessary to quietly usher in a vote, in summer, when there was no Deputies around, and naturally under the usual pressure from special interest groups, which led to the adoption of the totally iniquitous law prohibiting the study of a certain period in history, covering the years 1933 to 1945 and establishing, once and for all “history and truth revealed”!

Conclusions of the Nuremberg tribunals, which was the victors tribunal in the context of the immediate after war with high stakes, tensions, sufferings and overwhelming emotion, which might well be understandable at that particular moment in time.

[08:00]

But it would have been more logical, from a historical point of view, that the longer we had waited after these events, then the stakes might not have been quite so high, and we could have moved from ideology towards historiography and allowed historians to work with more hindsight.

However we went from the ideology of the victors to the ideology of “remembrance”. From the political to the religious.

“The Shoah, the extermination of the jews, the genocide, must be sacralized, … Sacred.”

And therefore I became interested in the work of Professor Faurisson, and in Revisionism in general. And from then on, I would say that my life changed definitively! I realized that the world of good and evil was a bit more complicated than that. And that those who dominate us weren’t necessarily synonymous with good. I mean the we hadn’t been victorious simply because we were the kindest, or more honest. I realized that evil was everywhere and that relative good was everywhere too.

I also realized that talking about it was eminently dangerous. And that if you did talk about it, you were immediately doomed to integral marginalization. And my marginalization, whether in film, or in journalism, before I had even spoken a word in public, sprang from the fact that my Revisionist readings and my conversations at the dining table about Revisionism became common knowledge. I practiced the same naivety as many other people who are naive by way of their own innate honesty.

I talked about the work of Robert Faurisson at dinner with people from the fashion, media, and film industries, telling them they ought to interested. I remember once saying the same to Eric Zemmour.

“You should take a look and read what he says! It’s interesting. It’s much more interesting than people like to believe, and what people say.”

I was totally naive! That’s how I came to be interested in the work of the Professor. And at first I was interested in Revisionism itself, without any concern for the actual person. Once I discovered the extraordinary persecution he had been subjected to, which shocked me further still, because when we talk about political prisoners in distant lands, the torture, and the conviction of political dissidents, we are always ready to lend a hand with reporters without borders, to mobilize in the name of far-away suffering.

And yet no French intellectual, no French journalist have ever publicly condemned the unbelievable persecution!

Right up to attempted murder! Of which Professor Faurisson was victim, along with Revisionists in general, imprisoned whether in Germany, Canada, or the US, simply for having produced research results, including scientific research results! Right, we’ll change the subject because it’s prohibited by law to talk about these issues!

[10:43]

For all the free speech hypocrites I mentioned earlier, have the guts to talk about the persecution suffered by Robert Faurisson during his life! For having had the audacity to work according to the principles of exactitude, concerning a sequence in history, which we are no longer allowed to study. That has been mythologized, sacrialized, in order to create a religion. Because, let me remind you, that Revisionists are reproached for blasphemy! For daring to discuss “revealed truths”. And this proves that the “Shoah” has become a religion.

(November 2013 — Proces Faurisson/Arianne Chemin)

“F*ck you! You’re Nazis! You spit on the memory of millions of dead!”

Anti-revisionism has become the State religion. And we see the same violence and the same debate denial on the part of anti-revisionists, as we see from religious extremists, and notably from those fingered by Zemmour, radical Islamists. The same levels of violence, the same refusal and denial of others. And I think we should criticise anti-revisionism as much as we criticise Daesh’s Islam, which never happens! That would show intellectual steadfastness, moral standing, and coherence. Few people are brave enough to be coherent. Coherence means paying the highest price.

Eventually I did meet the Professor with Dieudonne. And there, I met a man who was completely devoid of violence, or hatred, despite everything that had happened to him. Which is quite extraordinary as we are talking about religion here. He was full of good companionship and humour. English humour, let’s say because he was of Scottish origin. Not shy of laughing out loud! And of such kindness and devoid of any hatred. That is what I found.

And I also sensed that he was stricken with excruciating pain, and that what he had suffered was absolutely horrid! And I say, that I will never forget the Professor’s work, his personality, the persecution he suffered, those who persecuted him — who still persecute him, even on the moment of his death.

And who will continue to persecute him, despite his death. And I believe this is the true task of remembrance.

Furthermore, I think that France as a nation, and as a people, will only be free once the unique and iniquitous Gayssot Law falls. As Vincent Reynouard puts it very well:

“There is no chance of a nationalist revival, or feeling of nationalist pride, as long as historical Revisionism is forbidden.”

All the rest is lies, smoke and mirrors! And if day France becomes France again, not only will the Gayssot Law will have fallen, but at that moment in France, there will be no streets named aft Eric Zemmour. But there will be streets, or boulevards, even avenues named after Robert Faurisson. And I hope there will be schools named after him too! Because Robert Faurisson was a master, a school master, a master of exactitude, a master of moral rectitude!

And most of all, he was master of what I would call “authentic virility”. He’s the bravest man I have ever met during my lifetime. And he was a slight man, far braver than any of the beefy, loud-mouthed, far-Right joke characters that I have met over the years.

Including, I might add, the man of the “mere detail”, who didn’t have the courage that day to say that this thing is everything but a “mere detail”, because in fact it’s their Golgotha!

It’s the atomic nucleus around which turns the entire system of Western domination, as Maurice Bardèche already understand and discussed in his “Nuremberg”. A book for which I, and I alone, and the editor and republisher.

[14:24]

What else can I say? Perhaps to note that Revisionism is not a topic the relates to the far-Right, contrary the Revisionism’s reduced status according to all the professional liars, whom I shall not describe here. Historical Revisionism began on the Left by Rassinier and his two books, “Crossing the Line” and “The Lies of Ulysses”.

He was a member of the socialist Resistance, who, after the War, simply described his own experiences in the camps, which was different from the stories being related by these same professionals, who were already deploying “Remembrance” ideology with precise political objectives. Basically, to render impossible any criticism of the State of Israel, and to render untouchable a certain population group that have become increasingly dominant.

Historical Revisionism is not a far-Right concept, it’s an ideology which comes from the Left! Revisionism was perpetuated by a certain hard Left. And at the end of the 1950s, by the Italian Communist Party.

It popped up by way of Cohn-Bendit’s own brother, Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit, I think.

(Noam Chomsky)

“Coming to the rescue of freedom of expression. Because the French justice system is now attempting to ban historical Revisionism. Left leaning libertarians such as the American Noam Chomsky offer unexpected support for Faurisson. Among them is also Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit. Elder brother of the famous leader of May ‘68. Libertarian and close associate of publishing house La Vielle Taupe.

(Jean-Gabriel Cohn-Bendit)

‘Pierre Guillame told me there’s a story concerning Faurisson, etc. They want to ban him. I had a look and I said: OK, I’m going to write something. I am against censorship. If I am not convinced of something then I have the right to harbour doubts. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced. That is all. I have the right to say it! That I’m not convinced, and that I’m shaken by it. Arguments exist. Voila’.”

In fact, Revisionism was gaining ground everywhere, on the Left, even the hard-Left. I remember Revisionism being satirized during the time of Charlie Hebdo, at the time of Professor Sharhon’s [sp], “Hitler = SS”.

If in fact the Fabius Gayssot Law came into being quietly, it was because Revisionism was growing thanks to its exactitude. It was making a bee-line towards all the moralists, and truth seekers, both on the Left and on the Right.

“Roger Garaudy, 84, former university professor, former communist Deputy and Senator, a convert to Islam, author of 53 books including the one that give grounds for his appearance today in the criminal court in Paris. He is accused of contesting crimes against humanity for speaking of the myth of the extermination of 6 million jews.”

“L’Abbe Pierre persists and insists in an interview with Liberation this morning he launched a controversy long thought to be dead and declared that he’s satisfied with the support for Roger Garaudy: ‘I’m sure that the French people are breathing a sigh of relief that the taboo is finally lifted’ — L’Abbe Pierre speaking about Revisionist theories.”

So I say again, that whilst we might use Faurisson’s death to relay certain important truths, Revisionism is not a far-Right ideology. It’s an ideology of people who are curious about the truth and exactitude. An ideology born on the Left and which then rebounded to the far-Left, and which has also been seen on the far-Right. And all those today who walk behind Zemmour are shameless closet Revisionists! And all those that read and validated Faurisson, and who validate him still.

I won’t even mention my former good friend Terrie Aldison, [sp] who prided himself in former times as a Revisionist, and on whose bookshelf, on the second floor of his home, reserved uniquely for his friends and not just for his collaborators, stood the complete library of Revisionists works.

And the way we see how all these persons have bowed down to those who dominate us, whereas at the beginning they were readers and admirers of the Professor.

We are able to measure the courage and the uphill battle of the Professor’s life. We can characterize his life as Christ-like. Professor Faurisson, you are a role model for us! Our teacher and your posterity is assured, and will be further amplified. And one day you will be recognized as one of the greats in French history!

Who deserves to be in the Pantheon, if we first manage to rid that place of all the votarians who fatally, in the end, only ever brought votarian lies and arrogance! Simone Vay [sp] and tomorrow maybe it will be the Klarfeld’s.

And why not Bennot Levi [sp], finishing off with Anoona [sp] and then Zemmour for good measure, before everything come crashing down in a grand finale!

Adieu, Professor! Thank you, and infinite respect.

Translation/Subtitles/Voiceover by Alison Chabloz.

[19:24]

END

===============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages =

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 3: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 2: Jan 23, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 1: Nov 6, 2018 — Published post.

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:05:15 +0000

[Jim Rizoli, in Oct 2015, interviewed the now late Professor Robert Faurisson. Prof Faurisson, one of the “fathers” of “Holocaust” Revisionism passed away on Oct 22, 2018, aged 89.

— KATANA.]

_______________________

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Prof Robert Faurisson

Oct, 2015

Click the link below to view the video on YouTube (may not be available in some locations):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqRLnpJ_8ek&t=1838s

Also here on Bitchute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FbVcINOtox9k/

YouTube Description

Extraordinary Revisionists

Certain features have been disabled for this video
In response to user reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing, and suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

Jim Rizoli, Robert Professor Faurisson interview.

Published on Nov 9, 2015

__________________________

TRANSCRIPT

(114:46)

[00:00]

[Intro song] No one knows what it’s like to be a bad man, feel the sadness, behind the light, …

[00:33]

Jim: It’s a pleasure to meet you! I’ve seen a lot of your videos. I read your information, and I’m just amazed to see what you’ve been through. And I have a lot of questions for you. And I would like to ask you all these questions I have laid out for me. And the first question I’d like to ask you is, I would think anyway that you are the “patriarch” of the revisionist movement! Wouldn’t you say that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, with brothers, my friends.

Jim: Okay. [chuckling] All right. First of all, where were you born?

Prof Faurisson: So, I was born in England, near London, in a place called Shepperton.

Jim: OK. All right.

Prof Faurisson: I was born to a Scottish mother and a need a French father.

Jim: All right.

Prof Faurisson: My father was working in a shipping company, in Fenchurch street, London. Excuse me?

Jim: What year? The year you were born?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, 1929. After Jesus Christ!

Jim: [laughing] OK! So you didn’t know Jesus?

Prof Faurisson: I’m nearly 87.

Jim: 87! Oh, okay, very good! All right. Well, you are getting up there. That’s good! Where did you go to school?

Prof Faurisson: At the beginning it was in Singapore, in an English school. A beautiful English school! I think it was 1934, ’35.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: Then in Japan, in Kobe in an American school. And then I came back to France. And my mates would mock me because of my English accent! Our shores. So I decided not to speak English any more!

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And that’s why I have to ask you to pardon me my poor and broken English.

Jim: I think you speak just fine! You speak better than half the people in my country. [laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Oh really!

Jim: Yeah! We have are some problems with people speaking English in my country!

Prof Faurisson: I understand.

Jim: Let me ask you this, about your education. Can you tell us about your education?

Prof Faurisson: So my education was really in France and only in Catholic schools.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I have to say something which is perhaps sad for you. I don’t know. It happens that I am in [word unclear] but I’ve always been in Catholic schools.

Jim: OK.

Prof Faurisson: And especially in a Jesuit school in [word unclear].

Jim: Okay, all right.

Prof Faurisson: And then I was also in a Catholic school, a very famous one in Paris, called College [word unclear].

Jim: Okay. Very good.

The big question here is, how did the “Holocaust” issue come into play with you? When did you start, or how did you start getting interested in that issue?

[04:15]

Prof Faurisson: I’m going to be perhaps a little bit long. Excuse me.

Jim: That’s fine! You can talk as long as you want. My cameras are working, everything’s fine, so I might just move this down just a little bit, but that’s fine. All right. So you can tell us exactly, all about your “Holocaust” issue days. How’s that?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So during the war itself I was totally anti-German. And I had a little trouble, because of that. In 1939 I was ten. In 1945, end of the war, I was sixteen. Now I’m going to tell you something which happened in 1942. In 1942 Pierre Laval*, he was the Prime Minister of Marshall Petain.

[* Pierre Jean-Marie Laval (28 June 1883 – 15 October 1945) was a French politician. During the time of the Third Republic, he served as Prime Minister of France from 27 January 1931 to 20 February 1932, and a second time from 7 June 1935 to 24 January 1936.

Laval began his career as a socialist, but over time drifted far to the right. Following France’s defeat and armistice with Germany in 1940, he served in prominent roles in Philippe Pétain’s Vichy Regime, first as the vice-president of the Council of Ministers from 11 July 1940 to 13 December 1940, and later as the head of government from 18 April 1942 to 20 August 1944.

After the liberation of France in 1944, Laval was arrested by the French government under General Charles de Gaulle. In what was widely regarded as a flawed trial, Laval was found guilty of high treason, and after a thwarted suicide attempt, he was executed by firing squad. His manifold political activities left a complicated and controversial legacy, resulting in more than a dozen conflicting biographies of him. SOURCE: Wikpedia]

And he said in a speech. He said:

“I hope that Germany will win this war!”

And he added:

“Because otherwise it would be the victory of communism in Europe!”

And I was incensed, because he had said that he wished the victory of Germany. Because, myself, I was hoping the victory of the French, the Gaulists, the English, Churchill. Of the Americans, of course, and I have to add, it’s very important, I wished the victory of Stalin!

It happens that by being on the side of the Americans, I was also on the side of the Soviets! And remember, it was in a Jesuit college that the priest came into place where I had written on my pulpit, “Mo a Laval” [sp] which means “Death to Laval”. And he mocked me and he said, in front of my mates. He said, … I’m going to say it in French first. Okay?

“Oh fo Faurrisson [word unclear]”.

“Oh you Faurrisson! With your English people who are running like rabbits in the desert!”

It was because the English in Tobruk, Benghazi and places like that were having a difficult time with the German troops of Rommel. Okay, so I was on the side of those people.

And one day, exactly on the 8th of May 1945 which was the capitulation of Germany, if you remember.

My father entered my room, my bedroom, that I shared with my brother Phillipe, and he said in French. He said:

“Robert, es-tu heureux?”

“Robert, are you happy?”

And I remember that I was a little bit embarrassed by that question. And I said:

“Yes.”

But, suddenly, I don’t know why, I thought for the German people, for the German soldiers. And I thought to myself.

“Now that they are vanquished. They have been fighting so hard, I have to respect the vanquished. I am on the side of the victor. I have to respect those people. And I’m going to protect them! And I want to understand what really happened.”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Yeah! Yeah, no, I understand.

Prof Faurisson: And I decided in a way to be like a referee, trying to see what really happened. And I didn’t want to be any more, anti-German, or pro-Stalin, and so on.

And I can say that this very day, I was 16, I decided to revise history! Which means to have a second look, a third one, and so on. And to check and to double check and to be “fair”!

Do, you know, that “fair”, we cannot translate it into French. It’s so typically British, “fair”. Try to be fair with the vanquished!

So, I remember that in college [word unclear] where I was, many of my mates didn’t understand my opinion about all this. And some of them thought that I was a “Nazi”! I was absolutely not a “Nazi”! [laughing] I wanted to understand, that is all!

And it happens that I read a book by a man called Paul Rassinier. And Paul Rassinier wrote a book called, the title is extraordinary, “The Lies of Ulysses”. Ulysses, of course, Homer. A story told by Homer. Ulysses, you see, was among the victors. When he came back home, a long time after, he told plenty of stories about his experience of war.

And, especially about his sufferings He had, really, let’s say hundreds of sufferings, that he told the people a [word unclear] of stories about his sufferings. It’s normal in a way, it’s human.

So, Paul Rassinier himself, had been a Resistance [a member of the French Resistance] and he had been in two German concentration camps.

And when he heard the stories about gas chambers, and so on, he said:

“Oh! This is strange! Because in the camp where I was, there was no question of gas chambers. I am going to see, how is it that so many people are talking about gas chambers in Buchenwald and Mittelbau-Dora.”

And then, he checked, he tried to check for Auschwitz and other camps. And he was very surprised to see that we had only “testimonies”! No proof. No real proof was brought, like in a criminal case.

Let’s suppose that there is next to the place you are yourself, a crime. Automatically the judge, a magistrate will decide that there will be a forensic report. He will never say:

“Oh, I have so many witnesses that I don’t need such a report.”

No! He needs a report. And sir, I can tell you sound thing extraordinary.

Since 70 years, we had only one! One forensic report. We needed that. Thanks to a forensic report, you can see what was a “gas chamber”, how it functions, what was the place of the crime. What was the weapon of the crime, an extraordinary one!

And we don’t have that! We and only one report, it was a French one about a camp in France called Struthof*, near Strasbourg.

[* Natzweiler-Struthof was a German-run concentration camp located in the Vosges Mountains close to the Alsatian village of Natzwiller (German Natzweiler) in France, and the town of Schirmeck, about 50 km (31 m) south west of the city of Strasbourg.]

And the forensic report was done but Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy, in Paris. And we know the result. The report disappeared!

That we know, thanks to three other doctors, we know what were the conclusions of Struthof. The conclusion was:

“No hydrocyanic acid.”

Because Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid. None in the so-called “gas chambers”. None in the chimney! And none in the bodies of 86 jews, supposed to have been gassed!

Jim: Now where is that report today? Who has that report?

Prof Faurisson: The report should have been, should be today, but I’ve been and I’ve checked, and there is no report in a place called Meaux, a place for the [word unclear] You see? Where they have all those documents. And considering the results of Professor Rene Farbe, nobody else decided in 70 years to have a forensic report! Because they knew that it would be too dangerous.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And I think that very few people know that, because they think that we have witnesses, so we don’t need anything else!

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: No! We need first a forensic report.

Jim: Now, let me let me get into your situation with the Zundel Trial. How did you get involved with Zundel Trial and all that? What happened there?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I met Ernst Zundel, who is an extraordinary man! An exceptional man! I think in 1979, in Los Angeles. Because in Los Angeles, for the first conference of historical revisionist organization. I mean, myself a conference.

See: The World’s First Anti-Holocaust Convention — Instauration Dec, 1979

And I remember a lady saying:

“Oh, this is dynamite!”

I am going to tell you why dynamite. I go back to Zundel. I will certainly not forget him!

I had been in Auschwitz in 1975. I am going to give you an idea of the way I made my investigations.

I saw, what is called “Crematoria I” with the supposed gas chamber to kill people. Immediately I saw that it was not, certainly not a gas chamber! Because you had a tiny little door with partly a glass. And the door would open on this side, so that the corpses, cadavers would have been there blocking the door.

Jim: So it opened inwards, it opened inwards, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yeah. And you see with the glass [the glass window in the door] you do this with your elbow. And hydrocyanic acid, you know what? It goes at twenty metres from there to the SS [word unclear]

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So, it’s a totally impossible! But investigate, follow me there. I went to the Museum of Auschwitz, and I said to the people. There I am.

“I am a professor in Sorbonne, I am interested in Auschwitz, and I want someone of you people to help me in my investigation. But I want the top of the top of you people!”

And they said “okay”, and a man came. His name Marshar Wick [sp].

And we had a conversation in German. I said.

“Are you ready to help me?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

And he would always say “Jawohl!” [chuckling], except once where he said “Ja!”. So watch for this, which is coming.

And I said:

“Ich habe ein Problem!”

“I have a problem! Come with me!”

And I brought him to a place right in front of the Krema I (Crematoria I), which had on one side a supposed gas chamber. On the other side the place of the furnaces, for the cremation.

And the door, another door, not the little one before. The door was open and everyone could see an oven, a furnace. So, from where we were, I told them only, I asked him a question only, with one German word.

I said:

“Echt?”

Which means, “authentic?”

And he said:

“Jawohl!”

I said:

“Come with me.”

He came with me. I put my finger on the opening, and I showed him that there was no, I think you say “soot”?

Jim: Yeah. Soot.

Prof Faurisson: And then the man suddenly, his face changed. And he said:

“Rekonstruiert.”

Which means, “reconstructed”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Now wait a minute. A reconstruction doesn’t mean that with have a lie there. Because it could be fair, it could be honest. But it could also be not fair and not honest. And I had an idea. You need to have ideas! And to express them right, you see.

I said suddenly, looking at his face, I said:

“Also hast du Pläne?”

Which means, “Therefore, you have plans?” And he said:

“Ja.”

Jim: Yeah [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I said:

“Wo sind die Pläne?”

“Where are the plans?”

And he said:

“You would have to go and see Mr Iwaszko. The [person] responsible for the archives.”

But the next day I had to go back to France. So I came back in March, 1976.

And this is what I have been on the 19th of March, 1976. I went to see Mr Iwaszko. I brought in a bottle of alcohol. He didn’t say anything. He [word unclear] me, nothing. I said:

“I’ve seen Mr Marshar Wick, and I want to see the plans.”

Of those supposed gas chambers. Because not only in Crematoria I, Crematoria II, III, IV and V. I want to see them. He showed me a big table. Okay, I sat down and I wait. And the man brought me documents and documents of the trial of the poor Rudolf Hoess, who had been one of the three successive commandants of Auschwitz. And, it was about the trial, and it was all in Polish! I said:

“Oh! Bad luck for me. I don’t understand Polish at all.”

And so by looking, and looking over, I saw little, tiny little photos, with captions in German. And I understood the plans, of all those places! And I paid in zloty [Polish currency]. I paid for 116 photos. I came back to France. I was very pleased! But I had to wait and wait, and wait, to have the photos.

Anyway, to make it short, I didn’t know where I could publish! The internet did not exist. It was impossible! I knew that it was dynamite! What could I do? And finally, a friend of mine told me:

“I know a Spanish journalist. He could come and perhaps publish your stuff.”

The journalist came with someone helping him, okay.

And I said:

“You see, you can take photos, but I don’t want any photo of me. I don’t want my face in your magazine!”

He said:

“Yes.”

And so on, and went away. And a few months after, I discovered the magazine with a title, with of course, my face! And the title:

“Defense Lawyer of Hitler!”

I was the “defense lawyer of Hitler”! And the troubles began at that time. And I worked very, very [word unclear] very, very long time in a place called “Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine”, “Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center”* Okay, it’s in Paris.

[The Centre de documentation Juive Contemporaine (CDJC, Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center) was clandestinely created in France to document the persecution of the country’s Jews during the Second World War. It is a key component of the Shoah Memorial.

The CDJC — Centre de documentation juive contemporaine, or Contemporary Jewish Documentation Center — was the seed from which the Shoah Memorial eventually grew. Its founders’ determination to document the genocide of Europe’s Jews during the war is still one of the main missions of the Shoah Memorial, a museum, documentation center and memorial at the same time.

The foundation of the CDJC dates back to April 28, 1943, when industrialist Isaac Schneersohn clandestinely brought together around 40 Jewish activists and community leaders in his Grenoble apartment to discuss the idea of creating an archive.

The goal was to set up an organization that would collect evidence on the persecution of the Jews in order to bear witness and demand justice after the war. A few years later, they achieved their aim when Nuremberg trial prosecutors relied on documents from the CDJC archives. Source: Http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/en/archives-and-documentation/the-documentation-center/the-history-of-the-cdjc.html]

And this is, I want to tell you, that I said when I entered the place for the first time, I said to the man:

“I want a photo of a gas chamber.”

And the answer of the man, was:

“We have many testimonies! We have many books.”

I said:

“A photo!”

And he said something else, like that. And I said:

“A photo!”

And he said:

“Sit down!”

And for 60 minutes I waited for a lady who was going everywhere trying to, find a plan, not a plan, excuse me, a photo of a gas chamber. And there were no photo, at all. Because he felt that I knew something about the topic, and [chuckling] it was dangerous for them.

Jim: Right.

[28:29]

Prof Faurisson: And, you see, I worked very much and I decided to the United States for our conference, where I met Zundel. And so I am coming back to Zundel.

My English being so bad, I decided to find someone to read the paper of my conference. And this man was Ernst Zundel! And, it was in Los Angeles in 1979. And I came back very often to the United States, because what I wanted to see was an American gas chamber.

You see, an American gas chamber — I visited one in Baltimore [word unclear] An American gas chamber, is, was, because they are no more, was functioning with hydrocyanic acid.

And what I saw was something extraordinary! To kill only one man, it was in iron [the construction of the chamber]. It was thick like that. The windows were something called “aircrete”, which means “very strong”.

And there was a pier in the center. Why a pier? And I’m going to give you immediately the answer. It’s rather easy to kill someone with hydrocyanic acid. But the question is, how can I kill someone without killing myself?

Jim: Right!

Prof Faurisson: How can I enter a place, where I have the corpse of someone which has so much hydrocyanic acid, because hydrocyanic acid penetrates everywhere!

You see, it’s fantastic how it penetrates! And stays there. And you cannot touch it. So how could medical doctor and two people helping him, how could they get into the place? So, I have know time to explain will try to explain that. It’s [word unclear].

Jim: So the so whole point was, that you saw that the gas chamber, they say was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, the crematory I, the gas chamber combination. You saw that there was no way they could gas anybody in a building like that. And when you came here to the United States, you saw a real gas chamber and now you can see, well this is the way you do it. The way they had it, you could not do it.

Prof Faurisson: Exactly.

Jim: Right, okay.

Prof Faurisson: And you see it was a terrible thing, because as soon as did this, I got into real problems. And my wife, and my children, and now some of my grandchildren. You have to be ready for that, okay?

Jim: Well tell tell us what, …

Prof Faurisson: I have to say something about American gas chambers.

Jim: Okay, go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: How is it. In this gas chamber you had [word unclear] which move, you see.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: To get after the killing of the man, to get all the gas you have something on the top for aspiration [extraction] of the poison. And the poison gets into, in French what we call [word unclear], which is a place where you neutralize hydrocyanic acid. Okay? And the stuff which is supposed to be neutralized is sent into pipe and then into a chimney. The chimney must be higher than all the penitentiary.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And the day of an execution, the guards have no right to be on the top [guard towers]. It’s so dangerous, you see.

And when you see that I would say it’s finished! You understand that it’s finished! Now what about the pillar, the central pillar. This is the explanation. The people are so afraid that the hydrocyanic acid could get outside, could [word unclear] everything for the installation, you see, that they try to make a depression [a lower pressure that outside the chamber]. A depression, you understand? Okay. If you make a depression all this could crumble [collapse] so you had to put a pillar to make it strong.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Something else. Very important. Hydrocyanic acid is explosive! The Germans, … I have found documents and documents about all that. They talk about “Explosionsgefahr”, “danger of explosion”.

And, do you know why the man that you are going to kill is, how do you say “ligoté”, which is “strapped”, …

Jim: Strapped, yeah.

Prof Faurisson: Very strongly! Why? It’s because if this man gets loose, he might create static electricity.

Jim: Sparks. Right.

Prof Faurisson: And you would have an explosion.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: But I remember when I visited [chuckling] this gas chamber in Baltimore, I had an explanation, not only from the director, but even from inmates helping the gassing procedure, and so on. And they said that the day you have an execution, or an exercise also, everybody is afraid. Everyone could be poisoned, or gassed, or killed, and so on.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And we have this silly story of the confession of Hoess. And how did they get this confession? So, I made a discovery about that. Do, you know, that I could make you confess to whatever I wanted?

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And you could get me confessing whatever you want, without touching. Nothing! There is a way, a fantastic way! You forbid the man to sleep. One day is possible, two days, …

Jim: Oh, I see what you are saying. You are saying you have it so he doesn’t sleep, he stays up all the time?

Prof Faurisson: He cannot sleep.

Jim: Oh okay. Yeah. Deprive him of sleep.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. You don’t even need to touch the man, you need to make noise, and so on. Because those dirty people, they confessed in a book how they did manage to get those confessions. And said that with a stick when he was like that, they would waken the poor man.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the stupidity of the story. Hoess confessed that when the people inside the gas chamber stopped screaming, they understood that they were dead. So, they put a ventilation, they push a button for a, how do you say, “ventilation”, …

Jim: A fan, a ventilation fan.

Prof Faurisson: A fan. And immediately they would get into the place. And “immediately” is the German word, “sofort”. It’s a terrible word. Immediately they would enter the place, eating and smoking! Which means without even a gas mask!

Jim: Right! Makes no sense.

Prof Faurisson: And smoking, you could have an explosion.

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof Faurisson: You see, so those confessions are nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: They are lies only!

Jim: Now he said 2 1/2 million people were killed that way, didn’t he? Didn’t he say, 2 1/2 million?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, different figures. They got different figures from him. As, you know, about the figures it’s a fantastic story. So if you are very careful and if you want to see the figures given only for Auschwitz and Birkenau, it begins at 9 million!

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Yes. Then you have 8, 7, I don’t remember if you have 6.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: But what we got for a very long time, was four million.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And suddenly in 1990 they decided to destroy this monument [plaque] with four million killed.

And then they put one million and a half! Suddenly. And then the historians got down one million, then you had someone like Pressac, a friend of the Klarsfelds, who said 700,000, and then you had a man giving 510,000. Nothing you see. There’s no sense.

Jim: How many do you think died, in the camps. Can you explain that to us? What do you think are the real figures?

Prof Faurisson: I cannot answer your questions, Sir.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: And I’m going to tell you why. It’s because I would need to go into a place called [word unclear] where you have many many documents. And I cannot go to this place. It’s impossible. It would be forbidden.

Jim: Okay.

Prof Faurisson: Now do you want me to tell you the reactions in France first, and then in the world, about my discoveries?

Jim: Sure! Yeah. Go ahead.

Prof Faurisson: Yeah, okay. So all this I put in a long paper. The title is “The Victories of Revisionism”.

And it was published on the internet on December 11, 2006. And I gave all sorts of reactions of the people who were against us. And it’s extraordinary the admission. Yes, extraordinary! I must say that in 78 [1978] I was attacked, physically attacked!

Jim: Where did that happen when you were attacked?

Prof Faurisson: Oh, I was attacked ten times! So the first part is important. Two in Lyon where I was a professor at the University of Lyon. Two in Vichy where I live. Four in Paris.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And two in Stockholm. In Stockholm I ran away so quickly that they were not even able to catch me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Surprisingly, we have this on camera. You could check it.

Jim: Okay. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: So, I was attacked, especially one day in Vichy. They nearly killed me!

Jim: Yeah, wow!

Prof Faurisson: I was saved by a young man. I didn’t know this man. He was a fisherman. He was a student I was told. And he was nearly one meter ninety [190 cm/6’ 3” tall]. And the day after the attack, he saw my name in the newspaper and he said to the police, that he regretted to have saved my life! [chuckling]

Jim: Oh! Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And so, the newspaper, the most important in France, is Le Monde. And they had to publish something, they had to say a professor has been attacked! They tried to not say why.

Jim: Wow.

Prof Faurisson: So, we have in France what we call, the “right to reply”. But it is a very difficult one to angle. In answer I said:

“Why don’t you say to people why I was attacked?”

And I said:

“For years and years I’ve been sending you papers about the problem of the gas chambers. How is it that you don’t publish it. You should do it”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And so, they were obliged to publish it, and it was a terrible hullaballoo!

Jim: Wow! What year was that? What year did you publish that?

Prof Faurisson: I published that, … Oh! Good question. I published that in Lavetour [sp].

[45:00]

People of the extreme Left. They published my stuff. So the question was, I said very simple:

“Show me, or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Why did I say, “or draw me”? Because some people might say:

“We cannot show you something that the Germans have destroyed.”

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: So I say okay, okay, so show me what the Germans have destroyed! I want to see.

And can you imagine the number of articles, of things like that, which appeared at that time. It was seventy eight, seventy nine.

Jim: Okay. Now let me ask your question. When you published this information, did that affect your job as a professor!

Prof Faurisson: Oh! It was finished for me!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: It was a disaster!

Jim: Did they fire you?

Prof Faurisson: My specialty I must say, the university, one of my two specialties was appraisal of texts and documents, literature, history major. You see it was my specialty.

I would train my students to look at a documentary. Very short. Three times. Once with the sound. They without the sound. And then again, with the sound.

And they were so surprised, to see for example, they show you in those films, they show you cadavers, corpses. And they talk about people being killed! So you think you are seeing people who have been killed! But they are in the same shape, all of them. You could see that they died from typhus.

Jim: Right. Sure. Natural causes, or diseases. Yeah, I get you.

Prof Faurisson: And you have to story, very interesting of Bergen-Belsen. Bergen-Belsen was a camp on the west, and the British were coming next to Bergen-Belsen. Where it was a disaster. Because of the bombings. Because no more Zyklon B as pesticide. Nothing to eat and even no more water. It was a disaster!

So the Germans decided something very strange. Not well known. They decided to go with a White flag to the troops of Montgomery, and say:

“Now be careful. You are approaching a place where you have typhus and so on. Don’t liberate the prisoners! It could be a disaster even for your troops.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For us, for the civilians, and so on. And the British decided to collaborate with the Germans!

And they went to this camp, and this camp, it was a very sandy place. Sand, Sand. So they could put the bodies in the sand. Do you understand?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And they wanted to know how many people had been buried like that. And they decided to make six big places to put back the bodies once they have a figure, a number. OK? So they took out the bodies, they counted them and a bulldozer pushed to the place where German woman of the Army were obliged with naked hands to throw the bodies into the new place.

And the bulldozer, you see it so quickly, that most of the people think it’s a German bulldozer, with a German driver. That it was a kind of industry to kill the people every day!

And to make it more possible to believe in that, you had even pictures with the driver, you cannot see his head! You cannot see it is a Tommy [British soldier]. That it is a British driver. People think it was a German industry!

Jim: Right.

[50:52]

Prof Faurisson: Because you must know something. All this topic about, how do you say that, those things and so on, had already been used during WWI! French and English propaganda would say that the Germans were an English [word unclear] of terrorists, or [word unclear] like that. Fabricating terrors and so on.

So the same story was taken for WWII, but they added “gas”.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Gas, when it was, be careful, when it was American, or Western propaganda. But for the Russians, nobody knows that. I described that. Let me tell you this. The Soviets liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945. So I had the idea to get someone to go and see the Pravda. “Pravda” means “truth”. The newspaper, the communist newspaper. And I said:

“You begin please on the 28th of January and see when they are going to talk about Auschwitz. On the 28th nothing! 29, nothing! 30, nothing. 31, nothing. First of February, a little thing. And then suddenly on the second of February the biggest discovery of the Soviets! Did, you know how, according to the Soviets, the people were killed in Auschwitz?

Jim: No.

Prof Faurisson: You cannot imagine. They were killed by electricity!

Jim: Oh, okay. I got it. Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And the bodies were full on something, which would bring them to a big furnace and so on.

Jim: So that was the first lie. The big lie.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So you had gas, then electricity!

Jim: [chuckling]

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. You had steam! Which is the case for Treblinka. Treblinka, you had a document called “PS3311”. And this document is about Polish testimony about what happened in Treblinka. In Treblinka, in this document. And this document, be careful, had automatically the value of a proof, according to the charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 21. Every Article of that kind had not to be proofed. It was the “truth”. Fantastic!

It’s thanks to that, that the Nuremberg Tribunal said that Katyn [Katyn Forest mass murder of Polish officers, etc., ] was made by the Germans! Everybody know that it was done by the Russians, of course.

And about Treblinka they said in detail that those poor Jews were killed in steam chambers. There was a well, there was a pipe, there was a boiler, and there was a chamber, very slippery! The Jews would fall down you see! [laughing] A silly story!

Jim: Right, right.

Prof Faurisson: You have only silly stories.

[55:28]

Jim: Now have you been to Treblinka?

Prof Faurisson: Yes! I’ve been to Treblinka. Good question! You are going to see why. Did you know the there is a film by Claude Lanzmann, called “Shoah”? Do you know that?

Jim: The “Shoah”?

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”, means the “Holocaust”.

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: “Shoah”. Nine hours and 25 minutes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: I’ve taken notes during all that time. And there is especially Treblinka. And in Treblinka he would explain you this. That the Jews of Warsaw were brought to Treblinka. Treblinka, a place where they were immediately gassed! All of them!

And Lazmann filmed a man supposed to have been a witness. He was a locomotive driver. He was the man who would every day bring, like that, the Jews to their death in Treblinka! With gas. No more “steam”. And you could see this man, he was a very important witness of “Shoah”. Other witnesses also, but this on the locomotive driver.

Sir! I went to Treblinka and near Treblinka I found the locomotive driver. And we made a film about all this. A part of what he told us. And he was speaking about this. And suddenly I asked him a question. I said:

“So, everyday you were yourself were bringing Jews like that to their death!”

And he said:

“No!”

“How can you say no?”

“No!”

“But when did you know that they were killed?”

“Oh”, he said. “After the war.”

This is the big witness.

Jim: Yeah. Wow!

Prof Faurisson: And I found in Treblinka a very interesting man, a peasant. And I wrote many things about this, and I took dimensions of the place and so on. And you could see that it was an impossible story!

Jim: Sure. Oh yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And I wrote about that.

Jim: Well they say, what 800 – 950, 000 people were killed there, right?

Prof Faurisson: There are always different figures.

Jim: I know, I know it.

Prof Faurisson: Which is normal in a way. Okay.

Jim: And there is nothing at Treblinka now. There is nothing there! I mean, …

Prof Faurisson: There is nothing there! [chuckling] You see, did you hear anything about a priest called Patrick Desbois? He wrote a book called, “Shoah by Shooting”* or something. [“The Holocaust by Bullets“] I’m not able to put it into English. “La Shoah par balles”. Okay. And this man was a priest, decided one day to make an investigation like that, about those poor Jews killed in Ukraine, especially. And he told us:

“I have found many, many pits.”

And he said:

“Eight hundred of them, and the total of the dead was one million and a half.”

Oh! Sir. This is a joke! A total joke! A shameful one! This priest tells us that first he visited a rabbi in England. And the rabbi said:

“You must not trouble the dead! Don’t open whatever. Because they are saints!”

The Hebrew word was “sekiden” [sp]. They are sacred, don’t touch them. So [chuckling] this Patrick Desbois goes from one village to another and he asks all people to come and he shows you a field or a forest, or whatever. And people are like that you see. [motioning to indicate tears coming down his face] They are crying. And they say:

“Yes, in this place so many people, so many Jews were killed!”

And that is it. You cannot see even one corpse!

Jim: I know! I know!

[* See: Patrick Desbois and the “Mass Graves” of Jews in Ukraine by Carlo Mattogno.]

[61:55]

Jim: Let me ask you about your situation now the Zundel Trial, and how you came and in contact, and all that with Fred Leuchter? How did that come about?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. So I came to help Zundel in 1985, 1988, 1992. Okay. He is really a friend. And I decided to help him. So, I came to Toronto even in 1984, 84, 85, and so on. And I came with 5 big trunks of documents.

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Imagine that at the airport! [chuckling] Yes. And I was at Zundel’s house working day and night. And I attended, of course, those two trials. And I was admitted as an expert. You know that you have to ask to be an expert. And it was extraordinary! Because, to make it short I would say that in 85, we “killed” historian number one of the “Holocaust”, Raul Hilberg!

Jim: Yeah, Raul Hilberg.

Prof Faurisson: We “killed” also, I can’t remember his name, the witness number one. It’s not as interesting as that. And in 88, remember Fred Leuchter testified. So I’m going to talk about the first one, 85.

Jim: Okay. That is fine.

Prof Faurisson: We had this man. He came like this, very sure of himself, and it was a disaster! Raul Hilberg. Raul Hilberg had published a book in 1961, called “The Destruction of the European jews”. On page 177 he said there had been two orders from Hitler to kill the Jews! Oh! Two orders? Really?

And the first order was:

“Go and kill them where they are!”

Russia and so on. And the second one:

“Collect all those people and put them in places to kill them.”

And surprisingly there was no footnote! No text! Nothing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: Coming out of the blue like that! Two affirmations. Usually Hilberg would always put footnotes. Be very precise. And there is nothing! Okay? And I was helping an extraordinary defense lawyer, Doug Christie.

Jim: Right. Doug Christie.

Prof Faurisson: And I used to work in the evening, during the night until 3, or for in the morning. And when he woke up he would find the question he had to put, and the documents. And he was there, a magnificent man, and I was on his side, on my chair. And I had little stickers, like that, yellow stickers. And every time I thought a question should be put — because it was long, you see. I would put a sticker on his desk. And you should have seen the face of Hilberg, with the yellow stickers! [making a face of shock and dread]

Jim: [chuckling].

Prof Faurisson: And I had the idea to ask Doug Christie to ask him a very simple question. Because I knew that this man was what I call, a “man of paper”! He was a professor of paper, and paper, and papers! And I said to Doug Christie:

“You are going to ask him which camps he visited. But don’t put the question like that. Give him a list of camps. Take Buchenwald. Did you visit this camp? How many times? And how much time every time?”

We started with Buchenwald, and he said:

“No.”

And the second one, he said:

“No.”

And the third one, he stopped us. And he said the had visited none!

Jim: Wow!

Prof Faurisson: Except! Except for a visit, a no official visit for his speech, or ceremony. So he was a man who had not even taken care to go and see where were this gas chambers! Even destroyed, because even destroyed it’s very important to see the dimensions, and so on.

And it was a total disaster, because we found something that he had said in 2000, wait a minute, yes the first one I said was in 1985. So in 1983, he had said somewhere, that finally there was no document, nothing. It was the German bureaucracy who had decided, suddenly, without any order whatsoever to kill the Jews! That to not write anything down, but to work by these, remember those words:

“By an incredible meeting of their minds! A consensus by mind reading!”

Jim: [chuckling] I know!

Prof Faurisson: I remember the day he said that. Once we were back at Zundel’s house there was the big table. And we were numerous. And I said:

“My friends! Do you know that today we are going to enter a new era! Because when I need a pot of coffee, or water, whatsoever, I will not even have to say, ‘I want coffee, or water’, because we are, all of us, to work by an incredible meeting of minds, consensus, mind reading!”

Jim: [laughing] Right! Right, telepathy!

Prof Faurisson: Now if it was incredible, sir, why should I believe? You say yourself that it was “incredible”! Okay? Now, how could we explain this change in Raul Hilberg?

I have an explanation. It’s because — we are going back to France — when there was this fantastic story everywhere, the Jews decided, some Jews decided to make a big international conference in Paris. In the Sorbonne, where I had been a professor. And to show the destruction of the European Jews, the “Holocaust”, the “Shoah“, and so on. And it lasted I think, four days, which is very much.

So I went to see the organizers of this conference. There were two of them. And I said:

“It’s against me. It’s against Faurisson! So I would like to attend this conference.”

And the first man said:

“No! No question!”

And I said:

“Even if I say that I will not talk? Say anything.”

“No! You cannot negotiate that!”

And to when I saw the second one, he told me exactly the same thing. So you see, you had a big international conference against me, and I had no right to go and attend this. And the only reaction of the professors was on the 21st of February 1979, when a journal, once more, they published something called “Une déclaration d’historiens”, “A Declaration of Historians”. There were 34 of them, French professors of history, and so on.

Let me find what they decided. It was in 79. If I can find it. Okay. Yes, there we are. Thirty four French historians, signed a lengthy joint declaration in reply to my technical arguments, and so on. [chuckling] And, blah, blah blah! French are good at “blah, blah”!

Jim: [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: Yes! You see!

Jim: [chuckling] I don’t know, I’ve only talked to one Frenchman, and it’s been you! [laughing].

Prof Faurisson: [chuckling] Okay! And the conclusion of those people. Because you see that my arguments were technical! Physical! You call that? What’s the name? Sorry, I cannot remember, you see. An American expression. Oh, okay. But you see? It’s technical.

Jim: Yep.

Prof Faurisson: And the conclusion, listen sir! Don’t fall down from your chair!

Jim: I won’t!

Prof Faurisson:

“One must not ask oneself how technically such a mass murder was possible. It was technically possible, since it happened.”

Jim: [loud laughing]

Prof Faurisson: Are you pleased?

Jim: [laughter] Yeah, that is their big explanation! Right?

Prof Faurisson: The big explanation! And see, we are today, 2015. No explanation, whatsoever.

Jim: Let me ask you something. I want to ask you about, getting back to Raul Hilberg. The fact that you blew him out of the courtroom, is it true that he didn’t show up for the next trial, right?

Prof Faurisson: Yes, that is right. That’s right.

Jim: Because you embarrassed him so much, tight?

Prof Faurisson: Yes. I congratulate you for that. Because when there was the second trial in 88, he was asked by the Jewish organization to come back. And Doug Christie had a brilliant idea. And it could only happen in a kind of British court. In France it would be impossible. He said:

“So you had an exchange of letters. Can we see the letters?”

And the judge decided that yes, he had to show the letters.

And in the letters you could have seen a little boy, saying:

“Oh! I have been worst in this place in 85. It was awful! I don’t want to, …! No! No Mama I don’t want to go back!”

Jim: Yeah. You really ashamed him. He was shamed. He couldn’t show his face again. Right?

Prof Faurisson: Yea. You see he was, … because I don’t want to attack too much those people. They are what I call, “believers”! They believe! They might be sincere. Sincere, even when they change the things to test, [word unclear] and so on. Because I had so many examples. I am going to give you a few of those examples.

You had a German doctor, Johann Paul Kramer, who was [word unclear] in Auschwitz for some time. And he had a diary. And when he saw the Americans, he said:

“See my diary. I didn’t do anything bad.”

And in this diary, you had this.

“For the first time I’ve been present to a ‘special action’.”

“Besondere Aktion” in German. And he said:

“I was present. It was outside.”

Meaning, not in a room whatsoever. It was outside. Probably to receive the convoys of people who are arriving in Auschwitz. Something like that. And you had the word “draussen” [word unclear] And I was lucky enough to read it because it was in Gothic characters. I learned German in Gothic characters, d-r-a-u-s-s-e-n.

And when Mr Klarsfeld — you know to man? I suppose? Mr Klarsfeld published his big book called “Memorial” about the Jews deported from France. He put this thing of Dr Kramer, and he put the translation on the left, and he said:

“I have been present at a ‘special action’, …”.

And he titled it:

“… In a gas chamber.”

See, instead of “outside” he put this.

Jim: Hmm!

Prof Faurisson: And they are constantly doing the same thing!

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: For instance, everybody knows that the Germans had a “Final Solution” of the Jewish question. Okay?

Jim: Yeah.

Prof Faurisson: And we are told the it means “killing of Jews”. So, I’m sorry sir, the Germans sometimes would write this like that. But they had shortened it. The real phrase, which was, … “We want a, ….” How do you say that?

Jim: It’s “removal”. They wanted to remove them.

Prof Faurisson: Wait a minute. I’ll find it. Excuse me, … I’m going to try to find it.

Jim: Well, I know they wanted to deport them, and get rid of them. I know that. They didn’t want to kill them, they just wanted to get them out of there.

Prof Faurisson: No. They wanted a “territorial final solution”! Territorial! Ty want a territory for the Jews. It could be Madagascar, it could be Uganda, it could be Russia.

Jim: Right.

Prof Faurisson: And they thought even at a time that it could be Palestine. But they decided “Oh! No! No Palestine.” because of the valiant, the noble and valiant Arabic people.

Jim: Right. They didn’t want to have a conflict with the Arabs. I understand.

Prof Faurisson: Yes. But you see it was a “territorial solution”.

Jim: Yep. Deportation. My next question. Let’s get back to the Zundel Trial and your relationship with Fred Leuchter. How was that?

[82:52]

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. So I said to Ernst Zundel. [word unclear] The trial came. I said:

“We need a specialist of American gas chambers.”

And finally we sent Fred Leuchter and so on. And we had this answer. The best one is a man called, Fred Leuchter. So Ernst asked me:

“Will you go and visit him in Boston?”

And I said:

“Yes.”

And I went to Boston, and I was in a hotel, and I saw the man in the snow [?] and I said to this man. I tried to see if this man knew something about the German, supposed gas chamber. And I asked him some questions. I said:

“So what about the gas chambers?”

And he said:

“Oh yes.”

He believed in the gas chambers. He believed in the German gas chambers. Never he had a doubt about that.

And I said:

“You have seen one?”

“No.”

“But how would you figure this out? How would you see a German gas chamber?”

I remember he told me:

“So if I see a big building with bricks and so on, and guards.”

He began with the guards.

“And have you long distance.”

I don’t remember exactly. At a very long distance. And I said:

“Why do you say the guards would be at a very long distance?”

He said:

“Oh, because the problem you see, is when the gas gets out of the chimney, because of the wind, you know, where to put the guards on the side, …”

And so on. And I showed him my documents. Where you could see that the in the furnace in Crematoria one, you could see that it was “Leichenhalle”, which means a place to put the bodies, a mortuary. And in the others, Crematoria II and III, you had “Leichenkellar”, cellars for cadavers. So you had it. And I remember that I had showed that to a man in France building crematories. And he was with someone, and I remember, he said:

“Oh! That is seven, eight metres thing.”

And I told him:

“What do you mean by that?”

Because this one is seven metres, and the other one is eight metres. He said:

“It was typical of a crematory. You need to metres for a cadaver in the mortuary. And two metres also, and in between three, or four for the, …”

How do you say, for the “chariot”? To bring the bodies, .. I don’t remember the English, …

Jim: You mean, how you bring them in there?

Prof. Faurisson: To bring the, …

Jim: You are talking about a trolley, the trolley thing?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. Something like that. So it was typical!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It was typical. Not only you had to [word unclear], but it was typical.

Jim: So you didn’t go to Auschwitz with Fred, he went there himself. And he came up with all the information.

Prof. Faurisson: That is right. That is right. And I showed him the plans and so on. And he felt that, he said something that he “smells a rat”.

Jim: Oh! Yeah. Smells like a rat!

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And he thought that it was interesting. And he went to see, he was invited by Ernst. And they decided that he would go to Auschwitz, Majdaneck, and all the places. He did a perfect work. And his conclusion was that not only was there no gas chamber, but it was impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Totally impossible.

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: And I want to say something about his statement in court. He was very impressive! I’m going to tell you why he was impressive. Because he was asked, by the judge, or someone. He was asked a question and he would always wait a few seconds before giving an answer. And I asked him:

“How is it that you do that?”

And he said:

“Because I’ve been taught to do that. To count to ten before giving an answer.”

So at the beginning it’s a little bit funny, to say is it a simpleton? And finally it was very impressive to see how much he was careful in choosing his words, and so on. And, I think it was in the 20th of April, 1988, it was devastating!

I was in court, of course, and the jews coming go to us like that you see [with head down, hunched over]. They were in a bad state.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: Really. Yes. It was their “Stalingrad” you see!

Jim: Well that was an important document. The Leuchter Report was very important, because that helped to get Ernst off, Ernst Zundel off, would you say? Or what?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh, I think so. Yes. There’s no doubt about that.

Jim: Yeah. Well let me just finish up with this point here. Do you think that Revisionist is making headway today in the world. What do you think about that?

Prof. Faurisson: I think we are making many progress. You see an example of plenty [word unclear] victories there. And another one, which is very important, I want to talk about it. But it is necessary tiny little pieces aft tiny little pieces.

Jim: Yeah, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: It cannot be spectacular. No! Don’t wait for what we call, “the big event”. No. It is not coming go. Certainly not. It’s going to be very slow, and it is very slow. But there is no sigh of retreat! It’s be coming go more and more difficult for those people.

And you see, back to the internet. You can do something very simple. You take a monthly, jewish monthly and more, every three months and you can’t the number of times you have “gas chamber”. Gas chambers are disappearing. [I’ve noticed this —K]

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They say any word but, they don’t won’t too much “gas” you see. “Gas” is becoming rare!

Jim: Sure, yeah. Well, you know, you are one of my favourites now. You are in my “League of Extraordinary Revisionists”. I’ve already interviewed Fred Leuchter, and now I’ve interviewed you. And I’m going to try and see if I can interview all the other people that have been instrumental in exposing the “Holocaust”. I consider it a hoax. That is what I call it, anyway.

See: Jim Rizoli Interviews Fred Leuchter: His Story, His Way — TRANSCRIPT

And I think it is important that people especially now, in our day and age now they have to see the people who preceded us Revisionists now the younger ones, who are trying to get the message out now. Because we are getting stopped every which way, when we bring this up. I mean, in my town they stopped me completely from bringing my message out on cable shows on TV.

But in the internet we are trying, we are trying to do it through the internet. The internet is the means to doing it, so hopefully we can get more people to understand it, and see what’s going on. It’s tough! It’s really hard! The jews really don’t want this to be known. And your interview with me today, I’m sure they are not going to be happy about that either [chuckling]. They just don’t want the message out.

Do you have anything you want to conclude with saying?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes.

Jim: Sure. Let me hear you.

[94:06]

Prof. Faurisson: You see plenty of proofs, for instance you have a jewish professor who said, … listen to this:

“Sources for the study of the gas chambers are rare and unreliable!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Fantastic! I thought that they were never said so strong. I know that is what he had to say. You have another one who said about Krema I, that so many people are visiting. He said:

“Everything in it is false! Faurisson exploited those fabrications all the more easily since they didn’t want to answer him!”

It was in 1995. See, I had to wait a long time to see this. “everything in it is false!”

Now, you have a jew, I should give you the name of the man who said, let me see, … the man who in 1988 said:

“Source for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable!” is Arno Mayer.

Jim: Okay, I’ve heard of him.

Prof. Faurisson: But the man that I quote sometimes, “The Last Mohican”. The last one trying to defend the story is Van Pelt.

Jim: Oh, Van Pelt. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: The jew. And he said that in Auschwitz they were spending a lot of money to get it “alive” in a way. But he suggested that no money should be spent for that. And that nature should sum back. And the journalist told him, the journalist of the [words unclear] said:

“If you want to prove the deniers, what you have to prove, if you do that you have nothing.”

And his reply was:

“99% of what we know doesn’t find it’s physical evidence in Auschwitz!”

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s fantastic!

Jim: Yeah. They even admit it. Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Yeah. And you see if the myth of the gas chambers crumbles, everything crumbles! It’s finished!

Jim: Right. Well hopefully that day will happen in sum point in time. We should keep trying. What are you doing now, yourself? You are retired obviously, what do you do with your time now?

Prof. Faurisson: Working day and night! Because [chuckling] the lie is still alive!

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: And I have to defend myself. You see I am constantly treated in France as a “liar”, a “falsifier” and even a professional “falsifier”!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Which is strange! I am going to tell you why. Because I’ve had so many, so many trials, and I have so many still today. You imagine my life!

Jim: Yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Not once has a tribunal said that I was a liar. That I was a falsifier! Let me give you an example. In 1983 on the 26th of April I was in Paris in a courtroom and even in the very courtroom where Marshal Petain had been sentenced to death, it was impressive. And I had against me, I remember, twelve defence lawyers in black! You see, I don’t need to tell you what those people were! They were against me!

And I had myself two lawyers. One of the Right and one of the Left. The lawyer of the Left had been found by Jean Gabriel Conbendict, the brother of the famous Conbendict, a jew! He was on my side!

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Yes! Many jews had been on my side. And finally said:

“Oh don’t talk about that. Let us forget, …”.

And so on. And we were in court and something very strange happened. They wanted to condemn me for being a “liar”, and so on. About the twelve, only one tried to prove that the gas chambers had existed. He had been in been in Warsaw, he had been in Auschwitz, he had been in Israel, trying to find a proof. He didn’t find anything!

And I had all those documents of this man. I remember that he begun with one, and he said at the end, which was so surprising. He said:

“Yes! You are going to tell me it’s not very good.”

Or something like that. I was surprised. And the second one, the third one, and he want away. And I learned that he had been on a bench crying. And he had his wife to come to be with him, and so on. And it was a disaster for him. But anyway, I can tell you what was the results of this. And I need my paper for that.

Jim: Sure.

Prof. Faurisson: So it was in 83. On April 26, 1983. And the court decided that in the writings of Faurisson on the gas chambers there were, I quote:

“No trace of rashness. No trace of negligence. No trace of having deliberately over looked anything, nor any trace of a lie. And as a consequence the appraisal of the value of the findings of the gas chambers defended by Mr Faurisson is a matter, therefore, solely for experts, historians, and the public.”

You could have said, “Oh! Victory!” now be careful. We are in France! [smiling] And as soon, in every of those trials, as soon as they say Faurisson is very serious in his words, they add;

“But the people against him are of good faith!”

Jim: Yeah, right.

Prof. Faurisson: Or they say:

“But we feel Faurisson is malevolent!”

Do you understand that?

Jim: Well, bad, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: Every time! We had a very important man in France called Badenbare [sp] a jew, who dared to say one day, recently he said:

“When I was a lawyer, I got Faurisson sentenced for falsification.”

So I lodged a complaint against him and I proved that it was totally false. That even the tribunal said that I was very serious in my work, and so on. But anyway, the tribunal decided that Badenbare [sp] had failed in trying to bring proof of what he had said, but he was of “good faith”!

Jim: Hmm, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: They are always of “good faith” and I am merely always “malevolent”.

Jim: Well, that is how it always going to be.

Prof. Faurisson: It’s so easy.

Jim: Let me ask you a question. Do you have a favourite book, or book that deals with the “Holocaust” that you recommend people to read? What is your favourite book?

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. The most famous, the brilliant, but a little bit difficult read, is the book of Arthur Butz. B-U-T-Z.

Jim: Okay, yeah.

Prof. Faurisson: And this book, I have I think [looking on his shelves]. Do I have this book? Yes. “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century”.

Jim: Right. Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: And not only this book has been printed for the first time in 1976. And at that time I met Butz. He was very impressive, this man. I call him, don’t say it, but I call “Dr Genius”! He’s very impressive! And he published an edition recently, I think in 2003, and later on, perhaps. And with three, or four additions. And it’s marvelous! [chuckling] And I remember the story of the elephant. I’m going to tell you the story of the elephant.

Butz said how strange, something extraordinary happened between, during the War that nobody noticed it at the time. They noticed it only aft the War. You see it’s like saying that at my home, in my cellar, I had an elephant. It was there but I didn’t know that it was there! The elephant went up — the staircase was strong enough — and it went into the room where I reading. I didn’t notice him. And he went through the window — he didn’t break it — and he went into the street. It was noon, there were plenty of people. Nobody noticed the elephant. But if you want to see him go and see him, you will see him in the zoo! [chuckling]

Because, you see, people, very important never during the war mentioned that! Churchill, never!

Jim: Right.

Prof. Faurisson: Eisenhower, never! DeGaulle, never! And so on! The Pope. I wrote a book about the Pope. The title was “The Revisionism of Pious XII”. He had the experience of the First World War. He knew what was war propaganda. He found all this once more with those gas chambers, crematories, and so on.

Jim: Yeah. How many books have you written?

Prof. Faurisson: Oh! I’ve published nine, nine, or ten.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Now it’s first something called, “Memory in Defence” against those accusing me of falsifying history. And I have little books, answer to Pressac, answer to Vincent Niquent [sp] a book on the [words unclear] a booklet. And then I have something called “[word unclear] Revisionist”, “Revisionist Writings”. And it’s now seven volumes.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Three others should come.

Jim: Okay. So there’s your book, “Just Who is Robert Faurisson?” and can you get that on Amazon?

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t know at all if you can get it. Try to get it anyway! [chuckling] I wanted to show you this. [pointing at the cover illustration] See how cautious, slow, and prudent is the one hvg this, because the balloon is ballooning.

Jim: Oh yes. I see what you are saying. You are popping it. Yes, I get it. [laughing]

Prof. Faurisson: It’s dangerous!

Jim: Yes I understand. Well you have really influenced a lot of people. I’ve read a lot of books, I’ve seen your videos and you have been a big inspiration for me! I’m going to try to use all this information just to get more people interested in the subject.

Prof. Faurisson: Good.

Jim: It just takes time. A lot of people don’t know about the topic. And I think it’s important. Well, listen I think we have really covered a lot of topics today. You have done very well. You have given us a lot of information.

Prof. Faurisson: Yes. But I am very, very tired and my English is a disaster!

Jim: Oh! I think you have done great! I mean, I have understand everything you have said!

Prof. Faurisson: I don’t think so. I would have so many other things to say.

Jim: Okay.

Prof. Faurisson: For instance, let me tell you something about the six million.

Jim: Okay let’s talk about that. That is fine.

Prof. Faurisson: This is not a discovery of mine, absolutely not! But, it’s very simple. The story of the six million, that comes from something which began in, probably 1880.

Jim: Wow!

Prof. Faurisson: Something like that. It was first in New York City in the New York Times. And in other places also. It was a way to get money. It would say something awful is happening in Russia, in Poland, in Hungary, in these sort of places. “Six million of our brothers are dying!”, “There is a “Holocaust”!” you have even the word. “Bring the money!”

Jim: Sure! Yeah. It’s all about money!

Prof. Faurisson: And I could tell you something about Nuremberg Trial. I would like to talk about the Nuremberg Trial, which was so disgusting!

Jim: Well, do you want to do the another time? Would you like to do that another time?

Prof. Faurisson: Perhaps another time, but I’m not sure, because I have more and more tired. And, you know, sir, when this will be made public, I will sued once more!

Jim: You think so?

Prof. Faurisson: Sure!

Jim: Wow! Anyway, I think we talked a lot, enough today. If there is another time you want to talk about anything in particular we can do this. I’m getting a little better at this. And we can go from there. How does that sound?

Prof. Faurisson: Okay. Goodbye.

Jim: Okay. You take care now. God bless you! All right we will see you. Bye!

[Produced by Jim Rizoli, September 2015]

[114:46]

END

===============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = 11,813
* Total images = 26
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

Version History

Version 9: Jan 28, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 8: Jan 3, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 7: Nov 3, 2018 — Added last 20 minutes of transcript. Added 2 images. Corrections to text and formatting. Transcript now complete.

Version 6: Nov 2, 2018 — Added 11 more minutes of transcript. Added 5 images. Total transcript complete = 94 minutes.

Version 5: Oct 30, 2018 — Added 21 more minutes of transcript. Added 3 images. Total transcript complete = 83 minutes.

Version 4: Oct 29, 2018 — Added 7 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 62 minutes.

Version 3: Oct 28, 2018 — Added 5 more minutes of transcript. Added 4 images. Total transcript complete = 55 minutes.

Version 2: Oct 27, 2018 — Added 5 minutes of transcript. Added images.

Version 1: Oct 25, 2018 — Published post. 45 minutes of transcript complete.

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:34:58 +0000

[In this video, “Probing the Holocaust — The Horror Explained Part 1” some of the most iconic propagandistic film footage used to convince the post-war public that the Germans had carried out an extermination policy against the jews (and others), is analysed in the context of those camps and their conditions that prevailed as the war came to an end. The truthful explanation reveals that the public has been deeply manipulated and deceived by the explanations given in that footage.

This video, although dealing with only one part of the “Holocaust” narrative, forms part of a larger analysis by Revisionists that proves beyond doubt that the “Holocaust” is in fact an ongoing hoax of world historic proportions.

For people new to this view, one question that usually comes forward is; how? How could something so massively accepted by the media, governments, churches, academia, and so on, be false, a hoax? The answer is that the alleged victims of the “Holocaust“, the jews, are in fact the very people, as in “organised jewry“, that run our governments behind the facade known as “democracy“. In other words the alleged victims are the very perpetrators of this ongoing hoax of world historic proportions. These people were the “behind the scenes” instigators of both World Wars, and many other wars and false flags, right up to now.

Another question is; why? Why would organised jewry need to create such a hoax, known as the “Holocaust“? The answer is that it:

1) Fulfils jewish religious prophecy of a “Holocaust” or “burnt offering” of six million jews. This will then apparently lead to the return of a jewish Messiah and the establishment of jewish rule over the world.

2) Provided a sympathy pretext for the establishment of the jewish State of Israel despite it resulting in the Palestinians being dispossessed of their lands through terror.

3) Demonizes any form of White nationalism. At first only the “Nazis” were blamed for the “Holocaust“, but then all Germans were, and now the blame for the “Holocaust” is placed on all Whites. Any White group, political party, organisation, etc., that attempts to look after White racial interests by, for example, rejecting mass non-White immigration, is implicitly, or on a sliding scale, explicitly accused of being “Nazi“.

Organized jewry uses their hoax “Holocaust” as a shield against any criticism of their world-wide aggression, and also as a sword to attack and guilt-trip Whites into not defending their right to exist and reject the takeover of their countries by the Third World.

The “Holocaust” needs to be exposed for what it is, a diabolical lie of historic proportions. It also needs to be exposed because that lie is being used by organised jewry as a major part of their arsenal of psychological weapons to genocide Whites out of their homelands and out of existence in the long term — KATANA.]

_______________________

Probing the Holocaust

The Horror Explained

Part 1

Germar Rudolf, Eric Hunt

Dec, 2017

__________________________

The Horror Explained

Abstract

“The Holocaust” is widely known as the murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany, many if not most of them in gas chambers deceptively disguised as shower rooms.

We have all seen the terrible imagery of dead prisoners taken after concentration camps were liberated. This documentary reviews some of the most memorable of these images, which were taken in camps such as Dachau, Nordhausen and Bergen-Belsen. A closer examination of this imagery we’ve all been exposed to reveals a very different story than what we were made to believe. Surprisingly, a large number of the bodies we were shown were the direct result of Allied bombing and strafing attacks, rather than victims of a systematically planned Nazi exterimnation policy.

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained (Part 1) presents surprising information which shed a new light on the horrific imagery and enables many viewers for the first time to truly understand what transpired in Germany during and at the end of the war. Watching this presentation with an open mind will surprise you and leave you asking questions of your own.

Download this video documentary:

Download subtitle files:

__________________________

Copyright Notice: This movie has been released to the public domain for educational purposes only. It may be copied and distributed free of charge only. No commercial use is permitted. If copied and distributed, no changes to the movie are permitted without the prior written consent of the author/director of the movie.

Note: This video replaces Eric Hunt’s Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed, Part 1, which had a number of quality issues.

To watch the video over at Inconvenient History please click here:

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained

Transcript

(96:40 mins)

It’s something we were told throughout our entire lives: Six million Jews, and large numbers of non-Jews, were murdered by the Nazis:

[Clips from various film footages:]

“Eleven million people died in Nazi Germany’s death camps. Six million were Jews.”

“An estimated six million Jews were killed during World War II.”

“Hitler murdered six million Jewish people”

“six million Jews”

“six million died”

“six million people crying from the grave…”

The term Holocaust commonly refers to the systematically planned and executed extermination of six million Jews by Nazi Germany during World War Two. Mainstream historians agree that, of these six million Jews, approximately three million were killed in gas chambers.

The vast majority of them, they say, were killed or died in six extermination centers in Polish territory. Here is a break-down of these three million alleged gas chamber victims by each of the six camps.

Camp	Jewish Gas Chamber Victims
Auschwitz/Oświęcim	900,000*
Treblinka	900,000
Bełzec	500,000
Sobibór	210,000
Kulmhof/Chelmno	240,000
Lublin-Majdanek	unknown (thousands)*
Total:	2,750,000 + thousands
* The total Jewish death toll of these camps is higher than the number given due to deaths resulting from other causes (diseases, exhaustion, executions etc.)

These numbers are an average of figures found on the websites of two of the most reputable Holocaust research institutions, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., and the Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem.[1]

The Holocaust is so important that the United Nations even decided to create a dedicated memorial day for it. Every January 27th, the day when the infamous Auschwitz Camp was occupied by the Soviet Red Army in 1945, the whole world is reminded to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust.[2]

In 2017, on the occasion of this International Holocaust Remembrance Day, the White House under U.S. President Donald Trump released this statement:[3]

[“It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror.

Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest.‎ As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent.

In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.”]

Stop the video to read it, if you like. There is nothing unusual about the statement, except maybe the fact that Jews aren’t mentioned in it. That triggered quite some vitriolic reactions, for instance from Jonathan Greenblatt, the current head of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. He tweeted on that same day that Trump did not even mention Jews,[4] which triggered a deluge of similar attacks on the U.S. President for not having expressly mentioned the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust.[5]

The White House countered a day later that it wasn’t just Jews who died in the Holocaust, but that five million gentiles were killed, too,[6] who also deserve equal remembrance, referring to an article which had appeared two years earlier in the Huffington Post.[7]

That in turn unleashed a series of attacks on the president and that 2015 article, claiming that this “five-million-gentiles” victim figure is bogus and vastly over-inflated. Among those, I may quote here The Times of Israel’s take on this death toll:[8]

“It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. […] It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis. […] The ‘5 million’ [non-Jewish Holocaust victims] has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. […]

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar […], said he warned his friend Wiesenthal […] about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews.

‘I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’’ Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. ‘He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’’

[…] Wiesenthal […] told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.

It caught on: […]

Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in 2011 […] ‘this number is simply inaccurate, in fact made up […].’”

Deborah Lipstadt went over the top, however, by accusing Trump of flirting with Holocaust denial.[9]

So, here we seem to have a case where a prominent Jew, the late Simon Wiesenthal, inflated the number of Holocaust victims for political purposes.

But did Wiesenthal really invent that number? And was he the only one exaggerating numbers?

During and right after the end of the Second World War, a number of war propaganda movies were filmed with the support or even under the control of the U.S. government. Throughout these propaganda movies, there are many references to the thousands and even millions of victims of National Socialist barbarism – yet none of these films ever single out Jews as the primary victims of a “Holocaust.”

[05:11]

The most infamous among those propaganda movies was titled Die Todesmühlen,[10] which was designed for, and eventually shown to, German audiences as a tool for shock-and-awe re-education. It was later also released in an English edition: Death Mills.[11] Both movies mention as the death toll of National Socialist persecution 20 million without making any specific reference to Jews:[12]

“But these eleven hundred were a small fraction of the twenty million men, women and children murdered by the Nazis. 20 million human beings, equal to the population of 22 American states. 20 million corpses.”

In fact, the narrator insists that the victims were:

“of all the nations of Europe, of all religious faiths, of all political beliefs, condemned by Hitler because they were anti-Nazi.”[13]

This is only the most prominent example. There are more which highlight that death toll claims of National Socialist persecution have a history of exceeding the six million, and that Jews have been mentioned with regularity as only one among many victim groups.

This issue is also not just a matter of journalists and propagandists making up wild figures. In 2015, in a book about the forensic examination of mass-murder locations of the Holocaust, a British archaeologist who has been working with the leading scientists in the field for several years wrote, quote:[14]

“The exact number of people killed during the Holocaust remains unknown. Some scholars have suggested a figure of around 11 million. Of these, it is estimated that approximately six million Jews were killed but the number of Roma, Sinti, disabled people, political prisoners and others killed cannot be estimated with complete certain[t]y.”

She provides no source for that claim, though. So maybe she merely repeated what she had heard through Wiesenthal’s grapevine? But is it really Wiesenthal’s? Interestingly, the very same Washington Holocaust Museum that, according to just-quoted article in The Times of Israel, issued a statement on Trump’s text emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust, had announced in 2013 in a press release that their research has revealed that:

“The Nazi Holocaust may have claimed up to 20 million lives,”

while leaving the 6-million Jewish death toll basically unchanged.[15] This would mean that as many as 14 million non-Jews died in the Holocaust, not just five.

I may also point out that 20 million is not the ceiling of death-toll estimates. For instance, an article of Sept. 21, 1992, from Germany’s most prestigious daily newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (p. 13), illustrates in a very useful manner the kind of topic we are dealing with and the problems that are related to it. The title of the article translates to “Traces of the Crime; Shoes, Shoes, even Children’s Shoes.” It is a report written by a student about his visit to the Stutthof concentration camp not far from Danzig, in postwar Poland, that has been turned into a museum. The author, in his fourth sentence, states that he cannot imagine what an extermination camp might look like and talks of, quote, “installations in which ‘6 million Jews and a total of 26 million detainees […] were killed,’” unquote. So here we have a combination of the general 20 million victims plus six million Jews.

At the end of his account the author writes that he found himself facing, quote;

“the remains of the most brutal genocide, the highly modern killing machines of the time, the cruelest crime of humanity,” unquote

By putting things that way, one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the world has given its definition of the Holocaust. The annihilation of a total of 26 million people by the National Socialists in ultra-modern killing machines is the cruelest crime in the history of humanity.

So, how many victims were there now? Six million Jews plus a few others, or eleven in total, or twenty, or even twenty-six million?

At most one of these figures can be correct, but with all this speculation going on, it may turn out that they are all wrong. But if that is so, what is the truth? Can you tell?

One thing is for sure: we obviously cannot believe everything we hear about the Holocaust, because the things we hear often contradict one another.

[09:56]

Let’s start at the beginning, with the documentary “Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps” that the Americans introduced during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 as proof of Nazi atrocities. Psychologically speaking, it was one of the most powerful pieces of evidence submitted, because a picture tells more than a thousand words. Here are some scenes about the Dachau Camp. Dachau was one of the first major camps the Americans captured toward the end of the war:[16]

“Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided. This is the Brausebad, the shower bath. Inside the shower bath, the gas vents.”

Actually, what you are seeing here are not gas vents but recessed light fixtures.

“On the ceiling, the dummy showerheads. In the engineer’s room, the intake and outlet pipes. Push buttons to control inflow and outtake of gas. A hand valve to regulate pressure. Cyanide powder was used to generate the lethal smoke.”

Interestingly, on August 19, 1961, a letter to the editors by German mainstream historian Martin Broszat was published in Germany’s biggest weekly newspaper Die Zeit stating, among other things:

“Jews or other inmates were gassed neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald. The gas chamber at Dachau was never fully completed and taken into ‘operation.’”

On January 24, 1993, the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal wrote in a letter to the editors of the U.S. military magazine Stars and Stripes in the same vein:

“A gas chamber was in the process of being built at Dachau, but it was never completed.”

Thus, between the 1960s and late 1990s, the Dachau Museum had a sign displayed inside the Dachau gas chamber stating:

“Gas Chamber, disguised as a shower room never used as a gas chamber.”

Today, however, this sign is no longer there. Instead, a less-visible text on a sign outside that room states:

“Gas chamber

This was the center of potential mass murder. The room was disguised as ‘showers’ and equipped with fake shower spouts to mislead the victims and prevent them from refusing to enter the room.”

Currently, the US Holocaust Museum itself admits, quote:[17]

“There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings.”

Barrack X was the official name for the crematorium building where that sinister room was located.

One of the leading books by mainstream historians on the gas chamber question, the 1993 collective tome Nazi Mass Murder, states on page 202:[18]

“It has not yet been conclusively proved that killings by poison gas took place at the Dachau concentration camp.”

And on page 203, we read:

“But during the trial there was only one witness, a Czech physician assigned to care for the prisoners, Dr. Frantisek Blaha, who declared that experimental gassings had taken place in the Dachau gas chamber.”

Blaha signed an affidavit on January 9, 1946, in which he described his experience with the Dachau gas chamber. It is in German, but an English translation was read into the record during the Nuremberg Tribunal as follows:[19]

“Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way.”

And that’s it. If Blaha was the only witness on trial testifying about the gas chamber, and if he had no experience whatsoever about the gassing procedure, then how did the American documentary makers know that the victims;

“had been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided” ?

Only a few days after the liberation of the Dachau Camp, a number of U.S. Congressmen visited the camp. Here they are shown inside the gas chamber. And this is footage taken in 2016. As you can see, the ceiling of that room is rather low. In fact, the room is roughly 2.15 meters or seven feet high. Why do I mention this? Because an official U.S. commission investigated what had transpired at Dachau, and in a report to the U.S. Congress dated May 15, 1945, compiled by David Chavez, we read, among other things, that in this room “the ceiling was some 10 feet in height”[20]

[15:32]

How can anyone confuse seven feet with ten feet? But that’s not all, because that report continues as follows:

“The supply of gas into the chamber was controlled by means of two valves on one of the outer walls, and beneath the valves was a small glass-covered peephole through which the operator could watch the victims die. The gas was let into the chamber through pipes terminating in perforated brass fixtures set into the ceiling.”

However, the ceiling did NOT have brass fixtures, but merely zinc-plated iron showerheads. Furthermore, as can be seen in this photo of a spot where a showerhead had been removed by the Americans as a piece of evidence, these were merely fake showerheads – or rather watering can rosettes such as this – that were not connected to anything. Already the documentary we watched earlier said that there was:

“A hand valve to regulate pressure.”

But there’s a problem. Zyklon B, which was allegedly used for the murder, was not a gas under pressure that could be fed into pipes. It consisted of gypsum pellets soaked with liquid hydrogen cyanide, the active ingredient in Zyklon B. When such a can was opened, its poison evaporated slowly.

In addition, from many cases of accidental poisoning with hydrogen cyanide, and from executions with that poison as they were carried out in several U.S. states during the 20th century, we know that the victims Blaha claimed to have examined cannot have succumbed to Zyklon B. Such victims do not have red eyes. They do not have swollen faces. Actually, if they show any symptoms, it is a pinkish-reddish discoloration of their skin as shown here.

It is clear that the Americans, when making their documentaries and congressional reports, were jumping to a lot of conclusions, contradicting each other and the material facts in the process. But what’s the truth here?

The tubing shown in the American documentary is really impressive. Such heavy tubing with cast-iron hand valves are commonly used for piping large amounts of chemical liquids or pressurized gas. The design of this tubing was investigated by the French officer Capitaine Fribourg a week after the camp’s liberation. Here is a sketch drawn by him showing how the piping worked. According to this, fresh air was sucked in through this intake vent, which protrudes through the roof. This intake pipe is subsequently led through a heat exchanger located over the gas chamber in the building’s attic. Here, the air is heated by the building’s hot-water heating system. After that, the now-insulated pipe is split into two and led out of the attic area into the room behind the gas chamber, where both pipes are led in a semi-circle, each of which equipped with the hand valves shown. Leading back into the attic area over the gas chamber, Fribourg shows the pipes being merged back into the outgoing pipe, but that would make no sense at all, because then the air would go nowhere. Therefore, that’s a mistake. In fact, a report compiled by German architect Axel Will in the early 2000s, a copy of which we received from the Dachau Museum, described in detail that the layout actually looks like this. Will wrote:

“Air is drawn in via a pipeline of 400 mm diameter extending over the roof, and is then led through a steam-operated heat exchanger. The pipeline is insulated behind the heat exchanger. It is split into two lines by means of a y-branch pipe, and leads with two pipes of 200 mm diameter into the room adjoining the gas chamber. There the airflow can be adjusted with a valve each. Both these and the other two valves of the ventilation system are made of massive cast iron and carry a $ sign in a circle. Such valves are common in gas pipelines but not in ventilation systems.

Behind the valves both pipelines are again led back into the attic area above the gas chamber and merged back together into one pipe. This pipe enters a sheet-metal shaft, which again goes through the adjoining room and leads the heated air to the air intake at the floor of the gas chamber.

This sheet-metal shaft is not insulated. This raises questions. Design logic suggests that this shaft would be the suitable location to add substances [such as Zyklon B] to the heated air prior to entering the gas chamber. The examination of the sheet-metal shaft has so far not revealed any opening for such a manipulation. Yet the missing insulation points to such a possibility.”

[20:13]

So much from architect Will.

The air exhaust system starts with two openings in the ceiling. From there, the two non-insulated exhaust pipes merge into one, and are led toward the wall to the room behind the gas chamber, where the pipe splits up into two again. Then it is led outside in a semi-circle equipped with two hand valves, and led back into the attic area, where it is merged again into one pipe, as can be seen in this photo taken in the attic of that building. Then that merged pipe is fed into the electric blower that drives the whole operation, here visible in another attic photo, and from there out the exhaust chimney, which exits the roof here.

Now, if that gas chamber was meant to be operated with Zyklon B, it would have been smart, as architect Will correctly suggested, to equip the sheet-metal shaft running down the wall of the adjacent room with some trap door – hinted at here with blue lines – allowing for Zyklon B to be inserted into some kind of basket inside the shaft, hinted at here with the red meshwork. That way, the constant stream of warm air would have evaporated the poison gas quickly and would have spread it out inside the room rapidly. But, as architect Will correctly observed in his report, there is no trace of any provision to that effect.

So, the poison was neither administered using the false showerheads, as the congressional report claimed, nor using the ventilation system, as the U.S. documentary that was shown during the Nuremberg Tribunal suggested. But how else could it have been done? Here is the story as we are told today:

“they would pour Zyklon B down these slots right here, and onto the floor.”[21]

“Rocks with Zyklon B could be inserted from the outside”[22]

Here are some photos of these slots from the inside and from the outside. So, the entire sophisticated ventilation system did not serve any other purpose than moving air around. Why then was it so complicated? It makes no sense at all! It would have been much easier to simply feed the heated air directly into the shaft going into the chamber, as shown here, and to feed the exhaust pipes directly into the blower, using the blower’s speed to adjust for any needed change in air volume. For now, this entire ventilation system seems to be a nonsensical mystery.

But that’s not the only one. Fact is, that neither the congressional report nor the postwar documentary mentions these Zyklon B slots. In fact, David Chavez, the main author of the congressional report, had compiled an earlier version of this report that did not get submitted. It stated:[23]

“Gas Chamber. Gas tight doors. Wooden shed believed to contain pump or compressor.”

This wooden shed located just outside the alleged gas chamber can be seen in many photos and film footages shot right after the liberation. It was located where today the two Zyklon B slots are located. But according to Chavez, it did not contain any slots, but rather some not clearly identified equipment.

The French officer Capitaine Fribourg describing the facility on May 25, 1945 as he claims to have seen it on May 5, 1945, hence, a week after the camp’s capture by the Americans, also mentioned the wooden shed as follows:

“Right next to the shower room, adjacent to the building, is a palisade some 2 meters high fencing off a space of 2 m wide. It was not possible to get inside due to the presence of a pile of decomposing corpses stacked up against the palisade.”

and

“behind the palisade is said to have existed or exists a compressor group (?)”

He also described two slots in the wall obscured by this shed from the outside as follows:

“At about 75 cm from the ground, 2 hoppers connect the shower room with the outside (palisade side). Each hopper ends on the inside with a grate, and on the outside with a movable shutter system.”

That’s also what we see there today. Fribourg even included those hoppers in one of his sketches.

If we look at the outside of this wall in that location today, we can see these strange features. It may have been the electrical outlet for the device operated in that shed.

Looking closer at the Zyklon-B slots, we notice that the mortar around them is not original. The original mortar used to build Barrack X contains coarse gravel rather than sand, while any mortar used around the Zyklon-B slots, and on later repairs and patch-ups, as we can see them here, are made of mortar containing fine sand. Here we can even see how some of the new mortar flowed over the old mortar.

[25:01]

On the inside, it is apparent that the tiles around those slots have been damaged. In fact, a simple test with the finger nail shows that these rough surfaces aren’t even tiles. They are plaster made to look similar to the tiles around them.

In other words, those slots are not part of the original building. They were added later on by hacking holes through the existing wall.

Who did that change, and when was it done? Chavez didn’t mention them, and neither did the U.S. documentary on Dachau of May 3rd. Fribourg saw them two days later, but he did not claim that they were used to throw in Zyklon B. That wouldn’t have been a good idea anyway, because a large amount of the gypsum pellets would have gotten stuck on the grill on the inside. But what were those slots used for? Or is it a post-war forgery?

And if that is so, what else is?

Here is one hint. This footage was recorded on October 25, 2017 from the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. When searching their video archive for the term “gas chamber” the first result is this video. It’s titled “Exhumation; inspection of gas chambers; Lt. Hodges.”

This is footage taken after the liberation of Paris of an alleged “Gestapo Torture Chamber” near the Eiffel Tower. In the description, we read:

“World War II interiors of gas chamber used by the Germans in the execution of prisoners. Demonstrating method of securing prisoners in gas chambers. Various Close-ups, pipes leading into room.”

And;

“hand prints and scratches dug into cement wall of gas chamber by the victims.”

Here are those ominous pipes. They are rather fancy, but not very functional. Most of all, they would have been within reach of the victims, and wouldn’t have survived very long, because they would have been demolished very quickly. Also notice all those windows illuminating this room. How long would those window panes have lasted if the victims inside trashed the place and tried to break out?

For that footage, they even pumped some innocuous, but dramatic-looking smoke through the pipes.

Here are the handprints in the cement, allegedly created by gassing victims during their death throes. Needless to say, handprints can only be made in fresh mortar, and only insane people would use a room as an execution chamber whose walls had just been plastered.

These gas pipes and handprints are not evidence of Nazi atrocities, they are evidence of a deliberate Allied psychological warfare campaign to demonize the defeated Germans. Because this hoax is so obvious, no mainstream historian has ever taken that claim seriously. That does not prevent the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum from presenting it to an unsuspecting audience, though. Unfortunately, most people just accept whatever the government, media, or religion tell them to believe.

So, what was necessary for the Americans, who had liberated Paris several months earlier, to create that footage? First of all, they must have had a plan. Then, they must have had at their disposal the necessary hardware to create the film set: pipes, smoke-generating devices, and some workers able to install that hardware and to create a cement wall with handprints.

In contrast to that utterly unknown Gestapo torture chamber in Paris, Dachau was one of the best-known German concentration camps. It was the first one to be opened right after the Nazis came to power. When the Americans finally moved in in April 1945, this camp had dominated the fantasy of Nazi opponents for more than a decade. So, did the American psychological warfare executives have a plan? You bet they did! And did they come with hardware and workers to put that plan into action? If they did it in Paris in January 1945, they surely were even more likely to pull it off at Dachau, which was a much more promising propaganda stage.

So, let me ask again: why are these fanciful pipes in Dachau so impressive and even intimidating, but at the same time so completely useless and pointless?

Before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at some wartime documents. First, there are the two photos shown earlier taken some time in 1944. On both, we can see the ventilation chimney that’s part of the gas chamber’s aeration system. So at least that exhaust chimney was built by the Germans prior to the end of the war. Next, among the few original documents available on that building, there are two blueprints of special interest. This one shows a cross section through the gas chamber. It shows that the ceiling is indeed only some 7 ft high, not 10 ft, as the rest of the building.[24] Next, a section enlargement of this document shows the floor plan of the gas chamber.[25]

[29:51]

As we can see, both doors are 90 cm wide and consist either of two doors each, one opening inward, the other outward, or of a swinging door. Either way, such an arrangement would not have been suitable for a gas chamber, as swinging doors could neither be made gas tight nor panic-proof, and in case this layout consisted of two doors, the inner one opening inward could not have been opened if dead bodies were piled up against it inside the chamber. Such an arrangement is actually common for morgues. For instance, the blueprints of the morgue in the old crematorium at Auschwitz show the same type of door design.

Today, this room is equipped with two heavy steel doors of the type that were quite common for air-raid shelters. The doors are one meter wide and set in steel frames. The same doors are shown in the U.S. footage recorded on May 3, 1945, hence just five days after the camp was captured by the Americans. They were therefore most likely built in there long before the Americans arrived. Also, one of the walls actually consists of two layers with a hollow space in between, which is typically used as insulation, something also seen at the above-mentioned Auschwitz morgue.

Hence, it looks like this room was initially meant to serve as a morgue. In fact, the striking feature of this building is that, if we discard the idea that this alleged gas chamber served as a morgue, this building has no other room of a suitable size equipped with a ventilation system.

But if that is so, what about the weird, oversized piping? And what about those heavy doors? And what about the shafts on the outside, evidently added after the building was completed?

And what about the peephole in the rear wall which Capitaine Fribourg described in his report? He even drew a sketch of it. It slanted rather steeply downward, hence it wouldn’t have allowed anyone to see anything except for maybe the feet of a few people standing or lying close to that hole.

The hole inside that gas chamber that is said to have been the other end of that peephole can be seen to this day, although it is way higher than what Fribourg reported, who in his sketch placed the peephole below the second little port visible on that wall, close to the floor. Today, neither the peephole’s exit nor the switches are visible in the adjoining room. The switch panel and switch box are shown in the footage recorded on May 3, 1945 for the U.S. documentary. But that documentary neither shows nor mentions that peephole. There is, however, a photograph of that area from May 1945 showing not only the switch panel and switch box plus some of the insulated pipes and hand valves, but also a crude opening in the wall just beneath the switch panel. If we compare that image with a still of the footage just shown, we see:

a) that the lid of the switch box to the left has disappeared;

b) and more importantly, the upper, rugged edge of the hole in the photo should also be visible in the still, but it isn’t. Therefore, somebody must have hacked that hole in there after the documentary was shot.

Here is how that hole looks on the inside, seen from the gas chamber. It does indeed angle upward. In the background you see bricks and mortar used by the museum to close up that gaping hole in the adjoining room. Inside this tube runs an electric cable put in there when the room was prepared as a museum exhibit.

What we see here is the fact that, since the camp’s liberation on April 29, 1945, quite a few people seem to have tampered with the evidence of this suspected crime scene. It’s difficult to assess what this hole was really used for. A peephole, however, would have been installed in the doors, as was and is common for air-raid shelter doors, rather than hacked through a thick brick wall, and it most certainly would not have slanted downward.

So, is the Dachau gas chamber a post-war fraud? Considering that the camp was liberated on April 29 and that the gas chamber was inspected by four members of the U.S. Congress only 3 days later, on May 2nd, this seems to be not enough time for a major fraud.

In fact, there is evidence pointing in a different direction. Most importantly, there is a letter in the German Federal Archives by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Heinrich Himmler dated August 9, 1942, which reads:[26]

“As you know, the same facility as at Linz is being built at the Dachau concentration camp. Since the ‘transports of invalids’ end up in certain chambers anyway, I ask whether the effect of our various combat gases can be tested on people who are destined for that anyway? So far, all we have are experiments with animals, or reports on accidents during the production of these gases. Because of this paragraph, I am sending my letter marked ‘Secret.’”

Dr. Rascher was the infamous doctor who conducted medical experiments on inmates at Dachau, which were among the crimes prosecuted by the American occupational powers after the war in the famous “Medical Case” of the Nuremberg Trials of War Criminals. While there was plenty of evidence for a variety of experiments on human guinea pigs such as exposure to low air pressure and extended submersion in cold water, tests of combat gases at Dachau were not among the charges. There was simply too little evidence to make that case.

[35:16]

We may speculate that Dr. Rascher had indeed tried to re-rig the morgue of Barrack X for the potential testing of combat gases, with those shafts perhaps simply serving as air-intake shafts for a better ventilation, since the room had no windows. But since Dr. Rascher was arrested by the German police in April 1944 and eventually executed for a number of crimes, child abduction and murder among them, that project, if it ever existed, ended up being abandoned at that point at the latest. When the Americans arrived a year later, the room was nothing more than a morgue, filled with the victims of diseases and malnutrition, which could not be cremated due to the lack of fuel.

For the time being, any answer to the question what these strange objects were meant for remains speculation to a large degree, because almost the entire original paperwork regarding the planning and construction of that building – cost estimates, progress reports, blueprints, invoices etc. – have disappeared from the Dachau camp archives. Only a few, not very informative documents are left, such as the ones we just saw plus a few others. So, either the Nazis destroyed them because they had something to hide, or the Americans confiscated and/or destroyed them, because they wanted to prevent anyone from figuring out what that room really looked like and was used for.

At Dachau, imagery of a gas chamber disguised as a shower room was driven into our minds.

Dachau is where the world came to believe the rumors and saw what we believed to be evidence of well-engineered German machinery, capable of gassing with precision and efficiency.

So, if that gas chamber wasn’t what we are told, or at least wasn’t used at all for mass executions, why were there massive amounts of clothes hanging in its vicinity when the Americans arrived?

“Hanging in orderly rows were the clothes of prisoners, who had been suffocated in a lethal gas chamber. They have been persuaded to remove their clothing under the pretext of taking a shower for which towels and soap were provided.”

Actually, these are clothes airing outside the Dachau disinfestation chambers. The narrator merely claims that this is the clothing of homicidal gas chamber victims. Then they deceptively cut to the shower room door, making the viewer believe they are the same door; the one with the obvious written gas warnings on it and the supposed gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, designed to trick those entering.

The hoaxers showed film of these disinfestation gas chambers for fumigating clothing, located at the end of the building. They claimed these doors, clearly marked with warning signs and skull and crossbones, were used to gas prisoners.

This is where the disinfestation chambers are and the doors clearly marked with warnings. But the “shower room,” the alleged gas chamber, is located a few rooms away. The deception was to trick the average viewer into thinking, the clearly marked delousing chamber door with skull and crossbones located at the end of the building was the same as the shower room door. This dirty deception continues to this day.

For example, take this 2012 documentary on Dachau by filmmaker Levi Mierau. After showing the gas chamber and describing how it allegedly worked, he, too, deceptively cuts to the disinfestation chamber while continuing his narration about homicidal gassing. Watch it:[27]

“A door labeled shower bath went into a large room, which is meant to deceive, since the room was not actually a shower room but a gas chamber. The room consisted of outlets in the walls, floor and roof.”

Stoooop! Outlets in the floor and roof? These showerheads weren’t an outlet for anything, and those six drains in the floor are actually real drains, which indicates that the room was originally designed to handle a lot of water, not gas.

Fast forward a few seconds, we have this footage:[28]

“Rocks with poison gas pellets named Zyklon B could be inserted from the outside. Since the gas chambers were only built during the camp’s last months, only seven were killed in the gas chambers used as test subjects.”

So, while showing the disinfestation chambers, Levi deceptively talks about gas chambers, in the plural, used to kill seven people.

[39:50]

The same kind of deception is committed by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on its website (capitalization added):

“View of THE door of THE gas chamber in Dachau.”[29]

“An American soldier stands outside of THE gas chamber in Dachau” [30]

“View of THE door to THE gas chamber at Dachau next to a large pile of uniforms.”[31]

“THE door to THE gas chamber in Dachau. It is marked ‘showerbath.’”[32]

“View of THE door to THE gas chamber in the Dachau concentrations camp. A sign above it identifies it as a shower.”[33]

The US Holocaust Museum uses the singular “the” to imply, both of these doors were the same door of the same homicidal gas chamber, disguised as a shower room.

They show the outside of the clothing fumigation chamber doors, located at the end of the building, then show the inside of the shower room door, located all the way over here. There are four disinfestation chambers, not one.

But they chose photographs which show one door and used the singular “the” and mix it with images of the shower room. You can see the disinfestation chambers had warnings not to enter and marks designating when clothing fumigations started and when it was safe to open the doors again.

Here they refer to this as “a” gas chamber,[34] of course ignoring that it was one of the four used to delouse clothing.

The photograph’s caption reveals the early propaganda lies, still perpetrated today.

“Gas Room – People were hung up in here.”

These hooks were not used to hang people in gas chambers. They were just hooks for clothing, of course.

“View of the hooks outside the door to the gas chambers in Buchenwald.”[35]

First, this isn’t even Buchenwald. This is a photo of a Dachau delousing chamber.

The original caption reads:

“Buchenwald was the home of Ilse Koch, wife of the commandant. She was known as the ‘bitch of Buchenwald,’ an insult to every dog who ever lived. She had her inmates tattooed in various designs, then had them killed, then skinned and their hides tanned to make book bindings, lamp shades, and other articles. I saw these things! One story has it that she enjoyed sexual intercourse with her victims – this may be apocryphal. These ‘meat hooks’ were used on the bodies of humans!”

Just about every claim in this miscaptioned photo is false. This example illuminates the typical hysterical propaganda common at the time and still repeated today by a government-funded institution. In reality, these alleged “meat hooks” are just hangers for clothes to air out after passing through the fumigation chambers.

This complex machinery sure looked like it would be something we’d expect in German-designed death chambers. But because this equipment could NOT be used to introduce Zyklon-B fumes into the chamber, today we are told the Germans instead just dumped the pesticide pellets onto the room’s floor through these vents in the outside wall. This is quite odd, because the disinfestation chambers right down the hall actually did have advanced specially designed mechanisms to properly heat and circulate cyanide gas from the Zyklon B pesticide pellets.

This was called the DEGESCH circulatory device made by the manufacturer of Zyklon B.[36] A member of a clothing fumigation crew would put a can of Zyklon B into the holder. A built-in can opener operated from the outside with a crank would open the can. The pellets would drop down a chute into a basket where hot air would be blown through to speed the release of cyanide gas from the pellets. The pesticide would be spread throughout the clothing fumigation chamber, and when finished, the gas would be removed from the chamber and fresh air blown in.

One should be very skeptical upon learning that today the official story is that the Germans, rather than using something like this specially designed device used in the clothing delousing chambers right down the hall, simply poured Zyklon B pellets through holes in the wall. Such a procedure would have been very detrimental, because once those pellets were inside the room, they could not have been removed, unless the room had been cleared of all the corpses. Since Zyklon B releases its poison for an hour or more, depending on temperature and humidity,[37] this means that any effort to swiftly ventilate the room after an execution would have been in vain.

Hence, these shafts, if they were added during the war within the framework of Dr. Rascher’s testing frenzy, may simply have been designed to assist the ventilation of that room.

Anyway, this is not exactly the advanced German engineering we are constantly propagandized with, is it?

In the face of overwhelming evidence that this room was never used to gas anyone, mainstream historians now claim that the inmates employed to build this gas chamber managed to sabotage its completion by dawdling on the job for some three years, or so we read in the original French edition of Paul Berben’s “official history” of the camp, quote:[38]

“The Dachau gas chamber, however, never functioned because to a certain extent, it seems, of sabotage carried out by the team of prisoners given the job to build it.”

[45:13]

So, the narration of the Nuremburg trial evidence film “Nazi Concentration Camps” was completely wrong. This clothing did not belong to inmates suffocated in the gas chamber. This was just clothing which passed through the real gas chambers for delousing clothes and was airing out.

This deceptive narration of the Dachau segment is an important part of the falsehoods in the Nuremberg trials film evidence center piece.

This bizarre practice of calling shower rooms gas chambers continues to this day. We can see on the website of Israel’s Holocaust Museum “Yad Vashem” a photograph of the actual inmate shower room at the Dachau Camp captioned:

“A gas chamber after the liberation.”[39]

This is just another real shower.

“Flossenbürg, Germany, Gas chambers, which were called showers.”[40]

This claim is repeated on the “HistoryWiz” web site “The Final Solution”. The photograph is captioned:[41]

“The final destination for those who could not work, the gas chamber – here, the gas chamber at Flossenburg.”

The hoaxers pulled the same old trick angle in the camera to block out the many windows of this real working shower room. The top official authorities today concede this room was a real shower, never used to gas anyone. Moreover, no mainstream historian has ever claimed that there was a homicidal gas chamber at the Flossenbürg Camp.

This doesn’t stop Israel’s Holocaust Museum and others from spreading gas shower nonsense. The “HistoryWiz” website presents an important quote:

“To be ignorant of history is to remain always a child. – Cicero”

That certainly holds true for those who childishly and ignorantly believe showers were gas chambers.

A major reason we believed in the stories of the showers of death is the terrible images of corpses taken at the end of the war. But those horrific images of emaciated and dead prisoners are not proof of an extermination program.

“This special presentation of the Oprah Winfrey Show is brought to you with limited commercial interruption. It is supported in part by the new AT&T, committed to education.

I am here in Poland at the Auschwitz death camp, where it is estimated that 1.1 to 1.5 million people perished here in the Holocaust.”

At an early age, you were probably already exposed to a program like this.[42] Documentaries such as this one are specifically aimed at young people. You can even see this copy was taken from a website called “School Tube”. Videos like this shock their audience by showing atrocious imagery which, if it were fiction, would be rated unsuitable for children.

“That evil has a name: The Holocaust. A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed by Nazi Germany that brutally wiped millions of people off the face of the earth. More than six million of those human beings were Jewish.”

But since this imagery is real, it is not rated unsuitable for children, although it is even more traumatizing exactly because it is real. However, hardly anyone, let alone a child, has the ability or experience to analyze the context of this imagery. This horrific film footage of emaciated corpses is presented with no context other than the claim that they are proof of a systematic extermination policy.

“The Holocaust. A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed…”

These images, however, were taken at the very end of the war. Mainstream historians claim, however, that any extermination activity had ceased in those camps in October of 1944 at the latest, based on an affidavit by German SS officer Kurt Becher, in which he quoted an order allegedly issued by Himmler in September of 1944 as follows:[43]

“I prohibit any annihilation of Jews with immediate effect, and on the contrary order the nursing of weak and sick persons. I hold you (with this, Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were meant) personally responsible for this, even if this order is not strictly followed by subordinate departments.”

Both Kaltenbrunner and Pohl were top officials of the concentration camp system. No trace of that Himmler order has ever been found, but that’s beside the point I want to make here. When we look at what was really going on in those camps, we are in for a surprise. Here is a chart showing the number of inmate deaths at Dachau as recorded first by the German authorities and then by the Americans. It clearly shows that mortality exploded at a time when Hitler’s extermination policy is said to have been abandoned. The same happened at the Bergen-Belsen Camp, where mortality exploded only in early 1945, as can be seen from this chart exhibited today at the Bergen-Belsen museum.

[50:12]

The reason for that was severe overcrowding combined with the disastrous collapse of food and water supplies as well as medical care and hygienic measures, which taken together caused malnutrition, starvation, and fatal diseases such as typhus and dysentery to spread out of control.

In those months, the Allies bombed Germany’s entire infrastructure to smithereens, including the supply lines into the camps. Shipments of medicine, sanitation supplies and food into the camps, power plants and water treatment plants were systematically bombed, and in some cases, they even bombed the actual camps. Not only Jewish concentration camp prisoners struggled and perished during the final months of World War II. For months upon months, the German civilian population was the target of an unprecedented fire-bombing campaign by the western Allies. From Hamburg to Dresden, tens of thousands of innocent German civilians were deliberately targeted and murdered. Women and children were burned alive, and terrified families suffocated from poison gas in bomb shelters. They don’t ever show you these pictures, do they? You should ask why, though.

Anyway, many Germans who survived became refugees running for their lives, and also struggled to feed themselves.

In the east, German civilian populations were also fleeing the invading Soviet army which was torturing and murdering civilians en masse. The Red Army raped untold numbers of German women from young children to the elderly.

Using these horrific images, the catastrophic last days of a collapsing Germany surrounded on all sides and bombed to smithereens, as proof of deliberate extermination camps is the dirty trick that is the main reason people believe in the Holocaust.

It’s why many react strongly against those critically investigating mainstream Holocaust claims. After all, we all saw the bodies, right? These images were taken in camps liberated by the western Allies, primarily Dachau, liberated by the Americans, and Bergen-Belsen, liberated by the British – camps which are today admitted, even by mainstream historians, not to have served as extermination or death camps.

Today, all of the so-called death camps or extermination camps are claimed to have been in Polish territories conquered by the Soviet Union.

Early witnesses originally claimed these western-liberated camps also had homicidal gas chambers, disguised as shower rooms. However, British and American doctors performed thousands of autopsies on some of the corpses the Allies discovered in those camps.

Russell Barton, an English medical student who had spent a month in Belsen after the camp’s liberation and had investigated the reasons for the camp’s disastrous conditions toward the end of the war, stated, quote:[44]

“German medical officers told me that it had been increasingly difficult to transport food to the camp for some months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was likely to be bombed. […]

I was surprised to find records, going back for two or three years, of large quantities of food cooked daily for distribution. I became convinced, contrary to popular opinion, that there had never been a policy of deliberate starvation. This was confirmed by the large numbers of well-fed inmates. […] The major reasons for the state of Belsen were disease, gross overcrowding by central authority, lack of law and order within the huts, and inadequate supplies of food, water and drugs.”

[53:46]

Here is an interview Dr. Barton gave to the late Ernst Zündel some ten years after this article had been published:[45]

“You were on the scene in Belsen as a young man.”

“Yes. I went with a group of medical students. We arrived in Belsen on May the second 1945, and I first went to the camp on May the third. Himmler ordered the camp to be ceded on April 11th in order to stop typhus, which was an epidemic spreading throughout Europe. The British came in; a tank division came in on April the fifteenth at three o’clock, and they did their best to segregate the typhus[-infected] and the dying from the other.”

“How many people were in the camp at the time when the British took over the camp?”

“I think there were about fifty-seven or sixty thousand. The British bombed everything, and the Americans, that moved on the roads. So getting food there was extremely difficult. The water supplies became contaminated with sewage, and the administration in the camp more or less broke down. The distribution of food in the individual huts was left to the inmates, and the inmates, we found out – we were fooled at first, but this was after May, after I got there. The inmates… one particular group was in control; they would take what they wanted and then leave whatever food there was left to the rest of the hut. So that meant, perhaps ten powerful people would gobble everything, and three hundred and fifty would have whatever was left. There were, I’d say, all nationalities, mainly Polish and Russian. Most of them were Jewish.”

“Were there men and women?”

“Yes, there were men and women, and children.”

“And were they segregated?”

“Segregated.”

“Segregated camps. And that was still segregated when you got there?”

“Yes.”

“Even, let’s say, if the German camp administration had made maximum effort, and had been given everything at hand, could they have prevented this?”

“There was no cure for typhus at that time. The British put DDT, which is an insecticide, over everything and everybody, and in that way, I think, the typhus was contained. But it was a great danger. People don’t realize it was typhus. It was… I supposed 50, 60 percent of the people died of typhus.”

“Why are these bodies naked? I mean, some of them are so emaciated. Why don’t they have their clothing on?”

“Well, they did. When they were pushed outside the huts, they had clothing on. But clothing was so scarce – everything was scarce – that the inmates would immediately rush out and take all the clothing off, because it was a pity to waste it. That’s why they were naked.”

“Did you see, when you got there two weeks after the British army took over, any evidence of gas chambers, the way propaganda has said that the Germans had in these camps? Or was there any claim made to that effect?”

“No. I don’t think it was ever thought there was a gas chamber in Belsen-Bergen. People were dying at 500 a day, by the way, a rate of 500 a day.”

“Even under British administration…”

“Under British administration, yes. And what was happening mostly, the English soldiers were giving people their food, people half starved, had very thin stomachs. The stomachs would burst, and they’d die. The inmates said that the conditions there, this is what inmates said, that conditions weren’t too bad until the end of ’44. And then this mass immigration… But by the time they put in another 50,000, fully 50,000, of course…”

“Were you there during the time when the bulldozers were actually putting these bodies in the graves, in these long trenches that we’ve seen?”

“The bulldozers… the bodies were being thrown in. They would put… a truck went around every day and picked up the bodies outside the hut, and then they would take them to where the bulldozer had dug the grave, and they would throw them into the grave.”

“You are a man born in England. You published this article, I believe, for an English publication. And the London Times picked up on what you have published here?”

“That’s right. This was published in November 1968. I was asked to write it. I was solicited. I had no intention of so doing.”

“Nobody ever interviewed you from any German magazines or papers?”

“Oh no. No, no.”

“To this day?”

“Not to this day.”

“Did anybody ever, officially from Germany, come and contact you for a kind of historical documentation, of the [???German Federal] archives in Koblenz and places like that?”

“No.”

“No. Never?”

“Never.”

Similar to this is the account given by Dr. Charles Larson, a U.S. forensic pathologist working for the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General. Right after the war, Dr. Larson performed autopsies on hundreds of victims in some twenty former concentration camps. In 1980, a newspaper article appeared reporting about his wartime experience. We read there:[46]

“Larson has talked little publicly about the war experience. One reason for his silence has been that his autopsy findings conflicted with the widely held belief that most Jews in Nazi camps were exterminated by gassing, shooting or poisoning.

‘What we’ve heard is that 6 million Jews were exterminated. Part of that is a hoax,’ Larson said. […]

Never was a case of poisoning uncovered, he said.”

[59:27]

Larson’s biographer wrote the following about this episode, quote:[47]

“In one grave the bulldozers uncovered an estimated 2,000 bodies, many of which were subjected to autopsy examination by Major Larson. All of those autopsied had died of various conditions such as emaciation with starvation, tuberculosis, typhus or other infectious diseases.

For the next ten days, many nights with only an hour or two of restless sleep, Larson worked among the dead. He performed about 25 autopsies a day and superficially examined another 300 to 1,000 bodies. He autopsied only those bodies that appeared to have died questionably. ‘Many of them died of typhus,’ Dr. Larson told me recently.

At Dachau Larson’s work – the profile of the prisoner population that his autopsies projected – indicated that only a small percentage of the deaths were due to medical experimentation on humans. It indicated that most of the victims died from so-called ‘natural causes’ at the time; that is, of disease brought on by malnutrition and filth which are the handmaidens of war.”

Today, these particular camps are admitted not to have had homicidal gas chambers at all. So, none of the corpses seen in these images were gassed. What you see in these images are prisoners who died from disease, as well as a lack of appropiate food, water and medical supplies. A large part of their condition was due to the Allies bombing supply lines to the camps.

Allied fighter planes even bombed and strafed trainloads full of prisoners as they were being evacuated to different camps. Those prisoners who weren’t hit by bullets or bombs were without appropiate supplies for days until arriving at their destinantion.

The liberation of Dachau concentration camp is dramatized in the film Shutter Island. The Americans liberating Dachau came across what became known as “The Dachau Death Trains”. They saw bullet holes in the sides of the trains and dead prisoners inside in terrible condition, believing the Germans locked starved prisoners inside the trains, then machine gunned them, the Americans turned their fury to the capture of German guards.

“The guards surrendered, we took their guns, and we lined them up. It wasn’t warfare, it was, it was murder!”

Many of the German guards who surrendered the camp had only recently been transferred to the camp in the final days of the war. Some were just teenagers from surrounding towns. Ironically, this young German guard even looks like the young DiCaprio. This young German was not a deliberate holocauster of Jews or anyone else but a young man tragically swept into the final days of the most brutal war in the history of mankind. The German soldiers surrendered, and with their hands up, the Americans shot dozens of captured unarmed German guards. And it didn’t happen in the heat of the moment either, as this movie suggests. In fact, the Americans actually brought the guards to the camp’s coal yard, got a heavy machine gun from their vehicle and brought it into position, and they had their army photographers take pictures of the event, as this photo and others prove. It was a war crime. The Americans played judge, jury and executioner. They even dragged German soldiers from a nearby hospital and shot them, even though they had nothing to do with the camp at all, let alone the death trains. Here is the testimony of one of the Americans involved in this murder:[48]

“I was not prepared for what I saw in Dachau. Nothing could prepare you for that. Nothing could prepare you for that type of slaughter that was carried on in that camp. […]

I never liked to see people killed unnecessarily, no matter what their stripe is or what they have done. We did kill some people there that I consider unnecessarily. However, given the circumstances, while I am sorry about it, it was just one of those things that no one could control. Actually, the people that we killed died a much easier death than the people that they tortured and killed as we subsequently found out. Torture and hangings and executions in various manners was a daily occurrence. So, in a way, we were kinder to them than they were to the people that they murdered.”

[65:05]

The only problem is that the people he helped to kill were not those who had run the camp for many years.

But evidence has come to light that the Germans did not lock prisoners inside the trains and machine gun them.

The bullets which tore through the trains full of prisoners were not German bullets but in fact the result of Allied war planes strafing the trains.

Here is a Jewish former prisoner talking about the Allies bombing and shooting his train, killing prisoners on the way to Dachau, explaining their condition:

“I was ordered to go march out to the railroad station back into the cattle cars, but this time they had open wagons and regular cattle cars. But the only difference it was that the railroad tracks, on one track, the Nazis were retreating with the heavy artillery, ammunition and all their hardware. In another track the concentration camp inmates in the train load. The Nazis were hoping maybe because we are there they will not be bombed.

It would have been a short trip, but it took us almost three days to get to Dachau. What had happened, we got hit by air raid. They bombed the both of the tracks, they machine gunned our train. And in the train were I was sitting – this time it wasn’t so loaded – we were all squatting down. Both of the fellows beside me got hit by machine gun fire. And I just, days… by then the guards were gone. We opened the railroad car and stumbled out of the car and walked into the woods in nearby, and hid there. Remember going out on the fields and dug off some potatoes for food. But they came back next morning or a day later with dogs, gathered us together and ordered us back to the railroad cars. They never removed the bodies. This is how we arrived to Dachau.”

This Jew’s train was bombed and shot by Allied planes. The prisoners the Allies killed were left inside the train. Prisoners who weren’t blown up or shot by the Allies suffered further malnutrition, in part due to the bombing of train tracks, delaying their journey.

The Allies were directly responsible for killing many on these death trains. Bullets from Allied air planes tore through the bodies of those prisoners shortly before the American infantry arrived at Dachau. American infantry, ignorant of the role of Allied bombing and strafing runs contributing to the deaths of the prisoners inside the death trains, put the blame on the Germans.

They lined the unarmed, surrendered German guards against a wall and executed them, committing a war crime, which has gone unpunished to this day. Misunderstandings, propaganda, falsehoods, blind patriotism, mistakes, rushing to judgement. How else could millions be driven to killing their own people, themselves essentially?

“It wasn’t warfare, it was murder.”

The Allies also directly bombed concentration camp prisoners, and today we are told this is proof of a German planned Holocaust.

This is another segment from the American propaganda film “Nazi Concentration Camps” which was shown at the Nuremberg Trials.

“The slave-labor camp at Nordhausen liberated by the Third Armored Division, First Army. At least three thousand political prisoners died here at the brutal hands of SS troops and hardened German criminals who were the camp guards. Nordhausen had been a depository for slaves found unfit for work in the underground V-bomb plants and in other German camps and factories.”

A deceptively captioned image of Nordhausen appears in Steven Spielberg’s The Last Days companion book. We see American solders walking past corpses strewn on the ground. The caption reads:

“The horrific scene of mass annihilation within the Nordhausen concentration camp.”

Let’s look closer at the photograph. We can see the buildings have been bombed. Testimony of former prisoners shows they were lucky to survive Allied bombing attacks.

This Jewish former prisoner and doctor describes prisoners laying in the camp hospital, sick of tuberculosis in the final days of the war.

“And there I had over 4 thousand prisoners laying on tuberculosis. Sick. What are you doing? It’s tuberculosis. No medications, nothing, hardly food, it was very meager already. The Germans didn’t have to eat.”

[70:18]

This former prisoner and doctor described conditions in the camp in the final days of the war. Sick prisoners didn’t have enough supplies. However, he points out the Germans themselves also didn’t have enough even to eat. Clearly, the Germans could have killed the sick prisoners at any time, yet instead treated them in hospitals.

“And all of the sudden, it was April 3rd at 3 o’clock, alarm, and American air force over us, and dropped the bombs just on our camp. And the whole camp was entirely destroyed. And out of this four thousand people, we were 200 survived. Because they died there. They were in the camps, you know. Hanging in the ceiling, their bodies and… It was awful. It was burning days and days. We were still…, the nurses, the doctors, the administration people, the working administration… we ran away.

And the Americans made a mistake because they didn’t know this is a concentration camp. They knew it is a military camp. They emptied the military the month before and in January they put us in, you see. So, they didn’t know. So, they came back at 9 o’clock in the morning and hit the whole city. The whole city they flattened. We ran away in the wood, in the fields, and when they emptied the planes, they came and strafed us with machine guns. They didn’t know who it is. They are Germans, you know. And we went into the woods, and we remained about a week in the woods. And we ate only the raw potatoes.”

British Royal Air Force bombed the camp, full of sick prisoners. They turned around and shot survivors running for their lives. They flattened the nearby town, full of innocent German civilians.

The British are primarily responsible for the scene of, quote, “mass annihilation.” But images of Nordhausen recently bombed and strafed by British planes are still used today as proof of a deliberate German-planned Holocaust.

And it’s important to note that most of those seen in this photograph aren’t even Jews but primarily non-Jewish political prisoners, including Poles, Russians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These majority non-Jewish victims of Allied bombing at a former labor camp are used to sell a supposed Jewish Holocaust.

The Oprah program deceptively used two shots of the aftermath of the British air raid at Nordhausen.

“More than six millions of those human beings were Jewish.”

This victim of the Allies blowing up and strafing sick prisoners at Nordhausen being carried over rubble was in fact likely not Jewish. So, we’re looking at someone who is both not killed by the Germans but by the British and who is likely not a Jew.

Here is another clip of Nordhausen. The prisoners of the camp for seriously ill prisoners were blown up and shot by the British, and were buried in this mass grave. The soldiers standing at the edge are Americans. But we are led to assume they are Germans, standing at attention after a job well done.

“[…] that brutally wiped millions of people off the face of the earth.”

Actually, the British brutally wiped these prisoners off the face of the earth. The Germans put them in a camp with doctors and nurses.

What’s incredible is that you were shown these images as proof of an organized, planned, systematic extermination program going according to plan.

“A systematic mass murder meticulously planned and executed …”

…when in reality, this was the result of the total disorganization and utter chaos of a collapsing Germany which was still being bombed relentlessly into submission.

Rather than do the right thing and accept blame for what could be said is accidental collateral damage based on faulty intelligence, the Allies instead just blamed the Germans. Images of a camp full of sick prisoners bombed and strafed by British planes at Nordhausen are used as proof of a systematic, planned German extermination program. However, every single mostly non-Jewish prisoner in this imagery was killed due to a British bomb or bullet.

The editing of the film “Nazi Concentration Camps” was supervised by Budd Schulberg, born Seymour Schulberg, son of the head of Paramount Studios. Schulberg was Jewish and a member of the communist party USA until 1939.

[75:03]

All of these dead were murdered with British bombs or bullets. Yet no mention is made of that. Schulberg claims they died at the brutal hands of Germans.

“At least 3 thousand political prisoners died here at the brutal hands of SS troops and hardened German criminals who were the camp guards.”

This is a total lie and inversion of history. The final shot of the “Nazi Concentration Camps” film shows footage of a prisoner at Nordhausen who had his head blown off.

A prisoner account describes exactly how this happened and who is responsible:[49]

“THE APRIL 3 BOMBING. The accounts refer first of all to the Tuesday, April 3 bombing: ‘Right from the first blast, I took shelter under the concrete staircase of the Revier. A bomb hit the Block and the staircase was demolished. I ran to the middle of the camp, to a shelter dug right into the ground, where there were already a dozen civilians, women, children, and also an SS man – as green from fear as his uniform – who could only stammer: ‘Schrecklich! Schrecklich!’ (Horrible! Horrible!) And indeed, it was not a pretty sight; corpses every five or six yards, headless or their innards ripped open.”

Today, images of Nordhausen are widely used as proof of a Jewish Holocaust. Why is this particular image so popular? The bodies of those blown up or shot by the British, then pulled out of craters or the rubble of buildings and lined up in ordered rows by the Americans are meant to imply an orderly German method of mass murder. Apparently, they want us to believe the Germans lined all these prisoners up here in neat rows and shot them where they stood. If these dead people were German soldiers, the Brits would pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Instead, the Allies just blamed their bombing and shooting screw up on the Germans. What a horrific scam, pulled right in front of our very eyes. Imagery of tragic deaths which were the direct result of the Allies’ actions are cynically exploited to sell a lie.

[Footage showing historian Stephen Ambrose:]

“Adolf Hitler was pure evil. And he was in command of the most advanced technology and the best-disciplined people and the best-educated people in the world.”

“In the wrong hands, technology helped turn Europe into a slaughter house. This was a war that was also a crime.”

“Eisenhower, when he first encountered concentration camps, was shocked and surprised. He hadn’t been told about it. His immediate reaction was, ‘This is so horrible that there will inevitably become a revisionist movement some day to say ‘this never happened; this is propaganda; this is a figment of wartime imagination,’ so he insisted that every GI who could be marched through those camps and he said ‘bring your cameras with you.’”

This is a classic quote used to attempt to refute revisionists. Eisenhower said, there would be deniers in the future, so he ordered witnesses march through camps and film them. No one denies these are real bodies. But the false analysis of their cause of death deflecting all blame onto Germans is the propaganda. Every single shot in this news segment was taken at Nordhausen. All of the footage of murdered prisoners in the sick camp at Nordhausen shows prisoners blown up or shot by the British.

This is another example of the propaganda formula: supposed expert, deceptive imagery, plus calling those who question it evil haters. It turns out this master historian was later accused of plagiarism throughout his entire career.[50] He even lied about spending hundreds of hours with Eisenhower and meeting with him daily. Official records show he spent five hours on the record with Eisenhower. This is the mentality of these master historians, promoted to the forefront of the monopoly media. There was no plan to turn these prisoners into this condition. This was the result of the catastrophic end to the war. Not everything going perfectly according to an evil plan.

Up until this time these images of a bulldozer dumping naked emaciated corpses into a mass grave at Bergen-Belsen were the most horrifying imagery in the history of film. This film footage was shown to our grandparents’ generation on a big screen. It has been shown to you at a young age. What are you to believe? Some programs such as the Oprah presentation lead one to assume this is a German driving this bulldozer, making his quota of gassed Jews for the day, rather than a British solder pushing epidemic typhus victims into a mass grave.

[80:05]

Until the end of the war, Bergen-Belsen was not a death camp were Germans deliberately starved to death and murdered prisoners. In fact, it was originally designated as a recuperation camp, or Krankenlager, where sick prisoners were sent to improve their health. It wasn’t such a terrible place until the final days of the war, and there is evidence to prove it. Rose Kahn, a Hungarian Jew, was transported from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen in the summer of 1944. Before Auschwitz was abandoned, and Bergen-Belsen was severely overcrowded, she describes Bergen-Belsen as not such a terrible place.

“So, when we arrived to Bergen-Belsen, and they told us to get out, and the Nazis came with those big, big dogs, with their wolves, and they asked us who cannot walk, is sick, should tell ‘em, so they gonna put us on a bus. I was afraid to say it. I couldn’t walk, but I didn’t say it. And if I would say, would been good, because this was not a bad place. This was not at that time, at that time.”

“So in other words it wasn’t a trick?”

“No, no.”

“They really would have taken you by bus.”

“Yes, yes, yes.”

“I think you were right, though.”

“Yes, but I was so afraid, so my mother and my friends were holding me. We had to walk a few miles, quite a few miles to it. And we arrived there, and we lived in tents and straw, we slept on straw. And we weren’t treated badly. No, it wasn’t too bad over there. We were given nice meals. What happened? They wanted us strong to send out to work, so they didn’t want weak and sick people.”

Witnesses such as this help prove that Bergen-Belsen was not a specially designed death camp whatsoever. Before the catastrophic end of the war, prisoners were routinely fed and decently cared for.

The major trick of the Holocaust promotion industry is to show these horrible images of emaciated bodies and make you believe that prisoners were always like this. That the Germans immediately starved them to death, and this deliberate starvation had been going on for years as part of their plan of extermination. However, witnesses such as this and others prove that at times the concentration camps were not so terrible.

“This was not a bad place. This was not at that time.”

It was only as Germany was losing the war, surrounded on all sides by a terror bombing campaign from the west and marauding Soviets in the east, that conditions in camps such as Bergen-Belsen deteriorated disastrously.

“And then we stayed there until they started to build barracks for all the other Auschwitz people when Bergen-Belsen became hell.”

Bergen-Belsen became hellish at the very end of the war. The major cause of this was the Allied bombing campaign. As the Allies fire-bombed German civilian population centers, burning innocent men, women and children alive and shot at or bombed just about anything that moved on roads or train tracks, even the Germans themselves had trouble finding enough to eat at the time.

[Camp survivors interviewed:]

“…hardly food, it was very meager already. The Germans didn’t have to eat.”

“Food didn’t improve very much because, simple reason, they didn’t have very much themselves, so…”

“Did the civilians try to help you at all? Did they trade goods for things?”

“It’s as I say, we had almost everything what we wanted, from the soccer teams, from the civilians, from outside civilians.”

The spread of deadly diseases and severe overcrowding exacerbated the entire situation. Prisoners from areas in the east which were now being overrun by the Soviets were hastily evacuated west. After days or weeks journey, often on foot, they wound up in these overcrowded camps full of deadly diseases. And because the German infrastructure was being destroyed, this was catastrophic.

In early February 1945, a large transport of Hungarians were admitted to Bergen-Belsen while the disinfestation facility was out of order. As a result, typhus broke out and quickly spread beyond control. The hot-air delousing machine sometimes failed to work for several days. The worst killer was typhus. But typhoid fever and dysentery also claimed their lives.

There was a breakdown in order and communication throughout the German system as the Germans were losing the war and fighting for their survival. Trainloads of food were destroyed by Allied planes. At Bergen-Belsen, the final factor which guaranteed mass casualties was in the final weeks of the war: The Allies bombed the power plant which supplied electricity to the facilities that pumped water to the camp.

[85:12]

“Water too had been cut off. And so, the water cart was the most important thing to arrive. There had be no water supply for six days. The Germans pleaded it had been cut.”[51]

The electric plant which powered pumps supplying water to Bergen-Belsen was not cut by some unnamed force. It was blown up by the British. A destroyed system for providing clean water to the camp compounded already disastrous hygiene and medical conditions. Clean water, necessary to shower prisoners, wash clothing and treat dehydrated typhoid fever, dysentery and typhus patients was indeed cut off by British bombs.

“One might ask why all the inmates surviving were not removed out of the camp altogether to a large town, for example, where there would be feeding and housing facilities. The answer is simply the dread word – typhus.

A mobile bacteriological unit and all medical aid possible together with 90 medical students from London hospitals were rushed to the spot to deal with it.

Lack of soap and water brought lice to the inmates, and lice carry typhus. To get rid of typhus, one must first get rid of lice, so contaminated patients were removed from their huts and put through a laundry process.”

The British struggled to remedy disastrous conditions in Bergen-Belsen after liberation. Many thousands died after liberation. In the end, the British burned the wooden barracks, as they became infested with deadly epidemic-typhus-carrying body lice. Images of the disastrous situation at Bergen-Belsen are fraudulently used to portray a deliberate German extermination policy.

These post-liberation images of Bergen-Belsen as well as Dachau and Nordhausen have become symbols of German barbarism. But these people were victims of the larger war, not a deliberate German extermination plan. The Germans did what they could to keep people alive, and in some cases contacted the Red Cross for assistance and even turned over some camps to them. The shameful truth hidden amongst this Holocaust propaganda is that not only were none of these people gassed, but the Allies played a major role in their deaths.

As terrible as these images of emaciated prisoners are, images of union prisoners of the American confederate civil war camp Andersonville show liberated prisoners also appeared in a similar condition. What happened at Andersonville was a complete breakdown in hygiene measures due to inadequate sanitation facilities. Toilets in the overcrowded camp didn’t drain properly, exposing prisoners to filth and disease, in particular dysentery. Symptoms of dysentery include diarrhea and rapid weight loss. In extreme cases, patients may pass over a liter of fluid per hour. It’s easy to see how someone who is repeatedly defecating, vomiting and urinating would quickly lose body weight, especially if food supplies, medicine and water became scarce.

At Andersonville, as overcrowding increased, so did the death toll. The confederates also lost the war in a catastrophic way much like the Germans. So, there is a direct correlation between the images of Andersonville prisoners and the so-called Holocaust images.

Now, these people at Andersonville aren’t Jews, and never has anyone alleged the South aimed for a total genocide of Northerners. The photographs of Andersonville and for instance Bergen-Belsen are quite similar and correlate with the breakdown in hygiene, overcrowding, the spread of disease and one side of the war losing catastrophically. What you see in these images at Bergen-Belsen is primarily the result of typhus.

Typhus is a disease carried by the body louse which is similar to head lice. But body lice prefer to attach themselves not to the scalp but to the inner seams of clothing. Typhus was responsible for the deaths of millions throughout history. Typhus epidemics routinely occurred throughout Europe during war time. During World War I, more than three million people died from typhus.

What you see in these images are primarily typhus epidemic victims. The Germans did not intentionally starve them to death. We can see several people liberated from the camps. Although not in pristine condition, some appear well fed, some even fat. They simply didn’t have disease. The Germans in fact tried to stop the spread of disease. The insecticide Zyklon B was a pesticide used to kill these deadly typhus-carrying body lice.

[90:02]

There is nothing inherently murderous about Zyklon B. In fact, Zyklon B was used on the Mexican border to gas the clothing of Mexicans crossing the border. The delousing process went like this:

Prisoners entering a camp would strip their clothing and get a haircut to prevent any areas where deadly typhus-carrying body lice could thrive. Then they would take a hot shower. At the same time, their clothing would be put into specially designed fumigation chambers where fumigation crews would use the insecticide Zyklon B to kill deadly typhus-carrying body lice.

The prisoners would then be given clean, lice-free clothing, and enter the camp. It is easy to see how this life saving delousing process involving real fumigation chambers for clothing and real showers was misconstrued into wartime propaganda about showers of gas by prisoners spreading rumors as well as Soviet propaganda artists deliberately framing their enemies.

One of the final exhibits at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. sums up the importance of the information presented in this video.

Museum visitors are bombarded with film clips taken after the Allies captured concentration and labor camps. These films are meant to represent proof of a deliberate German extermination policy. But you have now seen many of these clips, explained and debunked.

Near the end of the museum’s main exhibit two banks of three video monitors flanking a fallen Nazi flag play film footage taken after camps were captured by the Allies.

Each of the three monitors is dedicated to one of the three major Allied powers: the Soviet Union, United States and Great Britain.

On this screen is US Army footage taken at Nordhausen, Dachau and Buchenwald. The caption reads:

“Local German civilians are ordered to tour Buchenwald Concentration Camp.”

This is an American army official gathering Germans around the supposed human-skin lamp shade and the table filled with propaganda props. Visitors are shown the Dachau death trains full of victims of Allied bombing and strafing attacks. Majdanek, the outside of a real shower facility, “Bath and Disinfection II,” and the inside of “Bath and Disinfection I” showing the real, working shower room. Again, the camera is angled away from the many windows. The caption reads:

“Soviet Army officers inspect chambers where prisoners were killed by poison gas.”

Today, every serious mainstream historian acknowledges this wasn’t a gas chamber with fake shower heads, it was a real working shower room designed to keep prisoners alive and free of disease.

Again, the bulldozer pushing epidemic typhus victims into a mass grave at Bergen-Belsen. A disaster, but not deliberate or planned.

On the last television screen, we’re shown footage of Nordhausen bombed to smithereens by 500 British warplanes over two days. Much like at the Nuremberg trials, the final shot we are shown before moving on to the exhibit on post-war trials is the victim of British war planes at Nordhausen with his exposed brains.

How sick to show gory imagery of Allied air attack victims as proof of the evilness of Germans.

Mothers rushing their children past this section never question the context of this imagery. This is powerful, trauma-based mind control used to brainwash, not by using logic and facts, but by searing these horror images into a captive audience’s mind, and manipulating emotions with mendacious narrations.

Real shower rooms, phony planted evidence like this lamp shade, and victims of Allied bombing are not proof of a genocide using gas chambers, disguised as shower rooms. We were manipulated, misled and lied to.

We were shown images taken during the final days of a destroyed and collapsed Germany as proof of a systematic, planned extermination program. Upon further investigation by the western Allies, these claims of extermination camps equipped with homicidal gas chambers in western-liberated camps have fallen by the wayside.

However, the powerful imagery of these western-liberated, overcrowded, disease-infested camps, devastated due to the Allied bombing campaign in the final months of the worst war in the history of mankind is still used to brainwash the public as proof of an extermination program of gas chambers disguised as shower rooms in camps captured by the Soviet Union.

In Part 2 of this documentary, we will explore some aspects of the most infamous of these camps: Auschwitz.

[94:55]

Disclaimer

This documentary is not meant to whitewash the National Socialist regime of Germany from any of its undisputed wrongdoings. Imprisoning people without proper due process is a crime. Any authority committing such a crime ultimately bears responsibility for those in its custody.

However, this crime was not only committed by the German authorities prior to and during World War II, but during the war also by the U.S. authorities who imprisoned many Japanese Americans as well as Italian and German immigrants. The biggest criminal in this regard, however, was the US’s most important ally of the Second World War, the Soviet Union, where millions were imprisoned and ultimately murdered prior to, during and after the war.

Unfortunately, this crime of unlawful incarceration is today again committed by U.S. authorities in Guantanamo Bay and other similar facilities.

[95:52]

__________________

Holocaust Handbooks, the world’s leading book series critically exploring what the powers that be don’t want examined. Mermerizing, comprehensive presentations, such as Lectures on the Holocaust, as well as cutting edge research results, such as The Real Case for Auschwitz. Read most of our books free of charge at holocausthandbooks.com, where you can also watch our riveting documentaries. All this high quality content was made possible by viewers like you. Please consider making a donation to help us create more of this content. We can’t do it without you! Thank you.

[96:28]

Notes

[1]

As of Oct. 2017, the following were found online (U = USHMM, Y = Yad Vashem): Auschwitz (U = “over 960,000” total, Y = “more than 1,100,000” total); Belzec (U = approximately 434,500, Y = 600,000); Sobibor (U = “at least 170,000”, Y = 250,000); Treblinka (U = “between 870,000 and 925,000”, Y = 870,000); Majdanek (U = “unknown”, “Between 89,000 and 110,000” “Most succumbed to starvation, disease, exposure, and the effects of physical torture or back-breaking labor performed under threat of violence”, Y = no number, total Jewish death toll “60,000” (Kranz), “200,000” (Łukaszkiewicz)); Chelmno (U = “at least 152,000”, Y = 320,000).

[2]

www.un.org/en/holocaustremembrance/docs/res607.shtml

[3]

Donald Trump, “Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day,” Jan. 27, 2017; www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/statement-president-international-holocaust-remembrance-day (accessed on Oct. 4, 2017)

[4]

https://twitter.com/JGreenblattADL/status/825029350126936064 (accessed on Oct. 4, 2017).

[5]

The Guardian, Jan 27, 2017; www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/27/white-house-holocaust-remembrance-day-no-jews; Commentary, Jan 28, 2017; www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-white-house-holocaust-horror/;

[6]

Jake, “WH: No mention of Jews on Holocaust Remembrance Day because others were killed too,” CNN, Jan. 28, 2017; http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/white-house-holocaust-memorial-day

[7]

Louise Ridley, “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis,” The Huffington Post, Jan 27, 2015; www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/holocaust-non-jewish-victims_n_6555604.html; for more see Hadding Scott, “Anti-Gentiles Deny the 5 Million!,” Inconvenient History, Vol. 9, No. 2, spring 2017; www.codoh.comhttps://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/2/4239/

[8]

Ron Kampeas, “‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians,” Jewish Telegraph Agency, Jan. 31, 2017; www.jta.org/2017/01/31/news-opinion/united-states/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/; The Times of Israel, Feb. 1, 2017; www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

[9]

Deborah Lipstadt, “The Trump Administration’s Flirtation With Holocaust Denial,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan 30, 2017; www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/the-trump-administrations-softcore-holocaust-denial/514974/

[10]

https://youtu.be/OxJZBrtFD6Y

[11]

Best resolution in two parts: https://youtu.be/6wJDlh5ozEY & … https://youtu.be/BQ0m-0AZ-m0

[12]

Ibid. starting at 1 min 23 sec.

[13]

Ibid. starting at 1 min 59 sec.

[14]

Caroline Sturdy Colls, Holocaust Archaeologies: Approaches and Future Directions, Springer, Cham, 2015, p. 3, footnote.

[15]

Matthew Day, “Nazis may have killed up to 20m, claims ‘shocking’ new Holocaust study,” Daily Telegraph, March 4, 2013; www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

[16]

https://youtu.be/_pQJ42ONPDo; starting at 45:18; see the authentications and explanation: IMT Document PS-2430: Nazi Concentration and Prisoner-of-War Camps: A Documentary Motion Picture, film shown at the Nuremberg Trial, 29 November 1945, IMT, XXX, p. 470;

[17]

www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005214

[18]

E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl (eds.), Nazi Mass Murder, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven/London 1993.

[19]

Document PS-3249, IMT, Vol. 32, pp. 57-64, here p. 62, quoted in IMT, Vol. 5, pp. 172f.

[20]

Document 159-L, IMT, Vol 37, pp. 605-627, here p. 621.

[21]

“Dachau Concentration Camp”; https://youtu.be/pIxOQdeCWX0; 18:00-18:05

[22]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 2; https://youtu.be/MQvB3sLER34; 6:55-7:01

[23]

U.S. National Archives, Dachau Trial (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss), M1174, Reel 1, microfilm page 000135.

[24]

Nuremberg Document NO-3886.

[25]

Nuremberg Document NO-3887.

[26]

NS 21/319.

[27]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 2; https://youtu.be/MQvB3sLER34; 6:00-6:13.

[28]

Ibid., 6:54-7:23.

[29]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1154600

[30]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa23334

[31]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1166433

[32]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1058759

[33]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1158576

[34]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1174716

[35]

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1168298

[36]

Ludwig Gassner, “Verkehrshygiene und Schädlingsbekämpfung,” Gesundheits-Ingenieur, 66(15) (1943) pp. 174-176.

[37]

See Richard Irmscher, “Nochmals: ‘Die Einsatzfähigkeit der Blausäure bei tiefen Temperaturen,’” Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, 34 (1942), pp. 35f.

[38]

Paul Berben, Histoire du camp de concentration de Dachau, 1933-1945, Comité international de Dachau, Brussels 1968, p. 12.

[39]

Yad Vashem Archives, 1211/28, item ID 38051.

[40]

Yad Vashem Archives, 4029, item ID 57452.

[41]

http://www.historywiz.org/finalsolution.htm

[42]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJ4mpCDVpE

[43]

3762-PS; IMT, Vol. 33, p. 68.

[44]

Russell Barton, “Belsen,” in: History of the Second World War, 109 (1975), pp. 3025-3029; cf. Barbara Kulaszka (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die?, Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1992, pp. 175-180; www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/KULA.pdf (different pagination).

[45]

https://youtu.be/v8vGpqQBpNU

[46]

Jane Floerchinger, “Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says,” The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.

[47]

John D. McCallum, Crime Doctor, The Writing Works, Mercer Island, Wash., 1978, pp. 57-60, 69.

[48]

Levi Mierau, “Dachau Concentration Camp,” Documentary, Part 1, 5:32-5 :49 (https://youtu.be/cCi_PLl-rJs); Part 3, 0-1:03 (https://youtu.be/Xpnl-YyafI).

[49]

André Sellier, A History of the Dora Camp: The Story of the Nazi Slave Labor Camp that Secretly Manufactured V-2 Rockets, Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 2003, p. 291.

[50]

David Plotz, “The Plagiarist: Why Stephen Ambrose is a vampire,” Jan. 11, 2002; www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2002/01/the_plagiarist.html.

[51]

“Memory of the Camps”, Alfred Hitchcock “documentary”; https://youtu.be/DY9y7cmmmFQ.

============================================

PDF Notes

Version 1 —

* Total words = xxx
* Total images = xx
* Total A4 pages = xx

Click to download a PDF of this post (x.x MB):

(Available later)

============================================

Version History

Version 3: Jan 27, 2020 — Added See Also links.

Version 2: Jan 17, 2020 — Re-uploaded images for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 1: Dec 28, 2017 — Published post.

The Realist Report Interviews Monika Schaefer – May 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Sat, 20 May 2017 08:53:07 +0000

[ John Friend of The Realist Report interviews German-Canadian activist Monika Schaefer on her awakening to the destructive activities of organized jewry and its ongoing plan of genocide against Whites. Having spent her entire adult life involved in various environmental causes it was only in the last few years that she became aware that 9/11 was an “inside job” carried out by organized jewry.

One thing led to another, and she then became aware of revisionism and that the “Holocaust” is a diabolical hoax perpetrated by the usual suspects against Germans in particular and Whites in general.

She went public with her views in June 2016 with the release of a short video titled, “Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust“. Despite being a prominent, well-respected individual of long-standing in the “Gingerbread Town” of Jasper, Alberta, she has faced social ostracism and a process of “ritual defamation” from leading members of the community — KATANA.]

_________________________

The Realist Report

On this edition of The Realist Report, we’re joined by Monika Schaefer, a courageous activist and truth-seeker openly exposing the fake Jewish “Holocaust” narrative and other extremely controversial topics. Monika’s brother, Alfred, was recently a guest on The Realist Report.

In this podcast, Monika and I discuss her background, education, and upbringing before moving on to address her awakening process to the lies endlessly promoted and perpetuated by the mainstream mass media, Hollywood, modern educational establishment and virtually all Western governments pertaining to the alleged Jewish “Holocaust” during WWII. Monika gives us her take on the fake “Holocaust” narrative and offers her perspective on Adolf Hitler and National Socialist Germany.

We also address a number of other important topics in this podcast, including the reality of Jewish power and influence in the Western world, the systematic promotion of policies designed to genocide the White race, 9/11 and the “Global War on Terror,” and related matters.

Check out Monika’s website and her great video Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust:

The Realist Report.com
https://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-monika-schaefer/

DOWNLOAD AND LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW HERE:

https://ia601502.us.archive.org/28/items/MonikaSchaefer/Monika%20Schaefer.mp3

The Realist Report

Interviews

Monika Schaefer

Published on May 17, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

(89 mins)

[00:55]

John: All right folks, welcome back to another edition of The Realist Report. This is your host John Friend. The website is The Realist Report dot com, where you can find an extensive archive of these podcasts, as well as other radio broadcasts I’ve participated in. You can also find all of my articles and blog posts, a contact page with my personal email address, my Twitter feed — which is embedded on the right hand side of the website, and all sorts of other useful information and links. I am a regular reporter for American Free Press, America’s last real paper. And I also contribute to the Barnes Review, a bi-monthly history magazine, affiliated with American Free Press. Both publications are worth subscribing to and I highly encourage listeners to do so, if they are not already. Visit American Free Press dot net and Barnes Review dot org, for more details.

All right, with that said, I’d like to introduce my special guest this evening. Monika Schaefer is joining us for the very first time. Monika is a courageous activist and truth seeker who has openly and quite publicly challenged a number of taboo topics in modern Western society, including the fake jewish “Holocaust” narrative, which is endlessly promoted and perpetuated by the educational, media and political establishment, here in the West.

Monika, thank you so much for joining me! How are you this evening?

Monika: Hello John! Thank you so much for having me on! And I am doing very well, thank you, very much. And I honestly thank you for all the good work you do! Yeah, I’ve been listening to your podcasts for a while and reading some of your articles. And I think you do excellent work!

See here for the interview with Alfred Schaefer.

John: Thank you very much, I really appreciate it. And, you know, it’s funny I feel like I know you although we’ve never actually spoken. Maybe it’s, because I’ve interviewed your brother Alfred a couple times now, here on The Realist Report? And I’ve seen some of your video, a couple which we’ll talk about in this podcast. Yes, but I don’t know, I just have this strange feeling that somehow we know each other but, I know we actually don’t. So, it’s great for you to finally be here and, you know, we can kind of get to know each other in real life I guess, or at least over the Internet, as best we can.

Monika: Yes, and I had that sensation too! Yes, that’s right, just from listening to your talk with a number of people and so, it does feel like we know each other probably, because we’re on the same page on a lot of these issues, I think.

John: Yes, I think so. And your brother’s always great talking to. I actually recently interviewed him just a couple of weeks ago. And we dealt with a number of topics that I’m sure we’ll be getting into, in this podcast. So I guess, just to get started, could you tell us a little bit about your background, your education and your upbringing. And perhaps, maybe your professional experience, if you feel that is relevant. Let’s kind of start there, just kind of introduce yourself, please.

[04:27]

Monika: Sure. I grew up in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and my parents came from Germany in the early 50’s. And I was born in 1959, the fourth in a family of five children. And we grew up in a very, I would say, traditional German household, you know, the way we celebrated certain times of year, in a very German style. Like Christmas we had the real candles on the tree and that kind of thing.

And something that I really feel, that affected us deeply was our parents’ love of nature. Even though we grew up in the city we were very, very connected to the natural world. We had a huge vegetable garden always, and we put great value on going for walks, like as a family. We would go for walks in the river valley and just really appreciate nature. That went very, very deep.

Transcripts of Red Ice Radio’s interview are here: Part I and Part II

And yeah, as I was growing up, learning in school, the usual things that we were learning in those days, in the sixties and seventies. And I had, like Germar Rudolf — and you interviewed him recently — and he talks about his very developed sense of justice. I could relate to that when he spoke of that. I feel that applies to me, too. I started to become an activist in environmental things and social justice things, very, very early in my life. Like during my teen years. And then all through my adult life I was very much an activist. And it was always on environmental things and also peace issues.

But, I have to say it wasn’t until about 2011, I started to really understand how the world was working. But before that, I’ll just talk a little bit about my activism. I actually did get involved in politics. I ran as a candidate for the Green Party of Alberta first and then the Green Party of Canada, in several elections. I just felt that the Green Party was the one political party whose principles and values meshed with my own!

But that has now changed drastically! In fact, Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party Canada, she did a very public condemnation of me last summer, after my video! And this is why we’re talking today, you and I, on this podcast. The video that I created, and my brother produced it, is called, “Sorry Mom I was Wrong About the Holocaust”. And it’s a very short video, under six minutes. And in it I basically tell the world that the “Holocaust” is a lie! And that unleashed a set of events in my life that basically has changed my life! [laughing]

Elizabeth May’s betrayal of her stated “principles” (click image to enlarge)

John: Yes, I can only imagine. You know, real quick, I hate to interject, but let me just make two brief comments. Number one, I actually have never interviewed Germar Rudolf.

Monika: Oh!

John: Although I would love to, I would really like to. I just, I never have. I’ve heard him be interviewed a number of times. I know he’s been on Dr David Duke’s program every once in a while. I’ve also heard him interviewed on Jeff Rense’s radio program I believe, and Red Ice Radio.

Monika: It was the Red Ice Radio.

John: Yeah OK.

Monika: I mean, you know, I was mixed up John.

John: No, no, it’s totally fine. I just wanted to state that for the record. I’ve never interviewed him although I would love to. I think we’d have a great conversation, he’s really, I mean, the expert when it comes to the “Holocaust”.

One other comment I wanted to make; you had said how you, ever since you were a child really, and it’s probably a result of your upbringing, but also maybe something innate in you. You have this very, deep sense of truth and justice, and you just sort of want what’s right. And want to pursue the truth wherever it leads. And that’s exactly the type of person that I am! It’s maybe hasn’t been the wisest thing to do, considering the world we live in. But it’s just something that I just have to do.

Again I think it’s something that is innate in myself, in maybe certain other people, like yourself. Do you think that this is something that’s maybe more prevalent in certain people, or something that’s kind of instilled, or innate again in certain people, rather than others?

[09:47]

Monika: Oh my goodness, that’s a big question! I think a lot of people have this sense of justice and wanting to do what’s right. Perhaps some of that gets, I don’t know, squelched out of us. Maybe it’s in our education system and it’s a very demoralizing education system that we have. And there are certain things that create, well, or work towards “anti-creative zombism” if you want to call it that, in our education system. That maybe kicked that out of us? But anyway, … I think a lot of people power have it but we are fed wrong information, then we can’t even seek justice. We don’t know what justice is!

And so, psychological warfare is something that I do want to talk about. And that is the most dangerous weapon being used against us and that can ruined any, you know, sense that we can seek justice. People can still have that desire for who are doing what’s right and doing what’s just.

But what I’m experiencing, for example, in this “ritual defamation” that’s being done against me, is that probably a lot of people who are treating me very badly, think that they are doing the right thing! Some of them probably know very well that they are not and that they are actually, you know, deceivers and liars, but I think a lot of the people just get swept along, thinking that they are being righteous, when they are treating me badly, because I have done a “taboo” thing and that is, I have challenged this story, the “Holocaust” myth.

Elements of a Ritual Defamation (click image to enlarge in new window)

John: Yeah, I think so. And I think certainly our modern hyper-capitalistic, hyper-individualistic society, you know, it doesn’t reward this sort of behavior this sort of sense of honor and truth and justice. You’re not going to get very far if you’re this type of person, at least it seems like it. The system is kind of designed that way, any ways. There certainly are exceptions and it’s not impossible to operate in a system and still have this sense of truth and justice. But it does make things very challenging. And so, that’s one point.

Then also, I think you’re right as far as, you know, sort of psychological warfare is concerned. I think there is an attack on our minds and really, you know, the way the media works and the way the educational system works. It’s designed to attack this and to undermine this. And it’s very sad! It’s very, very harmful, it’s been very detrimental to our society, certainly.

Monika: Absolutely! I mean, I think that the teachers in the schools, when they are teaching wrong things to the children, the teachers just don’t know that. They are also indoctrinated and mind contaminated by the books that they have read and by the education they received. So it’s generation after generation that gets deceived. But that is the worst weapon of all, because what happens is we become agents of our own destruction.

And that is something that is written in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That the “goy” will become, “agents of their own destruction”. And that is just the most tragic aspect of all of this! It’s a much worse enemy to have, you know, psychological warfare and the “chameleon within the gate”. You know, that is destroying us, within our own societies by giving the wrong curriculum and bad curriculum and teaching the wrong things to the children. Teaching lies, basically. That’s a much more dangerous enemy then the enemy comes with the cannons or the guns and the open warfare. I mean, that might be destructive in the moment and it might lead to the death of people and destruction of places, however, people can recover from that.

Now with psychological warfare, that’s difficult, really. Can we recover from that when we have been so misled and contaminated and our minds have been polluted and our spirits have been crushed?

[14:43]

John: Indeed. That is very well said. You’re totally right about that.

And the last part I did, I spoke with Pete Papaherakles, and we were talking about the “Trivium” of education. And, you know, basic logic and critical thinking. And sadly our society these days, people just really don’t know how to use their brain. They don’t know how to evaluate information. They don’t know how to discover what the truth actually is. And that’s really a big problem! It’s that, you know, you try to talk about a subject like the “Holocaust”, for example, and you just ask someone, … And this is what I do regularly, you know, when this comes up, like in a personal conversation, or like, if I’m talking to a friend, or something, I’ll just say:

“Why do you believe the ‘Holocaust’ narrative”?

I mean, what evidence and proof is there to demonstrate that this actually happened? Let’s examine that evidence and see if it stands up to scrutiny. And, you know, it’s very difficult for people to do these, like simple things. And I think there’s reasons for that. I think, you know, most people again, simply really don’t know how to think critically and use their brain to evaluate information.

But also, I think a lot of the, … Certainly when it comes to the “Holocaust”, but also other very traumatic events, game changing events in our history, but especially the “Holocaust”, the propaganda used to promote, to perpetuate this myth, is very exploitative. And it really is a form of psychological warfare, you know, again another topic we can talk about, and a topic that I spoke with your brother about.

The Trivium Method Summary Chart (click image to enlarge)

So I mean, I think there’s multiple factors at play here, but those are really the two main ones. As you know, most people simply just don’t know how to properly use their brain, to use the “Trivium”, to use critical thinking. And also the propaganda associated with a lot of these events is systematically designed to exploit us on very base emotional and psychological levels.

Monika: Yes! You’re hit the nail on the head. So it not only are people not able to use logic, but this subject is absolutely taboo to even question. So, I’ve had people tell me, even if they were trying to remain friendly to me, they would say:

“Well Monika, this topic is it just off-limits! I’m not going to discuss the ‘Holocaust’ with you! I’m not going to debate it with you! But I’ll still, you know, be your friend.”

But I mean, those people, they kind of go by the way side anyway. They’ve been more and more affected in this small town of 5,000 people. It has gotten worse, not better, over the year. But this topic is, … You just cannot debate it! Because we’ve been trained that if you even question it, then you are automatically “a hater”!

I mean, this is bizarre! There is no logic in that, John! Like, how can that even make sense, that if you say that there was no deliberate extermination plan, and that means less people died, that you are a hater! ? Now to me, that is the most bizarre leap of logic, you know? Can you explain that?

John: No you can’t explain it logically, because it’s not a logical argument. It’s a ridiculous argument and there’s no logic involved at all. It’s all pure emotion, all emotion.

Monika: Yes, that’s right.

John: And that’s the thing, that especially the holocaust. But I mean, other events as well, 9/11, for example. Although I do think that the fake “Holocaust” narrative and, you know, World War Two generally, you know, this idea that Hitler was this evil monster, who wanted to take over the world. And he had, you know, his master race and all this other nonsense. This is really, you know, sort of the most taboo and most controversial topic in all of society.

And, of course, it relates directly to jews, so if you start talking about Jews your equated with Hitler, you’re equated with the Nazis and you’re a racist, you’re anti-Semitic and all these other weaponized buzzwords are thrown at you. Again, logical fallacies, all of them! You know, none of this is factual.

Monika: All of it!

John: Yeah, exactly!

[19:23]

Monika: It’s the biggest weapon yet! I mean, if it wasn’t for this success this big, huge, mess of the “Holocaust”, there’s no way they would have had the audacity to do something like 9/11.

And 9/11, I mean, that was actually what triggered me to wake up! And it didn’t happen right away. I kind of knew something was wrong with it, but it wasn’t until about ten years after 9/11, that I started to investigate it and figure it out. And that was a really hard door to go through, because it just meant that, they’re lying to us! Like that’s a huge thing to lie about, right?

That’s not just a little money scandal. I mean, you always hear about little scandals, this and that, that seem big when they talk about them, like political scandals. But, you always just think, okay, well, they have corruption in this and that, but you just can’t imagine they would lie about something so big. But once you figure that out, that turns your world upside down!

Organized jewry Did 911

And it was after that, that I started to figure out the “Holocaust”. And at first I really resisted it. I mean, that just, how could there be such a big lie? How could that be?

And just to go back to what I briefly said in my video. It was an apology to my parents. To my mother in particular. Because when I was a teenager, and again this comes back to this deep sense of justice that I had, and we were learning all those horrors about Hitler and the “Holocaust”. And so, there I was, telling my mother, saying things like:

“Mom, why didn’t you stop this from happening? If you had just got together with all your friends and your relatives, you could have done something about it!”

I mean, that was ridiculous, to say such a thing! But there I was, holding her to account, you know, she was culpable! And I’m sure that there was a whole generation of us that, you know, it caused a real generation gap. A rift between the generations of Germans. That, oh! These parents of ours, or the grandparents, oh, they were monsters, you know! Like this what happened.

And so, there I was, reprimanding, or holding her to account for not having tried to do more! I mean, she was just a teenager in a war anyway, so that was pretty ridiculous just on that count. And then all these years later, and this is after both parents have died, that I figured it all out and I just regretted that so much! And I told Alfred one day on the phone, I said:

“Boy, I wish I could say sorry!”

And he just grabbed onto that and said:

“Oh! Yes! That’s very significant!”

Yes, so then, …

John: “That’s the video we’re making right there! Do it!”

Monika: Yeah, exactly!

John: Well, you know, speaking of your video. At least on Alfred’s channel, I don’t know if this is, I’m sure it’s been viewed on other channels. I’m sure you can find this exact same video on other channels. But just on his channel alone, it’s been viewed over 130,000 times! So this has made quite an impact. And this was, June 17th, 2016. So, a little under a year ago.

And it’s a short, very powerful video. I’d assume most people listening to this podcast have seen the video, but if you haven’t, I will have a link to it. In fact, I just embed it in this post, you’ll find it right on my website. It’s six minutes total, just under six minutes. Take the time to watch it. It’s very good, it’s very powerful, it’s very just straightforward and like, look “Sorry Mom, I was wrong and here’s why. And here’s why it’s important!” And it’s very good. And yeah I just really like this video, especially when it first came out. And again, it made quite a splash, you know, all these waves, …

Monika: Yeah, It struck a chord John, because there are other people who went through that similar experience. Like what I said, that they were disgusted with their parents’ generation. Which is just such a sad thing that has been done to the German people.

Okay, about the video, you mentioned, that this is just on Alfred’s site. You’re right there’s a lot more views even then that. Because I made a German version, an original German version, I speak German fluently. So that is called, “Entschuldigung Mama, ich hatte Unrecht was den Holocaust betrifft” in case you have German listeners. So you could look that up too.

And then also the English version was translated into three languages, within the first four days. Not that we did this, others did this. So, French Spanish and Swedish, I believe. And then these people sent us the links to those at the time. People are just kind of, … Like I say, it really struck a chord. It was just brief, it’s short, so it’s easy to watch and this thing, you know, about the parents and just saying sorry to Mom, you know, reprimanding her for not doing anything to stop these things! And then figuring out it’s all a lie! Oh my goodness!

John: Now, I’m curious. There’s quite a substantial population of Germans in Canada, correct? That came over right after the war?

[25:02]

Monika: Definitely! Yes. Lots of Germans in Canada.

John: I’d imagine, maybe even more so, than that came here to America. I don’t know that for sure, but it seems like there’s quite a few that came over directly after the war?

Monika: Yes. Yes and through the fifty’s too. When my parents came I think there were a lot of people coming from Germany. And my parents came in 1951 and 52, respectively. Yes, I think that’s a lot of people left Germany. I mean, Germany was destroyed and also you had the expellees from the eastern territories. The eastern, you know, like Sudentenland, East Prussia. All these different territories that were German for hundreds of years and then, you know, Germany got shrunk after World War One. And World War One led directly to World War Two. These are things have learning a lot about now. I’m really going on a big education, a big learning curve. And I met some of those expellees, people who were forcibly expelled. And this is a story that we certainly did not learn about in school. I think probably a lot of your listeners do understand about this, but millions of Germans died AFTER World War Two was over!

German territory lost in the 20th century (click image to enlarge).

And many of them died as they were being pushed out of those eastern territories. And many were murdered, many starved, many women and girls, you know, many young girls up to old women were raped. It was brutal what they went through. And I met a few German expellees who were children at the time — when I went to Toronto last summer to speak there — and I have to say that was just so impacting on me. I mean, it was a very impactful experience for me to meet these people!

John: Right, I can imagine. Now, of course, you had mentioned you guys weren’t really taught anything like this. This perspective, the German perspective of World War Two? I’m assuming anyways, when you’re growing up in Canada, your parents didn’t talk about it?

Monika: Well, there were some things that my parents did talk about, but I don’t remember the stories of expellees. But what my mother did talk about, over and over again, was Dresden. She wasn’t there, but she knew all about it. And Dresden was the real “Holocaust”! The “Holocaust” of German civilians, women, children and injured soldiers there in hospitals. And also war refugees. The city had no military installations. It had no military targets there. And it had the most beautiful architecture!

And actually the German people started to believe that, oh, nobody would ever bomb the city! And it was there for most of the war. But then in February 1945, February 13th, I believe, it started, or maybe it started on the 11th, I’m not sure now [The bombing started at 10:14 pm, on Tuesday the 13th] . The bombing began and it was incendiary bombing. It was purposely to start fires. And many, many, many people died there! And then they paused [the bombing] and then people, as they were coming out of, you know, the bunkers and whatnot, if they survived at all, they were getting stuck in the molten pavement. And then the bombing started again. It was just brutal! It was pure and utter revenge and hate from the allies! And they knew this city was full of refugees and women and children, and that it was there was no military there.

John: Right.

Monika: It was absolutely a crime! And crime against humanity! And, of course, there were other cities as well which were bombed like that too. But Dresden is the one that my mother talked about when we were growing up. And yeah, I didn’t learn about the people who were expelled.

John: Well Monika, as you know, “Germany had to perish!” Which is actually the title of a book.

Monika: Yes.

John: Written by a jew! This is the thing that’s so amazing! When I was really getting into this information, it became more and more clear, the more research that I did that literally the entire official narrative of World War Two is truly the exact opposite.

Monika: Absolutely!

John: I mean, it’s very easy to demonstrate this. I mean, we have multiple sources of jewish individuals in America, in Russia, literally calling for the extermination, the annihilation, the genocide of the German nation. The destruction of the German nation, of the German people! Openly calling for this! In books they wrote, in policy papers that they, you know, put in front of governments and have them implement essentially. In propaganda, I mean, you name it, we can go on and on. There’s many sources that demonstrate this.

Monika: Yes.

John: And yet, you can’t find one single legitimate source demonstrating that Hitler, or the National Socialist government wanted to, let alone, implement it, a systematic plan to exterminate, to murder European jews! It’s just not even true at all! There’s nothing to substantiate it, aside from jewish propaganda, jewish lies.

[30:50]

Monika: Yes, that’s exactly right! Everything has been turned on it’s head! I mean, in the beginning when I was starting my learning about all of this, you know, I realized some things were upside down and turned on their head but, you know, people would say, “Yeah, everything’s on it’s head!” And I would say, well maybe that’s just a figure of speech. But it really is that way! The more I learn, the more I realize that everything is on it’s head, upside down, inverted!

But thank you for bringing up that, “Germany Must Perish” book by Theodor Kaufman. He wrote that in 1941. And it literally is a genocidal plan, where all the German people should be wiped off the face of this earth! And supposedly through a humane method of forced sterilization. Now, why I wanted to bring this up, and thank you for already bringing it into the conversation, is that I wanted to talk briefly about Arthur Topham.

Now Arthur Topham is now silenced by law! He has been sentenced after a ten-year ordeal with the criminal justice system in Canada for this spurious hate speech, under these “hate speech” laws in the Criminal Code of Canada. And he had a website called, “The Radical Press”. And it actually started out as a paper, a hard copy magazine in the late 90’s and then he went online. And it went only online for a number of years. And he it was dragged through the court system for ten years. And it was just utter harassment and basically jews who didn’t like the things that he was exposing. The truth that he was talking about and the lies that he was exposing.

Now he ended up getting convicted by a jury. Guilty on one charge and not guilty on the identical charge, but for a different time period, for publishings on his website. And in Canada the jury cannot divulge what exactly was the rationale for the guilty verdict.

But, we can surmise that it was for the parody that Arthur Topham did, called, “Israel Must Perish”. But this was not his words. What he did, is he took the book “Germany Must Perish” and he took a section of that and he duplicated it, word for word. But, he replaced the title, the word “Germany” with “Israel” and replaced “Germans” with “jews”. And basically this was drawing attention to the genocidal original book “Germany Must Perish”.

And he did make it clear that this was a satire, that the books were side by side on his website. And there was a preface that talked about satire. And this was all explained in the court. I was there for part of it, and evidently the jury was overwhelmed by, I guess, the indoctrination that we’ve all been subject to and this was all just too much for them. But he was found guilty.

Now, what I really want to tell your listeners and just make sure that this is clarified, is the lies that they now tell about Arthur Topham in the press, when he cannot defend himself. Because if he did, he would go straight into jail. He’s now on, basically house arrest. So he’s not in jail, even though he’s been sentenced. But part of the sentencing is that the website came down and he’s not allowed to speak publicly. So, when they say lies about him, for example, that they will say that Arthur Topham calls for the sterilization of jews. But [because] they don’t put it into context of this parody, this satire of “Germany Must Perish”, then that is a lie! That is an outright lie! And I want to set the record right here!

[35:16]

John: You know, I’m glad you have been able to do that, because as you mentioned Arthur can’t even speak for himself. It’s ridiculous!

Monika: Exactly! So anyway thank you for the opportunity to set that straight that, you know, here they are lying about Arthur Topham when he can’t even speak in public. And they darn well know that, so it’s just absolutely malicious!

John: It truly is. And speaking of malicious activities carried out by governments against truth seekers, like Ernst Zundel, I just wrote an article for American Free Press, and it should be published — let’s see today is Wednesday — it should be published in this week’s edition. So, I think they publish on Friday, Friday morning. So it should be in the upcoming edition of American Free Press. And it’s about Ernst Zundel. Who, I’m sure you’re familiar with?

Monika: Absolutely!

John: Right. Yeah, he lived in Canada for a number of years. I’m sure most people listening here are familiar with Ernst Zundel. If you’re not, simply Google the man. He’s a legend, he’s a hero. He’s been through a lot..

Monika: Yeah, in fact, one of those three videos at the end of my six-minute video, I put three recommendations to the listener. Just, you know, I thought, OK I’ll just give the listener something that if this is all really blowing their mind, and they want to know where am I coming from, and I give three titles of videos. The first one is called, “Off Your Knees Germany!” And it’s Ernst Zundel. The story of what he went through in the courts. And it was one of the first things that kind of caught me turning my mind around the “Holocaust” story, was watching that video. It’s ninety minutes long, so an hour and a half. And I would say, you know, it’s going to be a very, very worthwhile ninety minutes.

Video: Off Your Knees Germany!

John: Right. Oh yeah, I’ve seen it. It’s great, I think I’ve watched all of the, you know, major documentaries that they put together. And they are certainly worth watching, for sure! Very eye-opening, very revealing, very informative.

And I mean, if you’re not outraged after seeing those and just understanding what they’ve gone through, you know, what Arthur Topham has gone through, what many people have gone through. People are being persecuted all over the world for challenging the fake “Holocaust” narrative! That’s absolutely ridiculous!

But speaking of Zundel, the article that I wrote was about how he was just denied entry into the United States. Was deemed inadmissible! By the United States federal government. In particular I think it was the Office of Appeals, I believe, of the Department of Homeland Security. And they cited his revisionist activities, his educational activities, his political views. Which are all very well documented and very scholarly sourced and entirely legitimate perspectives that he’s offering. And yet, he’s deemed inadmissible. Meanwhile, we have millions of illegal aliens overrunning our country. Our government is systematically facilitating refugee resettlement of people we don’t even know who the hell they are! You know, just washed up on our shores and we’re supposed to give them free everything. Free housing, free, you know, education, free health care, welfare, you name it, it’s I mean, it’s so incredible what is going on! It’s like I can’t even comprehend it sometimes.

The Washington Post: Ernst Zundel Barred from the US.

Monika: Yeah. Well, there we see the agenda of who is actually running the country. I mean, I think it was Ariel Sharon, or was it, you know, basically just said:

“Don’t worry about what Americans think about this, or that, that we are doing. We run America and they know it!”

John: Yes.

Monika: Anyway, [about] Ernst Zundel being kept out, are they actually citing his political views? Because it’s not six case then, that’s the end of the First Amendment. And then [word unclear] in the United States, freedom of speech, is it not? I think that it’s incredibly, like it’s very scary, if that’s what’s going on. The United States was still kind of, you know, we’re looking to you guys down there for keeping some semblance of being able to speak freely still. But, you know, this is really, really bad. Somebody being kept out for their political views.

[40:03]

John: Yeah. Absolutely! Yeah and like this is basically openly admitted in the ruling that they released. And it’s interesting, because this was reported on by The Washington Post, back in April, almost a month ago. And in the appeal here it was essentially, he was denied entry and then they were determining if they could grant him a waiver. Which they did not. They ended up denying even a waiver. I mean it’s amazing. His wife is American. Ingrid is an American citizen and has been living here for a very long time. She lives in Seattle, I believe.

Monika: Yes. She can’t go to Germany, because she would be thrown in jail immediately there. And he can’t come to the States. So they end up going elsewhere to meet, you know. It’s really, really sad!

John: I mean, it’s very, very sad, absolutely tragic. In the ruling here they say, you know, when they go to deny the waiver, the negative factors in his case include his long history of inciting racial, ethnic, and religious hatred. It also goes on to say the record shows that the applicant, Zundel, is a historical revisionist and denier of the “Holocaust”! Distributing writings, books, tapes, videos, and broadcasts to promote his views. The record further indicates that these publications agitated for aggressive behavior against jews!

Monika: Oh my goodness!

John: Right, yeah. All of these, I mean, it’s true that he absolutely was a historical revisionist and “Holocaust denier”, I guess. I don’t really like to use that label.

Monika: Neither do I. So that basically says:

“Oh! That’s illegal in the United States!”

John: Right. Now get this. They also say this the applicant has been a leader in these activities for decades. Which is true. And has shown no regret, or remorse for his actions!

Monika: Of course, not!

John: Exactly. That’s a thing. It’s like:

“Oh maybe, perhaps, if he were to bow down to the jews, beg for forgiveness, renounce his views, say the “Holocaust” is true.”

Maybe, just maybe they would let him back in. But no. It’s so outrageous!

Monika: The thing with the laws, this is the part I am absolutely dumbfounded that people don’t wake up to this absurdity! That if there are laws to restrict you from saying certain things, then doesn’t that raise a red flag for people? Doesn’t that show them that there’s something to hide? That maybe there’s something that they’re lying about?

But no, that really gets me. I think that alone should tell people that there’s something wrong with the official story. You know, it’s exactly the opposite for some people. Because when I raise this issue about the laws, it’s incredible that some people will say:

“Well you see? See, you’re wrong! The laws prove it! You’re wrong!”

Now isn’t that bizarre? That’s kind of a circular thing, … I mean, you could make any kind of a law, like, “stop breathing” and then if you breathe:

“Oh! See! We’d better throw you in jail! You just broke the law!”

I mean, it is just that absurd!

John: I mean, I agree. It’s totally is, it’s ridiculous!

You know, Monika, I wanted to get back, … I wanted to talk about, basically, what led you to start questioning the “Holocaust”? And kind of like, your wake up process, so to speak, and maybe you could describe like some other topics that maybe you researched, or what led you to start questioning, you know, doing research into the fake “Holocaust” narrative?

Monika: Well, I have to credit my brother for basically introducing me to this notion and this idea. And so I was visiting over there [Germany] and I think, 2013, Christmas time. And this was, you know, already a couple of years after figuring out 9/11 and what a lie we have been told about that.

John: So, is it fair to say that 9/11 was like your big, sort of wake up call? What led you to question everything?

Monika: Yes.

John: Okay, and that’s exactly how I was. I mean, before I was really getting into 9/11 I was very anti-war and I totally recognized how corrupt the government was, how corrupt the media was. I knew we were being lied to. I was sort of aware of these sort of broader systemic issues. How corrupt everything was. I just didn’t really understand the extent of it. How deep it actually went and I certainly didn’t understand who was truly behind it all.

Monika: Exactly!

[45:00]

John: And once I woke up to 9/11, … Yeah and that’s seems like that’s pretty common for a lot of people. They start questioning 9/11 and then everything opens up to them.

Monika: Yes. No, that is interesting, that’s interesting about that John. And there are definitely a lot of people for whom 9/11 was that door that they first went through and then started uncovering these other truths. But, you know, in this journey of mine over this past year, many people have contacted me from all over the place and so I’ve struck up some dialogues with a lot of different people. And what has surprised me is that for quite a few people, other things woke them up.

Like, for example, some people who started learning all about our financial system and how deep and corrupt that was, because of things that happened in their personal lives that, you know, they got basically the bad end of a deal. And then they started digging and looking into that. And for others it was actually the topic of just why is everything against White people? And this is sort of the taboo subject that we could get into, but for me that was not a starting point at all. It is now what I’ve kind of come to understand is that, oh, this end goal is to basically get rid of us and replace us.

John: Right, right!

Monika: And, oh my goodness that didn’t come into my realization until well after I started figuring out all these other things. The “Holocaust” is the ultimate weapon to use against us. Because you see, there’s this thing that people will have this weird logic that says, oh well, if you are denying that this “Holocaust” happened, then the next thing that happens is you’re going to just want to kill everybody! Like you’re going to do a “Holocaust” again, or something like that. Like this is the logic that’s being used against us. So it’s the ultimate weapon! Meanwhile, it’s the opposite that is happening.

John: Yeah!

Monika: And I mean, there’s lots and lots of evidence of that. And one of the really clear quotes that I have used is Noel Ignatiev. And you probably have that on your page of quotes there., but I mean, I’ll just read this, I have it in front of me here.

Noel Ignatiev, a, quote, unquote, “respected Harvard professor”, he says:

“The goal of abolishing the White race, is, on it’s face, so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition, other than from committed White supremacists!”

OK, I finished the quote, so think about that. So, if you merely don’t want to be destroyed then you are a White supremacist! Can you imagine this being said. Japanese people who wish to see their culture and their traditions preserved and who wish to see Japanese grandchildren?

“Oh they must be Japanese supremacists!”

Or can you imagine this being said about, maybe. Let’s just pick a country and in Africa, like Senegal. The Senegalese people, if they don’t want to be destroyed:

“Oh well, they must be black supremacists!”

I mean, that’s absurd.

John: It’s truly absurd! You’re totally right. And see like a basic observation like that. It’s so obvious that what you’re saying is true. And yet this is very rarely pointed out to people. I mean, you have to point out a basic observation like to get people to start even thinking and in many cases they still can’t even do it.

Monika: Yeah. And also is this conflating of different concept. So, if you have pride in your people and you love your people, you could call it, you know, maybe nationalism, White Nationalism, or whatever., but people will instantly just say, White supremacist! And if you correct them and say, no, no, no! Like how about nationalist, or nationalism, or that you have pride. No! That’s a White supremacist! Like this is this instant leap that people will make, because they’ve been trained to make that leap. They’ve been trained by our media and all the movies and the indoctrination. I mean, that’s basically, you know, how we’ve been poisoned in the mind.

[49:34]

John: Right! No, you’re right! It is a mind poisoning. You’re exactly right, that’s best way to describe it I think. Well, jews have always, jews and communists and Marxists and those are all pretty much the same thing! Because if you’re a Marxist, or a communist you’re basically, your mind has been poisoned by jews. And I mean, Marxism and communism really are in my view rational coherent political philosophies. They’re jewish schemes to destroy White Christians societies.

Monika: Yes.

John: And to take all our wealth to create this jewish plutocratic elite that dominates and controls societies. And that’s certainly what we have in the United States. But jews and communists and leftists, they’ve always tried to attack any form of White racial identity. I mean, going back to the late 100s, early 1900s. And they weren’t as successful back then, because White people were still sort of healthy, you know, spiritually. They could think properly, at least most of us. But really, I think a lot of this is a result of the fake “Holocaust” narrative! And the official narrative of World War Two. See, this is a point that I was speaking with your brother about, and I try to emphasize this, you know, when I talk about these subjects, because I think it’s so important. The official “Holocaust” narrative, and I think it’s so important to the White struggle and a lot of people dismiss this, or downplay it, or think it’s unimportant. When in my view it’s absolutely central to our struggle, dealing head on, not only with the fake “Holocaust” narrative, but all of World War Two.

The real holocaust, the fire-bombing of German cities (click image to enlarge).

Monika: Yes.

John: You know, being able to say, look, Adolf Hitler was not this evil monster, in fact, he was like the most righteous, honorable leader that we’ve seen in generations! I mean, we should be able to say that openly and proudly.

Monika: Yes.

John: And not even hesitate, not even flinch! Anyways, the point that I was trying to make is the “Holocaust” narrative discredits and truly delegitimizes White, or any form of White racial identity. And I mean, it’s not the only thing that delegitimizes and discredits White racial identity. I mean, the jews have literally pathologized White identity through Cultural Marxism. If you identify as a White person and you concern yourself with the interests of White people, broadly speaking, you’re considered this irrational bigot who hates jews and is a racist White supremacist!

Monika: Yes.

John: But a lot of this goes back to the “Holocaust”. So on the one hand it really serves to delegitimize White identity, on the other hand, it’s used to strengthen jewish identity! And there’s public opinion polls done by jews, done by, you know, sort of legitimacy organizations like, PEW research center. They do polls on jewish identity and how do jews identify, what is the central factor in jewish identity. And would you believe it’s the “Holocaust”! I mean, it really is. So it strengthens jewish identity, and it is also created this enormous economic, political and social racket! Think about all these “Holocaust” museums, think about all the money the Jews get from this fake story, think about all these fraudulent books that have been written about the “Holocaust”, all these memoirs, all these documentaries, all these Hollywood films. I mean, it truly is a gigantic racket!

Monika: Yes, John! You have hit the nail right on it’s head with what you’re saying here. So this identity thing, that is exactly right! That’s the biggest identity thing for the Jews is the “Holocaust”. But also that they have been persecuted through the ages. They’ve always been persecuted, they’ve always been, you know, a hated! This is their identity. They’re taught that from the day they’re born. And I think that most jewish people, street level jewish people kind of get a double dose of indoctrination, but this is their identity, so that’s what they are taught right from when they’re born.

I do have, you know, a very nice friend who is really trying her best to wrap her head around what I’m saying. And she asks very intelligent questions and so I take a lot of time in trying to answer her. And one of the things she says is that, you know, she has a jewish friend and has relatives that she lost in the war and so, and this thing about being persecuted. Like that is how she identifies and that is exactly it! That’s their identity. But here’s the thing that I like to tell people a little story. It’s a little allegory for this persecution. It is true that Jews have been kicked out, you know, we know it probably at least a 109 times from different countries, or regions during the last two thousand years. But there’s a missing part of the picture that we’re not taught about that.

[55:09]

So, let’s say John, you go you like to the pub quite often, the bar, and you come home one evening and you’re very upset, because the bouncer kicked you out. And I sympathize with you. And the next evening you go to another bar and then you get kicked out again, and you come home and you complain that that bouncer was just unfair as well, and, you know, and it was just completely uncalled for! And again, I might sympathize with you. And the third night go to a another pub and you’re kicked for the fourth, fifth, tenth time! Your kicked out from different places and each time you’re crying about being discriminated against! And those bouncers are treating you so unfairly! And they are just so hateful towards you. And I am getting really skeptical about what’s going on. And I might just ask you, very politely, what is it that you are doing to get yourself kicked out? And then you say, really angrily:

“Oh! Those people just hate people with”, I don’t know, XYZ “And they are all anti-XYZ!”

And then you start lobbying to make laws against anti-XYZism. And that’s basically the story!

I mean, really, can people just say, well what is it that Jews have been persecuted for, all these thousands of years? Is it maybe that they’ve been doing things wherever they go that wasn’t good? I mean, Jesus Christ kicked the moneylenders out of the temple. And I mean, one could believe that story, or not believe it, maybe it’s also a metaphor, or an allegory, but there it is. That’s the story that the money lenders were kicked out of the temple.

John: Right exactly. Well, see that’s the thing. Dealing rationally and truthfully about jews, and their agenda, and their criminal activities, and their subversive activities, I mean, this is considered anti-semitism! Like literally, telling the truth about the jews, stating basic facts as you mentioned. You know, they literally — we can document this — they literally have been thrown out of over one hundred countries, just in modern history!

Monika: Yeah!

John: Bringing this up, talking about the reality of jewish supremacy and jewish power in the United States, in the Western world in general, the reality of, you know, the Israeli occupation of Palestine. I mean, the terrorism they have committed, the false flags, and all the criminality. I mean, we can go on, and on, and on, and yet, … We could easily document all these things. In fact, what I try to do on my website, by using jewish sources, from explicitly jewish news outlets that document this, and talk about this. And in some cases brag about it. And yet if you bring it up you’re called an anti-Semite!

Monika: Yeah, isn’t that bizarre!

John: I mean, it’s like, it truly is the most Orwellian thing you could think! I mean, this is George Orwell in reality. This 1984 scenario. You can’t even tell the truth, like literally tell the truth using explicitly jewish sources, to make your point, without being demonized. It’s so childish! It’s, I mean, I don’t know it’s really puzzling to me.

Monika: Yeah. Probably most of your listeners know this, but it’s just something I learned pretty recently. But George Orwell, he was actually an M-16 agent and so he knew! And this was his warning to the world. When we read them when we were teenagers, we saw that this was just really, you know, horrific science fiction. That it had no bearing on reality, but he knew! And he was trying to give the world a warning.

John: Right. I think so. Yeah, I’ve heard that he was connected to British Intelligence, although I can’t say I’ve totally verified that for myself. Either way, the book is certainly worth reading.

Monika: Definitely!

John: Yeah, it’s good piece of literature.

[59:40]

Monika: So one of the things that people always say, well, besides saying:

“We’re not going to debate this with you. And there’s no way you can’t talk about this. This is off-limits, a taboo subject”.

But, if they do say anything about it, they’ll say:

“There’s mountains of evidence! Mountains of evidence! It’s the most well documented event in the history of mankind!”

And then, they’ll also say:

“And there’s all those eyewitnesses. And what about the survivors?”

Okay. So first of all, about those “mountains of evidence”. But they don’t present those “mountains of evidence”! They just keep repeating that mantra. And then when you do look into the evidence, it’s actually the opposite.

You know, I just read a book called, “The Great Holocaust Trial” by Michael Hoffman and that is about the 1985 [trial], that’s the first of the two Ernst Zundel “Holocaust” trials that took place in Toronto, in Canada, in the 80s.

[Image] The Great Holocaust Trial by Michael Hoffman — back cover (click image to enlarge).

And I mean, reading that book, that should be mandatory curriculum in the schools! But I’m sure it would never be allowed into the schools, that book. Because what came out in that trial was just most astonishing! You know, evidence and evidence that basically the “Holocaust” did NOT happen as they say it happened! And, you know, there were reports in the media, but the thing is, even though there were reports in the media that they were reporting what was going on, and yet the way they reported it, I as a young woman in my early twenty’s at the time, it was kind of background noise for me. And I just kind of assumed that Ernst Zundel, he must be a bad man, or something. But I didn’t really pay much attention to it, and I regret to say that.

Perhaps if I had paid more attention to what they were actually saying, I might have looked into this more deeply. But, because of how they were portraying him in the mainstream media, he was just kind of a bad man in my mind. So you see, this is how they can do it. Even when they were kind of forced to report what was being brought out in the trial.

Stuff like, you know, Raul Hilberg, the main jewish “Holocaust” historian of the time. He was the main witness for the prosecution side. I mean, when it was brought into the court that there were no documents that said that there was a plan for the extermination of the jews. There was not a single document to that effect and he actually said in the court.

“That yes, it is incredible! There was some kind of ‘meeting of the minds!”

John: Exactly. So he’s literally conceding points to the revisionists, openly in court. Yeah it’s amazing! I haven’t read the book, I should. Gosh, I really should sit down and read it. I’m familiar with the book you’re talking about, by Hoffman.

Monika: Yeah. It’s easy to read, it’s very short. It’s a skinny book. A new edition came out that’s longer. I haven’t read the new editions, so I think he probably adds stuff. I’m not sure exactly. I have it in my possession, I haven’t read it yet, but maybe he adds about the next trial? I don’t know.

But then, the other part of it, about the eyewitnesses. That is just a conversation stopper, because people feel worried that they’re going to insult the memories or, you know, something about that like. That’s how we’ve been trained to just, you dare not, …

John: Disrespect the dead. Yeah, exactly! This is like a psychological aspect of the “Holocaust”. It’s the survivor testimony, as well as the photographs.

Monika: Yes! And the photographs!

John: Yes, that is what I get a lot, is, people can’t even talk about it, like, we just can’t talk about this, sorry. Or, bring up the survivors as you mentioned, or they’ll bring up the photographs.

“Oh, well, what about all these dead bodies?”

Well, how does that prove that there was a “Holocaust”? Think about it, what does that prove?

Monika: Exactly! What does that prove? How does a pile of dead bodies prove gas chambers? And secondly, who are those dead bodies? In some cases those dead bodies may not have even been, you know, jewish dead bodies. Like they might of, some of them were possibly German dead bodies after the war. Because some of these photographs didn’t come out until years after the war, so.

And I’ve seen some documentation about a lot of doctored photographs, as well. I’m not talking about the piles of dead bodies now, but I’m talking about, where two identical photos are side by side, and the one, there’s been something inserted into it. Like perhaps a hanging body and then, you know, a soldier, a German soldier standing there with a grin on his face. Something, you know, just crazy things, where they just doctored photos and made lies out of them.

[65:04]

Anyway, piles of dead bodies do not prove extermination of jews and gas chambers, especially. And then the survivors, you know, I do have actually a story about an Auschwitz survivor who lived in this little town of Jasper. And we were actually good friends. He liked music and I’m a musician and so we ended up spending times together at sing-a-longs and that kind of thing. And I invited him over to my home — this is when I still believed in the whole “Holocaust” story and I was doing, quote, unquote, “the right thing” and, you know, wanting my daughter to be educated about it and all this. And I had him and his wife over, to give that talk, because he had gone into the schools quite a lot and given that talk about his Auschwitz experience. He did have the tattooed number on his arm and everything.

Anyway, so they came over and we had a nice dinner and after dinner, cleared away the dishes, and then he read his talk and he explained that it was easier that way. So he had a prepared talk that he read, and we listened. And at the end, I just remember feeling some sense of disappointment, because I didn’t really hear any of the details about what we thought had happened in those camps. And remember this was years ago when I still fully believed in the “Holocaust”. Now I don’t think that he was ever purposefully deceiving anybody, and I think he had come to believe all those stories too. And he was a very, very good man.

He’s dead now, so I’m speaking of him in past tense. He and his wife they were lovely, lovely people, and the thing is I think he was a very honorable man, because he didn’t make up stories. So when I see I was slightly disappointed at the end the talk. Because here I had this Hollywood vision, you know, file this way, file that way. And, you know, the lineups of people and just horrible scenes, and that kind of thing. Well, he didn’t describe any of that. Well, he probably didn’t describe any of that, because he did not see that kind of thing.

So, I mean, now in retrospect, it’s just also very, very interesting for me, because I realized, well yeah, he didn’t see those things, because they didn’t happen. Those things that are, you know, Hollywood version of the “Holocaust”. And he didn’t talk about any belching chimneys, or anything like that! He just talked in more general sense of how he ended up in the camp. And he also made several times, made statements about how he did NOT come to hate the Germans — he was Polish, by the way — he did not come to hate the Germans. In fact, he married one, because his wife was a German and he met her after the war in Germany.

And he was also not jewish, so he was Polish, and I think he had worked for the underground, or something like that. And he also says that there were many other people, other than Jews in the camp. He made that very clear in his talks. So in retrospect, when I think of all those things, I think:

“Well, good on you!”

John: Right.

Monika: He told us all those things and, …

John: Well, I think you’re right. I do think that a lot of jews, a lot of quote, unquote “Holocaust” survivors, I think there are a lot of them that really do buy into the fake story that the organized jewish community has created. I mean, the origins of the story it’s really a combination of the jews, the British government, the American government. I mean, they were making up these atrocities stories about the Germans to demonize them and to garner support, you know, to go to war against them, basically. Black propaganda that became institutionalized. So a lot of these people actually do believe the stuff. But getting back to what you’re saying about this guy who was actually kind of like telling the truth, have you seen that video on You Tube called the, “’Holocaust’ survivors who tell the truth”?

Monika: I think I have, yeah.

John: It’s kind of it reminds me of what we’re explaining here. It’s so many people who are legitimate, quote, unquote, “Holocaust” survivors, they provide testimony that’s actually truthful, but basically debunks the official narrative, right? But yet they still believe in it. They talk about:

“Oh, you know, we went into we went into the gas chambers and all of a sudden there was a shower, taking a shower!”

Which is like, I mean, it’s true! Its like, sort of what happened. And a lot of this stuff, lot of the “Holocaust” mythology was basically rumors floating around.

Monika: Yes.

John: And, you know, spreading, you know, how gossip starts, rumors start! This is what it was, and this became institutionalized.

[70:15]

Monika: Absolutely! There were whisper campaigns. These were deliberately begun and deliberately spread so you could call it the “rumor mill”. You know, at that time I think they actually called them “whisper campaigns”, or something like that. And like, you mentioned the black propaganda and, yeah, that was a huge part of the war. Well, first of all you had to get the world to hate Germans and Germany. And that had been going on for decades before World War Two, already. I mean, I think already in the late 1800s, this campaign of hatred towards Germans had begun.

John: Yeah, it certainly had. Monika, we are over an hour now.

Monika: Yes. We have a limited time.

John: Yeah. We wanted to keep it to under an hour and a half. We are about an hour and ten minutes, or so, into this. I do have a couple, sort of big questions I want to ask and I think it’s probably going to take you some time to address them fully. And I definitely want you to do so. The first one is, in these first two they’re kind of related, but the first one is: Based on your research into the alleged “Holocaust” story — I should say the fake “Holocaust” story, let’s be serious, it is fake, …

Monika: Yeah.

John: What are the main conclusions that you’ve come to? Like, if you wanted to make the most important points to someone about the research you’ve done and the conclusions that you have come to. What would you tell them?

Monika: Yeah, well I think that the ultimate goal for Organized jewry, I’ll call it, like the globalists, is to rule the world! One world government! And they’ve been telling us that for quite a while, actually. I remember when I was at university in the 80’s, I remember receiving some kind of postcard, or propaganda material that actually said, “One world government” and was exposing these great ideas about just, you know, having one world government and peace, they said in this in this propaganda literature. And I have no idea who was behind this and what it was and it’s coming.

But anyway, that is the goal for the jews. To have this dominion over all the world and all the wealth, all the gold, own everything, and enslave the rest of us! And I think they want to annihilate a lot of us, and that’s, I mean, the “Holocaust”, that they call a “Holocaust” is a big part of their equation. Because it’s a weapon that you use against us when we start to point out any of the things that are going on. Like with White genocide. And when I first heard that term, I thought, “what are you talking about?” you know. But it really is the goal. And I think it’s because Europeans have stood up to the jews and that they have been the biggest obstacle to jewish domination over the years, that the European people have been able to stand up to the jews over time. And that’s why they are trying to get rid of the European people. So that would be that.

John: Right. Okay, very good. I mean, I certainly agree with you that the “Holocaust” narrative is probably the number one weapon used by the jews to advance their agenda, to advance their interests. To delegitimize our interests and, you know, to discredit the notion that we can even identify as White people and have interests.

So, I totally agree with you and I guess, just to emphasize that, I don’t understand how we could really ignore this issue. How we could ignore, or downplay the “Holocaust”, ignore, or downplay revisionism, and dealing seriously and truthfully with the “Holocaust”, with World War Two, when literally, it is constantly brought up and used by jews as a weapon against us! All day long! Every single day! I could point this out.

Gosh, I wish I had the time to do. I used to kind of do it when I was writing more of my website, but I mean, literally Monika, I’m not even exaggerating! Every day I could highlight and write a blog post, I could probably do three, or four times. Different articles appearing in the jewish press, appearing in newspapers like Times of Israel, the Jewish Daily Forward, Tablet Magazine, the Jewish Telegraph Agency. I mean, just openly talking about the “Holocaust” and using it to advance jewish interests while, again, harming our interests. I just don’t understand how it can be avoided, and I mean, I’m certainly not going to avoid it. But I would argue that it’s very central to our struggle and I think you would probably agree with me.

[75:22]

Monika: Yeah. Absolutely! I mean, I’m kind of laughing at this end of it when you’re talking about it. Yes, every day. You’re right, it’s not a laughing matter. It is so, so serious. But the fact that it is twenty-four seven in all the different media. Like, whether it’s radio, whether it’s movies, whether it’s, well I don’t watch TV, but just anything! It’s always brought up even if in a movie it’s about something completely different, but somewhere in the movie the “Holocaust” will come up, or it will be invoked. And, you know, what is the most ironical thing about it, is some people when they are maybe well-meaning towards me, you know, just say:

“Look Monika, why do you dwell on this thing? That was so long ago, it’s not relevant, it’s not relevant!”

And I just, … [laughing]

John: Yes exactly! That’s what I don’t understand.

Monika: How can it not be relevant when there’s this strong reaction against me. That contradicts that statement that they’re making, that it’s not relevant. Of course, it’s relevant! If it wasn’t relevant they would never cared about my video! And I mean, that’s something that I didn’t talk very much, but I don’t want to get into that right now. But that’s this ritual defamation process. And I’ll just briefly say, like, I live in a town of five thousand and I think it’s kind of like a textbook case of where ritual defamation is being carried out. Because this town is kind of like a little bubble. I think if you live in a big city you can move amongst people more anonymously, but you can’t in a town of five thousand.

So, oh my goodness, they have unleashed a storm against me here, but I don’t want to get into that right now. But it’s just been a most interesting thing. And I do kind of make my observations and I, you know, I can write about it and I do write about it a little bit. You’ll probably, maybe make a link to my Free Speech Monika website with this podcast this, I would assume?

John: Absolutely!

Monika: You had a another question for me and so I’d love to hear what that was.

John: Yeah, now that you brought that up that was actually something I wanted to talk about, if you mind? Just addressing that briefly. Just the reaction you have had amongst people you know, amongst friends, neighbors. Because I mean, we sort of have, … I don’t want to say similar experiences, I guess it is kind of. I mean, I’ve been doing this very publicly for a long time. I wouldn’t bring it up with people. People would have to find out on their own, simply by googling me, as if that’s like a very difficult ask to do. But, you know, I didn’t really bring it up and it’s caused a lot of problems professionally and with friends, other relationships.

So I guess, I’m just curious about your reaction, … You live in a small town. I don’t live in a small town by any means. But could you maybe just give us some insight into your experience and sort of what’s happened to you with your friends, or acquaintances?

Monika: Yeah. I mean, I still have some friends! I’m happy to say. And there are people who have stuck by my side through thick and thin, even if they don’t get into this topic, or don’t research it, so they probably don’t even agree with me. But they have remained my friend. So I don’t want to make it sound like I have zero friends here in this town.

However, the general sentiment against me is just, it’s visceral. And I am banned from certain places. The most active venue for music and happenings, happens to be the Legion [Jasper Royal Canadian Legion], and Legion is this is, I guess they operate sort of like a private club, and they have banned me from entering. And a lot happens there, like a lot of live music. I used to be in there a lot, not just listening to musicians who are coming through town, but also playing there a lot. So that’s off-limits for me now.

Jasper Royal Canadian Legion in a foolish act of exclusion, bans Monika Schaefer from entering its premises, thus throwing its reputation into the gutter.

John: That is so pathetic! Wow!

[79:43]

Monika: It is! And last summer I didn’t get a busking license. I was not allowed to have a busking license. Busking is when you put your case out in front of you when you playing music like, in a public place and then passers-by can throw a coin in if they want, if they like your music, or whatever. They can show their appreciation by throwing some money into your music case. And this was the first time that busking became a sanctioned activity in Jasper and I was the one who lobbied for it, years already. And then ironically, I was denied a busking permit last summer, for my, quote, unquote, “my political, non-inclusive views”! Like this is just unbelievable and, you know, when I, …

John: Non-inclusive! They’re the ones excluding you!

Monika: Exactly! And John, just to give some background, I have given my music voluntarily to this town for thirty-five years, basically. The whole time I’ve been living here, in terms of playing at fundraisers, or playing in the schools, or playing for the seniors, or playing all over the place for free, because I just have the enjoyment of doing that. But I also play professionally and teach and all that. But I had been giving and donating that my time and my music for decades.

And then when it came time to get a busking permit they denied me that. Now, we’ll see how that goes this summer, but that’s still a question mark, I have to say, so I can’t report on that yet. But anyway, so there’s a bunch of other things that happened. All kinds of hate letters to me in articles in the main weekly paper. There’s two papers here and both have had their sort of different things in the papers about me. And one paper, the main one, the weekly one, oh my goodness they are treating me with such hostility! And I have not had the right of reply, basically in terms of this subject, at all. And yet they can write all kinds of slanderous things about me. So, it has had it’s effect. People sometimes, they look at me with fear and then I just greet them in a friendly way and then the fear dissipates.

But actually some of the worst is the young high school kids. And I live right across from the high school and I’m telling you sometimes they yell things at me that are just, … And they only do this when they’re in groups. I haven’t had, you know, people do this when they’re by themselves facing. One time I turned around when there was a group of them behind me are on bicycles — I was on my bicycle — and somebody shouted something like, I don’t know, “Nazi!” or “Hitler!” I don’t know what they shouted, just something very hostile. And I turned around and faced them and I said:

“Do, you know, what you’re talking about?”

And they had fear in their eyes! I tried to engage them, but that was impossible and then they zoomed off ahead and turned off and said:

“You can’t follow us! You can’t follow us to the Legion!”

[laughing] I mean, I was just kind of laughing and I could hear them, squeals of laughter, like I could hear them blocks away!

And then there’s other times when people drive by and they stick their heads out the window and just shout obscenities at me! I mean, it’s just absolutely crazy! This kind of thing! But I have to say there are others who, they greet me in a very friendly way. There isn’t anybody in this town and doesn’t know about this controversial issue, since this happened to me and me bringing all up, I guess, what that video. But, you know, when I’m seeing people downtown, or in a grocery store, I don’t bring this up! In fact, I don’t want to bring it up, because I just want to live normal and I greet people and talk about other things like, you know, talk about mundane things, or talk about music, or gardening, or whatever. And I just try to be friendly. And I am a friendly person, I’m pretty gregarious and just try to normalize the situation.

And to a certain extent that does work and people see that. They sort of feel relief after I speak about something else, they feel relief and they want to talk to me about, you know, other subjects, or whatever, so that they can see that, okay, she doesn’t just go around her blow horn all day long and start talking about, you know, the holohoax, National Socialist Germany, or whatever!

Anyway it is quite an interesting situation here. There are people who would just dearly love to chase me out of town and they have sent me all kinds of messages to that effect, and hate messages and whatnot. Anyway, I’m sure that anybody who talks about these things openly has that kind of reaction to them too. But I guess in this size of the town it is very interesting, and so I kind of tell a story with that.

[85:08]

John: Interesting. Well I’d love to come hang out with you in Jasper. Where is it?

Jasper, Alberta (click image to enlarge)

Monika: Jasper. Jasper, Alberta, north of Banff. You have probably heard of Banff.

John: I’m sorry, but I have not.

Monika: Yeah that’s okay. That’s okay, but we’re in the Rocky Mountains.

John: You guys are like directly north of Colorado basically. Like if you were to keep following, …

Monika: Following the Rocky Mountains. That kind of goes north-west. Because they go north-west to south-east so, … But, we’re in the same mountain range that the Colorado Rocky Mountains are. That’s the same mountain range and it’s beautiful here! It’s just absolutely beautiful!

John: Oh, I believe it.

Monika: You know, it’s a little bit of a fairy tale town, because it is in it’s own bubble. A friend of mine calls it “Gingerbread Town”, so I kind of laugh about that, and I call it, “Gingerbread Town”. And the people don’t like it when you rock the boat, because they might get a little bit wet!

So, anyway I do have a big smile on my face and I’m doing very well and I’m a happy person. I’m much happier since I figured out the truth about things. Which maybe that sounds strange to people, because it is so dark, these things that we’re learning, and yet it lifts something off your shoulders a little bit. It lifts your spirit. It’s better to know the truth and to do something about it, than to not know the truth. And be bewildered by all the turmoil in the world and the wars! This and that, that is going on, nothing makes sense! Now things make more sense to me. And I can understand things better. And anyway, I’m doing my best to do something about it.

John: God bless you! That’s exactly how I feel! That is literally exactly how I feel. I mean, I just want to know how the world really works and what’s really going on. I think I’ve got a pretty good idea at this point. Now, I’m just trying to do something about it, to make it better. That’s really what this all boils down to.

Monika: Yes! Well it has been such a pleasure talking with you John and I know that when I’ve listened to you talk before, that’s how I felt too. I felt that we were really kindred spirits!

John: Yes. I think so. I completely agree. Maybe one of these days I’ll make it up there to visit Canada. I’ve never been to Canada. I’ve been to Mexico, I’ve been to South America, I’ve been to Europe, but never been to Canada. One of these days I’ll get up there and well have a good old time!

Monika: Oh yeah.

John: We’ll go out and make all sorts of friends in Jasper! [laughing]

Monika: Yeah! Yeah, that’s great! Okay, …

John: Well, Monika I will go ahead, let’s just go ahead and wrap it up. This has been a very good conversation. I’d love to do it again in the future, if your interested.

Monika: I sure would be John! I am sure would be. Let’s stay in touch.

John: Okay, very good! I will have a link over to your website, as well as your video that we’ve been discussing, “Sorry Mom, I was Wrong About the Holocaust”.

Monika Schaefer, thank you so much. I really appreciate it, I will talk to you soon.

Monika: Thank you John! Bye, bye.

John: Okay, good night.

Monika: Good night.

[88:28]

END

============================================

The Realist Report COMMENTS

Richard May 18, 2017 4:33 AM
Excellent interview, John and Monika. You both come across as lovely, honourable, sincere and well-meaning people – and very brave, too.
Yes, I agree with John that the myth of the Holocaust is the Number One weapon used on a daily basis to brainwash the masses across the world into accepting all the wars and injustice and unfairness and political correctness that the fake ‘elites’ (mostly Jewish) are raining down upon this earth. When Mark Webber (of the Institute for Historical Review) says these days that the Holocaust is basically a non-issue and we should move on and just talk about Israel – oh, my God: how wrong and wrong-headed (out of whatever motive) can he be! The fake Holocaust narrative is THE defining myth of our age and underlies literally ALL the evil that is being perpetrated in the name of a false ‘good’.

Realist Report May 18, 2017 6:57 AM
Thank you Richard! Agree 100% – well said!

Nick Dean May 18, 2017 10:27 AM
On Weber – I’ll ‘third’ that!
Robert Faurisson, Michael Collins Piper and even that mellowest of men, Germar Rudolf, have gone on the record and said Weber is crook.
If it were ever in doubt, just look at the volume of material produced by Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf and so many others, on a shoestring, and generally provided free of charge to the world at vho.org. Meanwhile, IHR is mothballed when it had at least a coupla million dollars, plus ongoing income from well-meaning mainly elderly donators who just didn’t know better.
There are five 45 minute RBN ‘Piper Report’ broadcasts starting here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VNP8IjL1o
Someone with time on his hands could turn them into a shorter, less discursive, single edit, exposing the enemy’s take-over and driving into the dust of IHR.

Nick Dean May 18, 2017 10:35 AM
On Monika Schaefer, I’ll ‘third’ that.
It’s the smart and principled fraction we most need (and which most need us!) And the Schaefer eltern provided two healthy specimens, indeed.

Russian Limbaugh May 18, 2017 1:59 PM
No event which ever happened in history has been used as the Jewish Holocaust has been used to justify displacement, murder, bombing, imprisonment, etc. of gentiles while giving Jews special privileges above all other races of people.
This is sufficient to conclude if the Jewish Holocaust had really happened then it would not be used in such manner as no other historical event ever was. It is used is such manner because it is a fantasy and not because it really happened as other historical events.

Richard May 18, 2017 4:41 PM
Thank YOU, John. Keep up the great work.

Lou Ryan May 19, 2017 10:03 AM
She seems like a sweet lady.
Unsure of the brother, after listening to a recent podcast, whereupon he stated he enjoyed exposing himself to the police or that he was abducted by aliens during his early teenage years.
Thanks, John.

katana May 20, 2017 3:48 AM
Thanks John and Monika for that.
I’ve started on the transcript here:
https://katana17.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/the-realist-report-interviews-monika-schaefer-may-2017-transcript/

Realist Report May 20, 2017 8:41 AM
Thank you katana, as always. Your hard work is greatly appreciated.

Alfred Schaefer May 20, 2017 1:37 PM
Great interview. You were probably too polite to remind the listeners that these Rabbis not only want to exterminate the white race. They are encouraged by their holy book, the Talmud, to rape our three year old girls. These are the same rabbis that have their foreskin chewed off when they are 8 days old. These rituals ensure that the parasite never fraternises with the host. Raping our 3 year old girls builds an unbridgeable gulf between parasite and host.
The entire history of the “World Wars” need to be seen in the light of being the first big hit of the parasite jew exterminating the White race. We are now seeing the final blow against us, and the holohoax is used as the psychological guilt trip to destroy our defences. The jew is advised through the Talmud, to kill us slowly so that we do not notice. One day the last remnants of the white race will wake up and think, “how the hell did that happen?”….
But, we will do what we can to ensure that it is not the white race that goes down. And we are fighting to win!

Realist Report May 20, 2017 4:54 PM
Thank you Alfred!

Teutonica June 12, 2017 1:38 PM
Dear Monika and John,
Thank you for this great interview! Monika you are hitting the nail on the head in so many areas.
2011 also my search for the truth started, on September 11, in response to another 9/11 documentary.
About a year ago I spoke out publicly in a meeting with just one sentence opposing the Hitler bashing. After that I was rejected by a person who was seeking my friendship before. She did not give me a chance to give her detailed reasons for my one sentence, though I asked her for it, but right out rejected me and forbid me to speak to her. Apparently, she considers me evil and that’s that. Imagine you have a judge like this in court, and there are some like this, and definitely they have them in the “German” courts run by Jews. That’s why they extradite people to Germany to grind them through the Communist Kangaroo Courts in Germany where the judges say: “Truth is not a reason to deny the Holocaust.” Like Monika says and JFK said in his speech about the secret societies that they do not come with weapons by day but with secret machinations. Nothing is open and honest and up to debate. For the encouragement of people, when I found out that it was the Jews and not the Russians that overthrew Russia and executed or slowly killed between 66 and 100 Million people, the fog lifted from my brain and opened all the channels to see other deceptions. I’d like to add to the “people do not know how to use their brain” by saying they also do not want to. I have come to understand that people want to belong to a group, and by indoctrination of a false holohoax, they who believe in it all think alike in this area. “Don’t dare to disturb this group!” You’ll have a bad thing coming! And furthermore, these frightening Hollywood Nazi and Holocaust movies had such an intense emotional impact on children that as adults they still “see” these experiences, like the older generation remembers “Night of the Living Dead.” AND ANOTHER THING IS, PEOPLE WANT A SCAPE GOAT. THEY CAN THEN BLAME “EVERYTHING” ON THAT SCAPE GOAT AND NEVER HAVE TO LOOK AT THEMSELVES. THIS IS A VERY JEWISH CUSTOM INDOCTRINATED INTO THE GENTILES AND GOES BACK TO THE OLD TESTAMENT TIMES. Just think about the fact that in the Muslim religion when a girl or woman gets raped she is ALWAYS BLAMED FOR IT and punished for it. No punishment for the criminal. No wonder, as the Muslim religion is an offspring of the Old Testament. Germany is the scape goat for all of man’s evil, just like Jesus, a German – the Germans lived in all of Palestine – was the scapegoat for all of mankind, for their sin (Jews invading a German homeland and genociding most of them) and crucified because the Jews had already mostly taken over their country. To think other than the group means the person will be either dismissed, abandoned, isolated, and at the very best be allowed in with cold indifference, something no one can handle for an extended period of time. All of these have happened to me, including family members and most friends have departed from me. (Who needs friends like this?!) Like Monika, I was also hoping they would be happy about the Holocaust being a hoax, the contrary happened. They hated me for bringing them the good message of the Jewish author’s book “Tell the truth and shame the devil”; they called me insane, told me to see a psychiatrist, told me to get lost, called me Nazi and peace disturber (their phantasy peace). And most people are not willing to talk about it, yes! 99%, after I spent about ½ hour of my energy telling them the truth in several areas, they told me that they did not believe any of it. In my own family in the U.S., where one can speak the truth at least at home, there have been painful consequences for me. I am only 18 minutes into the talk, and I have so much more to say in response to your talk, but already wrote maybe too much. Thank you both! For more WW2 truth, visit http://www.germanvictims.com

Realist Report June 12, 2017 6:25 PM
Great comment, thank you very much!

Tucker June 23, 2017 4:32 AM
I have gotten way behind on the podcasts that I like to listen to, so only got around to this one yesterday. I was very impressed! Great interview.

Realist Report June 23, 2017 7:41 PM
Thanks!

Mike Stone July 4, 2017 9:02 PM
I really enjoyed listening to this, and I really felt for Monika and the reaction she received after posting her video, which is very good, by the way.

====================================

PDF Notes

Version 1: Nov 2, 2017

* Total words = 15,483
* Total images = 30
* Total A4 pages = 75

Click to download a PDF of this post (4.0 MB):

Realist Report Interviews Monika Schaefer – May 2017 – TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 11: Mar 13, 2023 — Re-uploaded images. Added The Realist Report Comments. Improved formatting.

Version 10:: Nov 2, 2017 — Added 3 more images. Added PDF of post for download.

Version 9:: Jun 3, 2017 — Added last 14 minutes of transcript. Added some images. Transcript NOW complete = 89 mins.

Version 8:: Jun 2, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 75 mins.

Version 7:: May 31, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 65 mins.

Version 6:: May 30, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Added images. Total transcript complete = 55 mins.

Version 5: May 24, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Added images. Total transcript complete = 45 mins.

Version 4: May 23, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Added images. Total transcript complete = 35 mins.

Version 3: May 22, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Total transcript complete = 25 mins.

Version 2: May 21, 2017 — Added 10 minutes of transcript. Added images. Total transcript complete = 15 mins.

Version 1: Published May 20, 2017 — Added first 5 minutes of transcript.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

admin — Sat, 24 Dec 2016 13:20:43 +0000

[Part 13]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

Part 13, starts with an outline of the dire conditions in Germany prior to the National Socialists taking power. After taking power international jewry launched a world-wide trade boycott against Germany and cut off funding from international jewish banks. In part response Hitler asked the German people to give him 4 years of emergency dictatorial power (Enabling Act) to solve the problems that confronted Germany.

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

In the section, “Night of the Long Knives” Hitler finally takes action against the SA’s Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm and his close associates that were causing the Party to lose support from industry and military leaders, in addition to threatening a possible coup against Hitler. Hitler was praised in a Daily Mail article for saving his country.

In the section, “1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg” Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich”. The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in September until 1938 to show the world and energize the nationalistic pride of the German people and their support for National Socialism.

In the section, “Hitler Revives the German Economy” the dramatic and probably the greatest economic turnaround in history is described. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example of National Socialism’s economic policies at work. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. Germany got around the jewish trade boycott and capital strangulation using a barter system that helped the economy flourish.

Finally, in the section, “Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World” the praise and admiration of foreign statesmen and prominent personalities for the success of Germany under Hitler and the National Socialists is described. Even that traitorous tool of international jewry was moved to say:

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”― Winston Churchill, 1935

— KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The book can be bought at Amazon here: The Myth of German Villainy

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 13 Life in Germany

Under Hitler

When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly bankrupt and deeply in debt. The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations requirements on the German people, demanding that Germany pay all the costs incurred by the Allied nations during the war. This was totally unrealistic because the combined costs of the war totaled three times the value of all property in Germany, completely beyond Germany’s ability to pay. At the same time that the Treaty required Germany to pay these unrealistic reparations, other measures in the Treaty, i.e. taking her coal mines, her merchant fleet and her richest farmlands and giving them to other countries, reduced her ability to pay even further. As unrealistic as these demands were, France nevertheless demanded that they be paid, and paid on time, and then sent the French army in to occupy the Rhineland for the purpose of enforcing these reparations payments. The German army was limited by the Treaty to only 100,000 men, too small to resist an invasion, or to even effectively police the country.

Germany was in a double bind. She had no choice but to pay the reparations, but pay with what? To meet the scheduled payments, the German government resorted to printing money, which, predictably, created inflation. Once inflation began, private currency speculators jumped in to try to make money off the inflation by selling the mark short. This caused the German mark to plummet in value, setting off an inflationary spiral which quickly zoomed out of control. The Jews totally dominated finance and the financial markets in Germany, and nearly all of these currency speculators were Jews. Their role in setting off the inflation received wide publicity and was therefore well known by the German people. The inflation went out of control, to the point that at its worst, a wheelbarrow full of marks could not buy a loaf of bread.

Sweeping up worthless German Marks during the 1923 hyper inflation.

The thrifty German middle class who had always been careful savers, were ruined en masse by the inflation, as their life savings simply evaporated before their eyes. The value of the mark decreased so rapidly that prices were adjusted upwards several times a day. To compensate, employers began to pay their employees twice a day. With their pay in hand, these poor German people literally ran to a store, any store, to purchase almost anything of value before the price was adjusted upwards again. Almost any item or real asset was preferable to their handfuls of marks which were losing their value by the hour. This wild consumer spending set off an economic boom in Germany for a time, though that soon deflated. Due to the velocity of the inflationary spiral, prices went up so fast that people could not buy enough food with the wages they earned. They began desperately selling off all their personal possessions just to buy enough food to keep themselves and their families alive as wages and salaries lagged far behind the rapidly increasing prices. Pawn shops proliferated. Countless homes, farms and commercial buildings were lost to private banks. Those with access to foreign capital, especially dollars, began buying up property all over Germany for pfennigs on the mark. The private banks and the pawn shops were owned almost entirely by Jews, and the Jews were the ones who had access to foreign capital.

The Jews, as a result, grew rich off the inflation, while ordinary Germans were reduced to living in hovels, and in many cases, starving to death.

According to the British historian Sir Arthur Bryant in “Unfinished Victory,” 1940:

“It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.”

The 1923 inflation resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from one group to another ― that is, from the Germans to the Jews ― in all of German history, and, as might have been expected, feelings of bitter resentment developed toward the Jews because of it.

As if this were not enough, the inflation was soon followed by a global depression which hit the already fragile German economy especially hard. Germany’s unemployment rate at the depth of the depression was the highest in Europe at 30%; even higher than that of the United States, which stood at 24%. Germany’s depression was not just worse than America’s Great Depression, it was much worse. Anguished parents in Germany watched helplessly as their children starved to death. People lost their homes. Shanty towns of hovels constructed of shipping crates and the like sprang up all around Germany’s cities and in the forests. To keep alive, they made communal pots of soup out of anything they could scrounge up, such as turnips, potatoes, and even grass.

By the beginning of 1933, the misery of the German people was virtually universal. At least six million unemployed and hungry workers roamed aimlessly through the streets looking for anything to eat or any way to earn a few pfennigs with which to buy food. The government paid unemployment benefits, but only for six months, after which, nothing, and what it paid was pitifully inadequate. These unemployed men had families to feed, so that altogether some 20 million Germans, a third of the population, were at the point of starvation.

Line at the unemployment office in Hanover, Germany in 1930

The cost of welfare amounted to 57% of the total revenue taken in by the government. The entire society was at the point of collapse. Those lucky enough to still have jobs were not much better off, as their salaries and wages had been sharply reduced. The intellectuals were hit as hard, or harder, than the working class. The unemployment rate of university graduates was 60%. Well educated people could be seen on the streets of Berlin with signs on their backs saying they would accept any kind of work. But there was no work. Hardest hit of all were the construction workers, 90% of whom were unemployed.

Farmers had also been ruined by the two economic disasters; the inflation followed a few years later by the depression. Many had been forced to mortgage their homes and land, but then, when the economy “crashed,” the value of real estate declined to the point that by 1932, to use the parlance of today, they were “under water” in loan to value ratio. Those who could not meet the interest payments saw their homes and farms auctioned off, the result of which was that those with access to foreign currencies (again, mainly Jews) grew rich off the misery of the hapless ordinary Germans. In 1931 and 1932, 17,157 farms, with a combined total of 1.15 million acres, were liquidated in this way.

Germany’s industries, once the envy of the world, saw drastic reductions in production. Thousands of factories had closed down, resulting in a 50 percent decrease in gross industrial production compared to what it had been in 1920. Exports had also dropped by an astounding 75 percent. Germany’s central bank, the Reichsbank, was in danger of collapse due to the growing number of outstanding loans going into the red, while at the same time foreign loans were being called in.

It was estimated during that time that no more than around 100,000 people in all of Germany were able to live without financial worries. Germany was a nation of 65 million people living in gut-wrenching misery caused by a variety of problems, including the imposed burdens of the Versailles Treaty, industrial stagnation, horrific unemployment, and serious political instability. The situation became so bad that between 1929 and 1933 some 250,000 Germans committed suicide out of despair and hopelessness. The birth rate in Germany dropped from 33.4 per thousand to just 14.7 per thousand. Even this birth rate was achieved only because of the higher birth rate in the countryside. In the 50 largest cities, there were more deaths than births. In Berlin, deaths exceeded births by 60 percent. This morass of misery caused many to submit to the allures of Communism, making a Communist takeover of the country a real possibility. The Weimar government proved itself totally incompetent to deal with this multiplicity of crises, with its various factions squabbling impotently as Germany teetered on the brink of disaster.

Germany’s situation was further aggravated by the unrestrained competition of its 25 regional states whose governments were often in direct conflict with policies of the central Reich government. These states, such as Bavaria, Prussia, Wurttemberg and Saxony, had ancient origins, and only a few years before, that is, before the 1871 consolidation of Germany, they had been independent, sovereign monarchies. Not surprisingly, they jealously guarded the power and privileges which still remained. Germany was a federation, with a weak central government and each of the 25 states was still ostensibly sovereign. Getting them to work together for the greater good of Germany was nearly impossible. Germany had become a country that was ungovernable.

March 21, 1933, Hitler strolls toward the Garrison Church in Potsdam (Suburb of Berlin) for a ceremony to open the new Reichstag session. Hitler became Chancellor in January, 1933.

These were the conditions that existed in Germany when Hitler and the National Socialists came to power in 1933. But as if the situation were not bad enough, conditions were made worse by the worldwide Jewish boycott of German goods which immediately followed Hitler’s election to the Chancellorship. The immediate result of the boycott was a precipitous 10% drop in German exports, which were already disastrously low, which then threw even more people out of work. The boycott also attempted to strangle the German economy by cutting off funding from international Jewish banks. International Jewry had declared war on Germany with the intention of undermining and destroying the already fragile German economy in order to discredit and destroy the National Socialists (Nazis) who had just been elected into office. Germany was already at the point of collapse, and the boycott might well have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

After assessing the situation, Hitler gave a speech to the German people in which he said that the difficulties facing Germany were so dire that he needed emergency dictatorial powers in order to confront them:

“German people, give us four years time, after which you can arraign us before your tribunal and you can judge me!”

Hitler speaks to the German people and asks for 4 years of dictatorial power to cure Germany’s ills.

The Reichstag responded overwhelmingly. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag voted 441 to 84 to pass the Enabling Act into law, which gave Hitler the 4 years of emergency dictatorial powers he said he needed to resurrect Germany’s economy.

“The great venture begins,” Hitler said. “The day of the Third Reich has come.”

Hitler knew from the start that the task he had set for himself would be immense and difficult to accomplish. He knew that Germany would have to be transformed from top to bottom, beginning with the very structure of the state. The old class structure would have to go and a new German society, imbued with a new civic spirit would then take its place. He also intended to free Germany from foreign hegemony (the Versailles Treaty) and to restore German honor in the world. But the first and most immediate task would be to put the six million unemployed back to work.

Hitler intended not only to put men back to work, but to give prestige and honor to the concept of “work,” itself. Germany had traditionally been stratified by “class,” with a privileged class at the top, including the industrialists, and the working class at the bottom, who were considered by the upper class to be nothing more than “instruments of production.” In the eyes of the capitalists, “money” was the important element in a country’s economy. To Hitler’s way of thinking, that conception was upside down. Hitler believed that “money” was only an instrument, and that “work” was the essential element in an economy. Work was man’s honor, blood, muscle and soul, Hitler believed.

“All work which is necessary ennobles him who performs it. Only one thing is shameful ― to contribute nothing to the community.”

“Nothing falls into a man’s lap from heaven. It is from labor that life grows.”

“Social honor recognizes no distinction between the employer and the employed. All of them work for a common purpose and are entitled to equal honor and respect.” Adolf Hitler

Hitler wanted to put an end to the class struggle and to reestablish the priority of the human being as the principle factor in production. Germany could do without gold to finance industry, he believed. In any case, Germany was broke and didn’t have any gold. Other things could be used to finance industry, and he would find them, but “work” was the indispensable foundation for industry and for the economy. The worker had been alienated from society in Germany because he had traditionally been treated with disdain and contempt. Hitler believed that to restore the worker’s trust in the fatherland, he would from now on have to be treated as an equal, not as a socially inferior “instrument of production.” Hitler argued that under previous so-called democratic governments, those who ran these governments failed to understand that in the hierarchy of national values, “work” is the very essence of life. Mere matter, either steel, or gold, or money of any kind, is only a tool.

What Hitler intended was a total revolution.

“The people,” he said, “were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy does not exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital should serve the economy, and the economy in turn should serve the people.”

It would not be enough to reopen the thousands of closed factories, put the people back to work and continue with business as usual. Unless things were drastically changed, the workers would remain, as they had been before, nothing more than living machines, faceless and interchangeable. Hitler was determined to establish a new moral balance between the workers and capitalism. He was determined that capital was to be used in its proper function as a tool to facilitate what the workers create with their labor.

“It will be the pride of my life,” Hitler said, “if I can say at the end of my days that I won back the German worker and restored him to his rightful place in the Reich.”

Hitler knew that such a revolution could not be achieved as Germany was presently structured. The 25 different states that made up Germany continued to compete with each other and to initiate policies that conflicted with those of the central government in Berlin. No coherent national program for economic recovery could be initiated as long as this condition existed. The revolution could also not succeed as long as there were dozens of political parties and thousands of deputies of every conceivable stripe, all squabbling and competing with each other. There would have to be centralization and control if the revolution were to succeed. There were also the Communists who continued assiduously in their efforts to undermine the German state and turn it into a Russian style Soviet Socialist Republic. The Communists would also have to be dealt with.

Hitler took a series of steps to secure absolute power over Germany which was necessary to impose a coherent recovery program. First, he abolished the independent local governments of the 25 states in Germany and replaced them with Reich Commissioners answerable only to Hitler and the National Socialist regime.

Jewish prisoners at Dachau, 1938.

Then he cracked down on the Communists. The SA and the SS rounded them up by the thousands and locked them up in the newly constructed “re-education center” at Dachau near Munich ― later called a “concentration camp.” 78% of the membership of the Communist Party in Germany was Jewish. Therefore, to arrest a Communist was almost always to arrest a Jew. It was not that Jews were being singled out for arrest because they were Jewish. They arrested the Communists who almost all happened to be Jews. Hitler saw the Communists as enemies of the German people.

By centralizing federal power in Berlin, and by locking up the Communists, Hitler put an end to the constant squabbling and working at cross purposes among the states and began to create rational, consistent policies and programs necessary for national recovery. Step by step, Hitler implemented his plan.

On May 2, 1933, Hitler outlawed the trade unions and ordered the SA to arrest the trade union leaders, who also happened to me mostly Jews. These too went to Dachau. Hitler then established the “German Labor Front” as the only labor organization allowed in Germany, and placed Dr. Robert Ley in charge. Ley, an intelligent and industrious man, had been an aviator in the war and worked as a chemist before joining the Nazi Party. Ley confiscated the money of the labor unions and used it to fund his “Strength Through Joy” program, a broad-based program to improve the working and living standards of Germany’s workers. As part of his program, Ley ordered two new cruise-liners to be built which were used to take German workers on foreign holidays. In 1938 an estimated 180,000 people went on cruises to places such as Madeira and the Norwegian fjords. Others were given free holidays in Germany.

Hitler with Dr. Robert Ley, new head of the German Labor Front.

The Strength Through Joy program also built sports facilities, paid for theatre visits, and financially supported travelling cabaret groups. Although the German worker paid for these benefits through compulsory deductions, the image of people being given holidays and subsidized entertainment was of great propaganda value for the Nazi government. It also vastly improved the lives of German workers.

The Strength Through Joy program also subsidized the development of the People’s Car, known as the Volkswagen. The American auto maker, Henry Ford, was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler in his plan to reshape the German culture in favor of the working man. In fact, Hitler said, in 1931, “I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” Hitler’s (and Ley’s) mass production of the Volkswagen car was modeled on Ford’s formula of mass production, low prices, and high wages for workers. Ford also shared Hitler’s opinion of the Jews.

By abolishing the labor unions, Hitler was able to hold down wages to give industry a chance to prosper and grow. It has been said that labor unions are in the business of extortion. They extort ever higher wages out of factory owners by strikes and threats of strikes, by slowdowns and often by sabotaging machinery and equipment, all of which is extremely deleterious to industrial growth and development. The aims of labor unions can be summed up by a comment made by the American labor leader, Samuel Gompers. When asked what the labor unions wanted, he said, “More.” Even though self-defeating in the end, labor unions never stop demanding ever higher wages and benefits, until eventually they put the company out of business. By outlawing the labor unions and establishing the government controlled “German Labor Front,” Hitler was able to maintain a fair wage level for all German workers, not just the members of trade unions, and at the same time to end the strangulation effect of the trade unions on German industry.

On July 14, 1933 the Communist Party and the Social Democrat Party were banned. Party activists still in the country were arrested and sent to the concentration camp. Hitler decided that while they were at it, they would clean up Germany in other ways, as well. The Gestapo began arresting and incarcerating beggars, prostitutes, homosexuals, alcoholics and anyone who refused to work, or who was “work shy,” as they put it. A law was then enacted banning all political parties except for the Nazi Party.

All of these measures were met by hysterical propaganda diatribes in the international Jewish press in which events were exaggerated out of all proportion to their actual significance. Labor unions, the Communist party and all other left-wing movements and organizations had been specifically targeted by Hitler and the Nazis as “enemies of the German people.” As Jews were highly disproportionately represented in the labor unions and all other left-wing movements and organizations, they were disproportionately arrested and incarcerated at Dachau. This was described in the international Jewish press as an attack upon the Jews.

The Nazis were accused of specifically singling out and arresting Jews, simply because they were Jews. In reality, there was, at this time, no specific Nazi program to target Jews, per se. Nevertheless, international Jewry made the most of this opportunity in their anti-German propaganda campaign.

Night of the Long Knives

The greatest threat to Hitler’s survival during the early years of the Third Reich came from the SA, a huge and powerful organization within the Nazi Party, around 3½ million strong, led by its Chief of Staff, Ernst Rohm. [The SA (Sturmabteilung), literally Storm Detachment/Assault Division, functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). Also known as the “Brownshirts” and “Storm Troopers”.] The SA was largely responsible for putting Hitler into power, but now in power, things changed. If he was to succeed in implementing his programs, Hitler now needed the support of the industrial and military leaders. The German General Staff despised and detested the SA. The Industrialists who had financed Hitler, also detested the SA and saw them as a dangerous bunch of hooligans. Rohm had made matters worse for himself by indiscreet remarks about absorbing the German army into the SA with himself as the commander. The SA was at that time much larger than the Army. This further set the General Staff’s teeth on edge.

Several of the SA leaders, including Rohm, had also been vocal about their socialistic, anti-capitalist sentiments, which neither Hitler, the industrialists nor the army approved of. The SA Brown Shirts were also not very popular with the average Germany citizen because of their gangster-like, thuggish behavior. Critical and derisive remarks made indiscreetly by Rohm about Hitler, personally, also got out. Rohm began to be seen as a “loose cannon” whose loyalty could no longer be trusted, and who might even be a threat to Hitler’s leadership. General von Bloomberg and President Paul von Hindenburg advised Hitler that he had to do something about Rohm and the SA or they would no longer be able to support him. The industrialists were telling him the same thing. Both Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler had already been warning Hitler of a possible coup by Rohm’s SA against Hitler, himself. Hitler finally decided that he had to act against Rohm and the SA.

Hitler began by ordering all the SA leaders to attend a meeting in the Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Wiesse. There was no explanation of what the meeting was about. Meanwhile Goering and Himmler were drawing up a list of political enemies outside the SA whom they wanted eliminated. On June 29, 1934, Hitler, accompanied by the SS, arrived at Wiesse where he personally arrested Ernst Rohm. During the next 24 hours 200 other senior SA officers were arrested on their way to Wiesse.

[Add. image — Hanselbauer Hotel in the city of Bad Wiessee where Rohm was arrested.]

Several were shot as soon as they were captured but others were taken into custody for further consideration. Hitler personally liked Rohm and decided to pardon him because of his past services to the Nazi movement, but both Goering and Himmler argued against it, advising Hitler that he was making a dangerous mistake. Hitler finally relented and decided that Rohm must die, but insisted that he be given the chance to commit suicide. When Rohm refused, he was shot by two SS men.

Chief of the SA, Ernst Rohm

All together, around 77 of these “unreliables,” including Rohm, were “officially” shot, putting an end to all opposition to Hitler and the National Socialists. Unofficial estimates of the number executed range much higher, however. In a speech following the executions, Hitler explained his actions to the German people.

“In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason.”

The Night of the Long Knives was a turning point in the Nazi regime, making Hitler the supreme, unchallenged ruler of Germany.

An article in the Daily Mail of London was full of praise for Hitler’s actions.

“Herr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor, has saved his country. Swiftly and with exorable severity, he has delivered Germany from men who had become a danger to the unity of the German people and to the order of the state. With lightening rapidity he has caused them to be removed from high office, to be arrested, and put to death.

The names of the men who have been shot by his orders are already known. Hitler’s love of Germany has triumphed over private friendships and fidelity to comrades who had stood shoulder to shoulder with him in the fight for Germany’s future.”

Daily Mail, London, July 2nd 1934.

Victor Lutze was appointed to head the SA in Rohm’s place. Under Lutze, the SA gradually dwindled and lost its power as the SS under Himmler grew rapidly to take its place as the dominant force in Germany.

[Add. image — SA-Stabschef Viktor Lutze (28 December 1890 – 2 May 1943) was the commander of the SA, succeeding Ernst Röhm as Stabschef. He died from injuries received in a car accident. Lutze was given an elaborate state funeral in Berlin on 7 May 1943.]

On August 2, 1934, President von Hindenburg died and Hitler took over the office of President and thereby became Commander in Chief of the army. Hitler, thereafter called himself the “Fuhrer,” or leader.

On August 19, 1934, an election, called a “plebiscite,” was held in which the German people could express either their approval or disapproval of Hitler and his regime. About 95 percent of registered voters went to the polls, and 90% of them voted for Hitler. The election was internationally supervised, and by all accounts, was a fair and open election without voter intimidation of any kind. Hitler now had the overwhelming support of the German people.

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

The Nazis held their annual rally at Nuremberg in September, 1934, just two weeks after the plebiscite, during which the Fuhrer’s grand proclamation was read:

“The German form of life is definitely determined for the next thousand years. The Age of Nerves of the nineteenth century has found its close with us. There will be no revolution in Germany for the next thousand years.”

The Jewish American journalist William L. Shirer (“Inside the Third Reich”) attended the rally to see what Nazi pomp and pageantry was all about. He wrote:

“I am beginning to comprehend some of the reasons for Hitler’s astounding success. Borrowing a chapter from the Roman Catholic Church, he is restoring pageantry and color and mysticism to the drab lives of 20th century Germans. This morning’s opening meeting…was more than a gorgeous show; it also had something of the mysticism and religious fervor of an Easter or Christmas Mass in a great Gothic cathedral. The hall was a sea of brightly colored flags. Even Hitler’s arrival was made dramatic. The band stopped playing. There was a hush over the thirty thousand people packed in the hall. Then the band struck up the Badenweiler March, … Hitler appeared in the back of the auditorium and followed by his aides, Goring, Goebbels, Hess, Himmler and the others, he slowly strode down the long center aisle while thirty thousand hands were raised in salute.”

To Shirer, the intoxicating atmosphere inside the hall was such that;

“every word dropped by Hitler seemed like an inspired word from on high.”

The 1934 Nazi rally at Nuremberg during which Hitler proclaimed the “thousand year Reich.”

In his speech before the Nuremberg Rally, Hitler absolved the SA Brown shirts from any complicity in the events precipitating the blood purge (Night of the Long Knives) which had just occurred, and acknowledged their unwavering loyalty to him and the party. The 50,000 Brown shirts assembled for the occasion responded with a full throated chorus of “Seig Heils.” There was no longer any question of SA loyalty.

The Nuremberg Rally was held annually in the month of September until 1938 when it was suspended. The Rallies were intended to show the world a German nation-state in lock step with its leader and his ideology. They also energized the nationalistic pride of the German people. Hitler obtained the services of the German film actress and director, Leni Riefenstahl, to make a documentary of the 1934 Nuremberg rally.

Mass gymnastics at the Nuremburg Rally during “Day of Community.” Hitler and the National Socialists promoted unity, discipline, health and vigor for the German “volk.” [Adolf Hitler watched the huge demonstrations given on the Zeppelin Field, Sep 8, 1938.]

Leni Riefenstahl had made a name for herself in the German film industry by appearing in a series of so-called mountain films directed by Arnold Franck. In these films, she played the part of a prototypically fit and healthy German girl with a properly Aryan face. This film genre would soon become associated with the nationalistic aspirations of the emerging Nazi party. She went on, in 1932, to write, direct and perform in her own mountain film, “The Blue Light.”

Hitler with Leni Riefenstahl at Nuremberg

Despite her lack of experience, the film was remarkably sophisticated in its visual effects. In the whiteness of its snow and the robust Teutonic energy of its heroines, The Blue Light was a celebration of the spirit and vitality of the Aryan Volk, a theme which was central to Nazi ideology.

It was no accident that Riefenstahl was hand-picked by Hitler to direct a series of documentary films that would cast National Socialism in a favorable light. The first and most influential of these films was Triumph of the Will, which was shot in commemoration of the 1934 rally at Nuremberg. This film has been called the most dazzling and successful propaganda film ever made.

Hitler Revives the German Economy

In a very short period of time, Hitler engineered what was and remains probably the greatest economic turnaround in history. People went from starving to full employment, and became so prosperous that ordinary workers were given vacations abroad, paid for by the German Labor Front, the government’s labor organization. Germany went from hopelessly bankrupt to massively restoring, and even expanding, its infrastructure. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another. General Eisenhower was so impressed by the German Autobahn system that when he became president years later, he initiated the superhighway system for American ― a direct replication of the German Autobahns. Hitler also pursued a policy of “autarky,” meaning, national “self sufficiency.” That is, Germany would limit imports and produce its own consumer goods, in so far as possible. Hitler transformed Germany from a seemingly irreversible deep depression into the most vibrant economy in Europe.

The Volkswagen (people’s car) begins mass production.

Hitler’s government had reduced unemployment from 6,014,000 in January 1933, when he became Chancellor, to less than 338,000 by September 1936. At the same time, wages also dramatically increased. German trade was prospering, and deficits of the cities and provinces had almost disappeared. Contrary to official historiography, expenditures for armaments had been minor up to this point, and played no part in Germany’s economic recovery. That came later.

Unemployment was eliminated at first, primarily by increased government spending on public works. Germany’s basic infrastructure, such as railways, roads, and public building projects, were improved and expanded. There was also indirect government support to private works projects. At the same time, taxes were sharply reduced to create an incentive for hiring more workers. The effect was an injection of increased wages into the national economy, followed by increased consumer spending, which itself led to job increases. Hitler’s policy of “autarky” (national self-sufficiency) had the effect of creating “wealth creating” jobs in manufacturing which was necessary to sustain long term economic growth. By 1936 there was a labor shortage, especially in the building and metallurgical trades.

[Add. image — Charles Lindbergh in Germany, inspecting German aviation.]

Charles Lindbergh and his wife Anne Morrow Lindbergh travelled widely in Germany at this time. In his book Autobiography of Values, Charles Lindbergh wrote:

“The organized vitality of Germany was what most impressed me: the unceasing activity of the people, and the convinced dictatorial direction to create the new factories, airfields, and research laboratories…”

His wife drew similar conclusions.

“… have never in my life been so conscious of such a directed force. It is thrilling when seen manifested in the energy, pride, and morale of the people―especially the young people,” she wrote in “The Flower and the Nettle.”

To counter the effects of the international Jewish boycott of Germany, including the financial strangulation, Hitler simply went around the international bankers by creating a new currency issued by the German government instead of borrowing it from the Jewish owned central bank. This new currency was not backed by gold, but by the credibility of the German government. The new mark was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said:

“For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.”

The government paid workers in these new marks and the workers spent them on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed upon them by the international bankers (read, Jewish bankers). Within two years Germany was back on her feet again. It had a solid, stable currency with no debt and no inflation.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany and despite the global boycott by Jewish owned industries and shipping. Germany got around the boycott and the capital strangulation by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries using a barter system that cut the bankers completely out of the loop. The Jewish boycott actually boomeranged. While Germany flourished ― because barter eliminates national debt, interest on the debt, and trade deficits ― Jewish financiers were deprived of the money they would have earned on these activities. This, of course, only intensified international Jewry’s determination to undermine and destroy the Nazi regime.

“Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full employment public works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times — May 24, 2005)

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular

Leader in the World

The German economic miracle did not escape the notice of foreign leaders who heaped praise on Hitler at every opportunity. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain wrote:

“I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has affected. Whatever one may think of his methods ― and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook.”

“He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany.”

“It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war ― broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.”

“There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.”

“One man [Hitler] has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart.”

“He is not merely in name but in fact the national Leader. He has made them safe against potential enemies by whom they were surrounded. He is also securing them against the constant dread of starvation which is one of the most poignant memories of the last years of the War and the first years of the Peace. Over 700,000 died of sheer hunger in those dark years. You can still see the effect in the physique of those who were born into that bleak world.”

“The fact that Hitler has rescued his country from the fear of repetition of that period of despair, penury and humiliation has given him an unchallenged authority in modern Germany.”

“As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondence and degradation.”

“To those who have actually seen and sensed the way Hitler reigns over the heart and mind of Germany, this description may appear extravagant. All the same it is the bare truth. This great people will work better, sacrifice more, and, if necessary, fight with greater resolution because Hitler asks them to do so. Those who do not comprehend this central fact cannot judge the present possibilities of modern Germany.”

“That impression more than anything I witnessed during my short visit to the new Germany. There was a revivalist atmosphere. It had an extraordinary effect in unifying the nation.”

“Catholic and Protestant, Prussian and Bavarian, employer and workman, rich and poor, have been consolidated into one people. Religious, provincial and class origins no longer divide the nation. There is a passion for unity born of dire necessity.”

“The divisions, which followed the collapse of 1918, made Germany impotent to face the problems, internal and external. That is why the clash of rival passions is not only deprecated but temporarily suppressed.”

“I found everywhere a fierce and uncompromising hostility to Russian Bolshevism, coupled with a genuine admiration for the British people with a profound desire for a better and friendlier understanding of them. The Germans have definitely made up their minds never to quarrel with us again, nor have they any vindictive feelings towards the French. They have altogether put out of their minds any desire for the restoration of Alsace-Lorraine.”

“But there is a real hatred and fear of Russian Bolshevism, and unfortunately it is growing in intensity. It constitutes the driving force of their international and military policy. Their private and public talk is full of it. Wherever you go you need not wait long before you hear the word ‘Bolshevism’, and it recurs again and again with a wearying reiteration.”

“Their eyes are concentrated on the East as if they are watching intently for the breaking of the day of wrath. Against it they are preparing with German thoroughness.”

“This fear is not put on. High and low they are convinced there is every reason for apprehension. They have a dread of the great army, that has been built up in Russia in recent years.”

“An exceptionally violent anti-German campaign of abuse printed in the Russian official Press and propelled by the official Moscow radio has revived the suspicion in Germany that the Soviet Government are contemplating mischief.” ― David Lloyd George, Daily Express, 9/17/1936

Winston Churchill, who would later become Hitler’s most obstinate enemy when German economic power began to again challenge that of Great Britain, had this to say in 1935 ― (before he became the front man for the Jewish Focus Group):

“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he [Hitler] has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War… the vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished … whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”

“… and the achievement by which the tables have been turned upon the complacent, feckless and purblind victors deserves to be reckoned a prodigy in the history of the world and a prodigy which is inseparable from the personal exertions of life thrust on a single man …”

“Those who have met Hitler face to face in public, business, or on social terms, have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed functionary with an agreeable manner, a discerning smile and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.”

“Nor is this impression merely the dazzle of power. He exerted it on his companions at every stage in his struggle, even when his fortunes were in the lowest depths …”

“One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” ― Winston Churchill, 1935

Douglas Reed, British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of many books about Europe between the wars and after World War Two provided the following observation about the economic transformation of Germany under Hitler:

“Germans in their country are not less well cared for than the English people in theirs, but better. You are faced with a country immensely strong in arms and immensely strong in real wealth ― not in gold bars in a vault of the national bank, but industry, agriculture, the thrift and energy of the work people, and the conditions of life they enjoy.”

“In Germany now they have a mighty organization, equipped with full powers, for improving the lot of the work people in factories and workshops. Their engineers and social workers and artists go into the factories and see what needs to be done. They say that a shower room, recreation room, a restaurant, a medical clinic, a dental clinic is needed and these are provided. They have a civic sense, a social conscience, a feeling of the community of German mankind ― in spite of the bestial concentration camps ― which you lack.”

John L Garvin, editor of the London Sunday paper, “The Observer,” wrote:

“Last May, I returned, bringing my family for another sojourn, after two years spent in other European countries. I found a Germany which has advanced miraculously from the point of 1933. I found political solidarity, a wholesome tone in the life of city dweller and country dweller alike.”

“I found living costs materially reduced and an unmistakable optimism on every hand. In every quarter I found the same answer to my questioning: Profound belief in the genius of the Leader, love and admiration for him as an individual. My observations have covered a wide range of social classification.”

“I have talked with the humblest type of laborers, with merchants, professional men. I have yet to discover a dissenting voice to the question of loyalty to the Fuehrer. My two young daughters are attending German public schools and are receiving an education which in thoroughness could be equaled in few countries.”

And this from Lord Lothian, British Ambassador to Washington, written June 29, 1937:

“I think that it must be admitted that National Socialism has done a great deal for Germany. It has undoubtedly cleaned up Germany in the ordinary moral sense of the word. The defeatism, the corruption so manifest a characteristic in the days after the war has disappeared, at any rate from public view. It has given discipline and order and a sense of purpose to the great majority of young people who in earlier days did not know where to go or what they were living for.”

In an article which appeared in the New York Times on July 12, 1935, John H. Holmes, Pastor of Community Church wrote:

“The spectacle of Germany today is a tremendous experience. Fifteen years after the war in which the allied powers thought they had destroyed her, Germany is on her feet again. As compared with 1922 and 1931, when I last saw Germany, the change is miraculous. The people are confident, enthusiastic and courageous. They have recovered their morale. In 1931 the German people were going to pieces. But now they are themselves again, no doubt about that! The masses of the people are increasingly with Hitler. I have been fooling myself all along that this was not so, but now I know it is so.”

In his book, Defense of Germany, British scholar G.E.O. Knight wrote:

“Last July, feeling that the Press of this country was willfully lying and conducting a political campaign against Germany, I resolved to go to Berlin and make free and independent investigation. I was determined to do pretty much as I pleased when I got there, and no one interfered with my movements.

I found Germany, comparatively speaking, a free country, much freer than some of its neighbors. My own views were not always acceptable to my many friends, among whom I can count Jews and Gentiles, Nazis and Communists, Democrats and Socialists. Soon I found that being a Nazi does not preclude one holding views that few Labor men in my own country would dare to express to their ‘comrades’ of the national Labor Party.”

The general improvement in the standard of living of the German people under Hitler’s regime put Germany well ahead of all other nations at that time, including the United States. The Nazi regime implemented a viable social security program for retirement. The working conditions were drastically improved, and the German people were provided opportunities for leisure and recreation after work. The same level of prosperity and social benefits for all its citizens have rarely been achieved anywhere in the world, either before or since then.

German society under Nazi rule was also very democratic, with regular elections of representatives to a legislature. It was not democratic in the same sense as in the United States today. The German form of democracy, as an expression of the popular will, was assured by the right to organize plebiscites to express the desires of the people.

“The result of the revolution [National Socialist revolution] in Germany has been to establish a democracy in the best sense of the word. We are steering towards an order of things guaranteeing a process of a natural and reasonable selection in the domain of political leadership, thanks to which that leadership will be entrusted to the most competent, irrespective of their descent, name or fortune. The memorable words of the great Corsican [Napoleon] that every soldier carries a Field Marshal’s baton in his knapsack, will find its political complement in Germany.” ― Adolf Hitler

“In England, under democracy, you do not put experts in charge of your affairs, but distribute favors among men of a small class without especial qualification for the posts they receive. This is the misuse of democracy in the interest of class, the betrayal of democracy, and it is the cause of our woes, past, present and to come.” ― Douglas Reed, in “Disgrace Abounding”

“What the German nation has ardently desired for centuries is henceforth a reality; one single, fraternally united people, liberated from the mutual prejudices and hindrances of past times.” ― Adolf Hitler

“The will of the people is the will of the government, and vice versa. The new political structure raised in Germany is a kind of ennobled democracy; i.e., the government derives its authority from the people, but the possibility of misinterpreting the peoples will or of sterilizing it by the intervention of parliamentary methods has been eliminated altogether.” ― Dr. Joseph Goebbels

“The movement was consolidated together in one Reich a people who were hitherto kept in disunion but various lines of division… religious divisions, class divisions, professional divisions, political divisions and the territorial divisions into the various autonomous federal states. This unification is now an historical fact. Nationalism has founded a genuine folk community.”

“Formerly the votes of the people were distributed among several political parties. Eventually the number of these parties came to thirty-six. They had no great common platform to offer to a people who were struggling to live. They carried on their political campaigns against one another in a quarrel over paltry and selfish issues.”

“Today the people of Germany vote for one leader and one party in a consolidated unity that has never before been dreamed of. Following the disappearance of the political parties, which fought only for their own ends and kept the nation divided, great and common vital problems were presented to the people so that they might understand which ideals were worth striving for and for which sacrifices would have to be made. The whole of Germany was aroused to struggle for these great questions which are of vital importance to a nation’s existence.” ― Rudolf Hess

“The parliamentary principle of decision by majorities only appears during quite short periods of history, and those are always periods of decadence in nations and States.” ― Adolf Hitler

“… Hitler has repeatedly taken the opportunity of consulting the nation and has each time obtained its wholehearted approval of his policy and methods of government.” ― Cesare Santoro, “Hitler Germany, Vivisection”

“I myself was and still am a child of the people. It was not for the capitalists that I undertook this struggle; it was for the German working man that I took my stand.” ― Adolf Hitler

The following photos show Hitler interacting with the German people, especially children. Hitler is the most popular national leader in the world at this time.

Contrary to the propaganda, Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian believer. Here, he is photographed leaving the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.

It has been made out by those whose intent was to slander and smear Hitler that he was an atheist, an occultist, that he believed in astrology, that he engaged in pagan ritualism, etc., ad nauseam. The History Channel is currently running a documentary asserting these very absurdities. But this is how Hitler described his beliefs in Mein Kampf.

“First, I believe in Almighty God… and I solemnly declare that Almighty God has chosen me for this task.” He said further, “We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity – but not only in theory.”

Hitler saw Christianity as an essential cultural institution for Germany:

“The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See [The Pope]. The national government regards the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality. The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions.” ― Adolf Hitler

In numerous utterances by Adolf Hitler and about Adolf Hitler, he hardly comes across in the way he was described above. In his 25 Point Speech of 1920 (point 24), Hitler said:

“The Party as such advocates a positive Christianity without binding itself to any particular church.”

“In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come, He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that he may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.” ― From a speech by Adolf Hitler.

“I believe in the Holy German people inside and outside the German frontiers. I believe in Adolf Hitler, who by the grace of God, was sent to give the German people faith in themselves once more.” ― German Faith Movement.

“Adolf Hitler gave us back our faith. He showed us the true meaning of religion. He has come to renew for us the faith of our fathers and to make us new and better beings… just as Jesus Christ made his twelve apostles into a faithful band to the martyr’s death whose faith shook the Roman Empire, so now we witness the same spectacle again. Adolf Hitler is the true Holy Ghost.” ― Hanns Kerrl. German Minister for German Affairs.

It was international Jewish propaganda that made Hitler out to be an atheistic, murderous monster. His Nazi regime did not persecute the German people, nor deprive them of their rights. On the contrary, as can be seen by the statements and comments of world leaders at that time, Hitler devoted his life and all his energies toward improving the lot of his German people, and the German people responded with an outpouring of love and devotion for their Fuhrer rarely seen in history. The police actions of his regime were directed against the enemies of the German people, which included the Communists and other Leftist organizations whose members were generally not ethnic Germans. Both Hitler and the German people saw what the Jews in Russia had done to that country, and knew that they intended to do the same to Germany if they ever got the chance. Hitler had these leftist revolutionaries rounded up and locked away to make sure they never got the chance. That the vast majority of these people were Jews was only coincidental. They were locked away because they were Communists and revolutionaries, and therefore a dire threat to Germany. Judging by what they did in Hungary, Italy and Spain, he had every justification for his actions.

The international Jewish press blew these events all out of proportion and accused the Nazi regime of “persecuting” the Jews in Germany for no reason except that they were Jews. They repeatedly and relentlessly accused the Nazi regime of the intent to “exterminate” the Jews, beginning with the Untermeyer Speech in New York in 1933. That simply was not true. Most Jews lived unmolested in Germany right up until the beginning of World War II, and a great many lived unmolested in Germany right through the war. It was the Communists, who happened to be Jews, who were harshly dealt with. A number of German Army officers, including a couple of field marshals, Field Marshal Erhard Milch, for example, were Jewish. Milch oversaw the development of the Luftwaffe.

At the same time that the comments and observations of statesmen, historians and journalists presented above in this chapter were being made describing Germany as a land of happy, prosperous people with a benign government dedicated to their well being, international Jewry continued its virulent anti-German propaganda campaign portraying Germany as a charnel house of repression, brutality, and murder. In March, 1935 the National Council of Jewish Women in New York City proclaimed Hitler a “world menace.” At precisely the same time in Germany, Julius Streicher, publisher of “Der Sturmer” newspaper, was comparing Hitler to Jesus Christ. A professor Hauser made the news by declaring that God had revealed himself to Germany through Hitler, and Dr. Reinhardt Krause declared that Hitler alone had “God’s order” for the Germany nation. The National Socialists claimed that the international hostility toward Hitler was entirely Jewish inspired. While the German people adored Hitler and saw him as the savior of Germany, many outside Germany had been conditioned by Jewish anti-German propaganda to regarded him as a menace to mankind.

Hitler had been elected in large part on his promise to reclaim territories taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and to create a single German state to include all German people. British, French and Soviet leaders refused to recognize Germany’s aims as legitimate, but chose instead to regard Hitler’s revanchist goals as international aggression.

Representatives of Britain, France and Italy met at an Italian village (Stresa) on April 11, 1935 to reaffirm their opposition to Germany absorbing Austria or the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Hitler denounced these reaffirmations as hostile to Germany, declaring that his aims were legitimate and that Germany did not want another war. He spoke of the absurdity of war and of the “follies” of the past. Wars of revenge, he said, were out of date. “A deliberate maker of war may have been a patriot in the old days,” he said, “but today such a person would be a traitor.” “We are not imperialists,” he added, and said that all the German people wanted was “equal rights for all,” and its honor restored.

All the German people wanted, he said, was to be treated like everyone else, and among other things, that meant the return of German territory.

Despite the dogged anti-German propaganda, there remained support for Hitler’s aims from reflective, thoughtful men. On June 6, 1935, Britain’s leading cleric, the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressed sympathy for Germany’s position among nations, declaring that Germany;

“… must be recognized as a nation entitled to an equal place among other nations.”

Yet, the average American or Englishman was made to believe that Germany was a world menace and should be controlled and held in check. They were made to believe through the Jewish controlled media that Germany was an evil, brutish country with an oppressive, totalitarian government that kept a terrified population under strict control with secret police forces and concentration camps. Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The “holy war” declared on Germany by international Jewry continued relentlessly, and the propaganda campaign of deliberate lies, smears and misrepresentations was succeeding in turning the world against Germany. The contrast between life inside Germany as it actually was, and the way in which it was depicted in the International Jewish press could not have been greater.

Following is a series of photographs taken during the Nazi period showing the Germans to be a clean-cut, handsome, intelligent and civilized people, not unlike those of any other European country at the time.

This was the real face of Germany during the Nazi period

A German army officer and a soldier (above). A young soldier (below left) and a young German officer (below right).

A German Officer and his dog

Young men of the “Hitler Youth” Movement (like the Boy Scouts).

Young women of the Nazi Youth Movement (Girls’ equivalent of the boys’ Hitler Youth).

More German Youth Movement Girls

German farm girl, 1930s. German city boy of the 1930s

A 1930s German street (before it was bombed)

German public swimming pool ― 1930s

Strolling the children.

An elegant German couple of the 1930s.

Below is the face of Germany as depicted in Jewish propaganda.

“Propaganda” Nazis

[END of Part 13]

______________________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 11,782

* Total pages = 75

*Total images = 46

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

div>

Click to download a PDF of this post (11.0 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 6: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 5: May 5, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 4: Apr 9, 2020 — Added updated links to other parts.

Version 3: Dec 26, 2016 — Added 2 additional images. Added my introductory summary. Added PDF for download.

Version 2: Dec 25, 2016 — Added missing images.

Version 1: Dec 24, 2016 — Created post.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 02 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

admin — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 05:11:13 +0000

[Part 02]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 02, the events surrounding the end of World War 1 are described. How after the armistice was implemented Germany was forced, under the threat of continuing starvation, brought about the British naval blockade, to sign the outrageously harsh and unjust Versailles Treaty that imposed crippling terms and conditions. Also outlined is the history of the causes of the war and how America’s involvement under jewish pressure ensured disaster for Europe and “precipitated an irreversible decline in Western Civilization” — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

Introduction

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair? Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 2 Aftermath of the War in Germany

Introduction

top

The long stalemate which World War I became would most likely have ended in a negotiated peace with no winner and no loser if the United States had stayed out of it. But the combined weight of British, French and American armies in October, 1918 was more than the Central Powers could withstand, and one after another began to seek a way to pull out of the war. Bulgaria signed an armistice on September 29, Turkey at the end of October, and Austria/Hungary signed on November 3.

Stalemate — 1918

The British starvation blockade of Germany was taking a terrible toll, which eventually caused Germany to begin to crumble from within. Faced with the prospect of putting to sea to fight the British blockade, the sailors of the German High Seas Fleet stationed at Kiel mutinied on October 29. They had been persuaded by agitators that such an attack would be a suicide mission. Within a few days the entire city of Kiel was under their control and the revolution then spread throughout the country. On November 9 the Kaiser abdicated and slipped across the border into exile in the Netherlands. A German “republic” was declared to replace the monarchy and peace feelers were then extended to the Allies. At 5 A.M. on the morning of November 11, 1918 an armistice between Germany and the Allies was signed in a railway car parked in a French forest near the front lines. At 11 A.M. that same day, the armistice became effective. After more than four years of bloody fighting, the Great War had come to an end.

Peace comes at last with the Armistice of 11/11/1918 [at 11:00 am]

But what had it all been for? No combatant nation gained from it, at least nothing remotely worth the sacrifices made. The accumulated wealth of Europe, the result of decades of peace, was completely dissipated and replaced by crushing national debt. The war had been a horrific experience unlike anything Europeans had ever experienced before, leaving them psychologically, economically and politically devastated. Before the war, all of Europe had come to believe that a steady, continuing improvement in the conditions of life was the inexorable trend of history. That generalized belief was replaced by a feeling of pessimism and cynicism. There was the feeling that Europe had been profoundly and permanently damaged, a feeling that turned out to be highly prescient, in retrospect. Ancient empires — the Austro/Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the German Empire — crumbled as a result of the war. These empires had been the source of political and social stability, and now chaos reigned throughout Europe. The Paris Peace Conference after the war did a very imperfect job of putting it all back together again. It is clear from the perspective of today that World War I precipitated an irreversible decline in Western Civilization.

In addition to these adverse psychological and political consequences, there was also a considerable amount of physical destruction. Vast areas of northeastern France had been reduced to rubble. Flanders in Belgium had been all but destroyed, and the ancient city of Ypres was completely devastated. The homes of 750,000 French people had been destroyed and the infrastructure of the entire region had been severely damaged. Roads, coal mines and telegraph poles had been destroyed, greatly hindering the area’s ability to recover and begin to function normally again.

[Add. image — Ypres, Belgium. Soldiers of the Australian 2nd Division clear a road in the devastated town of Ypres in October, 1917. Behind them lies the shell-blasted ruins of Ypres’s Cloth Hall.]

But all of that was insignificant compared to the massive, industrialized slaughter of human beings. Nearly every family in Europe had lost a family member, if not a father, son, brother or husband, then a cousin of one degree or another. All combatant countries suffered casualties never experienced before in all of history. The British, for example, suffered 50,000 casualties in a single afternoon at the Battle of Passchendaele, and 350,000 casualties before the battle finally ended. The battle ended with no ground gained and no ground lost. The entire trench war was characterized by mass suicidal attacks against entrenched machine guns, and by massive artillery barrages which blew their targets to smithereens. This was mechanized, industrial death. Nothing on this scale had ever happened before. The scale of the slaughter can be appreciated by the lists presented below.

Allied Casualties:

Britain: 885,000 soldiers killed; 1,663,000 wounded

France: 1,400,000 soldiers killed; 2,500,000 wounded

Belgium: 50,000 soldiers killed; 45,000 wounded

Italy: 651,000 soldiers killed; 954,000 wounded

Russia: 1,811,000 soldiers killed; 5,000,000 wounded

America: 117,000 soldiers killed; 206,000 wounded

Central Powers Casualties:

Germany: 2,037,000 soldiers killed; 4,250,000 wounded

Austria/Hungary: 1,200,000 soldiers killed; 3,600,000 wounded

Turkey: 800,000 soldiers killed; 400,000 wounded

Bulgaria: 100,000 soldiers killed; 152,000 wounded

The number of soldiers killed on all sides totaled 9.7 million with 21 million wounded. Of the wounded, millions were maimed for life and unable to work. Nearly 7 million civilians on all sides lost their lives.

The Versailles Treaty

top

The lurid anti-German propaganda campaign conducted by Britain and America throughout the war had created such hatred for the Germans that a harsh peace was virtually inevitable. Germany, rightly or wrongly, was to be held accountable for the war, including all the death and destruction resulting from it, and Germany would be required to pay for all of it. As if the war itself were not enough, during mid-1918, Europe was hit by Spanish flu, causing the deaths of an estimated 25 million more Europeans. That comes to some 41 million Europeans who died from all causes during the war — a sizable percentage of the European population. Death on this scale had not occurred in Europe since the “black plague” of the Middle Ages. This added to the feeling of bitterness and gloom that ran through Europe and this anger was primarily directed at the hated and despised Germans — hated and despised as the result of the anti-German propaganda. Europe wanted to punish Germany and would do so with the Versailles Treaty.

The terms of the treaty, as finally hammered out by the victors of the war — Britain, France and the United States — were harsh by any standard. The idealistic President Woodrow Wilson had presented his “Fourteen Points” as the basis for a fair and just peace settlement but they were mostly ignored after the armistice was signed, especially by the French. The French had no interest in a “just” peace. What the French wanted was revenge!…that, and their two provinces back. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine had been taken from France by the Victorious Prussians after the Franco/Prussian War of 1871. French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau considered Wilson sanctimonious and naïve, and privately ridiculed his Fourteen Points. He sneered that “God almighty only had ten.”

Basically the terms of the Versailles Treaty were as follows: 28,000 Sq. miles [approximately 10-15%?] of Germany’s territory and 6.5 million of her people were handed over to other countries. Alsace-Lorraine went to France; Eupen and Malmedy were given to Belgium; Northern Schleswig went to Denmark; Hultschin to Czechoslovakia; West Prussia, Posen, Upper Silesia and Danzig went to Poland (Danzig was placed under Polish management but was designated a “free city” under League of Nations supervision); Memel to Lithuania; and the Saar, Germany’s industrial heartland, was put under the control of the League of Nations. All of Germany’s overseas colonies were taken away.

Severe military limitations were imposed. Germany’s army was reduced to 100,000 men, and was not allowed to have tanks or armored cars. Germany was not allowed an air force, and was allowed to have only 6 capital naval ships and no submarines. The west of the Rhineland and 50 kilometers (31 miles) east of the Rhine River was made into a demilitarized zone. No German soldier or weapon was allowed into this zone. The Allies (meaning Britain and France) were to keep an army of occupation on the west bank of the Rhine for 15 years.

Financial penalties were equally severe. The loss of vital industrial territory would impede all attempts by Germany to rebuild her economy. Coal from the Saar and Upper Silesia in particular was a vital economic loss. The coal went to France and England. Germany’s richest farmland was given to Poland. Reparations were to be paid to the Allies in an amount to be decided by the Allies at a later time. It seemed clear to Germany that the Allies intended to bankrupt the country.

Germany was also forbidden to unite with Austria to form one large German state (even though both Germany and Austria wanted it), in an attempt to keep her economic potential to a minimum.

General terms of the treaty included three vital clauses:

1. Germany had to admit full responsibility for starting the war (The War Guilt clause – Clause 231).

2. Germany was thereby responsible for all the damage caused by the war, and was therefore required to pay reparations, the bulk of which was to go to France and Belgium. The amount of reparations was not set at Versailles, but was to be determined later. In other words, Germany was to sign a blank check which the Allies would cash when it suited them in whatever amount they decided. The amount was eventually put at $33 billion (in 1919 dollars).

3. A League of Nations was set up to keep world peace, though Germany was not allowed in as a member.

After agreeing to the Armistice in November, 1918, the Germans believed that the peace treaty to follow would be based on President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” which would have ensured a fair and just peace, and that they would participate in drawing up the peace treaty. They had, in fact, signed the Armistice and laid down their arms with that understanding. Instead, the treaty was drawn up without German participation and then handed to them as a diktat, which the Germans were required to sign without discussion. The term “armistice” is generally understood to mean, “a cessation of hostilities while a peace treaty is worked out.” That is what Germany signed onto, but the Allies treated Germany as a defeated foe instead. According to the accepted meaning of an armistice, Germany should have had full participation in the peace conference.

The German delegation at Versailles. They were forced to sign the Treaty.

The German delegation was astonished at the harshness of the treaty. They were particularly offended by the charge that Germany had started the war. In the minds of Germans, Germany had been fighting a defensive war imposed upon her by Russia and France, and soon afterwards by Britain. The way Germany saw it, France and Russia started the war. The officer sent to sign the Versailles Treaty refused to do so. “To say such a thing would be a lie,” he said. The German Chancellor Phillip Scheidemann resigned rather than accept the treaty, saying, “May the hand wither that signs this treaty.” He characterized the terms of the treaty as “unbearable, unrealizable and unacceptable,” and proclaimed that the treaty would make the German people “slaves and helots.”

The German people were both shocked and outraged over the terms of the treaty. As a symbolic protest against it, all forms of public entertainment throughout Germany were suspended for a week. Flags across the country were lowered to half mast. Some wanted to start the war again, but Germany’s leaders knew that that was impossible. There was nothing they could do. The German army had disintegrated and gone home after the Armistice was signed and Britain was maintaining a starvation blockade around Germany, letting nothing in and nothing out, causing the deaths of thousands of German civilians every day. Britain declared that the blockade would be maintained until the German representatives signed the treaty. Finally, Britain and France gave the Germans an ultimatum. Sign the treaty within four days or be invaded. The British and French armies were still intact. A German representative finally signed the treaty in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles on June 28, 1919. (He was later assassinated under mysterious circumstances; no doubt the result of having signed the treaty.)

The Treaty was signed, but only reluctantly, and without the slightest intention of actually cooperating in its imposition. In the words of the British historian, AJP Taylor, in his book, The History of the First World War (1963):

“Though the Germans accepted the treaty in the formal sense of agreeing to sign it, none took the signature seriously. The treaty seemed to them to be wicked, unfair, dictation, a slave treaty. All Germans intended to repudiate it at some time in the future, if it did not fall to pieces of its own absurdity.”

In one last gesture of defiance, after the treaty was signed, the captured German naval ships held at Scapa Flow were scuttled by their crews.

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

top

The German economy was the most powerful in Europe going into the war, but like all the other combatant countries (except the United States), Germany was bankrupt by the end of it. Reconstructing her ruined economy after the war would have been a daunting task under the best of circumstances, but it was made doubly hard by the crushing impact of the Versailles treaty. Under the treaty Germany was forced to pay exorbitant reparations payments to the victorious powers at the same time that her ability to do so was drastically reduced by other terms of the treaty. Under the treaty, Germany lost 13 percent of her territory, 10 percent of her population, 25 percent of her potato and wheat production, 80 percent of iron ore, 68 percent of zinc ore, 33 percent of coal production, the entire Alsatian potash and textile industries, and the communications system built around Alsace-Lorraine and Upper Silesia. Her entire merchant fleet was confiscated along with numerous shipping facilities. Moreover, for 5 years, Germany’s shipyards were required to produce ships to be given to the victorious powers. She was also required to surrender 5,000 locomotives, 150,000 railway cars and 10,000 trucks. All German property abroad was confiscated.

Map showing German territory taken by the Versailles Treaty. The dark or shaded areas were taken from Germany.

Because of Germany’s weakened state the reparations payments demanded by the victorious powers were completely beyond her ability to pay. The confiscation of Germany’s coal mines was particularly devastating because the resultant coal shortage severely limited industrial production. Her agricultural production was also drastically reduced because she had no merchant fleet with which to import the phosphates necessary to produce fertilizers. She could not import other necessary raw materials because her colonies had been taken away as well as her merchant fleet. This caused factories to shut down resulting in increased unemployment. All those who had previously worked in shipping and trade were also now unemployed.

A million German civilians, mainly women, children and old people, starved to death as the a result of the British naval blockade.

A million Germans, mainly women, children and old people, starved to death as the result of the Royal Navy’s food blockade, but millions of others were reduced to a weakened state from lack of food. A plague of malnutrition caused diseases affected Germany’s children; many with permanently stunted growth, and disfiguring bone development. The war was over, but the starvation blockade continued to be imposed on an entirely helpless civilian population for seven more months, to force the unwilling Germans to sign the peace treaty. It was cruel beyond belief, yet it was imposed by the saintly British against the savage Hun. In fact, the main force behind the blockade was the much admired Winston Churchill.

The confiscation of Germany’s merchant fleet exacerbated an already disastrous situation. Germany was an industrial nation with a very dense population, closely integrated into the economic system of the world. She was therefore required to import enormous quantities of food and raw materials. The loss of her merchant fleet and the restrictions on trade imposed by the Versailles Treaty produced chaos in Germany, and served to extend the famine which existed as a result of the blockade.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

“Germany suffered most as a consequence of this Peace Treaty and the general insecurity which was bound to arise from it. The unemployment figures rose to a third of the number usually employed in the nation, which means, however, that by counting the families of the unemployed as well there were 26 million people in Germany out of a population of 65 million faced by an absolutely hopeless future.”

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair? Did Germany Really Start the War?

top

The chain of cause and effect in international relations is interminable, but if one is to make a point, one must begin somewhere. To a considerable extent, WWI had its genesis in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71. But the Franco-Prussian War itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to a head over the issue of a Hohenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns, and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck won the war, and without going into detail here, that victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities, and estates into one unified German confederation. Included in this new German confederation were the two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was, of course, historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces, as France had previously taken them from Germany during the reign of Louis IV. Moreover, the populations of Alsace and Lorraine were still majority German speaking, ethnic Germans. As mentioned above, the chain of cause and effect is interminable.

The German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, whether justified or not, left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of war making and aggression to humiliating others — Germany in particular — and this role reversal was hard for France to swallow. Revanche (policy to regain lost territory) became a major French goal, and revenge against Germany became a French national obsession, particularly among the political and military elite. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all of the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. According to J.S. Ewart, in his book, “The Roots and Causes of War,” 1925.

“The Alsace-Lorraine annexation by Prussia in 1871 was the principle factor in the counter-alliances, ententes, and antagonisms which perturbed continental Europe for forty-three years…. Not France only, but all Europe, kept in mind, between 1871 and 1914, with varying intensity, the prospect — one might say the assumed certainty — of the recurrence of the Franco-Prussian war.”

After unification into a single state in 1871, Germany experienced an extraordinary period of economic growth and development.

Industrialization progressed rapidly and German manufacturers began to take markets away from Britain. Germany produced more and more of her own consumer products, and imported less and less of British made products. But Germany also began to compete with British commerce abroad, particularly in the United States. German textile production and steel production quickly surpassed those of Britain. Germany invested heavily in research and development, to a far greater extent than Britain, which produced impressive technological advances, especially in chemistry, electricity and electric motors, and in devices driven by electric motors. Germany was dominant in physics and chemistry to the extent that one-third of all Nobel Prizes went to German inventors and researchers. By 1913 Germany produced 90% of the world’s dyestuffs and began to excel in other areas of chemistry such as pharmaceuticals, photographic film, agricultural chemicals and electro-chemicals. With a population of 65 million, Germany became the dominant economic power on the continent and was the world’s second largest exporting nation after Britain. (The populations of Britain and France were 45 million and 40 million respectively.)

No one had worried much about Germany prior to its unification in 1871. Up to then “Germany” was only a geographic expression, referring to the multiplicity of German speaking kingdoms, principalities, city states and sovereign estates located in Central Europe. But Germany’s rapid rise in power after unification created anxiety amongst her neighbors. The old balance of power system, worked out by Prince Metternich at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, had served as the basis for European relations until thrown off kilter by Germany’s growing power after unification.

Germany quickly displaced France as the dominant power on the European continent, causing consternation among the British elite. Britain had always seen France as her traditional enemy and rival on the continent, but British power had already long eclipsed that of France, and France was no longer in a position to challenge British dominance. The extraordinary growth of Germany as an industrial power, however, was beginning to challenge that of Britain. As a result, Britain began making efforts to develop friendly relations with France as leverage against Germany. It appeared to Britain that the entire continent was about to become organized as a single economic union under an all powerful Germany, which threatened to sideline Britain into insignificance. The more powerful Germany became, the more apprehensive British leaders became, to the point that they began to speculate on how to cut the “upstart” Germany down to size. An eventual war with Germany began to seem inevitable.

On April 8, 1904 Britain entered an “Entente Cordiale” with France, followed by an “Anglo-Russian Entente.” France and Russia then forged the “Franco-Russian Alliance.” Thus the “Triple Entente” of Britain, France and Russia was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.

To ameliorate this developing hostility against her, Germany made vigorous efforts in the years before World War One to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France, and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere because the real problem was Germany’s very existence as a growing super power. Each had interests of their own which put them in conflict with Germany. First, Russia wanted control of the Bosporus Straights leading out of the Black Sea, as a warm water outlet for her Navy and merchant fleet, and was willing to go to war to get it. The Bosporus Straights were at the time controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire. Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance and wanted only to reduce Germany’s power. Then, France wanted revenge for the loss of the Franco/Prussian War in 1871, and also wanted her two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. All of Germany’s diplomatic efforts were frustrated by these factors. Germany’s very existence as a unified nation state was the problem, and it seemed that nothing short of dissolving itself would satisfy these rival nations. France and Russia together began to scheme against Germany and to develop plans for an eventual war. Britain was also looking for a pretext for war against Germany. Yet, Germany was guilty of nothing except becoming too successful.

A cartoon in 1904 from the German perspective. John Bull, as the symbol of Britain, is walking off with the harlot, Arianne, symbol of France, in what is supposed to be a tri-colored dress, turning their backs on the Kaiser.

Britain and Germany have often been called the “identical twins” of Europe. They were the same race, with similar, highly organized, high achieving cultures, both Protestant (in the main), both aggressive in pursuing their aims, and both with a history of constitutional monarchies. Britain had no quarrel with Germany, nor Germany with Britain, except that Britain became obsessed with Germany’s growing economic power. Britain, though smaller than Germany in size and population, headed the largest empire in the world; in fact, the largest empire in history. Yet, Germany was eclipsing Britain as an industrial power. Moreover, Germany was building a navy which threatened to rival that of Britain. Britain was also painfully aware of the comparative trajectories of the economic power of Britain and Germany. Britain’s was trending downward, while Germany’s was trending upwards; and this did not bode well for Britain’s future. The British believed that they needed to act against Germany while they were still powerful enough to do so.

Between 1912 and 1914, the Russian Ambassador in Paris, Alexander Izvolsky and President Raymond Poincare of France entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany, “in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side.” Such a crisis soon erupted with the Serbian assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June, 1914. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after obtaining Germany’s unqualified backing (the blank check). The “blank check” was given because Germany’s governing elite believed that by doing so, Russia would be discouraged from intervening against Austria-Hungary on behalf of Serbia. Germany reasoned that If Austria-Hungary were to be defeated by Serbia and Russia, then Germany would be left completely surrounded by enemies. Propping up Austria-Hungary was crucial to Germany’s security. But Russia, who considered herself Serbia’s mentor and protector (Serbia was Russia’s “little Slavic brother”), ignored Germany’s “blank check” and threatened war against Austria-Hungary anyway. Germany tried mediating with Russia to prevent war, but Russia and her ally France, seeing this as the opportunity they had been waiting for, refused to be conciliatory. Instead, Russia abruptly ordered a general mobilization. Such a mobilization had long been recognized in European capitals as tantamount to a declaration of war. After urgent demands for Russia to cancel her mobilization, to no avail, Germany declared war on Russia on August 1, and immediately began her own mobilization. France began mobilizing three days later, but, in fact, had already informed the Russians that she had decided on war a day before Germany declared war on Russia and three days before Germany declared war on France. France’s mobilization was not, therefore, the result of Germany’s declaration of war on Russia. The mobilization had already been decided on. Germany, instead of being the aggressor in this case, was reacting to Russian and French initiatives.

Germany is located on a flat plain in the heart of Europe without natural defenses, completely surrounded by potential enemies, and therefore uniquely vulnerable to invasion from two or more sides. She was in no position, therefore, to wait and see before mobilizing her own armed forces. Germany was well aware of the plotting and scheming between France and Russia to create a pretext for war against her, and was, therefore, on continuous alert. The worst nightmare for Germany’s military leaders was a two front war with France on one side and Russia on the other. To counter that likelihood, Germany had worked out a military strategy called the “Schlieffen Plan.” The plan called for rapid mobilization, concentration of Germany’s armed forces, and a lightening attack through Belgium to first knock France out of the war, after which the German army would wheel around and take on Russia, thus avoiding a two-front war. Even though the Schlieffen Plan called for a pre-emptive attack, first on France and then Russia, the plan was, at bottom, a defensive strategy and not an aggressive one. To wait to be attacked first, from two sides, would be suicidal. On August, 3, 1914, when war seemed unavoidable, Germany swept through Belgium and into France, but was unable to deal France the quick, knock-out blow strategized in the Schlieffen plan.

[Add. image (click to enlarge) — The “Schlieffen Plan.”]

Britain then declared war on Germany on August 4, on the pretext that Germany had violated Belgian neutrality, though Britain’s actual reason for war against Germany was to destroy Germany as an economic rival. On that basis alone, Britain’s leaders decided to join France and Russia in a war against Germany. In reality, Belgium had not figured into the British cabinet’s discussion at all when war with Germany was decided upon. Belgium was used only as a pretext for war. Moreover, had Germany not invaded Belgium, Britain would have done so without a second thought.

Soon after pouring into France through Belgium, Germany became bogged down in the Battle of the Marne, just short of her goal of reaching Paris, which quickly brought an end to the “war of movement.” Stalemate and trench warfare followed in which neither side could predominate. This condition remained until the American forces came in to break the deadlock.

Germany eventually lost the war, and for that reason alone, was blamed for starting it. Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty formally blamed Germany for starting the war, which then served as the basis for all of the punitive measures taken against Germany. After the war was over and passions began to cool, a number of historians — known as “revisionists” — began to look through the intemperate propaganda to uncover the real facts. Scholars like Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Beard, et al, began to tell a different story. Barnes argued in his book, The Genesis of the World War, 1926, that , on the record, Serbia, Russia and France bore a greater responsibility for starting the war than did Austria and Germany, and Germany’s responsibility was less than Austria-Hungary’s. In Barnes view, German “war guilt” was about equal to that of Britain. The most pro-German view was that Germany was forced into a war she did not want and was required to defend herself against rapacious foes out to destroy Germany as an economic power. President Wilson had sent his personal representative, Colonel Edward Mandel House, to Europe to study the situation three months before the war began. The view that Germany was being threatened by military aggression from Russia, France and Britain was supported by Colonel House’s report. He wrote in his report that, “when England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany,” which is precisely what eventually happened. Germany was, in fact, the “defender” against Allied aggression.

Germany did not want war, had nothing to gain from war, and everything to lose from it. After all, Germany was obtaining everything she wanted without war, that is, economic expansion and the acquisition of colonies from which to obtain raw materials and to which to sell industrial products. But France did want war, as revenge against Germany for the Franco-Prussian War of 1870/71 and to regain her lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. Russia also did want war with Germany in order to obtain the warm water Bosporus Straits which Germany controlled, and Britain did want war in order to crush a commercial competitor. All three of these Allied powers believed that Germany was becoming too big and too powerful. The Versailles Treaty itself proves that, in that its main effect was to reduce the physical size of Germany and to reduce her economic and military power. The treaty took away large portions of German territory and gave it to other countries, along with 6.5 million German people,. A separate clause barred Austria form combining with Germany. During the peace deliberations, Georges Clemenceau, President of France, is supposed to have said, “Germany has 20 million too many people.”

Germany not only did not want war in the beginning, but put out peace feelers as early as 1916 to try to bring the war to an end, even though Germany appeared at that time to be about to win the war, but the Allies had no interest in bringing the war to an end. What the Allies wanted was to destroy Germany, as they had set out to do from the beginning, and so, Germany’s peace feelers were ignored. Clearly Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of aggression. The United States had no reason whatever to enter the war against Germany. Germany had done nothing to the United States and was not a threat to the United States in any way. Moreover, German-Americans along with British-Americans constituted the very core of the American culture.

The United States had had only good relations with Germany, and American citizens had always looked upon Germany with warmth and admiration. Though the British anti-German propaganda campaign conducted in the United States had influenced public opinion, the vast majority of Americans were still opposed to entering the war. That could not be said, however, of America’s ruling elite. America’s ruling elite was strongly Anglophilic, with an attitude towards Great Britain not unlike that of Canada and Australia, innately predisposed to go to the aid of the “mother country.” America was virtually a vassal state to Great Britain in those days.

These were all factors, but the deciding influence in taking America into the war was the pressure on President Wilson by American Jewish financiers. It was these powerful Jews who had financed Wilson’s political career. Without their financial and media support, he probably would never have become president. These Jews exerted extreme pressure on Wilson to take the United States into the war on the side of Britain to ensure an Allied victory, in exchange for the Balfour Declaration which promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine after the war (of which more in the following chapter). Jews controlled most of the large newspapers and they controlled Hollywood, so they had all the means necessary to control American public opinion. The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram, etc. were not reasons to go to war, only fabricated pretexts.

The German people had every reason to be outraged over the shameful peace treaty imposed upon them by the victorious powers. The Versailles Treaty was unfair and immoral, and had been imposed by force by the victors upon the vanquished. Germany was forced into signing the hated treaty by a “food” blockade imposed by the British navy, which caused a million Germans to starve to death, and by a threat of military invasion of Germany. Therefore, the imposed treaty had no moral or legal force and Germany was in no way obligated to adhere to the treaty and had every moral right to abandon it as soon as she was militarily able to do so.

Though America’s entry brought a quick end to the carnage, entering the war was actually disastrous in its long term consequences for Western, Christian Civilization. Had America stayed out of it, it is almost certain that the war would have ended in a negotiated peace with neither side achieving a victory. There would therefore have been no Versailles Treaty. Germany would not have been dismembered. Germany would have maintained her army intact and would have maintained her peace agreement with Russia (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). The Czar would likely not have abdicated and the German Empire would have remained intact. Bolshevism would most likely have been nipped in the bud instead of taking control of Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Empire would have remained intact. So, also, would the Ottoman Empire, which would have precluded the creation of the state of Israel and all of the negative consequences resulting from that. There would have been no Communist revolution in Germany, Hungary or Italy. The Spanish Civil War would not have occurred. There would have been no World War II, no Cold War, and Communism would not have taken control of Central and Eastern Europe. A unified Europe, not unlike the European Union of today, except much larger and much more prosperous, would almost certainly have formed with Germany as its dominant member. In short, Europe would have stabilized and become a dynamic economic power in the world. America’s entry into the war was perhaps the greatest disaster in European history in its unintended consequences.

_______________________

[END of Part 02]

PDF Notes

* Total words = 7,107

* Total pages = 34

*Total images = 9

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.6 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 02

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

Version History

Version 4: Mar 11, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 3: Jan 14, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Oct 8, 2016 — Expanded Table of Contents.

Version 1: Oct 3, 2016 — Created post.

Book – The Myth of German Villainy by Benton Bradberry – Part 01

admin — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 06:06:14 +0000

[Part 01]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Front and Back Cover Text

Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler wanted war. Both WWI and WWII were thrust upon Germany by the Allied powers. Germany’s great sin was emerging too late as a consolidated nation-state and upsetting the long established balance of power scheme in Europe. The already established great powers, Britain, France and Russia, joined together in 1914 to destroy this new rival. When Germany rose phoenix-like from the ashes of WWI to again become a great power, they finished. the job with World War II. The deliberate destruction of Germany during the Second World-War can only be compared to the Roman destruction of ancient Carthage, and it was done for the same reason — to destroy a commercial rival. The “official” history of World Wars I & II, the story we learned in school, is a myth.

As the title “The Myth of German Villainy” indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain“. The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.

During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain? In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it. Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.

About the Author

Benton L. Bradberry served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1977, from near the beginning of the Cold War to near its end. His generation was inundated with anti-German propaganda and “Holocaust” lore. Then, in his role as a naval officer and pilot, he was immersed in anti-Communist propaganda and the war psychosis of the Cold War era. He has had a life-long fascination with the history of this period and has read deeply into all aspects of it. He also saw much of Europe during his Navy years and has travelled widely in Europe since. A natural skeptic, he long ago began to doubt that the “propaganda” told the whole story. He has spent years researching “the other side of the story” and has now written a book about it. The author is a graduate of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California with a degree in Political Science and International Relations.

____________________

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Preface

I served in the United States Navy from 1955 until 1977, mostly as a Navy pilot, and saw a lot of the world as a result. Aircraft carriers on which I served regularly visited European ports, as well as other ports around the world. I have also traveled extensively in the years since leaving the Navy.

After traveling around most of Europe, Germany emerges as my favorite country. During our visits there we found the German people to be pleasant, industrious, disciplined and civilized with many similarities to traditional Americans. They in no way resemble the stereotypes depicted in all the anti-Nazi movies, books and articles we have been subjected to over the years.

I was born in 1937, my generation grew up virtually inundated with anti-German propaganda. We were taught, quite literally, to hate the Germans as a people. Yet, Germans I have met or befriended through the years seem no different from other Europeans, or even Americans, and they seem no more inclined to violence and militarism than anyone else; if anything, less. I have never detected anything that might be considered intrinsically “wrong” with the German character. They are a highly cultured, highly civilized people in every respect. When studied objectively, even Germany’s leaders of the 1930s and 40s were essentially no different from other European leaders. They were only made out to be different by the relentless hate propaganda directed against them.

Germany suffered more than any other country by far as a result of World War II. Some 160 of her largest cities and towns were completely destroyed by the Allied bombing campaign and more than 21 million Germans lost their lives as a result of the war. Yet, no one wants to hear their tales of suffering, and no sympathy has been allowed the defeated and disgraced Germans. The anti-German propaganda has cultivated the general feeling that they got what they deserved.

The entire responsibility for starting both World War I and World War II, and for all the death and destruction resulting from them has been assigned to the Germans (though the facts don’t bear that out). Because they were the losers of both wars, they were never permitted to present their case before the world court, nor to tell their side of the story through any medium. The winners of wars, after all, write the history books. Neither did the true story of what happened during the war come out in the Nuremberg Trials. The Nuremberg Trials were nothing more than Soviet style show trials which violated every standard of traditional British and American justice. Their purpose was not to discover guilt or innocence, but to spread a legal gloss over a decision which had already been made to execute Germany’s leaders. The entire Nuremberg circus was a sham and a travesty.

The anti-German propaganda, used to create the climate of hatred that made the massive destruction and the mass slaughter of German civilians possible, continued relentlessly long after the war was over when it would seem natural for sober minded historians to begin to moderate their extreme views about Germany. The fantastic atrocity stories continue even today. One needs only to tune in to the History Channel to see them repeated again and again. In contrast, World War I was not long over before the atrocity stories attributed to the Germans during that war were exposed as the deliberate lies they were. Responsible men conducted thorough investigations and found that none of it was true. All the lurid stories were deliberately fabricated to win British public support for the war against Germany and also to bring America into the war.

But a different factor was in play after World War II to keep the phony horror stories alive which did not exist after World War I. After WWII, the Jews exploited the anti-German world sentiment, which they themselves had largely created with their propaganda, to justify the creation of their long sought after state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. These manufactured horror stories also served to disarm critics of Jews as they set about to regain power and control in Europe.

Through manipulation of the international information media, the Jews won worldwide sympathy for themselves with their sensational stories of unique Jewish suffering at the hands of the cruel Germans. They claimed that Germany had followed a systematic plan to exterminate all of Europe’s Jews and that by war’s end had managed to kill 6 million of them. The alleged method was to round the Jews up from all over Europe, haul them in sealed trains to so-called “death camps” where they were herded into gas chambers and killed, and their bodies then burned in giant crematoria, with, conveniently, no forensic evidence of what had happened left behind. In the absence of forensic evidence, eye witness testimony, no matter how bizarre, sufficed to convict Germany and to make her the pariah of civilized nations.

The judges at the Nuremberg Trials were themselves not immune to the torrents of anti-German hate propaganda, and were already predisposed before the trials ever began to believe any horror story, no matter how fantastic, about the Germans. Another factor which preordained the outcome of the trials was that the accusers also served as investigators, prosecutors and final judges. Moreover, the trials were also permeated throughout with an atmosphere of Jewish vengeance seeking. Just behind the Gentile front men, most of the lawyers, prosecutors, and investigators were Jews. Hundreds of Jews who could barely speak English disported themselves in American Army officer uniforms. Two of the eight Nuremberg judges were Jews, Robert Falco of France, and Lt. Col. A.F. Volchkov (real name Berkman) of the Soviet Union. The General Prosecutor for the “High Court” was Dr. Jakob Meistner, a Jew. Their dominance and control of the trials was blatant. Even the hangman for the 10 Nazi leaders sentenced to death, Master Sergeant John C. Woods, was a Jew. As a demonstration of just how blatant their dominance was, they scheduled the hangings to take place on October 16, 1946, the Jewish holiday of “Purim.” In the Book of Esther, the 10 sons of Haman, an enemy of the Jews, were hanged on Purim day. On Purim day in 1946, 10 German leaders were hanged. This was obviously not a coincidence.

According to Louis Marschalko, a wartime Hungarian journalist who wrote about the trials:

“Out of 3,000 people employed on the staff at the Nuremberg Courts, 2,400 were Jews.”

The Holocaust story that we all know so well today was developed during the Nuremberg Trials.

By skillfully cultivating and propagating this Holocaust story, the Jews have been able to extort hundreds of billions of dollars out of Germany, as well as the United States, much of which was used to fund the new state of Israel. The claim that the Jews in Israel “made the desert bloom” was true. They did it with German and American money. They are now hard at work extorting more billions out of other European countries in what has been contemptuously but correctly called “the Holocaust industry.”

Even today, 70 years after the war, more than half a million so-called “Holocaust survivors” living mainly in Israel and the United States receive lifetime pensions from the German government. And what is a “Holocaust survivor?” Any Jew who lived anywhere in German controlled territory at any time during the war, whether living in a concentration camp or in the lap of luxury, is a Holocaust survivor and therefore eligible for a German pension. Moreover, any Jew who was forced to leave Europe during the Nazi era (even if he is a Hollywood producer) is a Holocaust survivor, and also eligible for a German pension. Some 4.39 million Jews were originally designated “Holocaust survivors.” Christian survivors of the war, no matter how horrific their experience are not eligible for pensions. “Shoah” is the Hebrew word for Holocaust. It has been joked around that “there’s no business like shoah business.” The entire Holocaust racket has become nothing so much as a vast shakedown of European countries, especially Germany. The Holocaust story has other uses as well. It is routinely invoked to disarm the general public from defending itself against Jewish predations. Prime Minister Netanyahu regularly invokes the Holocaust to justify Israeli attacks upon its neighbors, and the confiscation of its neighbors’ lands.

Keeping this gravy train moving requires the continued legitimization of Jews as history’s ultimate victim group, which, in turn, requires an ultimate victimizer of the Jews, and Germany has been designated to fill that role in perpetuity. The Jewish controlled History Channel, or the “Hitler Channel,” as it is sometimes derisively called, owes its success to endlessly repeating these anti-German propaganda programs. Any modification or revision of this carefully cultivated image of Germany as the evil monster of history, and particularly as the evil victimizer of the Jews, would threaten the entire Holocaust story. Therefore this image is jealously and carefully guarded by the Jewish controlled press and information media, and woe upon anyone who dares to question it. Anyone who does so is immediately attacked and smeared as a deranged anti-Semite. As a result of Jewish pressure, some 17 countries have made questioning, or even investigating, the Holocaust a crime which can get one a prison sentence.

The Jews are also unwilling to relinquish or even to moderate their quest for revenge. Old men who have suffered all their lives as fugitives, are still being tracked down as “war criminals,” and either “brought to justice,” or summarily murdered on the spot. (The MOSSAD, Israel’s equivalent of our CIA, is an assassination organization.) The only crime these old men may be guilty of was being an officer or soldier in the German army during the war.

But, why, one might ask, amidst all the carnage, death and destruction that occurred during World War II, has the so-called Holocaust emerged as the central atrocity story? Approximately 55 million people died during the war, only a tiny percentage of them Jews ― surely only a fraction of the 6 million claimed. All other combatant nationalities have long since put the war behind them and have tried to make peace with their former enemies, but not the Jews! More than two thirds of a century has gone by, but the Jews are still nourishing their grievances, still building Holocaust museums and memorials (not at their own expense, but at the expense of host governments), and still investigating new ways to extort money out of various countries as “compensation.” But why should only the Jews be compensated? Scores of millions of other people across Europe lost everything in the war.

The “Holocaust” has evolved over the years to become the national myth of the Jewish people with all the characteristics of a religion, complete with its very own Satan ― Hitler. The Holocaust myth is the glue that holds the Jewish people together as a distinct nationality, and because of that they carefully guard and protect it. As a consequence, the poor Germans are consigned in perpetuity to the role of history’s evil monster, regardless of what the actual facts may be.

But even if all the stories of German atrocities during WWII were true in every detail (which they are not), they would still not compare in their inhumanity to the atrocities committed against the Germans. The indiscriminate saturation bombing of German cities, the brutal expulsion of entire German populations after the war, the Allied imposed postwar deprivations, the Soviet massacres and political liquidations, simply dwarf the Holocaust in their destruction of human life and their destruction of the accumulated works of human civilization. Any final accounting and balancing of the conduct of all combatants during WWII could only result in the exculpation of Germany as “uniquely” barbarous in her methods of waging war, or in her treatment of subject populations.

The German people were devastated by the war, to a greater extent than any other participant, including the Jews, while at the same time they have been stigmatized as the evil, predatory perpetrators of the war. They have been made to pay a terrible price for atrocities during World War II which very probably never occurred, or at least, never occurred to the extent alleged. It is becoming clearer as time goes by that the Germans were the real victims of both World Wars I and II, and continue to be.

Chapter 1 The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

As the result of losing two apocalyptic world wars, Germany has acquired a reputation as the evil nation of Europe, and, perhaps the evil nation of all time. Just mentioning the word “German” still brings forth an image in the mind’s eye of robotic, goose-stepping storm troopers, under the command of stiff-necked Prussian officers, ready to march off to inflict gratuitous murder and destruction upon their peace loving neighbors. We have been brainwashed by relentless propaganda to regard the Germans as intrinsically militaristic, aggressive, brutish, racist and anti-Semitic, with a predilection for blind obedience to authority figures. Hundreds of Hollywood movies, relentless Holocaust propaganda, and countless books and magazine articles have permanently reinforced this negative image of Germany in the popular mind. Rational motives for the inexplicable horrors Germans are accused of having routinely committed are not required. It is axiomatic that their evil nature explains it all.

Consider the movie, “Schindler’s List,” by the Jewish director, Stephen Spielberg, for example. The Nazi commandant of the concentration camp (supposedly the Plaszow camp outside of Krakow, not far from Auschwitz), is standing shirtless on the balcony of his house with a hunting rifle over his bare shoulders. The rifle is equipped with a telescopic sight. In the movie, the house is located on a hill above the camp so that he can look down on the throngs of prisoners milling around in the compound below. He lifts the rifle to his shoulder and through the telescope begins casually scanning from one prisoner to another. The image through the telescope now fills the movie screen. The crosshairs of the scope stop on a randomly selected prisoner. He pulls the trigger and the prisoner drops to the ground, dead.

[Add. image — The actor Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth in the fictional story Schindler’s List, picking off camp inmates from his balcony.]

The screen then cuts back to the Nazi commandant to show bored insouciance as he actuates the bolt of his rifle and casually raises it back to his shoulder. He fires again, and again a prisoner drops to the ground, dead. Bored with his “target practice,” he turns his attention to the beautiful, sexy, naked woman lying on a bed just inside the house from the balcony. The woman is purportedly one of his Jewish housemaids selected from the camp, who also apparently serves as his sex slave. His face expresses disdainful, though lackadaisical, cynicism.

The point of the shootings, as well as bringing in the naked, Jewish housemaid, is to show the Nazi officer as totally depraved, without conscience, morality, or empathy for other humans; in short, a psychopath. It is presumed, of course, that the murdered prisoners were all Jews. Two popular Jewish themes are combined here: Nazi evil and Jewish persecution.

This episode is entirely fictional, based on a novel by Thomas Keneally, an Australian, who only visited the concentration camps once in 1980. No such actual event as described above has ever been recorded, yet the vast majority of movie goers swallow it whole and accept it as actual history.

The real Plaszow camp was located on the other side of a hill from the commandant’s house, and completely out of sight from the commandant’s balcony. It would have been impossible for him to shoot down into the compound as shown in the movie even if he had been inclined to do so, which is highly unlikely. The actual commandant of Plaszow, Amon Goeth, on which the character in the movie was based, lived in the house with his fiancé Ruth Kalder, with whom he had a child. Ruth said that they intended to marry but were unable to do so due to the chaos at the end of the war. She had her name and the child’s name changed to Goeth after the war with the help of Amon Goeth’s father. Amon Goeth was hanged after the war by the Polish government primarily for being a member of the Nazi party and a member of the Waffen-SS, not for shooting prisoners. Ruth described Amon Goeth as a cultured man who had a beautiful singing voice. Goeth did, indeed, have two Jewish housemaids, selected from the camp while he was commandant, but there is no information that he had untoward relations with them. That story was only included to add spice to the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaPBzhEsCL0

[Add. image — Screen shot of the movie Sophie’s Choice.]

Another example is the movie, “Sophie’s Choice,” by another Jewish director, Alan J. Pakula, in which “Sophie” and her two small children are sent to Auschwitz (Auschwitz is the holy temple of Holocaust lore). During the “selection” process (the “selection” is now one of the “stations of the cross” of the Holocaust religion) immediately after their arrival, Sophie is told by a stereotypically evil Nazi officer (supposedly Dr. Joseph Mengele of Auschwitz notoriety) that she can only keep one of her children and that the other must go to the gas chamber. She is forced to choose which one to keep and which one to be sent to the gas chamber, hence, “Sophie’s choice.” The evil Nazi officer provides no reason or explanation for requiring one child to die or for forcing her to make this heart rending choice. That he is an “evil” Nazi is presumed to be explanation enough. This preposterous movie was based on a novel by the American Southern writer William Styron, who had no firsthand knowledge of the camps. Auschwitz was simply used as the setting for a tale which came out of his imagination. Nothing of the sort ever happened in real life. Yet, evil Nazi stories such as these have long been a staple in Hollywood. The movie-going public has been so conditioned by this poppycock that fiction has become fact in the public mind. We have all been brainwashed to accept such absurdities without skepticism. Germans are “evil,” so they do “evil” things. No further explanation needed.

Yet, Germany was not always seen in this light. The image of Germany as a sinister, predatory, warlike nation only took root in the twentieth century. Nineteenth century Germany, by contrast, was seen as a place of peace and enlightenment. The English historian, Frederic William Maitland, described the way the English people saw the Germans during the nineteenth century:

“…it was usual and plausible to paint the German as an unpractical, dreamy, sentimental being, looking out with mild blue eyes into a cloud of music and metaphysics and tobacco smoke.”

The highly influential French writer and Salon matron, Madame de Stael, portrayed the Germans during the period of the Napoleonic Wars as a nation of;

“poets and thinkers, a race of kindly, impractical, other-worldly dreamers without national prejudices and disinclined to war.”

The Americans also held a benign opinion of the Germans prior to the twentieth century. The American historian, Henry Cord Meyer, wrote;

“…whether seen in their newly united nation [Germany was united into one nation in 1871] or in this country [German immigrants in the United States], the Germans were generally regarded as methodical and energetic people who were models of progress, while in their devotion to music, education, science, and technology they aroused the admiration and emulation of Americans.”

In 1905 Andrew Dickson White, a noted American historian, educator, and United States Ambassador to Germany, wrote just nine years before the outbreak of World War I:

“Germany, from a great confused mass of warriors and thinkers and workers, militant at cross-purposes, wearing themselves out in vain struggles, and preyed upon by malevolent neighbors, has become [after consolidation] a great power in arms, in art, in science, in literature; a fortress of high thought; a guardian of civilization; the natural ally of every nation which seeks the better development of humanity.”

The German people have historically made great contributions in every sphere of cultural, intellectual, and scientific achievement. In the field of music, there were such eighteenth century geniuses as Bach, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann, to name a few. This musical genius continued in the nineteenth century with the Strausses, Mahler and Richard Wagner. There were the literary contributions of Goethe and Schiller; the historical works of Ranke and Niebuhr; the philosophical studies of Kant and Hegel; and the great scientific contributions of Alexander von Humboldt and William Conrad Roentgen. These are only a few examples of a very long list. The Prussian system of higher education and the cultural flowering which characterized Prussia during the years following the Napoleonic wars greatly influenced both Europe and America. The American public school system as well as our university system was deliberately modeled after the Prussian public school system and university system. Germany was admired by the world as a center of learning, for its high culture and for its achievements in every field; but also for its culture of honesty, hard work, orderliness and thrift, which existed even at the lowest level of society.

British scholars and journalists had been very favorably disposed toward all things German, including their history, culture, and institutions throughout the nineteenth century. The highly respected Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield commented extensively on Britain’s high regard for Germany.

“In England the view once prevailed that German history was particularly the history of freedom, for it was a story that comprised federation, parliament, autonomous cities, Protestantism, and a law of liberty carried by German colonies to the Slavonic east. In those days it was the Latin States which were considered to be congenial to authoritarianism, clinging to the Papacy in Italy, the Inquisition in Spain and the Bonapartist dictatorships in militaristic France. The reversal of this view in the twentieth century, and its replacement by a common opinion that Germany had been the aggressor and enemy of freedom throughout all the ages, will no doubt be the subject of historical research itself someday, especially as it seems to have coincided so closely with a change in British foreign policy … Up to the early 1900’s when historical scholarship in England came to its peak in men like Acton and Maitland, words can hardly describe the admiration for Germany ― and the confessed discipleship ― which existed amongst English historians.”

And then British author Thomas Arnold (June 13, 1795 – June 12, 1842) saw Germany not as a nation with a unique predisposition toward authoritarianism and regimentation, but rather as a “cradle of law, virtue, and freedom,” and considered it a “distinction of the first rank” that the English belonged to the Germanic family of peoples. The following photos and drawings represent the way in which the world saw Germany during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, right up to the beginning of World War I. Pre-WWI Germany was seen as a peaceful land of fairy tales and dreamy castles, and of industrious, law abiding, disciplined people.

Germany’s positive image changes over night

This view of Germany was to change almost overnight with the outbreak of World War I. After the war began in 1914 a grotesque image of a rapacious, bloodthirsty and uniquely aggressive Germany quickly took form and became the stereotypical image of Germany in Europe and America. This new image of Germany was the direct result of a virulent anti-German propaganda campaign conducted by the British government and later joined by the United States government in which deliberate and systematic lies, distortions and false atrocity stories were disseminated to the British and American publics. The emotions of both the British and American publics were deliberately whipped up to a fever pitch of hatred for the “Hun.” A pathological hostility towards all things German, which later became such a familiar and integral part of Western thinking about Germany, had its birth in this skillful propaganda campaign. After World War Two, historian Harry Paxton Howard examined this transformation of Germany’s reputation which began immediately after the start of WWI.

It was made out, he said, that Germany was not only evil but had always been that way, and that Germany, contrary to the facts, had always been the historical enemy of Europe and America. He wrote:

“Actually, in the literal sense of the word, the biggest job of revising history was done during the First World War when our ‘histories’ were completely revised to show that Germany had always been our enemy, that Germany had started the war in 1914, that Germany had even started the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and that in the Revolutionary War we had not been fighting the British but the Hessians ― not to mention such things as the Germans cutting the hands off Belgian babies, instead of the Belgians cutting off the hands of Congolese. This was a real revision of our histories which has distorted the American mind for more than forty years.” Harry Paxton Howard.

All belligerents, of course, including Germany, used propaganda against their enemies, as all belligerents have done in all wars throughout history, but the propaganda efforts of Germany and the Central Powers were amateurish and ineffectual compared to the British. In their propaganda efforts, the Germans tended to appeal to reason instead of to the emotions.

They never portrayed their enemies as bloodthirsty, inhuman beasts. The Allies, Great Britain in particular, by contrast, proved themselves masters at adroitly manipulating world opinion by widespread propagation of fantastic tales of German villainy. From the beginning of the war, stories of German atrocities filled British and American newspapers. (American newspapers depended at that time on British news services for most of their news stories about Europe, which came across undersea cables controlled by Britain. The Germans had no access to the American media. Great Britain made sure of that by cutting Germany’s six trans-Atlantic cables to America.)

The first atrocity stories came out of the German march through Belgium at the beginning of the war. Germany’s purpose was not to attack Belgium, per se, but to pass through Belgium in order to outflank French defenses and then make a drive toward Paris. This strategy was known as the Schlieffen Plan, which the Germans believed was the only way to achieve a quick victory over France.

Germany’s “violation” of neutral Belgium served as Britain’s pretext for going to war against Germany, though the decision to go to war for other reasons (mainly economic) had already been made. Belgium was only a pretext. To enter the war, it was necessary to win public support, and the propaganda opportunities resulting from Germany’s invasion of Belgium, as well as the fabricated stories of German atrocities in Belgium served that purpose. “Eyewitnesses” were found who described hairy knuckled Huns in Pickelhaube helmets tossing Belgian babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets as they marched along, singing war songs. Stories of German soldiers amputating the hands of Belgian boys were widely reported (reputedly to prevent them from firing rifles). Tales of women with their breasts cut off multiplied even faster. There were also tales of crucifixions of Allied soldiers. Europeans and Americans were more religious then than they are today and the crucifixion stories aroused outrage. (It should be mentioned that of all forms of evidence accepted in modern courts of law, eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable.)

But rape stories were the favorite of all atrocity tales. One “eyewitness” described how the Germans dragged twenty young women out of their houses in a captured Belgian town and stretched them on tables in the village square, where each was raped by at least twelve “Huns” while the rest of the soldiers watched and cheered.

After being fed a steady diet of this kind of propaganda, the British public veritably demanded revenge against the loathsome Hun. A group of Belgians toured the United States (at British government expense) telling these stories to Americans. (Britain wanted to draw the United States into the war.) President Woodrow Wilson solemnly received the group in the White House.

The propaganda portrayed Britain as “a knight on a white horse” coming to the defense of violated, neutral Belgium. This was cynical manipulation of public opinion, of course, because if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality, Britain would have done so without a second thought.

Germany angrily denied all of these stories. So did American reporters who were with the German army and knew that they were lies. But these denials did not find their way into American newspapers. The British controlled what went into American papers and it was the British who were generating the atrocity stories. To enhance the credibility of these fantastic atrocity stories, the British government asked Viscount Bryce early in 1915 to head a royal commission to conduct an investigation. The British government, of course, intended that Bryce would support this false propaganda, which he obediently did. Bryce was a well known historian with a good reputation in America. He not only had served as the British ambassador in Washington, but had written several complimentary books about the American government. The British knew that he was highly respected and admired in America, and that he had a reputation for rectitude and honesty. America would believe whatever he said. Bryce was also intensely loyal to his own country and therefore perfect for the job.

False anti-German propaganda poster of World War I

The propaganda poster shown at left [above] and in the following pages are examples of the way in which the British portrayed their German foes — always as brutish, barbaric murderers of women and children.

Following these British propaganda posters are German propaganda posters against the British, French and Russians. Note the different styles. The Germans do not portray their foes as barbaric murderers.

An innocent Belgian girl about to be raped by a Hun.

Following are German propaganda posters directed against the British, French and Russians. Note that the Germans use ridicule against their enemies but do not portray them as inhuman beast.

The cartoon characters represent (L to R): Great Britain, France and Russia, and far right, Germany.

[Patience! You all will get it!]

[Add. image — Beloved fatherland, relax!]

Bryce and his six fellow commissioners, all lawyers, historians and legal scholars, “analyzed,” if you can call it that, 1,200 depositions of “eyewitnesses” who claimed to have seen these German atrocities first hand. Almost all of the eyewitness accounts came from Belgians who had left Belgium for England as refugees, though some accounts also came from British soldiers in France. The commission never interrogated a single one of these eyewitnesses, but relied on their written statements instead (shades of the Nuremberg Trials after the next war). Since there was a war on, there were no “on site” investigations of any reported atrocity. Not a single witness was identified by name, including the soldiers who had provided written accounts. Yet, the commission officially confirmed that all the atrocity stories, no matter how fantastic, were true. This bogus investigation was just another part of Britain’s anti-German propaganda campaign.

[Add. image — The Bryce Report and its author, James Bryce.]

The “Bryce Report” was released on May 13, 1915, and the British government made sure it went to every newspaper in America. The impact was phenomenal, especially coming just after the torpedoing of the British liner Lusitania which caused the deaths of 135 Americans.

Americans from coast to coast were outraged. A wave of revulsion for all things German swept the country. Hatred of Germans reached fever pitch. Suddenly the American public was clamoring for war. (There is well founded suspicion that the Lusitania was set up as a decoy by the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, deliberately exposing it to a German submarine attack for the purpose of bringing America into the war).

But there were skeptics of the Bryce Report. In England, Sir Roger Casement called the report a lie, and wrote a report of his own refuting it, though no one paid much attention to it. The American lawyer, Clearance Darrow, was so skeptical that he travelled to France in 1915 and searched in vain for a single eyewitness who could confirm even one of the Bryce stories. Increasingly dubious, Darrow announced that he would pay $1,000, equivalent to around $25,000 today, to anyone who could produce a Belgian boy whose hands had been amputated by a German soldier, or any other Belgian or French victim who had been mutilated by German troops. None were found.

The “proofs” provided by the Bryce Committee in its investigation, as well as the methods employed in gathering them, violated every elementary rule of evidence. Careful scholars have long since demonstrated that the entire report was made up of nothing more than distortions and outright falsehoods. But Britain was determined to pull the United States into the war and Bryce and his colleagues were willing accomplices in that effort. They justified their lies and exaggerations because it served the higher cause of Mother England. After the war most historians dismissed 99 percent of Bryce’s atrocities as fabrications. One called the report “in itself one of the worst atrocities of the war.” “After the war,” recounts Thomas Fleming in his book Illusion of Victory;

“historians who sought to examine the documentation for Bryce’s stories were told that the files had mysteriously disappeared.”

[Add. image — Kaiser (to a 1917 recruit). “And don’t forget that your Kaiser will find a use for you—alive or dead.” Punch, 25 April 1917.]

As the war drew on, another fabricated story was widely circulated. It was reported that the Germans were operating a “corpse factory” where the bodies of both German and Allied soldiers killed in battle were supposedly melted down for fats and other products useful to the German war effort. The Germans were accused of making soap out of human fat. Human skins were used to make fine leather goods such as lampshades, driving gloves and riding breeches. The bones of these corpses were said to have been ground up and used as fertilizer on German farms.

A detailed account of this so-called “corpse factory” appeared in the highly respected British newspaper, The Times, on April 17, 1917.

According to the story, trains full of corpses arrived at a large factory. The bodies were attached to hooks connected to an endless chain. The article carefully described the process inside the corpse factory.

“The bodies are transported on this endless chain into a long, narrow compartment, where they pass through a bath which disinfects them. They then go through a drying chamber, and finally are automatically carried into a digester or great cauldron, in which they are dropped by an apparatus which detaches from the chain. In the digester they remain from six to eight hours, and are treated by steam, which breaks them up while they are slowly stirred by the machinery. From this treatment result several products. The fats are broken up into stearin, a form of tallow, and oils, which require to be redistilled before they can be used. The process of distillation is carried out by boiling the oil with carbonate of soda, and some of the by-products resulting from this are used by German soap makers. The oil distillery and refinery lie in the south-eastern corner of the works. The refined oil is sent out in small casks like those used for petroleum, and is of a yellowish brown color.” Note the meticulous detail.

The story was a total fabrication, but it was a “plausible” story, especially with all the detail, and it was not possible for the Germans to completely refute it while the war was still going on. After the war, of course, the story was exposed as the lie it was. No such corpse factory existed. It is interesting that the story of making soap out of bodies emerged again during World War II when the Germans supposedly made soap out of Jewish corpses. That lie is still widely believed and remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda. The “lampshades out of human skin” story also had its origin in World War I and emerged again during World War II when Germans were supposedly making lampshades out of Jewish skin. There was nothing to it, yet it also remains a staple of Jewish Holocaust propaganda.

“The purpose of war propaganda,” historian Thomas Fleming, in his book “The Illusion of Victory,” observes;

“as peddled by both the Anglo and American elite, was to create a widespread public image of Germans as ‘monsters capable of appalling sadism’ ― thereby coating an appeal to murderous collective hatred with a lacquer of sanctimony.”

“The trick,” said Fleming, “is to leave the target audience at once shivering in horror at a spectacle of sub-human depravity, panting with a visceral desire for vengeance, and rapturously self-righteous about the purity of its humane motives. People who succumb to it are easily subsumed into a hive mind of officially sanctioned hatred, and prepared to perpetrate crimes even more hideous than those that they believe typify the enemy.”

[Add. image — The Illusion of Victory by Thomas Fleming (2003)]

The Bryce Report as well as all the other anti-German propaganda unquestionably helped England win the war. It convinced millions of Americans and other neutrals that the Germans were beasts in human form, and this, as much as anything else, helped bring America into the war. But there were adverse consequences to this lurid atrocity propaganda campaign. It poisoned public opinion against the Germans to such an extent that it could not be undone. It was an obvious factor, for example, in the British decision to maintain the total blockade of Germany for seven months after the war was over, which, incidentally, was a violation of international law. The blockade caused a million German civilians to starve to death, and unbearable suffering of millions more. The blockade itself was far and away the greatest atrocity of World War I, though it receives very little publicity, and it was done, not by the evil Germans, but by the saintly British.

By creating blind hatred of Germany, the anti-German propaganda campaign also contributed to the harsh peace terms imposed on Germany at the end of the war, which then sowed the seeds of World War II. Though historians and other scholars have exposed these German atrocity stories as nonsense, the image of German villainy has remained fixed.

The benign world opinion of Germany which existed right up to 1914 was replaced overnight by the myth of unique German savagery which left a permanent residue of Germanophobia deep in Western minds. This explains why “our boys” were so willing to obliterate whole German cities and kill hundreds of thousands of German civilians with air bombardments during the Second World War. This hate propaganda, as false as it was, also had the effect of totally demoralizing the German people.

[END of Part 01]

_______________________

PDF Notes

* Total words = 7,550

* Total pages = 48

*Total images = 32

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (7.0 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 01 (Ver 2)

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 7: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 6: Apr 7, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Updated See Also links.

Version 5: Dec 9, 2018 — Improved formatting.

Version 4: Oct 8, 2016 — Expanded Table of Contents.

Version 3: Oct 3, 2016 — Updated cover image. Formatting. Added Ver 2 of PDF of post for download. Added links to other parts.

Version 2: Oct 2, 2016 — Added PDF of post for download.

Version 1: Oct 1, 2016 — Created post.

The Holocaust Lie — Made in America

admin — Wed, 06 Apr 2016 22:51:05 +0000

[Horst Mahler describes the creation of the Nuremberg Trials by American jews and how the trials were kangaroo courts that lynched the Germans — KATANA.]

The Holocaust Lie

Made in America

circa 2006

[Source: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/HomePage28April2009/holocaust_lie/holocaust_lie.htm]

No one denies that America and Germany incarcerated certain fractions of their populations under guard as war measures in the 1940s. Americans like to forget that at least 120,000 Americans of Japanese extraction were rounded up and put in concentration camps in the western United States for the duration of the war. However, they never permit the Germans to forget that Jews in German-controlled areas of Europe were treated likewise, though the reason was the same — a specific group was detained because some unknown fraction within it was a danger to the war effort and neither country was willing to risk letting it remain free for possible sabotage. There is no dispute about this. It happened.

However, what credible historical investigators worldwide now assert — and with excellent reasons — is that the German Reich did not give murderous orders concerning, and in fact did not actually murder, the Jews in its camps. The Jews suffered more in Germany than the Japanese suffered in America because the enemy’s carpet bombing of Germany eventually destroyed the country’s ability to properly maintain the camps. Everybody practically starved toward the end, Jews included. We must remember that Germany had perfectly good reasons to distrust the Jews as a group. As a nation within a nation they had utterly betrayed the country in World War I and moreover had literally declared worldwide economic and political war against Germany in 1933.

[Image – click to enlarge] Judea declares war on Germany, March 24, 1933

Auschwitz (main Camp), Poland

Notwithstanding the understandably bad feelings against Jews in Germany, there were no despicable gas chambers or murderous crematoria. No tattoos*. No lampshades. There were no sadistic plots but merely a war effort that failed — nothing for Germans to be ashamed of then or now. The indictment alleging systematic extermination of the Jews was and is false. Evidence was fabricated and/or purposely misrepresented and depositions falsified. In fact, the “Holocaust” Lie was manufactured in America to justify the murder of captured German leaders as a precursor to the subordination of Germany, the Zionist-Jewish theft of Palestine, and genocidal American interference in the national affairs of Europe, each of which continues today.

[* See: http://www.cwporter.com/tattoo1.htm]

“Holocaust” Conference in Tehran, Dec, 2006

German lawyer Horst Mahler, probably the most brilliant political mind in Europe today, with a vast knowledge of history and politics, recently attempted to travel to Tehran to talk about the foregoing at a conference called by Iranian historical scholars. The government of Germany — which is not an independent power even today in such matters — promptly ordered Herr Mahler’s passport to be confiscated. On January 29, 2006, he protested in a letter to a certain Judge Dehne. Here in essential part (as translated by James Damon) is what he told the judge in that case (we omit footnotes and edit slightly for brevity):

Horst Mahler

“Perhaps it still has not gotten through to you that the leaders of world Jewry — especially the brothers Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson, the ‘King of Diaspora Jews’ Nahum Goldmann, the ‘Emperor of America’ Felix Frankfurter, the ‘Right Hand of President Roosevelt’ Sam Rosenman, and Rabbi [Stephen] Wise — did in fact meet together and conspire in order to lend credence to the historical lies of the ‘International Military Tribunal’ for the so called ‘Nuremberg Trials’ conducted against the leaders of the Reich, which the Jewish leaders planned in detail.

Samuel Rosenman, the ‘Right Hand of President Roosevelt’

The Holocaust laws of the OMF [Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule — i.e., the current Federal Republic of Germany] are continuing the judicial tradition of Stalinist show trials introduced into Germany by the victorious Allies with the International Military Tribunal. Far from being guided by a quest for reality and justice, they are a ‘continuation of the war effort of the allied nations’ in the words of U.S. Chief Prosecutor Robert Jackson. The OMF/Federal Republic courts which impose the Holocaust laws are nothing but a cover for despotic rule by the enemies of the Reich.

Following unconditional capitulation by the Wehrmacht at the end of World War II, the victorious Allies had the power to write the history of the period as they saw fit. Not surprisingly, they labeled the Germans as ‘criminal,’ just as they had attempted to do during the First World War. They then established their postwar order of global Mammonism, based on the historical lies they fabricated. There is no possibility that our enemies could ever be inclined to give up the fruits of their victory over the Reich. They have always been determined and are still determined to hold onto them and protect the source of their wealth.

Willy Meller: ‘Hour of Fate’ (1944)

He who builds his house on lies fears nothing more that the truth, which can tear it down at any time. This is the reason why, where historiography is concerned, the courts of the OMF/Federal Republic are bound to uphold the lies of the victorious powers in complete disregard for German public opinion. These courts are forced to uphold the Allies’ lies against the Reich leadership exactly as they were proclaimed in the Nuremberg show trials . . . .

According to Article 19 of its statute dated 8 August 1945, the International Military Tribunal was not bound by rules of evidence. According to the Article 20 of the same statute, the court could admit or reject evidence as it desired. Thus, rebuttal evidence that the defense could have used to counter the prosecutors’ charges was frequently not taken into consideration.

The basis of verdicts formulated by the Nuremberg court contain recitals of facts relating to the causes of the Second World War and the actions of German armed forces. According to Article 7 (1) [an FRG statute], they may not be questioned by German courts and authorities, even in the light of new historical evidence. Regarding content of school books, the ministries for education and the arts are also bound by these recitals of fact.

Mr. Dehne, you know very well what is expected of you. By enforcing the Holocaust lies against historical truth you are acting as a direct agent of the destructive will of our enemies. Enforcement of the ‘laws’ of the OMF/Federal Republic assures that no actions can ever impair the interests of the Jews.

Where Holocaust law is concerned, it is stated very openly. This situation necessitates a brief discussion of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which is a disgrace to Western civilization.

The credit for inventing the Tribunal goes to two Lithuanian Jews, the brothers Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson, while credit for actual implementation belongs to the Jewish World Congress. World Congress President Nahum Goldmann, the ‘King of the Diaspora Jews,’ praised its creation as:

‘One of the greatest acts in the history of international justice and morals.’

Nahum also gives us an idea of how Jewish circles were employed to introduce this idea to the U.S. government.

Nahum Goldmann

He writes:

‘Under the leadership of the two brothers Robinson, the Jewish World Congress devoted a great deal of energy to the mental and moral preparation of these trials. To the great credit of the Roosevelt Administration, it unerringly adopted their principles and was able to put them through against the doubts of many among the Allies, especially in England.’

Goldmann’s account informs us just how this came about:

‘In the war years 1941 and 1942 we received information from Geneva concerning the destruction of Jews in the Nazi camps. This prompted Wise to decide that we had to visit the President and insist that the Allies warn the Germans about the consequences of their brutal policy and their certain punishment after the War… We arranged a weekend meeting with Rosenman in his summer villa near Roosevelt’s “Hyde Park” in order to discuss what he should recommend to the President in Washington on Monday.

Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill

It was a hot morning and we sitting on Rosenman’s veranda without jackets and ties when we suddenly heard the signal that the President’s car always gave. We suddenly realized that Roosevelt was coming to see Rosenman. We began putting on our coats and ties, but Rosenman said this was not necessary since Roosevelt attached no importance to formalities. Very soon the President’s car stopped in front of the veranda, and before we could greet him, Roosevelt humorously remarked:

‘Well now, this is interesting — Sam Rosenman, Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann sitting here discussing what orders they want to give the President of the United States! Just imagine what the Nazis would give for a picture of this little scene.’

We began stuttering that we were discussing an urgent message from Europe that Rosenman wanted to show him on Monday. But Roosevelt just winked and said:

“That’s fine. Sam can come to see me on Monday and tell me what I’m supposed to do.”

Then he drove off.’

In another place Goldmann expresses the pleasures of exercising power even more intimately:

‘Seduction can turn into passion… The sensation of seducing a woman might be more intense momentarily, but winning a statesman is something very similar . . . . During the time I lived in America nearly all presidents — Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon — had their “Court Jews,” wealthy people who helped finance their election campaigns and influential leaders of the Jewish community.’

Another prominent ‘Court Jew’ was Felix Frankfurter, to whom Roosevelt was always ‘very personally attached.’ For many years Frankfurter was ‘one of the most influential personalities in Washington,’ which made him a competitor for the sobriquet ‘Emperor of America’ among some Jews. Many of Frankfurter’s students were appointed to high positions in the Roosevelt administration. Goldman remarked that:

‘Frankfurter had no desire to perform on stage, but he derived all the more pleasure from pulling strings behind the scenes.’

Felix Frankfurter

While the British government argued in favor of summarily executing captured German leaders — at least 50,000 of them — Stalin favored the show trials that were dear to his heart. The United States was also interested in such trials. Under international law, however, it was not possible to punish military personnel for carrying out orders. When Jacob Robinson suggested placing captured Germans before a tribunal anyway, American judges on the Supreme Court said he was crazy.

‘What was unusual about the wartime actions of the Nazi officers?’ they asked.

It might have been possible to place Hitler and even Göring before a court, but certainly not ordinary military men who conducted themselves as loyal soldiers and carried out orders. Finally Robinson succeeded in persuading Supreme Court Judge Robert Jackson to accept his point of view.

Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), a close friend and trusted adviser of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had served as Assistant Attorney General from 1936 to 1939 and as Attorney General in 1940 and 1941. He was of the opinion that an Allied military tribunal would be;

‘a continuation of the war efforts of the allied nations.’

At war’s end Jackson was sent to Europe with instructions to juridically brand Germany for all time as the aggressor nation solely responsible for World War II.

Georg Slyterman von Langeweyde: ‘Knight’ (ca. 1935)

Caption: ‘Victory or defeat rests in God’s hands/But we are masters and king of our honor.’

On Roosevelt’s orders, Judge Samuel Rosenman had gone to London at the beginning of April 1945 in order to develop plans for a collective trial of ‘German War Criminals.’ On 5 April Lord Chancellor Sir John Simon, head of the British juridical system, had argued for summary execution of Hitler and his cohorts without any kind of trial. British Attorney General Sir David Maxwell Fyfe informed Rosenman that he also was;

‘personally in favor of the method of summary execution.’

On the next day, however, Simon announced that Washington needed;

‘judicial proceedings before executions.’

Obviously, those who thought up the tribunal idea had persuaded the ‘head of the British legal system’ of the advantage of having a high ranking international ‘Judiciary’ create the ‘manifest obviousness’ necessary to support the historical lies about German criminality and war guilt. But would any judge accept the idea that the victorious Allies’ shooting of 50,000 captured National Socialists proved the 50,000 victims had committed the cruel deeds of which they were accused by their enemies? That was most unlikely. Any ‘judge’ who accepted the notion that being a victim of murder proves that the victim of murder had committed a capital offense and therefore makes his guilt obvious, would presumably land in an insane asylum.

President Truman. The 33rd President of the United States. In office April 12, 1945 – January 20, 1953

After Roosevelt’s death [April 12, 1945], and with the acquiescence of the President Truman, Rosenman officially offered Jackson the post of chief prosecutor at the victors’ tribunal. The offer came with this stipulation:

‘The captured Nazis should first receive a ‘fair trial’ — and then be hanged!’

‘Extraordinarily happy about the offer,’ Jackson accepted immediately. He had long defended the thesis that in the 20th Century, 19th Century concepts about war no longer applied. He also believed that the USA, on account of its ‘leadership role in the world,’ was entitled to intervene in any military conflict and act as it saw fit. Jackson announced that in order to ‘secure the moral leadership of the USA’ he was authorized to ‘prove,’ with the help of a military tribunal, that:

‘These damned Germans were solely responsible for the war . . . . We need a scapegoat on which to foist the world’s evils for a long time to come.’

Robert Jackson at Nuremberg

In consultations preparatory to the tribunal, Jackson ignored the objections advanced by the European allies that the accused could prove, based on documents seized in France, that the Reich was not responsible for the outbreak of World War II; rather, the War had been forced on Germany. They pointed out that the documents would prove that England, France, and the USA had all backed Poland in its stubborn and aggressive attitude toward Germany. After all, Poland had mobilized twice before Germany mobilized. In July 1939, Polish Marshall Rydz-Smigly publicly stated before officers in Thorn that;

‘Poland wants war and Germany will not be able to prevent it, even if it wants to.’

Furthermore, Roosevelt had for all practical purposes declared war against Germany in 1941. The German Declaration of War was completely legitimate, given the provocative American aggressions against German ships and its violation of neutrality by delivering weapons to the British.

None of that could be mentioned during the trial, of course. Germany must be branded and condemned as the sole guilty party, and the European war had to be presented as German aggression from the very beginning. Brigadier General Telford Taylor, later the chief American advisor for the prosecution, objected that it would not be possible in a fair trial;

‘to push through the absurd notion of Germany’s sole guilt — rather, the opposite will come out.’

Finally the USA had driven Hitler into a Polish trap from which he was unable to extricate himself: Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed on the complete annihilation of the German Reich from the very beginning.

Troika: Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill

To this Jackson retorted:

‘Who’s talking about a fair trial? Of course the Germans will try to accuse the Allies of pursuing a policy that forced them into war. I expect that, since I know about the documents seized from the German Foreign Office. They all come to the same conclusion:

“We have no way out. We must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled:”

Well, it would be a catastrophe if this trial got into a discussion about the political and economic causes of the war. That could cause an unending disaster in both America and Europe . . . .’

Taylor concluded:

‘That means the question of who is guilty of starting the war must be avoided at all costs . . . it must not be allowed to come up.’

That, however, would be possible only if Jackson could succeed as lawmaker, in setting up the rules of the game for a perfect trial by simply forbidding all discussion of the causes of the war before the tribunal. Jackson took Taylor’s remarks as his guidelines and remarked:

‘If all documents and statements to this effect are rejected by the court as irrelevant or unimportant, the war policies of the Western Powers, Poland and the USSR cannot be discussed.’

Pax Americana (Anon.)

Taylor expressed the idea in a metaphor, saying:

‘The shark pool of European politics between the wars must appear as a carp pond with one single evil pike swimming around.’

Jackson added:

‘And this pike — Hitler naturally — must by the end of the trial have mutated into a monstrous killer shark, threatening to devour all the little fish and striving for world domination.’

On 6 June 1945 Jackson reassured Truman with a report setting out the new ‘legal concepts’ along with his plans for the course of the trial, which included a London conference with jurists from all the other allies. This conference took place in London between June 26 and August 8, 1945.

The French Professor of international law, Dr. Gros, began by pointing out that ‘wars of aggression’ did not represent a criminal violation of international law . . . . If the war were thought of as a ‘criminal act of individuals,’ however, the law could be bent.

The latest book by Trainin [the Soviet expert on international law who took part in the conference] states that:

‘A war of aggression is to be regarded as an international crime in the sense of the discussions held at the League of Nations.’

Compensation can be demanded, but criminal penalties do not ensue. For this reason, he said, one may not invent a punishment. Trainin would have liked to come to a different conclusion; but, as he stated, a ‘war of aggression’ entails no criminal liability. Furthermore the Joint Declaration made at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 made no mention of the crime of aggressive war.

Adolf Hitler portrait

Adolf Hitler bust (B. Bleeker, 1937)

Jackson reacted to these objections with indignation. He said that the U.S. had conducted total war and paid no attention to international law, unless it had reason to fear retaliation by the enemy.

Furthermore, since the U.S. was the most powerful victor, no one was in a position to hinder it from introducing new guidelines in the interest of the Allies. With this in mind he had worked out his own proposal for the prosecution. It contained the following main points:

‘Offensive war, invasion, attack in violation of international laws and treaties, along with war as an instrument of national policy.’

He stated that he considered charges of war atrocities as being of ‘secondary importance.’

In the course of further discussions he explained:

‘As far as specific charges are concerned, the United States are particularly interested in developing the (new) criminal charge of waging aggressive war, in order to depict Germany’s entire conduct of the war as illegal. This is because, during the War, I suggested certain measures to President Roosevelt that under international law could be justified only with the theory that Germany’s conduct was illegal. In order to justify these measures, the United States have [sic] a particular interest in judicially establishing the illegality of the German war.’

The French appeals court judge Robert Falco gave Jackson something to consider by pointing out that:

‘If we go through with this, the court will be punishing the Germans for crimes with which the Allies can also be charged.’

Thus the problem was, how could the victors conduct in international court, an international trial for violation of international law, in which Germany’s violations of international law would be pilloried and punished, but theirs would not? It had to be anticipated that the world would hurl the response ‘But you did the same thing!’ back in the victors’ faces, and the judges from neutral countries would throw out the whole trial.

‘At the end, the whole thing would turn into an international tribunal,’ Falco lamented.

At this point Jackson dropped his mask. His response was:

‘You must understand that it is not going to be just an international tribunal, but an international military tribunal! And nobody will have a say about its composition except we and we alone. All the judges will be picked from countries that took part in the War. We will be the ones who frame the court charter, determine the composition of the court, and write the legal code for the court. We will be the court prosecutors and the court judges. In this trial neither the accused nor the witnesses will have a right to testify freely, except perhaps Hermann Göring.’

Reichsmarschall Hermann Goering portrait

Here Prof. Gros interjected that:

‘If lawmakers, prosecutors and judges are all the same persons, this fact alone will constitute a decisive objection. In every legal system with which I am familiar, such a composition would be illegal and impossible.’

Again he raised the question:

‘Besides, how can men who have committed no criminal acts still be accused and sentenced? We French may think that such a thing would be politically desirable, but it is not possible under international law.’

Jackson had no response to that except a cynical rejection of legal procedure by stating:

‘I must admit that international law is weak and unclear in support of our position . . . . We simply have to explain that the Germans are personally responsible.’

Prof. Gros still could not follow his thought. He objected:

‘The acts of which the German leaders can be accused is an old familiar story, but the fact remains that no one has ever declared such deeds to be criminal violations of international law. If we do this now, it will be a case of ex post facto lawmaking.’

Prof. Gros’s objection did not impress Jackson in the least:

‘You may be right,’ he replied.

‘Precisely for that reason, explanations and discussions of the principles of international law must be restricted to the minimum in the courtroom.’

At this point British Attorney General Maxwell-Fyfe interjected:

‘What we want to avoid in this trial is a discussion about whether or not the proceedings are violations of international law. We shall simply state what international law is and then not allow any discussion of whether it is international law or not.’

Jackson reiterated the quintessence of the discussion in these words:

‘You are entirely right. After all, the Allies are still technically at war with Germany, even though its military and political institutions have collapsed. Our military court represents a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations . . . . As the victors, we see it as our undisputed right to keep secret from the court every document and every witness that could prove damaging to us.’

Prof. Gros again objected:

‘But that is turning the entire European legal tradition upside down. So we are not interested in establishing the truth here, we are just interested in winning a judicial victory?’

Jackson:

‘That’s right. And since all the advantages are on our side, our victory before the court is assured.’

Arno Breker: ‘Departure of the Warrior’ (1942)

Thus the Nuremberg Tribunal was and remains to this day a triumph of power over the law, committed by criminals who wrapped themselves in judges’ robes.

On 8 August 1945 the London conference ended with the ‘Agreement on the Prosecution and Punishment of the Principal War Criminals of the European Axis Powers’ including the court statute for this court that was appended to the agreement. The protocols of the London sessions were illegally published four years later as the ‘Report of Robert H. Jackson.’

If they had been made public in 1945, in any trial conducted according to English Common Law, they would have caused a mistrial. As soon as they knew of these discussions, the judges would have had no choice except to discontinue the trial or begin anew. Those present at the London conference understood this perfectly well: any verdict that was reached before the trial would have to be overruled. The judges who participated in the London discussions were clearly compromised.

They were obligated to recuse themselves, but they failed to do this. The precise index of sources for this matter may be found in Hans Meiser’s book ‘Das Tribunal,’ a computerized copy of which is appended hereto [see PDF below].

Das Tribunal by Hans Meiser

When one realizes that the International Military Tribunal was nothing except a victors’ consortium for murder, it becomes clear . . . that . . . the so-called ‘judges’ at Nuremberg accomplished nothing more than rationalizing the murder of the Reich leadership [and] . . . have mercilessly delivered the entire German nation for all time to the ‘Auschwitz Cudgel,’ with which our enemy is annihilating the soul of the German nation.

Lectures on the Holocaust by Germar Rudolf

The ‘manifest obviousness of the Holocaust’ alleged by the courts of OMF/Federal Republic of Germany is but an empty phrase. There is no evidence for the event conjured by this battle cry, as is clearly demonstrated in the appended book by Germar Rudolf: ‘Vorlesungen über den Holocaust — Strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör’ (’Lectures on the Holocaust — Controversial Issues Cross Examined’).

Castle Hill Publishers, P.O. Box 118, Hastings, TN34 3ZQ, UK (April 2005) [Americans should visit http://vho.org/store/USA to purchase this illustrated 568-page book (ISBN No. 1591480019) in English. For all non-Europeans Castle Hill’s address is 253 W. 72nd Street, #1711, New York, NY 10023 USA].

Mr. Dehne, perhaps you now understand the panic with which world Jewry is reacting to [Iranian] President Ahmadinejad’s announcement that Iran will sponsor a scientific commission and conference to investigate the authenticity of the Holocaust. If, as you state, my participation in the conference planned by the Iranian government would threaten ‘serious consequences’ for the Bundesrepublik, then you have said everything about the Federal Republic that needs to be said.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The Bundesrepublik, along with the Basic Law, is doomed to vanish on the day when:

‘A constitution goes into effect that has been created by the German nation in a free election.’ (Article 146 of the Basic Law.)

This will be the day when the German nation through its Reichsordnende Versammlung (Constitutional Convention) officially rejects the historical falsifications sponsored by the enemies of the Reich and reclaims its sovereignty. That day is coming sooner than you think. The Tehran conference will greatly facilitate the dissolution of the Federal Republic, since it is constructed on a great lie that will be demolished in Tehran: the Holocaust Lie.

In conclusion [said Horst Mahler], I would like to remind you that the German Reich continues to exist. Its laws are still in effect. They can not at present be carried out, for the reason that foreign domination, in clear violation of international law, is hindering the Reich by force from doing so,. When the Reich’s ability to function is again secured, actions such as yours will be punishable as treason.”

Reichsparteitag Nurnberg, 1939

_________________________

———————————————-

Version History

Verion 5: Jan 28, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com/wp/ version. Added See Also links.

Ver 4 — Apr 11, 2016 — Added links to two other posts.

Ver 3 — Apr 9, 2016 — Added newspaper image. Added PDF of “Lectures on the Holocaust“.

Ver 2 — Apr 7, 2016 — Added more images. Added PDFs.

Ver 1 — Apr 6, 2016 — created post.

Teaching White Kids about Adolf Hitler — TRANSCRIPT

admin — Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:45:56 +0000

[This is the transcript of a 65 minute video by the History Reviewed Channel guy, in his usual measured tone, on the need to teach younger Whites about Adolf Hitler and his true White revolution that severely threatened to break the power of Organized jewry. He highly recommends young people read Hitler’s Mein Kampf as part of their education in fighting jewish communist and liberal brainwashing. HRC guy is originally from Rhodesia, but has, since the early 1980s, lived in South Africa where he has witnessed how a once White ruled, first class country has deteriorated into a complete mess under black rule, engineered by Organized jewry — KATANA.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAknw5pqOwY

Click on the above link, or copy the link into your browser to view the video.

NOTE: As of Sep 7, 2016 this video is no longer available on Alfred Schaefer’s Youtube channel.

Published on Mar 20, 2016

Jews need a curtain of ignorance to descend on all people. Then Jews THRIVE! Hitler & Mussolini are the only two TRUE white revolutionaries in a long time, perhaps since the American revolution. Hitler’s legacy & goals have to be lied about because this is the only true, unexpected & successful revolution carried out by common whites from the bottom, which the Elite & Jews were not secretly sponsoring.

We also discuss Hitler & women. Why women liked Hitler & women were avid supporters of Hitler and the NAZIS.

We MUST teach all the white children about Hitler because they, sadly, have to continue the war which our forefathers & ourselves have LOST.

The War to FREE the White Race from Jewish mental slavery MUST CONTINUE. WE NEED FREE SPEECH & FREE THOUGHT FOR WHITES EVERYWHERE!

YouTube Stats

Sep 7 — Views:

17,575 – Comments: ? – Likes: ? Dislikes: ?

(Video no longer available)

Apr 14 — Views: 3,401 – Comments: 90 – Likes: 156 Dislikes: 4

Apr 6 — Views: 3,155 – Comments: 81 – Likes: 150 Dislikes: 4

Apr 2 — Views: 2,967 – Comments: 81 – Likes: 146 Dislikes: 3

Mar 26 — Views: 2,245 – Comments: 69 – Likes: 124 Dislikes: 3

Mar 24 — Views: 1,803 – Comments: 61 – Likes: 114 Dislikes: 2

Mar 23 — Views: 1,273 – Comments: 59 – Likes: 103 Dislikes: 2

Mar 22 — Views: 485 – Comments: 53 – Likes: 81 Dislikes: 1

Mar 21, 2016 — Views: 323 – Comments: 43 – Likes: 57 Dislikes: 0

_____________________

Teaching White Kids

about

Adolf Hitler

By History Review Channel

TRANSCRIPT

[00:32]

Welcome to the History Review Channel where we analyze the lies and deceptions of history.

Finally the hectic stuff at work, etc., which has been keeping me up late at night and working a lot of extra hours, finally all of that is out of the way and I can resume a more normal routine again. But this being South Africa things are never quite stable. I notice this week when we were putting out our garbage that again the blacks had not come to collect the garbage. We have a company that we all pay money for and it’s part of our rates and taxes. We pay for a service but they decide when they’re going to work and when they’re not going to work. And this must be about at least the fourth time this year that they have not come to pick up our garbage.

But you can see that my neighbors are well practiced at this because when the blacks don’t come to pick up the garbage, then we all know to leave our bins outside for the rest of the week. Because you have no idea when they are going to come to actually pick it up. They have pitched up here late at night, some nights. Or they’ll pitch up on a Sunday or a Saturday or whatever day they feel like. And if your bin is not out then it’s not collected, so we just leave our bins out every day and that’s that.

The Post is just as disgusting. The Post as had me so angry that for about four months or five months last year I didn’t even bother to go to my post box. So many things have gone missing, I just didn’t care anymore. And I was tired of going there and just getting annoyed. So I picked up my post after about four months only to find all kinds of things have been returned and all sorts of stuff. But I was glad to see that at least some mail is going through. So now I’ll actually go back to my mailbox and go and check it more often. But there was one good thing in the mail. I couldn’t believe it when somebody I knew, sent me some photocopies of court papers. This guy told me he was going to take the Jews to court. And by golly he did! And it was delightful to see the papers and I saw the case number and the papers all signed and stamped. And I will put it out in a video so that you can see it. Somebody has dared to take on the Jews and the media and take them to court! And the way he does it is very very instructive! I wish we could get lots of law students and lawyers who would do something for Whites who can perhaps put in a bit of time to try and fight our enemies by legal means. Because it could open up a whole bunch of opportunities for us.

Of course I’m still delighted that the South African Post Office made a loss of 1.5 billion rand last year. I’m very delighted with it and may they go bankrupt. And may they lose many, many jobs and all that kind of thing. Because they are so utterly useless! In my younger days after I was in the military, I worked for the South African Post Office at the time. And although it was called the South African Post Office it also ran the entire telephone system in the country. And I worked at its Head Office and I was in the computer department there. And we used to get a lot more done. All these things that they can’t do nowadays we Whites were taking care of all of it, long ago. And really, we could take care of all these things if only it wasn’t that the law is against Whites.

[05:00]

They are jobs you can’t get hold of because of affirmative action. There are racial quotas that stop you from getting things. There are racial and sexual quotas. And if you start a business and your business is growing and becoming successful then you have to have black partners who own half of your business, at the very least. So there’s all kinds of things that stop us from doing things together, by ourselves for ourselves. And as I’ll show you, we can’t even donate money. Whites cannot even donate money exclusively for other Whites, without having blacks take a chunk of it.

So this is the mess of Southern Africa in 2016. What a freaking mess it is! This week again, suddenly, for no apparent reason the traffic lights were out, all over the show, traffic lights at main intersections were not functioning again. And on Friday I decided to quickly pop off to a shop near my work, on my way home. I need to find myself in what seemed to be like a traffic jam. And I couldn’t understand why the cars were moving so slowly. So I thought to myself, well it must be yet another traffic light that’s not working. But this time I was wrong. What in fact was happening was that a whole part of the road started washing away. After the driest summer that I’ve experienced, here in South Africa, in my more than thirty five years in South Africa. All of a sudden the rain came. And we had quite a bit of rain this week. And can you believe now with the rain the potholes are starting to expand. And that’s what happened on this piece of road. So the next thing I saw with these barriers showing us to go into one lane. And in front of me was quite a big pot hole. I was in a bit of a rush and perhaps did not make such a wise decision. But I wondered if I could sort of edge over this thing. And I sort of got it right, but my wheel fell into the pothole and I could hear the metal of the car actually hitting onto the tar. I really thought I’d damaged something.

But, I managed to get out of this pothole and I checked my car, and my old car is quite tough. So I was delighted to see that I couldn’t see any visible signs of damage. But all the other cars, the 4 X 4s had taken a more careful route than I had. And in the future I’ll have to learn to be a little bit more patient. But that’s a week for you in Johannesburg. This place used to be a first class city. And now look at the mess that it is.

Johannesburg for all purposes was the New York of Africa. They used to refer to it as the Golden City. And truly when I arrived here in 1981 this country and especially Johannesburg was very impressive, I must tell you. I’d never seen anything like it. And it’s definitely comparable with other First World cities. Well at least it used to be. But now it’s a flipping rat hole. And the extent to which it is getting worse is quite shocking. I worked in Randburg, and Randburg is on the fast track, down hill. I recall in the 1980s, in about 1985, 1986, I was working for the same company that I’m working for now. But I went on to leave them after two years back then. And then for eighteen years I worked for myself and I did other work.

Back then in the middle of the 1980s we had to do a survey because we were in our offices in the center of Johannesburg, just south of the center of Johannesburg. And they wanted to know where to build a new Head Office. So they did a survey among the employees back then in about 1985, 1986.

[10:00]

Asking, where would be the best place to build a future Head Office. What would work for us? So I remember among the choices was the center of Johannesburg itself. And then the other alternative was Randburg. They had some buildings in Randburg. But a lot of people looked at Randburg as the up and coming part of Johannesburg in the future. And they saw lots of businesses expanding out into Randburg. Anyway, there were quite a lot of people who were in favor of moving the head office to Randburg. But in the end they chose to rather build the new offices in the center of Johannesburg.

So back then in 1985, 1986, Randburg was seen as the up and coming part of Johannesburg that would be rocking in the future. So that is about thirty years ago. But now thirty years later I’m telling you, Randburg is going down hill like you can’t believe. In later years I moved to a suburb near Randburg. And then I saw the beginning of the end coming. And I moved elsewhere. But I’ve spoken to business owners in Randburg and I can tell you, Randburg is going to become one rats’ nest of a place in the future in Johannesburg.

Already the businesses, all those liberal businesses which had been moving en-masse to Randburg back then. They days are over. And businesses have been abandoning Randburg left right and center. Buildings which were built only for business purposes are now being sold to blacks as apartments. The place is going to become one rats’ nest in the future, I tell you.

So in the short space of thirty years, a place that had been rising and big companies were pouring billions of Rands into developments there, they are running for the hills now. And there is only very little development that’s actually going on there. Those who know Johannesburg and know what a rat hole Hillbrow became. I’m telling you Randburg is going to be the next Hillbrow. Already Windsor which is near Cresta is already a Hillbrow. For the Americans Hillbrow would be like your inner cities, where the blacks dominate. And where you have high crime rates and all that sort of thing. That’s how these things are spreading here.

So those people in my family who grew up with me and we spent our childhood in Rhodesia, we sit and we look at where things are going. What a mess everything is and we often long for Rhodesia. But those who grew up with me in Rhodesia, they now have children, and the children are starting to finish high school. And they’re starting to look for jobs or prepare for university, those who can. So now they tried it, to educate their children, to tell them what life was like in Rhodesia and what Rhodesia was like. Because these kids were born under black rule. So these White kids don’t know what it’s like to live under a White government. And we can tell them, because we lived under the last White rulers of Rhodesia and of South Africa. But the kids don’t know what it’s like.

Now a concern that I had when the blacks came to rule South Africa was that you could see the government and those liberals and the Jews. They had all done everything they could to prepare the schools and universities to turn the White kids into White hating communists and to propagandize all the kids. And indeed it was a big concern. And I remember being concerned that the White kids could turn out to be anti-White. And they’d be working for the enemy. But it does appear that the attempts at propagandizing the kids have met with mixed success and it’s not being quite as successful as they had hoped. So some of these kids, perhaps through the influence of the parents, have been able to retain some sanity and their parents have been able to guide them to certain degree. So there is some hope.

[15:13]

And the most interesting hope that came along was two years ago when one family member of mine who grew up with me told me that her oldest daughter was a fan of Adolf Hitler! That absolutely astounded me! And interesting enough, some time back, about three years ago I was dating an Afrikaan woman, and she also had quite a fascination with Adolf Hitler. So it came as quite a surprise to me in the last three years or so, to discover that they are women who are drawn to Adolf Hitler. In the time of Germany, Adolf Hitler had huge numbers of female fans. The women were crazy over him. They were crazier over him than probably any politician that has ever lived. Not even Bill Clinton or any of the others, had the hold of a women that Adolf Hitler had.

So for me, it was a fascinating discovery that women found Adolf Hitler interesting. And that they were drawn to him. And interesting enough it doesn’t seem as if these women are just drawn to him because of anything he was saying. It was more the way he was saying things and his intensity which was really the thing that was drawing them to him. They could sense there was something driving this man. They didn’t understand it, but they wanted to know what was making this man so animated. Now Adolf Hitler was an extremely brilliant man. And the more you begin to understand how many problems he faced, and he overcame them all, one by one.

Then you realize how much intelligence and effort and dedication this man had for his task. And here was a guy who was fighting a liberal slash communist system that the Jews had completely sown up. And the Jews had completely sown up Germany. Germany was in the palm of their hands. And along came this man, Adolf Hitler, and all alone, against unbelievable odds, he assembled people.

And the mere fact that he could even get to becoming the leader of Germany is a miracle of miracles. This man achieved the impossible. Just by walking into the Chancellory and becoming the Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, that was all a miracle! The fact that he went on to doing other things like, uniting the Germans, and bringing Austria and the Germans in Czechoslovakia, and all these other Germans together, that was already something that marked him out for greatness. Never mind the achievements of the Germans in World War II, when they faced global Jewry, who used the rest of us Whites as their stupid soldiers fighting for our own destruction! And the trend of White men fighting for the wrong reasons continues to this day. The American Army and the American military is doing exactly that. They’ll fighting for the Jews and they’re fighting unwinnable wars. I have a book that was written by an American General, I think it is.

And he wrote and warned of this about fifty years ago. He said that, all these soldiers of America would be fighting these unwinnable wars, and it would not work out. And what is happening? Where are we in 2016? We see America still at war with the Arabs, all sorts of people that they shouldn’t be at war with. But these Jews, these Jews, worked to create animosity between the White race and the black race. The Jews have worked hard to create animosity between Arabs and Whites. And all of these animosities are things that didn’t need to exist.

[20:17]

But returning to Adolf Hitler, I just want to read a little bit out of Mein Kampf to you, because it will show you that this man had insights into all sorts of things, including women.

So here he talks about the broad masses of the people and how they are almost like a woman. Adolf Hitler had his first experiences with communism and communist propaganda and it’s raw brutality. So, on page 34 of Mein Kampf, he writes:

“I now realized the meaning and purpose of those brutal orders which prohibited the reading of all books and newspapers that were not read. And at the same time demanded that only the Red meetings should be attended. In the clear light of reality I was able to see what must have been the inevitable consequences of that intolerant teaching.”

And here he’s talking about communist propaganda and how everybody is on the side of the commies is told you mustn’t read anything of the side. Now of course exactly that is going on today. Because you’ll see how the Jews and the Liberals try to do everything possible to get the White kids and everybody away from reading anything that is not. Liberal! That is not theirs!

Because they know that the moment somebody reads something else, that, that person’s mind might break itself loose from those chains. Those mental chains that come from believing the lies. And of course this is critical stuff that we need to fight against. We need to get their minds out of their chains.

But then, Hitler continues:

“The mentality of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. Like woman, whose inner sensibilities are not under the sway of abstract reasoning, but all always subject to the influence of a vague emotional longing for the strength that completes her being. And who would rather bow to the strong man, than dominate the weakling.

In like manner the masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant. And are well led with a strongest sense of mental security, by a teaching that brooks no rival, than by one which offers them a liberal freedom. They have very little idea of how to use that freedom, and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually. And they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused. Nor have they the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its determined utterances. To which, they always submit.”

So it’s interesting how Hitler describes a woman. And he says so correctly. He says that she is driven at her inner levels, not so much by abstract reasoning, but actually by other deeper emotions and longings. He’s understanding that there is an animal inside of men and inside of women too. There’s nothing wrong with this. This is just the way nature is. This is just the way we are made. They are many things in our makeup that are quite unconscious to us, and we do these things automatically. And it is nature that is at work, and nature resolves certain things for us. And we’ll come back to some of these topics.

[25:00]

But notice here, that he says that a woman ultimately yearns for a strong man. And she would rather let a man dominate her. Not all women are like that. I do you know women who are the opposite of that. But it shows you these something deep in there. And it shows you that he’s not stupid, he understands the deeper parts of people.

And that is one of the amazing things about Adolf Hitler. Is how well he truly understood people. He really understood people. They never give him credit for this. And in the bits and pieces that I’ve read about him and what I’ve read of his writings, I can see this man grasped people. This was a guy who was out there among people, and he learned what people are about. And he learned all the finer workings of them. And he probably understood them better than anybody else. And that is why he went on to understand when the Jews were busy playing others. Because he had the intellect that allowed him to see deeper and to see where the Jews are busy playing people. And people are allowing the Jews to get away with too much. And we’ll get back to all these topics.

But anyway, I was so delighted to see that one young person in our family, actually was interested in Adolf Hitler. Now my relative has also tried her hand at a bit of art, and when she heard of course that Hitler had been a painter, she’s sort of felt that there is something there. They that there is something his artist side, that is interesting.

But those of you who’ve watched my video of Two Emperors of the White Race, you’ll know that the arty side was not as important as the architectural side. There were other things that Hitler had the skills that were more pronounced than his art skills. So my relative said to me, that her daughter wants to buy Mein Kampf. And then I said to her:

“No, no, no! Tell her not to spend a cent on Mein Kampf. I know where to get that best Mein Kampf, of all.”

And I said to them, you can get Mein Kampf, the Stalag Edition, which is the only, officially authorized translation of Mein Kampf ever issued by the NSDAP! You will know them as the Nazi party. But their correct acronym is NSDAP. So, Mein Kampf was translated by one of its members and the party authorized this version and this version was put into various camps [Stalags] where these prisoners of war, were. And this was the version of it that was published and distributed. The only English version published and distributed by the Nazi party. This version was translated in 1937.

Anyway, the Barne’s Review, they sell this version of Mein Kampf. And I bought a copy for myself. And I had a copy of Mein Kampf that came from England. It was one of the British translations of Mein Kampf. But true to form when I read the Stalag Edition and started reading the Stalag Edition and comparing it to the British translation, it is definitely a much smoother read, a much nicer read. And I took various pages and compared them to see, word for word, how they compare. And the two say pretty much the same thing. But what I noticed was that the translation by the British was much more laborious to read. It was definitely not a nice read. So you get exactly the correct message, but it’s just that one is worded better than the other one.

[29:40]

And also in this British translation, they have about forty pages of notes, before you get to the first word that Adolf Hitler has written.

And to go and go through all those forty pages of mind numbing commentary, along with all these other things. You know, where they are busy saying also, “Ah, you know, German propaganda” and this and that. Meanwhile, the stuff that you’re reading written by the Englishman, that’s British propaganda! So you’ll see all these Jews in English always busy saying, “Oh well, you know, the Germans were putting out their propaganda”. And you? Aren’t you putting out your propaganda, even right now? What about that? How’s your propaganda going? 2016 and you’re still putting your propaganda out!

So, in this day in age of the Internet and all that, what is wrong with reading what Adolf Hitler wrote? We’ve had all kinds of garbage thrown at us from liberals, from jews. We’ve had to listen to blacks talk their nonsense. Everybody’s had their chance to say their say about everything in life! And the one group of people that you can never get to hear anything from, are the Germans! The Germans! The Germans can’t speak about Germany! The Germans can’t speak about German history. They can’t defend themselves. For them to defend themselves is freaking illegal! If they try to defend themselves they go to jail! That’s a fact of life! And other Europeans also go to jail if they try and point out that, “You know, excuse me, what these Germans are saying is true!” Then they also end up in jail. Like these guys from France and so forth, Switzerland. They end up in jail.

So you’ve heard everybody and his dog talk about World War II. Well how about Adolf Hitler being allowed to say, his say? Why can’t you actually read the words of Adolf Hitler and just read what he had to say? He wrote this in 1923. This was written when he was in jail. He probably dictated this and somebody else wrote it down, but the bottom line is that it’s his words. And of course Adolf Hitler, I might add, ended up in jail because he tried to pull off a Putsch. He tried to overthrow the government. And he later explained that the reason he did it was, he feared that if he didn’t do something urgently that all the Germans would turn to communism. And as it was the Germans did turn to communism. And he and the veterans and the Nazis they had to fight a political and internal civil war in order to be allowed to contest elections and to go forward using the democratic system. Because the Jews and the commies were trying to drive them out of the democratic system.

In exactly the same way that you see these blacks attacking Donald Trump and trying to drive him out of the democratic system. This year, 2016 you’ll see how intolerant the so-called, tolerant liberals are. All the so-called progressive, you’ll see their levels of intolerance and how they will lie and lie and cheat and lie and lie some more. Now, Adolf Hitler and Mussolini in Italy, they both went through this kind of stuff. Much worse than this. They were openly stopped from engaging in normal political activities. They had to fight in order to get to the ballot box. They had to fight in order that they could conduct elections and win elections, normally. Because the Jews and the commies and the so-called liberals were all trying to prevent them from using the ballot box, which they had every right to use.

So when my family member said that her daughter wanted a Mein Kampf, I said to her, “Don’t waste a cent! I will get you a Mein Kampf. And I will get it from America.” And she had to wait for a long time because it was a hell of a battle for me. Must have taken me about seven months. But eventually I got the Mein Kampf and this week I met my family member. We hadn’t spoken for a long time. But she happened to be in Johannesburg on some work related stuff, and so we spent an evening having dinner, and a good chat, and catching up on lots of things. So I gave her the Mein Kampf for her daughter. And I decided that I’d write something in Mein Kampf, because I know, the moment that this youngster now starts reading Mein Kampf, that people are going to start with all the nonsense about Hitler. So I decided to write something on the inside cover. And just to give some background on this book and what is in it.

[35:07]

So here is what I wrote:

“You are the first person in our family to take an interest in Hitler, the greatest man since Napoleon. More lies are told about this man then anyone who ever lived. If this man had won World War II your mom and I would still be living in Rhodesia and the Boers would still be ruling this country. This book was written in 1923 when Hitler was in jail. Hitler was fighting jewish communism and trying to save Germany.

This book is historically accurate. The English and Jews tried to twist his words and even lie outright about actual statements, herein. If you watch my videos, especially the “Two Emperors” and “Jewish Malicious Rumors” and other videos, you will hear me say much more about him. I have several other books and videos on him, including when he was a boy. Hitler looked after his mother and even cleaned house until she died.

In World War one he won the Iron Cross First Class for bravery. Hitler read stacks of books including every book in the library at Linz. Hitler knew science and religion well. Hitler was extremely impressed with the Roman Empire, before the rise of Christianity.

The Waffen SS was his future model for all Whites, and it was based on Rome, and on modern science. What he says about race is true. I hope you enjoy this book.”

So I tried with those words to try and guide the youngster, so that she isn’t, misled or tricked by other people. And I hope that this is the beginning of his studies of Hitler, and the Germans and the Nazis, and what they got up to. Because those people were truly creative.

I am somewhat concerned about The Barnes Review since the death of Willis Cato, recently. I hope that this organization is not taken over and secretly co-opted by the Jews again. Because the Jews have a habit of waiting for people to die and then they move in on organizations. It appears to me that the Jews managed to take over Ford Motor company. Walt Disney was Jew wise, he never hired Jews. And Disney is now run by the Jews. So the is a long, trend where the Jews wait and bide their time. And when something good is being created by the Whites or by the White Right, in these Jews move in and they start taking it over.

You can see the same thing with the Kennedy family. You’ll see John Kennedy killed, his brother Robert killed and then suddenly you see the other Kennedy, the Kennedy who has the black mark. The Kennedy who is linked to the girl who died in that car accident. And that Kennedy seems to be a liberal. He’s suddenly broken out of the fold and instead of being a loyal Kennedy, he is a garbage Kennedy. And I wondered to myself whether, due to the death of that other girl somebody has got their hands around his balls and they have worked out a little deal with him and his life has been in service of the enemy. In service of the very people that JFK was up against and trying to defeat, unsuccessfully.

So you must know, my family are Christians. I’m not a Christian but, most of my family are Christians. And some of them are quite serious Christians and were all brought up to be pro-Jew. Because we didn’t know our history and we were unaware of what the Jews have done. And even in the history of South Africa, I’m going to show you how there were Boers that were wise to the Jews back in 1937. And we’re going to come back to a lot of these things and I’ll show you some interesting things, about how we used to be jew wise! And then the Jews came, destroyed those who were Jew wise, and then quietly brought down this curtain of ignorance.

[40:16]

Now this curtain of ignorance, exists across the whole Western world and Whites everywhere have noticed for [a] long [time]. I mean we’ve been talking about the dumbing down of people for the last twenty years, I’ve been talking about it and hearing about it. And even before then there were people who saw, “Ah, this curtain of ignorance. This dumbing down of people is going on.” And of course this curtain of ignorance is what the Jews need, because the Jews need ignorance.

The Jews need to bring darkness and stupidity into our lives. And the Jews also create fake revolutions where the Jews set up the revolution and the people at the bottom fight the revolution, thinking that they’re going to create something new. And in fact all they’ve done is the so-called upper classes and elite who are the ones behind the revolution, anyway. And you think you fought for something new but actually you’ve only entrenched them further. And they were behind the fake revolutions.

And in the case of Adolf Hitler and the Germans, what you are seeing is a real revolution! This is the real thing! These Nazis, Adolf Hitler, these guys with really striving towards the light. And these were people operating from the very bottom. The very, very bottom. This is a true revolution, driven from the bottom. A revolution that the elite, that the Jews, that the super rich, that all the entrenched people, even the entrenched aristocrats in Germany, … None of them could stop this thing! This was, the only true White revolution that took place! In the same way that in Italy, Mussolini pulled off the only true revolution in Italy. But in his case, he had a weakness, he liked Jews. And it could be that Mussolini’s weakness not only tripped him up, but caused him to become the Achilles heel of the Germans and Hitler.

But these were the only true revolutions. True revolutions that came from the bottom and that were spontaneous, and they were White Revolutions. And these were the guys who thought these things up and who managed to make headway. And Mussolini was the leader in this. He was the first guy to make headway. He drove liberals out of government. He actually collapsed the Liberal Government, and Hitler learned from Mussolini. But Hitler went on to become much better than Mussolini. However we have to admit that these two guys, they were pioneers. These are the only two White Revolutionaries, true White Revolutionaries that we’ve had. So as far as I’m concerned, that is also why, this book written by Hitler is such a contentious topic. I should add to that my Israeli jew friend admitted to me that the Arabs had always allowed Mein Kampf to be printed in Arab countries. The Arabs had Mein Kampf in their countries all the years that they ruled their countries. So they were the only people who never censored Adolf Hitler’s words.

But in all the Western countries of course, and now even this copy of Mein Kampf in Germany, there have to be notes and annotations on it. And it’s all intended to try and deflect and take away and subtract, in the most subtle manner, while pretending and feigning free speech! They are trying to undermine the actual message of Adolf Hitler. So that is why I believe that if you want to read Mein Kampf go to the most reliable and original sources on Mein Kampf and get away from these annotated copies.

So, in English, Mein Kampf the Stalag Edition is the best one that’s available. So for us White people, educating the children and preparing the children as the next generation, because they’ve got to live in the world. The messy world, the way it is and they’ve got to carry on the struggle. And we need to get their minds as educated as possible. So I’m trying to educate my family and, it’s nice to see that some are listening. Not everyone’s listening but some are listening. And there is hope in that.

[45:12]

The one thing that I urge all Whites to do is to share information with other Whites. Share knowledge with other Whites. Teach other Whites, inform other Whites. The more we can do this and increase our numbers and get people out of this Liberal jewish elite mental slavery, the better it will go.

It is truly a critical battle. And if we can get more people out, it will give us the weight of numbers that will allow us to do other things. Because part of what we must do, and Adolf Hitler’s his life is an interesting lesson. Interesting enough, violence worked for Mussolini and coming to power. Mussolini actually came to power by threatening violence. So, he actually did an interesting thing. But Hitler couldn’t pull it off. Hitler’s attempt was stopped. And in the end Hitler had to fight politically. And it turned out that he was actually a genius at political things. He actually had a tremendous talent for it. He would have preferred the quicker more violent way, but actually he was better as a politician. And he pulled off feats that politically were impossible.

But this man did the impossible. And this man is really the key guy to study because this man’s life and what he did, is as pure as can be in terms of just being a normal common White who came out of nowhere. I think Adolf Hitler also said that he was the man who came from nowhere. He was the man who came from nowhere, and the man who also disappeared, back into oblivion.

He came, he did his thing, and he was gone. He came, he was like a bright light, and then he was gone. And this man who came, so I unexpectedly, and managed to maneuver through that entire rotten Jew system. The system that everybody thought they had locked down. This is the man to study more than anybody else. Because, here you see a White man in his purest form. Thinking like a White man! And the way that the Germans and the Nazis thought is very important. And if we can pass this on to the future generations of White kids, this is utterly critical! They need to have a good solid education in our racial history. And they must understand it!

And another thing that came from my Boer Nazi pal, my Boer Nazi pal who studied Hitler for much of his life, and who was a university lecturer. He said to me that Adolf Hitler, the Waffen SS and the SS.

The SS was intended to be a State, and he said that he thinks that Hitler was creating a brand new State, using the SS. And from what I can tell the SS is built on the Roman Empire and it’s filled with scientific knowledge and this SS was perhaps the model for the future of Germans and the future of Whites. So I would say that studying Adolf Hitler should be the highest priority. The next great intellectual from the time would be a guy like Goebbels. There are others like Feder, who thought up the whole concept of, banking and getting away from interest and all that. But the other big thing to study is everything SS! SS is the model for the future of Whites. And that thing needs to come back. We need to find out anything and everything about the SS, because the SS was a huge thing. And they were also teaching the young boys to be the future leaders. And they were educating them intensely at the SS! I wish we could get our hands on all the educational materials that the Nazis produced.

Because if we could ever produce or reproduce some of that stuff and get that into the heads of the White kids, and get the White boys and White girls, and get them educated, according to those standards, I think we would be on to something big. We need to get these kids ready, because this war is going to carry on. And I don’t see anything quickly coming to an end.

[50:24]

There are a few additional points I want to make about children. I think a youngster who’s listened to my videos, took two of my shorter videos and he created a transcript of them, with screenshots of them and put them on his blog. I know the one that he did was my Jews 101 [JEWS 101: Whites Colonised Blacks; Jews Colonise Whites! — Introduction to the Jewish problem]. And I haven’t had a chance to thank him. Comments coming in thick and fast. And I’m just behind on everything in everywhere. But I wanted to thank him for his efforts and I appreciate anyone who spreads information about what I’m doing.

But I want to tell you White folks out there. A bit about Africa. Because these Jews and liberals being the sly garbage that they are, there is a lot that they never tell you. And if we Whites want to teach our children our values, they of course will run around shrieking and squealing and howling. And they’ll say that we are racist and all that sort of garbage. And we can be whatever the hell we want to be! They is no reason why we need to answer to jews or to liberals or to communists.

Now here in Africa none of these liberals will come and tell you this. But you can go and do a little bit of digging, and you’ll see it’s true. Here in South Africa for example, they have got initiation schools, for black boys and black girls. And they go away and they do various things to them. And some of these tribes even circumcise their kids, and their kids even die from infections, because they didn’t follow the basic rules of cleanliness.

Anyhow, these black kids, and there are a lots of these so-called, initiation schools in South Africa. These black kids go off into the bush and some of these elders and witch doctors and so forth, they go and they put them through some kind of training, to prepare them now for manhood, or womanhood. Now this stuff carries on. I’ve read about the fact that these kids get an education, and nobody ever tells these blacks, that they can’t do the traditional stuff. No Jew and no liberal stops them from doing this.

So why can’t White people have their own finishing schools? Or have their own means for training their youth? Or fixing up their youth after they’ve been ruined by the education system and put them through they own cultural schools. And their own racial schools! I don’t see any reason why we can’t have any of this. These blacks are doing it all across Africa, all the time! Why can’t White people do it in their own countries? But you won’t hear a peep in the media about it and these blacks even end up with kids dying from all this and nobody is hassled about it.

Of course I should mention that the Jews are busy teaching their own kids all their own evil, and these rabbis and all that. This is the root of all the evil of the Jews. So the Jews are busy teaching their kids. They don’t ask anyone’s permission. They just freaking do it. And look at all the nonsense that comes out of their stupid culture.

And then the other thing that really bothers me. Long time ago in the social media I said to people, White people must children away from the Jews and the liberals. Get your children away from Jews and liberals! I’m serious about this. The more you can do to get your children away from them and, you should warn your children, if you can’t get your kids away, you should have a talk to children. And warn them about these people that they’re going to meet up with in the schools and so forth. And they should be warned about the anti-White agenda of these people.

[55:00]

Now this anti-White agenda of these teachers. These so-called teachers in schools and universities, specially in universities, is really bothering me.

This week it came out yet again. Some stupid Afrikaner here in Southern Africa, some ass kissing professor, weakling fool, went and made a statement in public where he said that, “White kids should consider committing suicide”. And there was a Jewish professor, I think at Harvard University, who said the same thing to White kids.

These freaking professors are running around telling White kids that they lives are worthless, and they should consider killing themselves! Really, I think those people should be held up for murder or something! Because they are suggesting that people kill themselves! How can they be allowed to do this? Isn’t there some kind of law against this? I’ve never heard anybody say anything about it and I think it’s hideous.

And the other question I have for you is this. How many White kids are there who have committed suicide, as a direct result of what professors at universities told them!? There must be suicides and how many of these suicides might be linked to their stupid education!?

Nobody’s ever brought this up. But I think it should be looked into. And if these people are saying this to the kids, they should be fired. What on earth gives anybody the right to incite suicide? How different is that to murder? Of course you could say,:

“Oh well, you know, I was just making a suggestion”, or “I was just making a statement. But they killed themselves by their own hands”.

Well that is typical Jewish type of thinking and that is the kind of stuff Jews have been doing for centuries. But really, this kind of talk, I think there is no place anywhere in the world for this. And White people should look out and see to it that, their teachers are not destroying the children! Destroying the children, bringing the children to the edge of suicide, and all that kind of nonsense!

That is not what those places are their for! And that is not what they were meant for originally. But that is now the kind of politicized communist, jewish institution that these places of so-called, “Higher Learning” have become. So when the kids go they, now they have to listen to some freaking idiot telling them that their lives are worthless and they should consider killing themselves. I have some things that I think we should be saying to him, but I’m not going to say it here!

And my advice to every White person, and every White youngster. Under no conditions whatsoever, should you ever commit suicide! And if any White person even thinks of it, everybody else must do their utmost to talk them out of it and to help them out of it. Do not under any conditions, let any White person, boy or girl, young or old, ever commit suicide! Tell them that they are an asset to our race and all of us need them, and they must live at all costs. And nobody on our side must ever think of suicide, ever!

The suicide of Adolf Hitler is a whole different thing. In the case of Hitler and Goebbels, these people would have been torn apart physically and there is no end to the amount of hideous things that would have been done to them. You just have to go and look at what happened to Mussolini. They sent people to execute Mussolini, and in the end his body was hung up on meat hooks, naked in public. And in the case of Himmler, Himmler did surrender to the British and David Irving, the historian, has spoken about the fact that he was beaten to death by the English. And that the various forensic evidence that exists for this, showing that is face was bruised and battered and all that kind of thing.

[59:38]

Even Goering, who was at the Nuremberg trials, after having testified, he took a cyanide pill and killed himself. He knew what was coming. They all knew what was coming! And they had every right to take control of their deaths. They knew it was the end. And look at what happened to all of them. Look at what happened even to Rudolph Hess. Thrown in jail for his entire life. Never given the chance at anything and murdered at the end of it. No, these people had every right to do what they were doing. But that was a different situation and they only killed themselves when they knew that their time had come, and that they would not be lasting many more days longer.

So in that case, I agree with that. But for normal people in the current world, there is no reason for Whites under any condition to commit suicide. Ever!

I mentioned this to Monica Stone the other day of the South Africa Project. And she said to me it’s rubbish, as well. She said that this professor who says that the White kids here in South Africa should kill themselves. She says we should say to him:

“You go ahead and kill yourself first. Show us how it’s done”.

I have some other things I’d prefer to say to him. The bottom line is that the elite and all the top people in the world, everybody who’s risen to the top, like scum that floated to the top of the pond. All of these bastards have been filtered out and they’ve ensured that these people are anti-White! Everything is anti-White! Even liberalism itself, in every single aspect of it, it is actually anti-White!

So Whites should not to look up to these people as their leaders. They are not our leaders! These are people who’ve gone to the top, but they hate us and they’re trying to destroy us! And they’re trying to break down our morale. And they are trying to break down everyone’s morale.

This revolution of the Nazis in Germany, this stuff started by Adolf Hitler and his associates. These people were White people from the bottom, who created the only real revolution, that we’ve seen in our ranks in centuries. Maybe the only real revolution since the fall of Rome. Of course the American Revolution, I forget. That one is real, as well. But in terms of European revolutions, I think this might be one of the very few real revolutions that have happened in Europe, since the fall of Rome.

So that is why, these messages, and these words and these thoughts of these people are from common Whites who were workers and were soldiers. These were the normal Whites who managed to break free for a short period of time. And that is why they’re so important and why all of us can sit and relate to them.

The fact that the Jews tricked the rest of us into fighting them, is of course a sad story, but we must remember that those same Jews and those same elite are now working to destroy us. And they want to replace us with all these non-Whites. And in America they want to replace you with Mexicans, in Europe they want to replace you with blacks who are running from Africa, whom they mistakenly tell you are Syrians, and all sorts of things.

So as insane as it is, the elite of our own civilization are against us! That people who built and fought for this civilization. But this is exactly what happened in Austria. In the Austrian Empire, this is where Adolf Hitler grew up and he writes about this in Mein Kampf and we will come back to this, because those same tactics that were at work, over a hundred years ago in Austria are now at work in America today! And of course the sad fact is that the Germans and the rest of the Europeans didn’t escape from any of this. They’re back where they were, even worse off than they were a hundred years ago.

So I’ve got lots more that I want to do this weekend, and I want to thank you very much for listening. And I’ll be back shortly, and we’ll be talking a lot more. I’ve got a bunch of things that I want to try and do and finish and get ready for you.

[65:15]

END

_____________________

FOOTNOTES

[1]

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (12.0 MB):

Teaching White Kids about Adolf Hitler — TRANSCRIPT

Click to download a PDF of this post (Text Only) (0.8 MB):

Teaching White Kids about Adolf Hitler — TRANSCRIPT (text only)

Version History

Version 5: Mar 10, 2018 — Improved formatting. Removed the “Text Only” version as unnecessary here.

Version 4: Mar 26, 2016 — Updated Youtube Stats. Formatting. Added correct Text Only PDF.

Version 3: Mar 23, 2016 — Added text with images version. Added PDFs of post.

Version 2: Mar 22, 2016 — Proofread transcript.

Version 1: Posted Mar 21, 2016 — Text only transcript.

Nuremberg – katana17

Brian Ruhe Show — Monika Schaefer – One Month in the “Free World”, Nov 26, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

The Brian Ruhe Show

Monika Schaefer

One Month in the

“Free World”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsR0tPNb2n0&t=2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bbLoIegHCY&t=54s

YouTube Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also:

PDF Notes

Version History

Alain Soral – My Homage to Robert Faurisson, Oct 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Alain Soral

My Homage to

Robert Faurisson

Oct 2018

https://alisonchabloz.com/2018/10/29/alain-soral-my-homage-to-robert-faurisson/

Alison Chabloz’s Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also:

PDF Notes

Version History

Jim Rizoli Interviews Prof Robert Faurisson, Oct 2015 — TRANSCRIPT

Jim Rizoli

Interviews

Prof Robert Faurisson

Oct, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqRLnpJ_8ek&t=1838s

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FbVcINOtox9k/

YouTube Description

TRANSCRIPT

END

See Also:

PDF Notes

Version History

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained — TRANSCRIPT

Probing the Holocaust

The Horror Explained

Part 1

Germar Rudolf, Eric Hunt

Contents

The Horror Explained

Abstract

Probing the Holocaust: The Horror Explained

Transcript

“Eleven million people died in Nazi Germany’s death camps. Six million were Jews.”

“An estimated six million Jews were killed during World War II.”

“Hitler murdered six million Jewish people”

“six million Jews”

“six million died”

“six million people crying from the grave…”

Disclaimer

Notes

PDF Notes

See Also:

Version History

The Realist Report Interviews Monika Schaefer – May 2017 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report

The Realist Report.com https://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-monika-schaefer/

The Realist Report

Interviews

Monika Schaefer

TRANSCRIPT

[00:55]

“Why do you believe the ‘Holocaust’ narrative”?

“Well Monika, this topic is it just off-limits! I’m not going to discuss the ‘Holocaust’ with you! I’m not going to debate it with you! But I’ll still, you know, be your friend.”

“Mom, why didn’t you stop this from happening? If you had just got together with all your friends and your relatives, you could have done something about it!”

“Boy, I wish I could say sorry!”

“Oh! Yes! That’s very significant!”

“Oh! That’s illegal in the United States!”

“Oh maybe, perhaps, if he were to bow down to the jews, beg for forgiveness, renounce his views, say the “Holocaust” is true.”

“Well you see? See, you’re wrong! The laws prove it! You’re wrong!”

“Oh! See! We’d better throw you in jail! You just broke the law!”

“The goal of abolishing the White race, is, on it’s face, so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition, other than from committed White supremacists!”

“Oh they must be Japanese supremacists!”

“Oh well, they must be black supremacists!”

The Realist Report.com
https://therealistreport.com/the-realist-report-monika-schaefer/