generated by an Adobe application 12.00

‘THE TRILLION DOLLAR LIE –THE HOLOCAUST’ – PHOENIX JOURNAL #40-CHAPTER  9 

REC  #3    HATONN

WED., NOV. 13, 1991   10:12 A.M.   YEAR 5, DAY 089

WEDNESDAY,  NOVEMBER 13,  1991

 

I wish to move right straight into the subject of the errors of the so-called “Holocaust”.  We are dealing, now, with numbers—which cannot possibly be correct and we shall set that to right in this JOURNAL so that we can then move on to the happenings as they occurred and how these distortions came to be accepted.  I do not, however, desire that any JOURNAL be al­lowed to go over the approximate 200 pages in length for readers become restless and inatten­tive with long dissertations.  It also allows us to more rapidly get information into hands while we are continu­ing the dialogue.  I ask that the “Readers” give us approximation of content so that we come within the proper guidelines.  I do wish to finish the “numbers game” in this volume so we may end up a bit over the average.  We do need to have continuity of thought segments.

 

Let us take up the information produced at that most heinous misgiving of justice which has ever hit the world courts.  What was done at Nuremberg is the blackest mark against a judicial system and against innocent men that has ever been known since the dark ages.  WAR is evil and yet, the incredible persecution was basically the work of the Jews’ own brotherhood and yet, Ger­mans paid with their lives for basically following orders and were accused, and are still accused, convicted and executed without evidence.  Were these evil doings right?  No, but two wrongs do not make one right, it only compounds the “wrong”.  If you work on the same judicial basis—Eisenhower and Churchill both should have been executed!!!  Their crimes were far more heinous and deliberate.  War and power over people is AGAINST GOD IN ANY SETTING AND ALL ARE LOSERS.  THERE ARE NO WINNERS IN WAR!

 

THE  NUREMBERG  TRIALS

 

The story of the Six Million was given judicial authority at the Nuremberg Trials of German leaders between 1945 and 1949, proceedings which proved to be the most disgraceful legal farce in history.  For a far more detailed study of the iniquities of these trials which, as Field Marshal Montgomery said, made it a crime to lose a war, the reader is referred to the works cited below, and particularly to the outstanding book ADVANCE TO BARBARISM (Nelson, 1953), by the distinguished English ju­rist, F.J.P. Veale.

 

From the very outset, the Nuremberg Trials proceeded on the basis of gross statistical errors.  In his speech of indictment on November 20th, 1945, Mr. Sidney Alderman declared that there had been 9,600,000 Jews living in German occupied Europe.  Our earlier study has shown this figure to be wildly inaccurate.  It is arrived at (a) by completely ignoring all Jewish emigration between 1933 and 1945, and (b) by adding all the Jews of Rus­sia, including the two million or more who were never in Ger­man-occupied territory.  The same inflated figure, slightly en­larged to 9,800,000 was produced again at the Eichmann Trial in Israel by Prof. Shalom Baron.

The alleged Six Million victims first appeared as the foundation for the prosecution at Nurem­berg, and after some dalliance with ten million or more by the Press at the time, it eventually gained international popularity and acceptance.  It is very significant, however, that although this outlandish figure was able to win credence in the reckless atmosphere of recrimination in 1945, it had become no longer tenable by 1961, at the Eichmann Trial.  The Jerusalem court stu­diously avoided mentioning the figure of Six Million, and the charge drawn up by Mr. Gideon Haussner simply said “some” millions.

 

LEGAL  PRINCIPLES  IGNORED

 

Should anyone be misled into believing that the extermination of the Jews was “proved” at Nuremberg by “evidence”, he should consider the nature of the Trials themselves, based as they were on a total disregard of sound legal principles of any kind.  The accusers acted as prosecu­tors, judges and executioners; “guilt” was assumed from the outset.  (Among the judges, of course, were the Russians, whose numberless crimes included the massacre of 15,000 Polish of­ficers, a proportion of whose bodies were discovered by the Germans at Katyn Forest, near Smolensk.  The Soviet Prosecutor attempted to blame this slaughter on the Ger­man defen­dants.)  At Nuremberg, ex post facto legislation was CREATED, whereby men were tried for “crimes” which were only declared crimes after they had been allegedly com­mitted.  Hitherto it had been the most basic legal principle that a person could only be con­victed for infringing a law that was in force at the time of the infringement.  “NULLA POENA SINE LEGE.”

 

The Rules of Evidence, developed by British jurisprudence over the centuries in order to arrive at the truth of a charge with as much certainty as possible, were entirely disre­garded at Nuremberg.  It was decreed that “the Tribunal should not be bound by techni­cal rules of evi­dence” but could admit “any evidence which it deemed to have probative value”, that is, would support a conviction.  In practice, this meant the admittance of hearsay evidence  and docu­ments, which in a normal judicial trial are always rejected as untrustwor­thy.  That such evi­dence was allowed is of profound signifi­cance, because it was one of the principal methods by which the extermination legend was fabricated through fraudulent “written affidavits”.  Al­though only 240 witnesses were called in the course of the Trials, no less than 300,000 of these “written affidavits” were accepted by the Court as supporting the charges, without this evidence being heard under oath.  Un­der these circumstances, any Jewish deportee or camp inmate could make any revengeful allegation that he pleased.  Most in­credible of all, perhaps, was the fact that defense lawyers at Nuremberg were not permitted to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.  A somewhat similar situation pre­vailed at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, when it was announced that Eichmann’s de­fence lawyer could be cancelled at any time “if an intolerable situation should arise”, which presumably meant if his lawyer started to prove his innocence.

The real background of the Nuremberg Trials was exposed by the American Judge, Justice Wenersturm, President of one of the Tribunals.  He was so disgusted by the proceedings that he resigned his appointment and flew home to America, leaving behind a statement to the Chicago Tribune which enumerated point by point his objections to the Trials (cf. Mark Lautern, Das Letzie Wort uber Nurnberg, p. 56).  Points 3-8 are as follows:

 

3.   The members of the department of the Public Prosecutor, in­stead of trying to formulate and reach a new guiding legal principle, were moved only by personal ambition and re­venge.

4.         The prosecution did its utmost in every way possible to pre­vent the defense preparing its case and to make it impossible for it to furnish evidence.

5.   The prosecution, led by General Taylor, did everything in its power to prevent the unani­mous decision of Military Court being carried out, i.e., to ask Washington to furnish and make available to the court further documentary evidence in the possession of the Ameri­can Government.

6.   Ninety percent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of biased persons who, either on political or racial grounds, furthered the prosecution’s case.

7.   The prosecution obviously knew how to fill all the adminis­trative posts of the Military Court with “Americans” whose naturalization certificates were very new indeed, and who, whether in the administrative service or by their translations, etc., created an atmosphere hostile to the accused persons.

8.   The real aim of the Nuremberg Trials was to show the Ger­mans the crimes of their Fuhrer, and this aim was at the same time the pretext on which the trials were ordered...Had I known seven months earlier what was happening at Nurem­berg, I would never have gone there.

 

Concerning Point 6, that ninety per cent of the Nuremberg Court consisted of people biased on racial or political grounds, this was a fact confirmed by others present.  According to Earl Car­rol, an American lawyer, sixty per cent of the staff of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were Ger­man Jews who had left Germany after the promulgation of Hitler’s Race Laws.  He ob­served that not even ten per cent of the Americans employed at the Nuremberg courts were actually Americans by birth.  The chief of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who worked behind General Taylor, was Robert M. Kempner, a German-Jewish emigrant.  He was assisted by Morris Am­chan.  Mark Lautern, who observed the Trials, writes in his book: “They have all ar­rived: the Solomons, the Schlossbergers and the Rabinovitches, members of the Public Pros­ecutor’s staff...” (ibid. p. 68).  It is obvious from these facts that the fundamental legal princi­ple: that no man can sit in judgment on his own case, was abandoned altogether.  Moreover, the majority of witnesses were also Jews.  According to Prof. Maurice Bardeche, who was also an ob­server at the Trials, the only concern of these witnesses was not to show their hatred too openly, and to try and give an impres­sion of objectivity (Nuremberg ou la Terre Promise, Paris, 1948, p. 149).

 

‘CONFESSIONS’  UNDER  TORTURE

 

Altogether more disturbing, however, were the methods em­ployed to extract statements and “confessions” at Nurem­berg, particularly those from S.S. officers which were used to support the extermination charge.  The American Senator, Joseph McCarthy, in a statement given to the American Press on May 20th, 1949, (and this, as much as any `communist’ in­vestigations was his personal downfall), drew attention to the following cases of torture to se­cure such confes­sions.  In the prison of the Swabisch Hall, he stated, officers of the S.S. Leib­standarte Adolf Hitler were flogged until they were soaked in blood, after which their sexual organs were tram­pled on as they lay prostate on the ground.  As in the notorious Malmedy Trials of private sol­diers, the prisoners were hoisted in the air and beaten until they signed the confessions de­manded of them.  On the basis of such “confessions” extorted from S.S. Gener­als Sepp Dietrich and Joachim Paiper, the Leibstandarte was con­victed as a “guilty organiza­tion”.  S.S. General Oswald Pohl, the economic administrator of the concentration camp sys­tem, had his face smeared with feces and was subsequently beaten

until he supplied his confes­sion.  In dealing with these cases, Senator McCarthy told the Press:

 

“I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused per­sons were beaten up, mal­treated and physically tortured by methods which could only be con­ceived in sick brains.  They were subjected to mock trials and pretended execu­tions, they were told their families would be deprived of their ration cards.  All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor in order to secure the psychological atmo­sphere necessary for the extortion of the required confes­sions.  If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticize us severely and forever doubt the correct­ness of our motives and our moral integrity.”

 

The methods of intimidation described were repeated during tri­als at Frankfurt-am-Mein and at Dachau, and large numbers of Germans were convicted for atrocities on the basis of their ad­missions..  The American Judge Edward L. van Roden, one of the three members of the Simp­son Army Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the methods of justice at the Dachau trials, revealed the methods by which these admis­sions were secured in the Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949.  His account also appeared in the British newspa­per, the Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949.  The methods he de­scribed were: “Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the pris­oner’s fingernails; knocking out the teeth and breaking jaws; solitary con­finement and near starvation ra­tions.”  Van Roden explained:  “The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months...The investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses...All but two Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.  This was standard op­erating procedure with our American investigators.”  Are you readers STILL UNDER THE DELUSION THAT THE JEWISH ISRAELI MOSSAD ARE NICE PEOPLE?

 

The “American” investigators responsible (and who later func­tioned as the prosecution in the trials) were: Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis (chief of the War Crimes Committee) and his assistants, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, Lt. Robert E. Byrne, Lt. William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Ellowitz, Mr. Harry Thon, and Mr. Kirschbaum.  The legal adviser of the court was Col. A.H. Rosen­feld.  The reader will immediately appreciate from their names that the majority of these peo­ple were “biased on racial grounds” in the words of Justice Wenersturm—that is, were Jewish, and there­fore should never have been involved in any such investigation.

 

Despite the fact that “confessions” pertaining to the extermina­tion of the Jews were extracted under these conditions, Nurem­berg statements are still regarded as conclusive evidence for the Six Million by writers like Reitlinger and others, and the illusion is maintained that the Trials were both impartial and impeccably fair.  When General Taylor, the Chief Public Prosecutor, was asked where he had obtained the figure of the Six Million, he replied that it was based on the confession of S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf.  He, too, was tortured and his case is exam­ined be­low.  But as far as such “confessions” in general are concerned, we can do no better than quote the British Sunday Pictorial when reviewing the report of Judge van Roden:  “Strong men were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by their prosecutors.”

 

THE  WISLICENY  STATEMENT

 

At this point, let us turn to some of the Nuremberg documents themselves.  The document quoted most frequently in support of the legend of the Six Million, and which figures largely in Poli­akov and Wulf’s Das Dritte Reich and die Juden: Dokumente and Aufsatze, is the statement of S.S. Captain Dieter Wisli­ceny, an assistant in Adolf Eichmann’s office and later the Gestapo chief in Slovakia.  It was obtained under conditions even more extreme than those described above, for Wisliceny fell into the hands of Czech Communists (Khazarian Zionists) and was “interrogated” at the Soviet-controlled Bratislava Prison in November, 1946.  Sub­jected to tor­ture, Wisliceny was re­duced to a nervous wreck and became addicted to uncon­trollable fits of sobbing for hours on end prior to his execution.  Al­though the conditions under which his state­ment was obtained empty it entirely of all plausibility, Poliakov prefers to ig­nore this and merely writes: “In prison he wrote several memoirs that contain information of great interest” (HARVEST OF HATE, p. 3).  These memoirs include some genuine state­ments of fact to pro­vide authenticity, such as that Himmler was an enthusias­tic advocate of Jewish emigration and that the emigration of Jews from Europe continued throughout the war, but in general they are typical of the Communist-type “confession” produced at Soviet show-trials.  Frequent reference is made to exterminating Jews and a flagrant attempt is made to im­plicate as many S.S. leaders as possible.  Factual errors are also common, notably the state­ment that the war with Poland added more than 3 mil­lion Jews to the German-occupied terri­tory, which we have dis­proved above.

 

THE  CASE  OF  THE  EINSATZGRUPPEN

 

The Wisliceny statement deals at some length with the activi­ties of the Einsatzgruppen or Ac­tion Groups used in the Russian campaign.  These must merit a detailed considera­tion in the survey of Nuremberg because the picture pre­sented of them at the Trials repre­sents a kind of “Six Mil­lion” in miniature, i.e., has been proved since to be the most enormous exaggeration and falsification.  The Einsatzgruppen were four special units drawn from the Gestapo and the S.D. (S.S. Security Service) whose task was to wipe out partisans and Communist commissars in the wake of the advancing German armies in Russia.  As Early as 1939, there had been 34,000 of these political commissars attached to the Red Army.  The ac­tivities of the Einsatzgruppen were the particular concern of the Soviet Prosecutor Rudenko at the Nuremberg Trials.  The 1947 indictment of the four groups alleged that in the course of their operations they had killed not less than one million Jews in Rus­sia merely because they were Jews.

These allegations have since been elaborated; it is now claimed that the murder of Soviet Jews by the Einsatzgruppen constituted Phase One in the plan to exterminate the Jews.  Phase Two be­ing the transportation of European Jews to Poland.  Reitlinger admits that the original term “final solution” referred to emigra­tion and had nothing to do with the liquidation of Jews, but he then claims that an extermination policy began at the time of the invasion of Russia in 1941.  He considers Hitler’s order of July 1941 for the liquidation of the Communist commis­sars, and he concludes that this was accompanied by a verbal order from Hitler for the Ein­satzgruppen to liquidate all Soviet Jews (Die Endlosung, p. 91).  If this assumption is based on anything at all, it is probably the worthless Wisliceny statement, which al­leges that the Ein­satzgruppen were soon receiving orders to ex­tend their task of crushing communists and parti­sans to a “general mas­sacre” of Russian Jews.

 

It is very significant that, once again, it is a “verbal order” for exterminating Jews that is sup­posed to have accompanied Hitler’s genuine, written order—yet another nebulous and unprov­able assumption on the part of Reitlinger.  An earlier or­der from Hitler, dated March 1941 and signed by Field Marshal Keitel, makes it quite clear what the real tasks of the future Einsatz­gruppen would be.  It states that in the Russian cam­paign, the Reichsfuhrer S.S. (Himmler) is to be entrusted with “tasks for the preparation of the political administration, tasks which result from the struggle which has to be carried out be­tween two opposing political systems” (Manvell & Frankl, ibid. p. 115).  This plainly refers to eliminating Communism, espe­cially the political commissars whose specific task was Commu­nist indoctrination.

 

THE  OHLENDORF  TRIAL

 

The most revealing trial in the “Einsatzgruppen Case” at Nuremberg was that of S.S. General Otto Ohlendorf, the chief of the S.D. who commanded Einsatzgruppe D in the Ukraine, at­tached to Field Marshal von Manstein’s Eleventh Army.  During the last phase of the war he was employed as a foreign trade expert in the Ministry of Economics.  Ohlendorf was one of those subjected to torture described earlier, and in his affi­davit of November 5th, 1945, he was “persuaded” to confess that 90,000 Jews had been killed under his command alone.  Ohlen­dorf did not come to trial until 1948, long after the main Nuremberg Trial, and by that time he was insisting that his earlier statement had been extracted from him un­der tor­ture.  In his main speech before the Tribunal, Ohlen­dorf took the opportunity to de­nounce Phillip Auerbach, the Jewish attorney-general of the Bavarian State Office for Restitution, who at that time was claiming compensation for “eleven million Jews” who had suffered in German concen­tration camps.  Ohlendorf dismissed this ridiculous claim, stating that “not the minutest part” of the people for whom Auerbach was demanding compensation had even seen a concentration camp.  Ohlendorf lived long enough to see Auerbach convicted for embezzlement and fraud (forging documents purporting to show huge payments of compensa­tion to non-existent people) before his own execution finally took place in 1951.  I believe this speaks better than I can for the wondrous “legal” tactics utilized.

 

Olendorf explained to the Tribunal that his units often had to prevent massacres of Jews orga­nized by anti-Semitic Ukranians behind the German front, and he denied that the Einsatzgrup­pen as a whole had inflicted even one quarter of the casualties claimed by the prosecution.  He insisted that the illegal partisan warfare in Russia, which he had to combat, had taken a far higher toll of lives from the regular German army—an assertion confirmed by the Soviet Gov­ernment, which boasted of 500,000 German troops killed by partisans.  In fact, Franz Stahlecker, commander of Einsatzgruppe A in the Baltic region and White Russia, was himself killed by partisans in 1942.  The English ju­rist F.J.P. Veale, in dealing with the Action Groups said: “There is no question that their orders were to combat terror by terror,” and he finds it strange that atrocities committed by the partisans in the struggle were regarded as blameless simply be­cause they turned out to be on the winning side (ibid. p. 223).  Ohlendorf took the same view, and in a bitter appeal written be­fore his execution, he accused the Allies of hypocrisy in holding the Germans to account by conventional laws of warfare while fighting a savage So­viet enemy who did not respect those laws.

 

ACTION  GROUP  EXECUTIONS  DISTORTED

 

The Soviet charge that the Action Groups had wantonly exter­minated a million Jews during their operations has been shown subsequently to be a massive falsification.  In fact, there had never been the slightest statistical basis for the figure.  In this connection, Poliakov and Wulf cite the statement of Wilhelm Hoettl, the dubious American spy, double agent and former assis­tant of Eichmann.  Hoettl, it will be remembered, claimed that Eichmann had “told him” that six million Jews had been exterminated—and he added that two million of these had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen.  This absurd figure went beyond even the wildest estimates of Soviet Prose­cutor Rudenko, and it was not given any credence by the American Tribunal which tried and condemned Ohlendorf.

 

The real number of casualties for which the Action Groups were responsible has since been re­vealed in the scholarly work MANSTEIN, HIS CAMPAIGNS AND HIS TRIAL (London, 1951), by the able English lawyer R.T. Paget.  Ohlendorf had been under Manstein’s nominal command.  Paget’s conclusion is that the Nuremberg Court, in ac­cepting the figures of the So­viet prosecution, exaggerated the num­ber of casualties by more than 1000 per cent and that they distorted even more the situations in which these casualties were inflicted.  [These hor­rific distortions are the subject of six pages of William Shirer’s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, pp. 1140-46].  Here, then, is the leg­endary 6 million in miniature; not one million deaths, but one hundred thousand.  Of course, only a small proportion of these could have been Jewish partisans and Communist functionaries.  It is worth repeating that these ca­sualties were inflicted during savage partisan warfare on the Eastern front, and that Soviet terrorists claim to have killed five times that number of German troops.  It has nevertheless remained a popular myth that the extermination of the Jews began with the actions of the Ein­satzgruppen in Russia.

 

In conclusion, you may briefly survey the Manstein trial itself, typical in so many ways of Nurem­berg proceedings.  Principally because Action Group D was attached to Manstein’s command (though it was responsible solely to Himmler), the sixty-two year old, invalid Field Marshal, con­sidered by most authorities to be the most brilliant German general of the war, was sub­jected to the shameful indignity of a “war-crimes” trial.  Of the 17 charges, 15 were brought by the Com­munist Russian Gov­ernment and two by the Communist Polish Govern­ment.  Only one witness was called to give evidence at this trial, and he proved so unsatisfac­tory that the prosecution withdrew his evi­dence.  Reliance was placed instead on 800 hearsay documents which were ac­cepted by the court without any proof of their authenticity or author­ship.  The prosecution in­troduced written affidavits by Ohlendorf and other S.S. Leaders, but since these men were still alive, Manstein’s defense lawyer Reginald Paget K.D. demanded their appearance in the wit­ness-box.  This was refused by the American authorities, and Paget declared that this refusal was due to fear lest the condemned men revealed what methods had been used to induce them to sign their affidavits.  Manstein was eventually acquitted on eight of the charges in­cluding the two Polish ones which, as Paget said, “were so fla­grantly bogus that one was left wondering why they had been presented at all.”

 

Let us take a break from the writing.  We will continue with a discussion of another trial be­fore we move into the subject of Auschwitz and Polish Jewry.  I must not miss reminding you, as we move along, that conclusions and discernment are left into the hands of the readers.  We are efforting to bring factual doc­umentation to this matter.  I suggest that you also remem­ber that the term “Jew” has been distorted and you who are from the beloved lineage of the Judeans MUST PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THIS INFORMATION FOR IT IS YOU WHO ARE FIRST IN LINE FOR DESTRUCTION AT THE HANDS OF THESE KHAZ­ARIAN ZIONISTS WHO, THROUGH THE TALMUDIC PROTOCOLS, ARE IN AL­LIANCE WITH THE SO-CALLED COMMUNIST SOVIETS.  ALL ARE PURE AND SIM­PLE DICTATORIAL SOCIAL­ISTS WHO INTEND TO ENSLAVE THE WORLD.  THEY ARE THE “ANTICHRIST” DESTROYERS.  IT IS TIME YOU ONES FACE, SQUARELY, THE FACTS LEST YOU FIND YOURSELVES TOO SUPPRESSED TO HAVE DIFFER­ENCE OF OPINION.  Note that the tactics described herein have not changed one iota and your own American court­rooms are getting to the point of offering no justice better than the atrocities at Nuremberg.  Remember that one of the Proto­cols gives instruction to “take over the courts and judicial sys­tem” and “to furnish evidence and witnesses as neces­sary to WIN the case” whether or not they are actually witnesses.  I promise you this, that even in this “small” case revolving around “Dharma’s” property, that is EXACTLY WHAT THE ZION­ISTS AD­VERSARY HAS DONE—but this time, it has back­fired!

 

You are in serious jeopardy, beloved citizens.  You must face the Truth if you would regain your freedom.

 

Remember also, the full-blown effort in America by the Jewish groups is to cause it to be IL­LEGAL TO EVEN QUESTION THE POSSIBILITIES OF INACCURACIES REGARDING THE HOLOCAUST.

Such questioning (such as these documents project, fully protected by the present First Consti­tutional Amendment) is already ILLEGAL in France, Germany, England and prob­ably other European nations, and in Canada and the Soviet Union.  But none of those countries have your Bill of Rights and its unique First Amendment placed there by shrewd Founding Fathers who understood tyranny and oppression.  Even if you disagree, you must stand for the RIGHTS OF PROTECTION under that Beloved Constitution THAT ALL THINGS MIGHT BE OPENLY QUESTIONED.  Is it not evident in itself that there is much to be hidden within the curtain of enforced secrecy?  Do not the very ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN ANY WORDS?

Hatonn to stand-by.  Thank you.

http://fourwinds10.com/journals/pdf/J040.pdf

 

 

March 31, 2011