Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
August 2, 1997
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Yesterday, I had a conversation with a neighbor, the gist of which was a question on his part: "How the dickens is the Holocaust relevant today in wrestling our country back from out of the clutches of the manipulators?"
Perhaps it helps to understand how things are done? You can manipulate people by amassing fake "evidence". You can just as easily manipulate people by withholding real and crucially vital evidence.
Below is one document Ernst shipped me just a few days ago I am now passing on to you, along with the surrounding story.
According to Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Jewish Congress, even during World War II, plans were being mapped out with great care and cunning and the foundation for the "Holocaust" was being laid.
Long before America agreed to feed its young men into a fratricidal war fought not for American national interests but for the interests of an alien people and a state, Israel - a state that did not even then exist - there came into being an organization called the "Institute of Jewish Affairs" in New York that cooked up a devilish brew.
Writes Goldman in The Jewish Paradox, pages 122-123, addressing this question:
"The Institute's . . . idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. That still required belief in the defeat, at the time when it seemed likely that the war in Europe was lost for the Allies, but like Churchill and de Gaulle I kept my faith.
I never doubted for a moment, because I knew that Hitler would never manage to moderate himself and that his excesses would draw the Allies into the conflict.
According to the Institute's conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis.
Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there.
The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore. (...)
The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders.
It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvass it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court, they took him for a fool.
"What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?" they asked. "You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers."
We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part.
The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson."
What followed next? Total communications control and news manipulation through censorship - which has not stopped to this day.
After the war was over and Germany had been defeated, the Allied powers, in effect, by virtue of having established a military government -- one might as well call it a military dictatorship, in many ways more restrictive than Adolf Hitler's state had been -- had a tight grip on all channels of communications. This fact cannot be overstated.
From control and supervision of the mail service to the telegraph and telephone systems to radio stations to book, newspaper and magazine publishing houses, the Allies were fully in charge through a clever "licensing system."
Anyone who did not toe the Allied propaganda line lost their license or had their license suspended as punishment. Journalists lost their accreditations. Newspapers lost their already very scarce paper or printer's ink allocations or reduced-rate postal shipping privileges.
Imagine if you told the occupation powers you wanted to go to Nuremberg to testify in defense of Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, Göring, Streicher or military leaders like Keitel, Jodl, Dönitz, Raeder or others! If the military man to whom you applied for permission was a Jew in the uniform of Russia, France, America or England, imagine the response!
It is remarkable that there were defense witnesses at all who came forward and tried to help those hapless prisoners in Nuremberg. There are instances of the defense lawyers having located and convinced crucial defense witnesses to testify who were being held as prisoners in Allied prison camps, only to find them -- convenient for the prosecution! -- getting "lost" in transfers, "lost" long enough until the proceedings had passed the point where their testimony could have been of use to the defense.
These defense lawyers themselves worked against almost insurmountable odds. They sat in cold, wet, bombed-out basements of half-ruined houses with boarded-up windows, working in overcoats, writing with stiffened fingers, wearing hats, scarves and gloves to guard themselves against the cold and creeping dampness, trying to write some text and formulate some argument so that a client, who was daily vilified in the press and on radio, in the news reels and on Armed Forces radio as a despicable monster and a criminal with no human traits, might get a semblance of a defense in those nightmarish, Kafkaesque proceedings called the Nuremberg Trials.
There are millions of words, and tens of thousands of books, which have been written about the Nuremberg proceedings which midwifed the so-called "Holocaust"--publications in all kinds of languages, all parroting the post-war Allied propaganda and borrowing its footnotes from each other.
The generations who have grown into adulthood since the end of the Second World War have been allowed little chance to look at the Nuremberg Trials critically and to examine documents of paramount importance.
They have not been allowed access, for instance, to information showing what some important people and personalities at the time thought about the whole disgusting process of using ex post facto laws against a virtually defenseless, militarily defeated and militarily occupied former enemy.
One such document is the following, brought here in translation:
Nuremberg, Germany, 30 Jul 46
Re: Jewish question
Affidavit by Mr. Eduard Kuehl, former Mayor residing at Drochtersen, County of Stade / Hannover
1, Eduard Kuehl, born on 9 April 1896 in Ohrsee, County of Stade, at present Court Prison Nuremberg,
being duly sworn depose and say :
On perusal of the affidavits which have been filed by former "Politische Leiter" (Political Leaders) from the internment camps, concerning the above-mentioned count of indictment, I herewith declare and testify that
have been submitted for further handling.
In these statements, the Political Leaders declared that
A. Within the NSDAP and within the circle of Political Leaders the application of violence against Jews, pogroms have never been propagated either openly or secretly
B. They have gained knowledge of an extermination of Jews in so-called extermination camps only after the German surrender in May, 1945.
In these affidavits
A. 245 Political Leaders stated that they have personally stood up for the protection of life and property of Jews, had taken care of their accommodation or support or had acted in favor of Jews also in other ways,
B. 531 Political Leaders stated they continued to entertain personal business, professional or official relations with Jews also after 1933, and that this had not resulted into any advantages for them from the Party,
C. 84 Political Leaders stated that members of the Party and of other formations who participated in individual cases of outrages against the Jews, were taken to ordinary courts or Party courts and punished.
I expressly affirm that the facts mentioned above are in conformity with the truth and that all affidavits submitted to me for further handling have been evaluated and considered.
Eduard Kühl Signature of Affidavit.
Subscribed and sworn before me this 30th day of July 1946 at Nuremberg, Germany
Francis Alix, Capt. 0-1170619
I, Emma W. Schwabenland being thoroughly conversant with both English and German certify that I have acted as interpreter for the swearing of this Affidavit.
Emma W. Schwabenland."
Imagine. More than 26,000 statements that were simply ignored!
The Allies had this document in their possession before Nuremberg. They still went ahead and hanged those falsely accused German leaders.
Would it have made a difference, had it been allowed into the records?
Here is what Nuremberg was:
It was not an international military tribunal at all. It was not even international in composition. The victors instead sat in judgment over the vanquished.
Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who was then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Jackson's (the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg) boss in that role, had this to say while speaking to a reporter for Fortune Magazine, as quoted in: Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Viking Press, page 715:
"For your information, but not for publication as coming from me, I would like to advise you that the Supreme Court had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the Nuremberg Trials, or the governmental action which authorized them. (...)
"It would not disturb me greatly . . . if that power were openly and frankly used to punish the German leaders for being a bad lot, but it disturbs me some to have it dressed up in the habiliments of the Common Law and the constitutional safeguards to those charged with crime.
It looks as though we were committing ourselves to the proposition that the outcome of every war must be that the leaders of the vanquished must be executed by the victors."
Another Judge, Judge Wennerstrom, an honest American Midwesterner who removed himself from the trials in disgust, said this:
"The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. the Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)
I have heard Ernst say when he speaks of the men who were hanged after the farcical Nuremberg trials as having been". . . judicially murdered."
"They were the world's martyrs, not villains," says Ernst. "Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial. Not one!
Let's not forget they sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos and stetls of Eastern Europe."
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *