|Preserving a phoney past to protect a stolen future|
Normally when an individual filing a criminal complaint changes his story repeated times, the charges are dropped and the complaint is dismissed. If a woman claims she was raped by a black man and then proclaims, two days later, that it was a white man or no, better yet, a yellow man, then the prosecution folds. Curiously, however, no one applies this logic to the Jewish extermination hoax.
The Jews claimed originally that they were gassed in German camps. Then they claimed that, no, they were gassed in Polish camps. At one time they asserted that Jews were electrocuted and steamed to death. Auschwitz was said to have killed four million Jews at Nuremberg. Then the figures were reduced by the Polish Communist authorities to one million, then 800,000. The actual German death books show around 150,000 deaths, only 30,000 Jewish. The German Einzatzgruppen, a force of only 3000 men, supposedly killed one million Jews in Russia. But this figure is based on the Einzatsgruppen reports in Berlin, not the field reports in Russia which have conveniently disappeared.
Adolf Hitler supposedly gave oral orders for the extermination of the Jews that no one can document. But one of his subordinates, Minister of the Interior Hans Lammerer, recorded a phone conversation in which Hitler stated that he wanted the solution of the Jewish mischlinge question delayed until the end of the war. At the same time that the Germans were exterminating Jews by the millions, German judge Konrad Morgen was trying and convicting camp commanders for mistreating prisoners, including Jews. The Germans were supposedly executing every Jew they could get their hands on during the war.
Yet Heinrich Himmler, the secret police chief, issued a documented order that the death rate in the German labor camps was to be reduced at all costs. Why? Because the Germans needed these Jews (and others) as labor for the German war effort.
One would think that any prosecutor, faced with a case so full of inconsistencies and contradictions, would dismiss the charges. But that assumes a genuine court of law, bound by real rules of evidence, not a kangaroo court like Nuremberg. After all, if you are running your own version of Joseph Stalin's purge trials, if you can write your own rules of evidence, produce your own "certified copies" of non-existent original documents, assume as a fact that which you are required to prove (London "Protocol"), engage in torture, threaten to withhold food rations if a deponent does not tailor his story to your specifications, bury or destroy exculpatory documents while manufacturing proof galore, why, you can come up with any verdict you like.
And, of course, it is really helpful to your case if no one does any forensic investigation of those famous "gas chambers" to see if there is any hydrogen cyanide compound forming or if the chambers are properly heated or sealed, etc. And a prosecutor can only jump with glee if no one bothers to introduce the German construction documents so that no pesky defense counsel can inquire whether crematory ovens did not have a more prosaic, mundane explanation, such as sanitarily disposing of bodies that died of typhus and other diseases.
And, most important of all, be sure to exclude from evidence the German documents that show that the famous Zyklon B, the hydrogen cyanide gas, was being used to disinfect clothing and barracks to kill typhus bearing lice, not kill people.
Prosecutors love rigged courtrooms where they write the rules. In Nuremberg they had a guaranteed frame up with the defense bound and gagged. And the best thing of all about the trial is that it was being run behind the scenes by the same Jews who claimed to have been exterminated. Out of 3000 total personnel at the trial 2400 were Jews. That violated the legal principle that accusers cannot judge their own case. Now, prosecutors are not the only people who love the Nuremberg trial. Academic historians in the universities also love the Nuremberg trial.
They love it for two reasons: (1) They are lazy; (2) They are gutless. Digging around the archives for suppressed documents is hard work, as the English historian David Irving can attest. But taking bogus and manipulated documents at face value from a kangaroo court is easy. There is no need to worry about whether the document is original or merely a "certified copy" of a copy or to worry about through whose hands it may have passed or what lawyers call chain of custody or to ponder who may have manipulated it, forged it or placed exaggerated kill totals in it or any other such pesky questions.
Just rely on the authority of the court and "Captain Kangaroo" and proclaim your point proven. No one will criticize you other than revisionist historians (and who listens to them?). Your career and reputation as a "scholar" of World War Two is assured. The Simon Wiesenthal Center shall praise you to the skies and you may even get a lucrative offer to narrate the next "Remember the Holocaust" docudrama. But if you point out that "six million" do not add up no matter how the numbers are counted and "survivors" are collecting moocho mulla for relatives who probably did not die, then you will be traveling in very narrow circles indeed.
Prosecuting the truth is a writ for martyrs; prosecuting holy lies shall make you a hero to all the right people.