On Tuesday, April 11, 2000, the judge in the long running libel action Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books delivered his lengthy judgment in which he branded David Irving a liar, manipulator, anti-Semite and – bore, bore – racist. The next morning the victorious Lipstadt appeared on the news programme on BBC TV alongside David Cesarani, the Stürmer-like director of the otherwise prestigious Wiener Library, to gloat over the verdict. Asked if she would favour a law against “Holocaust Denial”, Lipstadt alluded hypocritically to the American tradition of free speech. Cesarani though was less disingenuous, calling for the government to tighten the law against so-called incitement yet again, a law which his ilk helped bring about in the first place, not to protect Jews and other minorities from attacks by so-called racists and “anti-Semites”, but in the first instance to elevate this powerful and at times vicious minority above all criticism, and in the second place to further bolster the spurious legality of their already state sanctioned lies.

The previous night, Irving had likewise appeared on BBC television where he was given a grilling by Jeremy Paxman. Paxman too branded Irving a racist, primarily because of his use of the word Aryan in a poem penned against his protagonists, a poem noted as much for its bad scanning as for its weak wit.

Irving appears to have come out of this months’ long struggle an overwhelming loser. On closer inspection though, by a curious irony, both Irving and the Jews he claims have hounded and persecuted him for so long can be said to have triumphed. The following Sunday the historian Andrew Roberts wrote correctly that Irving was a master showman who had bought publicity worth far more than he could have bought for that amount in costs, and ended with the bald statement that although Penguin and Lipstadt were correct to defend the action “this will ultimately be seen as a case that David Irving was allowed to win”. (1)

Before I go any further, let me set the record straight. I published a book exposing Irving as long ago as October 1994 in which I predicted something like this would happen. (2) Not a libel action, but I did claim that Irving would backtrack on the Holocaust, which he has, and that he would sell out, which he certainly did by the manner in which he conducted this case. The reasons for his doing so can be found in that book, which is still in print, and which, unlike Irving’s writings, has been totally ignored by the controlled media. (3)

In spite of legal costs estimated conservatively at two million pounds, Irving will not be declared bankrupt, or even if he is, his lifestyle will not be any less ostentatious for the foreseeable future. He will continue to reside in Mayfair, one of the most exclusive areas of London. He will continue to dine out, to travel the world lecturing to “right wing extremists”. He will continue to generate publicity and controversy and to be quoted widely. (4) He will continue to do this because in spite of their protests to the contrary, Organised Jewry love him.

In the wake of his courtroom “defeat”, Irving boasted to the Jewish Chronicle that his reputation had actually been enhanced. The paper’s correspondent bore this out. Lee Levitt’s interview was interrupted by more than a dozen phone calls. One asked “Is that the Nazi scum?” but most were more complimentary. (5) The discerning reader might ask himself what was a correspondent for the Jewish Chronicle doing interviewing this piece of “Nazi scum” in his Mayfair flat, or is it only the current writer’s number one supporter Nick Griffin who has been able to sus that out? (6)

In May, the Jewish Chronicle published a letter from Irving totally unconnected with the libel case; like I said, Organised Jewry love him. (7)

Irving sued primarily because Lipstadt had branded him a Holocaust Denier. Or so we are led to believe. He could have refuted that absurd allegation very simply if he had stuck to the real issue, because there is no such animal as a Holocaust Denier. This term, which was popularised by Lipstadt if not actually invented by her, (8) was designed to bring Holocaust Revisionists into ridicule, hatred, scorn and contempt, and to discourage ordinary, intelligent, open-minded men and women from examining their evidence and arguments. Irving is not a Holocaust Denier because he has never denied

a) the existence of the Nazi concentration camps

b) the fact that Jews were murdered by Nazis, including in these camps

c) the fact that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis.

No one in his right mind has ever denied any of these things. (9)

By the above criteria, Irving, along with every sane, literate adult on this planet cannot in all truthfulness be branded a Holocaust Denier. What Irving does dispute is:

a) the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Nazi concentration camps

b) a plan by the German High Command (including or excluding Hitler) to physically exterminate the Jewish race/ethnic group in Europe, ie an act of genocide. (10)

It is not only a documented fact but an admitted one that gas chambers have been exhibited to the world which are no longer claimed by Exterminationist scholars to be gas chambers, although outside of specialist texts they will admit this only at the point of a gun.

In his massive anti-Revisionist tome for example, Jean-Claude Pressac admits brazenly that a photograph of a “Gas chamber door” produced as evidence at the thought crime trial of Professor Faurisson in France was actually that of a delousing chamber; this was an exhibit furnished by the Warsaw Central Commission. (11) In the same book he says of the Dachau gas chamber that “It is quite obvious that, in 1945, American war correspondants [sic] could easily be misled because of their lack of information...” (12) Pressac’s “refutation” of the Revisionist hypothesis is so candid in places that it is embarrassing.

It is also an admitted fact that there exists no written order for the extermination of the Jews. (13) The Jewish scholar Arno Mayer – who is hardly a Nazi apologist – writes that “No written document containing or reporting an explicit command to exterminate the Jews has come to light thus far...the presumption must be that the order or informal injunction to mass-murder Jews was transmitted orally. More than likely, Hitler himself gave the general enabling signals, probably encouraged by members of his closest entourage, among whom none seems to have raised objections.” (14)

Since everybody agrees that Jews died (including by murder) in the Nazi concentration camps (and elsewhere) during the Second World War, on the above facts it is a prima facie reasonable belief for anyone to argue that there was no extermination programme, and that there were no homicidal gas chambers at all.

If Irving had stuck to these narrow issues, he would have won the case, because all the other evidence, which he elected to introduce, or allowed to be introduced, would have been inadmissible. Recall, at the end of the trial the judge branded him a racist, an anti-Semite and a liar. So what?

What man of 62, or 22 for that matter, hasn’t told a lie or two somewhere? We are all liars in this very broad sense. A racist? Well, how about this:

As we grow up within a society that is saturated in white racism, year after year we pass through interactions in which white racist conceptions are an unspoken subtext. We make lives in institutions in which this is true. We cannot live from day to day without absorbing a certain amount of white racism into our thoughts. (We similarly absorb homophobia and sexism). It is foolish to say, “I am not racist.” (15)

In other words, if you’re white you can’t help being a racist, a sentiment that is echoed by the partisan and in places ludicrous Macpherson Report. (16)

As American leftist Laird Wilcox points out:

There’s no winning this argument and whatever one says is merely evidence that one is “in denial” and trying to conceal one’s racism. Pretty clever. (17)

As for anti-Semitism, like racism this is a charge which is thrown around with gay abandon. For example, in 1992 the Anti-Defamation League commissioned a survey which “found” that 1 in 5 Americans “hold strong prejudicial attitudes against Jews”. (18) While according to some Jews, the mere existence of goyim is proof positive of their hatred of all things Jewish.

“If you’re brought up a Jew, you know that all non-Jews are anti-Semitic”, whines anthropologist Ashley Montagu. (19)

If all white people are racist and all goyim are anti-Semitic then we are left only with degrees of racism and anti-Semitism, and as Irving, for all his faults, has debated – or offered to debate – with Jews as he has by his own admission, employed non-whites, and as he has never engaged in any form of violent racist or anti-Semitic activity, there is no meaningful evidence that he is any more anti-black or anti-Jewish than the rank and file. Unlike most people he has a tendency to be outspoken on such issues, and like outspoken people in general he puts his foot in his mouth now and again.

All that though is by the by because however distasteful Irving’s views, and however distasteful the man personally, he is not and never has been a Holocaust Denier. Irving was libelled by Lipstadt; she misrepresented his views wilfully and with malice aforethought. The question of the injury to his reputation is another matter entirely, but whether he should have been awarded nominal damages or no damages at all, the judge’s summing up was by and large totally irrelevant. Irving’s position is analogous to a man who is tried for murder and convicted of burglary, except that he instituted these proceedings himself.

Some of Irving’s comments, although not central to the Holocaust issue, have been misrepresented, or appear to have been. Irving is said to have claimed that Hitler was a reluctant anti-Semite, and that Jews had brought anti-Semitism on themselves. You people have been hated for 3,000 years, he assails them, don’t you think you may have something to do with it?

These are prima facie stupid assertions, but they are not necessarily wrong in the sense in which they were intended. Was Hitler an anti-Semite? No doubt about it. In Mein Kampf the Führer himself writes: “In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith. And so I considered that the tone adopted by the anti-Semitic press in Vienna was unworthy of the cultural traditions of a great people.” (20)

Clearly Hitler’s first encounter with anti-Semitism revolted him, but this is not what Irving means by the Führer being a reluctant anti-Semite. What he means, just as clearly, is that Hitler was an ideological anti-Semite and was opposed to violent measures against the Jews, while others in his entourage were less discerning. One can draw an analogy here between Colin Jordan (who at the time of writing is still Britain’s leading Nazi) and his late wife, the former Françoise Dior. Jordan is undoubtedly anti-Jewish and is proud to call himself such, but he has never advocated violent measures against the Jews.

His wife on the other hand was an entirely different breed, she was a fanatical Jew-hater who said she would like to see all synagogues burned by an Act of Parliament, and indeed in the 1960s she seduced a number of young men in and around Jordan’s National Socialist Movement and incited them to burn synagogues, something which Jordan would never have done, and which appalled him. (21)

Evidence that Hitler was indeed opposed to violent anti-Semitism can be found in contemporary reports in the Jewish press, which like Arno Mayer, was hardly prone to Nazi apologetics. In 1934 for example the Nazis were said to have condemned the desecration of 54 tombstones which were smashed when a Jewish cemetery was vandalised. “Our movement wars only against living people, not against the dead, who are at peace.” said one spokesman. Three drunkards were later jailed for the outrage: one for one year, one for six months, one for four months, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by Hitler himself. (22)

Another incident reported two years later, in Gressen, involved six young men who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from three weeks to two months, for “individual actions” against Jews. After drinking together, they proceeded to smash windows of Jewish houses and entered the local synagogue, where they caused havoc. The Public Prosecutor asserted that it was a strict order of the Führer that all individual actions against Jews were to stop, and he demanded severe sentences. The court, however, taking into account the fact that the accused were under the influence of drink, declared for milder sentences against them. (23)

It is also well documented that Hitler had a soft spot for his boyhood Jewish doctor, (24) and that many Jews were made “Honorary Aryans” when it suited Hitler. This may be evidence of his hypocrisy, but it is not evidence of violent anti-Semitism. The revelations of the American student Bryan Rigg, which surfaced a few years ago, go even further, and are embarrassing to both Jews and bona fide anti-Semites. (25)

This is undoubtedly what Irving meant to say, but he failed to articulate himself as well as he could have, probably deliberately. Even Irving’s claim that Jews are – or have been – responsible for anti-Semitism is hardly outrageous in its proper context. The proper context being that people do sometimes have genuine grievances against Jews, and that Jewish individuals and Jewish organisations have at times ridden roughshod over everyone else. The stock reply is that the Jews have their bad apples, so why should they be singled out especially for hatred? The prosaic truth is that they are not, it’s just that they scream louder than anybody else. All manner of people and groups are hated in society. One has to look no further than Northern Ireland where over the last thirty and more years literally thousands of senseless murders and a great many more lesser outrages have been perpetrated on people for no better reason than that they were born Catholic or Protestant. How many Jews have been murdered in Britain in the same period simply because they were born Jews? Nuff said.

Jews have had their hands in the proverbial till throughout history, the same way as everyone else. To take just one example, ninety years ago the Jewish Chronicle editorialised:

“...all who know anything of the conditions prevailing in the White Slave Traffic are agreed that if the Jew could be eliminated, it would shrink and shrivel to comparatively small proportions.” (26)

At that time, white slavery was practically a Jewish monopoly. To their credit, Jewish organisations were instrumental in suppressing the traffic; one Jewish academic has written that “Western Jewish leaders campaigned with special vigor to root out the large participation of Jews in prostitution.” (27)

But just as some people hold all Catholics responsible for the crimes of the IRA, (28) and as others hold all Protestants responsible for the crimes of “Loyalist” terror groups, so will some people continue to hold all Jews responsible for the sins of the few. This is the way people’s minds work; it may be unfair, illogical, at times irrational, but it is human nature.

An extreme example of this concerned which might be termed the pathological anti-black racism of a former Asian burger bar worker named Mohibur Rahman, who was the victim of an horrific attack by suspected (black) drug dealers in March 1995. They splashed burning oil on his legs and stamped on his face. He was said to have “developed a fear of black people”. He was awarded a total of £575,000 damages at the High Court including for loss of earnings (but not for his phobia of blacks). He was told to move to Bangladesh or Wales where there aren’t any! Mr Rahman was said to have “descended into psychotic paranoia” as a result of the attack and to be imprisoned in his home. This paranoia was so bad that “He had a tendency to misinterpret innocent actions and he had recently, while driving, attempted to run down a black man walking along the pavement.” (29)

Even the most rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-black ideological bigot would surely concede that this constitutes an irrational phobia, but try telling that to Mohibur Rahman. No one in his right mind would hold all blacks responsible for such an outrage, but again, tell Mohibur Rahman.

Finally, it should be pointed out that even Jews recognise that sometimes their actions bring hatred on their race. In January 1993, a 76 year old German Jew, Herbert Braunsberg, was invited to speak before a class of German expatriate students living in Britain. Mr Braunsberg, a refugee from Nazism, was expected to give the usual pep talk about the evils of anti-Semitism and fascism and to wail and gnash his teeth over the relatives he had lost in the Holocaust. He didn’t. Instead, to the surprise of the class, he said that rather than being evil, Hitler was amoral, and that the Jews of Nazi Germany were partly responsible for their plight and the terrible suffering they subsequently endured. (30)

Three years later, another Jew had the temerity to suggest that the Chosen People sometimes asked for it. In the mock outrage that greeted Marlon Brando’s 1996 outburst on American TV about Jews in Hollywood, the Jewish journalist Barbara Amiel wrote of The Jews who are helping to stir up anti-Semitism. She

“found it vastly amusing: here were Jewish community leaders and groups taking great offence at the notion that they form an effective pressure group which can force their views on an industry. As evidence of this frightful lie, they turn around and proclaim that they will make Brando’s life in Hollywood a living hell.” (31)

That’s just the Holocaust and the media, we haven’t even touched on the Palestinian issue, but no doubt Deborah Lipstadt and even more so David Cesarani would find it deeply offensive for Irving to suggest that Arab anti-Semitism is in any way the result of Jewish actions. So presumably when Barukh Goldstein slaughtered twenty-nine Moslems in a Hebron mosque no right thinking Palestinian would harbour any animosity towards any Jew. Again, nuff said.

Irving may have been damned as a liar and many other things; whether or not that condemnation is reasonable remains to be seen, but as I said above, he will continue to court publicity and rake in the bucks. The Times of April 15 published a letter from him, and doubtless he will make the odd TV appearance here and there in addition to ripping off his gullible supporters.

The greatest irony of this well-managed fiasco though is not that Irving is not a Holocaust Denier, but that he isn’t even a Holocaust Revisionist in the proper sense. Irving is first and foremost the world’s leading Hitler scholar; he is also, within his field, a very fine historian, he has written a number of books on the military aspects of World War Two that will stand the test of time, but when it comes to the Holocaust, his writings are not simply non-Revisionist, they are non-existent. Irving’s reputation as a Revisionist is based not on his own researches, (32) but solely on his endorsements of the researches of others, in particular of the Leuchter Report. The fact that since he came out of the closet, so to speak, he has not conducted any meaningful research on the Final Solution, speaks volumes.

David Irving the controversial historian and Holocaust Denier is entirely a creation of the media, and of Organised Jewry. Again, if the reader wants to learn why, he should read my book.

Which brings us to the future of Holocaust Revisionism. Amid all the calls for the mythical pastime of Holocaust Denial to be made a criminal offence, no one has suggested that Holocaust lying should be made so. And this is hardly surprising, because the biggest liars of the Final Solution have been not the likes of Irving or genuine Holocaust Revisionists, but Jews, and Holocaust survivors in general, Jew and Gentile. The big difference though is that however brazen the lies of this latter group, they are tolerated, endorsed, condoned, or even positively encouraged, to the extent of being regarded as holy writ. A couple of examples will suffice.

In 1988, Holocaust survivor Morris Hubert related his tale of woe to the New York Times. He was sent to Buchenwald camp, and

“In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle,” he said. “Every day, they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and the eagle would pick at his bones.”

“But that’s unbelievable,” whispered a visitor.

“It is unbelievable,” said Mr. Hubert, “but it happened.” (33)

Some six years later, a story appeared in the London Times to the effect that: “Jewish fat” was scraped from the chimneys of the Auschwitz crematoria. On the fiftieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the paper’s readers were told that “Yesterday, Andrzej Paluch, a sociology professor, explained why: the fat was made into blocks of soap and sold to Poles in the neighbouring town of Oswiecim.” Professor Paluch is quoted thus: “It was known as RJF – Reines Jüdisches Fett – pure Jewish fat”.

The professor said this was called ryfka by the Poles, and apparently they used it because “It was the only soap we could get on our ration cards. There was no choice.” [This was said to have been a typical response]. (34)

If such nonsense had appeared in the tabloids it would be excusable, but these are two of the most prestigious newspapers in the world. The New York Times which originated the phrase “All the news that’s fit to print”, (35) and the London Times, whose tradition goes back to the 1790s, are not to be likened to the Sunday Sport and the National Enquirer.

The soap story is now conceded by establishment historians (including Deborah Lipstadt) to be a fabrication. (36) It never happened. Period.

The story about the bear and the eagle is prima facie ludicrous. Even so, the truth is often stranger than fiction, (37) but clearly the burden of proof in such cases rests with those who make such bizarre allegations. A few years ago I posted a query about this story to alt.revisionism and asked one of the newsgroup’s regulars, Dan Keren, (a feisty, Jewish academic), if it were not a tissue of lies. He refused to condemn the story, although of course he could provide no meaningful evidence that anything like this had ever happened.

I thought of pushing the point – for example, would it be possible to keep a bear in the same cage as an eagle? Would the bear not attack it? Would an eagle pick over the bones of a dead Jew under the watchful eye of a bear? What species of bear was it: a brown bear, a polar bear, a rabid koala? Eventually I decided not to pursue it. Keren once told me that it stands to reason that with a subject as vast as the Holocaust that there must be some testimonies which are false, but that he personally had never heard one that was obviously false. I have no doubt that Keren, being not only Jewish but a confirmed Nizkorite, (38) would rather enter a real gas chamber himself than concede even such crass and obvious nonsense as the bear and eagle story. The Nizkor crowd even claim that there were indeed soap making experiments performed by the Nazis, albeit on a limited scale. (39) For them, no survivor’s tale, however outrageous, is beyond the pale.

I find myself at the opposite end of the spectrum because I have never heard a survivor’s tale that is both credible and supportive of the Exterminationist position; this is true of all survivors – Jew and Gentile: where their testimonies support the gassing stories they are not credible; where they are credible they do no support the gassing stories, or even lean towards the Revisionist position. Two examples will suffice.

Dr Alexander Dering, a Polish Gentile, was arrested in July 1940. On August 15 he arrived at Auschwitz where he was made to work as an orderly. (40) He didn’t let on that he was a doctor because “German policy was to destroy intellectuals and professional people.” (41)

However, when the Nazis found out he was a doctor he was set to work as such, and by August 1943 he was in charge of the whole camp hospital. (42)

Another Gentile doctor, Ella Lingens-Reiner, was arrested in the autumn of 1942 after being betrayed by a Jewish Gestapo spy! (43) She told her Gestapo investigator that she had helped Jews escape because they were being sent to Poland to be killed. He replied “You are completely crazy! The people there are working in factories.” (44)

She was then, she says, interrogated “in a fairly civilised manner” because “the period of arbitrary, purposeless tortures for the sake of sadistic pleasure was past.” (45) In other words, she wasn’t tortured but assumes (or heard) that others had been tortured. She even admits that though the Gestapo found out she had lied to them she still wasn’t tortured.

“I was told of one woman who had been exposed to the glare of powerful searchlights and almost blinded, but I never saw her myself.” (46) In other words, this is more hearsay about the wicked Gestapo. Her claim that the time of arbitrary purposeless tortures was past is rather ironic in view of the fact that this is about the time the exterminations were allegedly in full swing.

Among other things she reveals that a camp doctor in Fught succeeded in having a Gestapo chief removed from his post for persistent brutality! (47) (But weren’t the Nazis all brutes?)

At Auschwitz, prisoners went outside to the “ponds” on working parties, where their SS escort went fishing. (48) Indeed, many prisoners worked outside, some distance from the camps, apparently. (49) None of this is compatible with the claim that this was an extermination camp.

Also totally incompatible with the extermination claims is the following extract from her book:

“Once I heard how a little S.S. man, an N.C.O., begged one of the Jewish prisoners who worked in the reception office to get him a fountain pen; the prisoner told him grumpily to come back another day, at the moment he had no time for him.” Obviously he wasn’t afraid of being sent to the gas chamber! (50)

The above account may be hearsay, but her account of an alleged gassing is not. This took place at night:

“It’s starting again” said the woman on guard at the door.

And “Scarcely fifteen minutes later the chimney began to belch thick clouds of a black, sweetish-smelling smoke which bellied across the camp. A bright, sharp flame shot up, six feet high. Soon the stench of burnt fat and hair grew unbearable. And still the lorries drove past, on the same route. We counted sixty batches that night.”

Later “the first lorries came back laden with the luggage and clothes of the dead, which they took to the depot. It was over. But the chimney smoked all the following day.” (51)

Dering and Lingens-Reiner being not only highly educated individuals but doctors might be expected to be more observant and reliable than most inmates, and being Gentiles they might also be considered less partisan. Whether or not the latter is true, the former certainly is not.

If is it true for the Nizkorites that no survivor’s tale is beyond the pale, then it is also true of mainstream academia, and of the controlled media. What then can Revisionists do? Let me answer that by way of analogy. As I write these words the British media is off on one of its periodic flaps about the evils of racism. There have, apparently, been a number of incidents in recent weeks which have involved violence by racists against selected targets. Instead though of attacking innocent blacks and other non-whites at random in the usual cowardly fashion, these latest attacks have been directed at miscegenists. One of the victims (of a white gang) was the white boyfriend of a well-known black track athlete. (52)

It may well be that these attacks are not organised, but at least the people behind them are not totally mindless. They are though, barking up the wrong tree. If they want to save the white race from the fate Cesarani and his kind have in store for us, they should do so by setting a positive example, ie by demonstrating what they are for rather than what they are against. Attacking miscegenists achieves nothing, because these people are already beyond the pale; they cannot be saved. We – in this case Revisionists – must concentrate on those who can be saved. As the great German physicist Max Planck said: “The new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” (53)

The greatest fear of Lipstadt, Cesarani and their ilk is that the day is soon coming when the last Holocaust survivor is no more, then the only custodians of the truth will be the historians. After the trial, Lipstadt said so in as many words. If Lipstadt is so concerned about preserving the truth one might ask why she elected not to give evidence. The obvious reason is because nothing she may have said could have strengthened the defence case, and there was a very real risk that if she were cross-examined by Irving she would cause incalculable damage to the Holocaust story by making a series of damaging admissions. What else could she do? (54)

In 1616, Sylvie de la Plaine confessed to having sexual relations with the Devil. She said that his penis was “like that of a horse, and, in penetrating, it is cold as ice, and his semen likewise cold”. (55) Just as nowadays nobody takes such self-denunciations seriously, so a hundred, or fifty, years from now, no one will take seriously either the self-serving self-denunciations of SS men who participated in the so-called Holocaust, or the tales of woe of survivors who claim to have seen Jews killed by bears and eaten by eagles, or Jews turned into soap, lampshades, or any of the other nonsense Lipstadt, Cesarani and their filthy cabal expect the goyim to swallow uncritically (and smear as anti-Semitic when they don’t).

It is important for the reader to understand that the entire fabric of the extermination mythology is based on such obvious nonsense. (56) In his study of the alleged gas chamber at the Struthof camp, (57) Pressac reports that “The executor of this task was the camp commandant, SS Captain Josef Kramer. The way in which he gassed a number of people, as confessed by him on the 26 July 1945 to Major Jadin cannot be considered credible. He would have ended up gassing himself.” (58) According to Pressac, Kramer described a chemically impossible reaction, and “Because of the absurdity of this modus operandi and his ignorance about the substances involved, some quite legitimate historical suspicion has weighed on the procedure and on the very existence of the gas chamber at Struthof.” (59)

We should not rule out all testimony automatically just because what is described is physically impossible. An adept magician can make a small object apport out of thin air, or disappear; even if his hands are watched closely and carefully it may not be possible to detect his legerdemain. A young child or a feeble-minded person who claims to have witnessed aports and dematerialisations may be totally sincerely. This hardly applies to Kramer though. If his description of this alleged gassing can be attributed to his ignorance of chemistry (as Dan Keren maintains) then his alleged modus operandi cannot, because as Pressac says commenting on Kramer’s interrogation “If he had proceeded this way, J. Kramer would have asphyxiated himself.” (60)

The explanation for Kramer’s testimony is that his “confession” was not written by him but by his interrogators. This is a phenomenon which is in no sense peculiar to the “war crimes” trials. In Britain – and probably every other country of the world – confessions and witness statements are not in general written by the accused or by the witnesses but by police officers. Similarly in civil proceedings they are usually written by solicitors or even by solicitors’ clerks and then “settled” by Counsel. (61)

Sometimes this can lead to embarrassment. As a British judge admitted recently “It is a disaster if the witness is exposed as being unable to read the statement settled by the solicitor or counsel.

Not to use the witness’s own language unfairly puts the witness’s credibility in peril.” (62)

This is particularly true of the “war crimes” trials, because in most cases the witnesses’ own language was German, and all the statements were written in English! (63) The British police are particularly adept at fabricating confessions and verballing up prosecution witnesses – the current writer has personal experience of this latter. (64) There is no evidence that the military police or the sort of people who worked on the “war crimes” investigations (65) were any less adept (or any less corrupt) than the British civilian police.

In a case from the 1950s, which was heard before Mr Justice Devlin at Glamorgan Assizes, the defendant, George Roberts, who was facing a murder charge, was verballed up by corrupt police officers in spite of being “mute by the visitation of God”. This put the judge in an embarrassing position, which he solved by directing the jury to find the defendant not guilty. (66)

Returning to the “war crimes” trials, in the law report on the trial of Rudolf Hoess it is claimed of Auschwitz-Birkenau that “The highest capacity of its gas-chambers amounted to killing of 60,000 people per 24 hours and that of the crematoria to burning of 24,000 bodies per 24 hours.” (67) This is a figure which is now accepted by the Court Historians to be absolute nonsense. (68)

The same law report claims that “Medical treatment was completely lacking and illness was the ground on which people were selected for extermination.” (69) This is an outright lie, as is evinced by the extensive hospital facilities throughout the concentration camp system. One person who had cause to be thankful for the medical services so thoughtfully provided by the Nazis was Polish Jewess Sophia Litwinska who claimed:

“On arrival at the gas chamber the lorry tipped up and we slid down the chute through some doors into a large room. The room had showers all round, towels and soap and large numbers of benches. There were also small windows high up near the roof. Many were injured coming down the chute and lay where they fell. Those of us who could sat down on the benches provided and immediately afterwards the doors of the room were closed. My eyes then began to water, I started coughing and had a pain in my chest and throat. Some of the other people fell down and others coughed and foamed at the mouth. After being in the room for about two minutes the door was opened and an S.S. man came in wearing a respirator. He called my name (70) and then pulled me out of the room and quickly shut the door again. When I got outside I saw S.S. man Franz Hoessler...He took me to hospital, where I stayed for about six weeks, receiving special treatment from Dr. Mengele. For the first few days I was at the hospital Ifound it impossible to eat anything without vomiting. I can only think that I was taken out of the gas chamber because I had an Aryan husband and therefore in a different category from the other prisoners, who were all Jews. I now suffer from a weak heart and had two attacks since being at Belsen.” (71)

Litwinska’s claim that she had been give “special treatment” by the Angel of Death himself is particularly ironic, because special treatment (Sonderbehandlung) is claimed by Exterminationists to be the euphemism used for exterminations in the camps. (72)

Her claim that she was taken out of the gas chamber because her husband was an Aryan is equally absurd, because he’d been arrested for Rassenschande and was already dead! How could anyone take this sort of garbage seriously? The court did, and Franz Hoessler – among others – was hanged largely as the result of such testimony. (73)

Incidentally, Sophia (I was gassed) Litwinska was far from the only “survivor” who claimed to have escaped the Zyklon by a hair’s breadth. Regina Bialek, another Polish Jewess, deposed that

“On 25^th December, 1943, I was sick with typhus and was picked out at a selection made by Doctors Mengele and Tauber along with about 350 other women. I was made to undress and taken by lorry to a gas chamber. There were seven gas chambers at Auschwitz. This particular one was underground and the lorry was able to run down the slope and straight into the chamber. Here we were tipped unceremoniously on the floor. The room was about 12 yards square (74) and small lights on the wall dimly illuminated it. When the room was full a hissing sound was heard coming from the centre point on the floor and gas came into the room. After what seemed about ten minutes some of the victims began to bite their hands and foam at the mouth and blood issued from their ears, eyes and mouth, and their faces went blue. I suffered from all these symptoms, together with a tight feeling at the throat. I was half conscious when my number was called out by Dr. Mengele and I was led from the chamber. I attributed myescape to the fact that the daughter of a friend of mine who was an Aryan and a doctor at Auschwitz had seen me being transported to the chamber and had told her mother, who immediately appealed to Dr. Mengele. Apparently he realized that as a political prisoner I was of more value alive than dead, and I was released.” (75)

It is on “testimonies” such as this that the evidence for the supposedly greatest genocide in history rests. Anyone who takes such eyewash seriously deserves to be gassed.

Can there be a grain of truth in the claims of Sophia Litwinska and Regina Bialek (and others) that they were thrust into the Auschwitz gas chambers and then dragged out alive? When I was arguing with one of the Nizkor crowd it was suggested that what actually happened in the case of Litwinska was that she had been the victim of some sort of bizarre medical experiment. At first sight this is plausible because it is well documented that the Nazis did indeed conduct such experiments, including with poison gas, on human beings. I did consider this possibility but soon dismissed it. Litwinska is perfectly clear about what she claims happened; there is no talk of medical experiments; she was sent to be gassed to death, murdered, and was saved by Franz Hoessler.

Hoessler denied this, obviously not having the faintest idea how this non-existent gas chamber worked, but anxious to ingratiate himself with the court he claimed to have saved another woman from the gas chamber by ordering a motor cyclist to remove her from a transport:

“Do you remember the witness Litwinska saying that you took her out of the gas chamber?” he was asked.

He replied “Yes, but it was someone else whom I took out from the gas chamber. Those who had been selected were in trucks and went down in the direction of the crematorium. I was on the road when one of these trucks passed by, and I saw a woman whom I recognized in the back of the truck. Suddenly two women came and implored me to save her. I saw a motor cyclist near the block facing me, and I told him to go and fetch the woman and take her to the hospital, which he did. She had not been inside the gas chamber.” (76)

Obviously believing the more the merrier, Hoessler claimed to have saved hundreds of other prisoners from the gas chamber.

“Did you do anything to prevent people from being sent to the gas chamber? – Yes, very often young girls came to me and implored me, saying that their sister or their friend or somebody else they liked was in this Block 25 and I should try to save them, and I have done so.” (77)

Although Hoessler was clearly spinning a tall story he had at least one supporter. Erika Schopf, who claimed to be the only German defence witness, came to court to give evidence for Hoessler. She also testified that two Jews had tried to intimidate her to prevent her from doing so. They followed her to the court and she identified them. The names of these two Jews were not given out although the court conferred. (78) (Yet another example of these poor, persecuted, powerless people at work). Neither Hoessler’s own testimony nor Schopf’s was enough to save him, and as stated he was hanged.

Returning to Litwinska’s claims, the prosaic truth is that they were made up out of the whole cloth. They are rubbish, lies from beginning to end. No expert evidence was adduced at the Belsen Trial concerning the effects of Zyklon B on human beings, nor on the mechanics of gassing. (79) The first person who seriously considered this impossibility appears to have been Professor Faurisson, and his opinions were not voiced until three decades and more after the War. The first expert witness to be called to give evidence to this effect was Fred Leuchter. Whatever criticisms have been made (or manufactured) about Leuchter’s academic qualifications, he certainly knows about gassing, and execution techniques in general.

To the best of my knowledge, no expert evidence relating to mass gassings has ever been adduced at any war crimes trial, (80) and indeed this supposedly so efficient method of extermination has never been used either before or since World War Two. One might imagine that if this method was so efficient it would have been employed by the Khmer Rouge, in the killing fields of Rwanda, or any of a dozen or a hundred places where innocent civilians have been exterminated en masse since the end of the Second World War, but although it has been reliably documented that Saddam Hussein has used poison gas against the Kurds, by and large mass murderers prefer to use napalm, bombs, bullets, even machetes, rather than gas chambers.

The scientific literature on the technique of mass gassing is totally non-existent, as a trawl through the British Library’s catalogues and of the major medical journals during and after the Second World War reveals. Curiously, Irving elected not to call as an expert witness the German chemist Germar Rudolf at the libel trial. Or maybe not so curiously for those who have read my book!

Professor Butz has pointed out on many occasions the fact that the evidence for the Holocaust (and more specifically of mass gassings) was generated largely if not entirely at the war crimes trials. (81) In his excellent Revisionist study, Staeglich argues eloquently against the fallacy of using legal proceedings as a source for writing history. (82) My own personal experience of legal proceedings – criminal and civil – leaves me wondering if they can be used to prove anything at all, much less to write history. Under the adversarial system the defendant is in theory presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but is very often kept in custody, which of course does rather undermine that bland assertion. The prosecution is not only free to adduce whatever evidence it likes – with the minor caveat that it may be excluded by the judge – but is also free to exclude evidence, including important witnesses, which/who may undermine its case. (83) The fact that this happens all the time and is used to persecute, harass or even destroy totally innocent people is at last becoming widely known but is still not sinking into the public consciousness in any great measure.

To give just one contemporary example, in May 1999, a judge at Nottingham Crown Court halted the trial of 18 year old Matthew Hilliard when a security video which had been placed in the Schedule of Unused Material showed the accused leaving a discotheque in lovey dovey fashion with the 16 year old girl he was claimed to have forced out of the club and raped. An audio tape which had been made in an attempt to entrap Hilliard also turned out to be of more use to the defence than to the prosecution. (84)

It beggars belief that the police and the so-called independent Crown Prosecution Service would collude in such a fashion to convict a totally innocent young man of rape, yet that is what they did here, clearly.

Hilliard though was lucky, because although this evidence was ignored by the police and prosecution, it was at least disclosed. If his persecutors had been as cunning as they were evil, the defence would not have known of the existence of either tape, and this young man would quite likely have been deprived of his freedom for several years as well as falsely stigmatised for the rest of his life as a rapist.

Returning to my own experience, there is the problem of transcripts and even of comprehension. Transcripts can be inaccurate; I have seen this, including not only spelling mistakes but attributing testimony to the wrong witness or to the witness when the judge or someone else is speaking. In one case, which was held over two days twelve days apart, the judge in stating a case for the Divisional Court made errors of fact which materially altered the entire context of the evidence presented, which he refused to correct, and which the Divisional Court refused to amend.

Although this was far from a simple case it was obviously nothing like as complex as some of the war crimes cases. The Auschwitz Trial which opened December 20, 1963 (85) was the longest jury trial in German legal history, and lasted a staggering 20 months. (86) How many honest errors must have been made by prosecutors, witnesses and all concerned in a trial of such staggering length? Other trials were also very lengthy; the aforementioned Belsen Trial lasted two months. (87) In the Auschwitz Trial too there was the question of time lag, and the unreliability of the testimony was recognised not only by the court but by the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt who wrote the Introduction to the book. (88)

The opinion of the court included these two pronouncements: “We have no absolute evidence about the individual murders, only witness testimony. And at times this witness testimony was not so accurate and precise as is desirable in a murder trial.” (89)

And “A few weeks ago it was reported in the press that a former Buchenwald concentration camp guard had been found guilty of having murdered a prisoner and then it was found that the prisoner was still alive...” (90)

It has to be said of course that in many legal proceedings – civil as well as criminal – the defence is not always pure as driven snow. Guilty defendants are frequently not averse to lying through their teeth in order to secure acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence, and sometimes this extends to a defendant’s legal team, who will wilfully present perjured evidence and engage in all manner of dirty tricks to sew in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that rightly should not be there.

The preeminent example of this has to be, surely, the O.J. Simpson trial, where an obviously guilty defendant was acquitted in the face of overwhelming evidence, principally because the defence was able to expose a minor act of perjury by one of the officers on the case, and to persuade the jury that because of this it was conceivable that he – and by implication half the Los Angeles Police Department – was involved in a massive conspiracy to frame the accused, although Simpson’s lawyers never put it in those terms. (91)

An example of defence lawyers using underhand methods to secure the acquittal of (clearly innocent) defendants is the infamous case of the Scottsboro Boys, a group of Negro youths who were tried, convicted and sentenced to death for the alleged rapes of two low class white women. Although this happened in the Deep South in 1931 – where the racial climate was very different from that of politically correct Britain in the 21^st Century – the defence, when it got going, was conducted in a vigorous manner, and not only attacked the characters of the alleged victims but collected perjured affidavits. (92) Too often though a defendant is handicapped by incompetent counsel who wilfully disobeys his instructions or who although pleading the case honestly, gets a myriad facts wrong. (93)

Finally, it should be noted that sometimes a totally innocent defendant will plead guilty for personal reasons; it may be that he has been persuaded that if he pleads not guilty he will spend a long time on remand, and receive a much heavier sentence than if he were to feign remorse and throw himself on the mercy of the court. In the United States, plea bargaining is a regular feature of the system and can present a defendant with hard choices. A most extraordinary case of innocent defendants pleading guilty not only to a crime they had not committed but which had never happened was that of the Boorn brothers.

Faced with apparently overwhelming evidence, the accused confessed in graphic detail to the murder of their brother-in-law and the disposal of his body seven years previously. At their trial they pleaded not guilty, and were sentenced to death, but a subsequent petition reduced Jesse Boorn’s death sentence to life imprisonment. Following a public appeal, the victim turned up alive! (94) It is not difficult to imagine that similar motivations – the mercy of the court – motivated the guilty pleas and admissions made by former SS men at many of the trials of “war criminals” that took place in Germany following the Belsen Trial, and much later the Auschwitz Trial and other show trials. Many of these defendants had almost certainly committed real crimes such as beating prisoners or even murder, so by admitting to a peripheral role in the alleged exterminations they ingratiated themselves with the court sufficiently to be rewarded with at times surprisingly lenient sentences.

An excellent example of this is cited by Professor Butz: “Defendant Franz Hofmann, ex-SS Captain who had been in charge of Auschwitz I, received a life sentence for the simple reason that, although found guilty in connection with exterminations, he had really been tried on a charge of having thrown a bottle at a prisoner, who later died from the head injury received. This incident evidently had a greater impact on the court than mass exterminations, which is not surprising, since the bottle episode could clearly be recognized as the sort of thing that happens in penal institutions. Hofmann was sentenced to life imprisonment, but shortly later released anyway on the grounds of his previous detention.” (95)

In more general terms, the adversarial system is not an inquiry into the facts of a case, it is a game in which both sides try to score points, the defence by the exclusion of evidence, the prosecution by the introduction of non-evidence. The context of people’s actions and of events is often ignored by the prosecution, or wilfully distorted, twisted, sometimes even manufactured. (96)

Perjury by prosecution witnesses is not only tolerated but encouraged, and there is every reason to believe that the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses in trials relating to the so-called Holocaust is even more contaminated than most. Confirmation of this comes from a most unlikely source, the courageous lawyer (and Holocaust true believer) Yoram Sheftel (97) who defended John Demjanjuk, the elderly Ukrainian-born American citizen who was falsely accused of being the camp guard known as Ivan the Terrible who allegedly sent countless thousands to the gas chamber in Treblinka.

Demjanjuk was convicted, and on April 25, 1988 was sentenced to death. Sheftel, convinced of his client’s innocence, while never in his wildest dreams seeking to challenge the holy writ of the Holocaust, set about uncovering a web of deceit and subversion. (98)

Not only were the documents which extradited, indicted and convicted Demjanjuk forged, but, in Sheftel’s own words “the workings of the Israeli prosecution and the OSI’s machinations with Otto Horn’s ‘identification’ of Demjanjuk amounted to a conspiracy to counterfeit and conceal evidence”. (99)

Perjury by documents was matched by perjury from live witnesses. Treblinka survivor Eliahu Rosenberg had given a statement in Vienna in 1947 describing how Ivan the Terrible was killed during the Treblinka uprising of August 2, 1943. He said he had seen him killed with his own eyes. In 1987 he identified Demjanjuk as Ivan! (100)

At the appeal, Sheftel was able to present such overwhelming evidence of his client’s innocence that even the Israeli Supreme Court could find no way of reconciling the conviction with the fabricated documents and spurious testimony. Even so, a petition was heard to keep Demjanjuk in Israel after his acquittal during which a certain Mr Yehezkeli “who claimed to be a Holocaust survivor” and had claimed Demjanjuk had murdered his entire family at Treblinka did an about face and claimed now he’d murdered them at Sobibor! (101) Demjanjuk’s treatment by the Israelis was an absolute disgrace which barely stopped short of the judicial murder of a totally innocent man. (102)

Earlier, Sheftel pointed out what is undoubtedly the reason for this: “Dr Arad of Yad Vashem had emphasized in his testimony that Holocaust survivors often tend to recount incidents they had not personally witnessed as if they were facts. The sole reason was their desire to make reality conform to their dreams.” (103)

One final, personal observation I will make on legal proceedings, is that of witness assessment. I know from my own experience that a good witness is not necessarily a truthful witness, and that conversely a bad witness is not necessarily an untrutful one. I won’t embarrass the person in question, but on two occasions – in both criminal and unrelated – civil proceedings, I have seen a man give evidence who was, for the most part, a bad witness, but on both occasions, undoubtedly, a truthful one. As it happens, on both occasions he gave evidence which led to the correct verdict.

Yoram Sheftel called his book on the Demjanjuk case Show Trial, and most of those who adhere to the Revisionist position claim unthinkingly that all the trials of alleged Nazi and German “war criminals” were show trials; this is not the case. Some defendants did indeed receive fair trials, but a fair trial is not necessarily followed by a fair verdict. Nothing illustrates this better or illustrates better the fallacy of basing history on the outcome of legal proceedings than the Belsen Trial. This trial related to crimes allegedly committed at both Belsen and Auschwitz and was held before a British military court at Lüneburg, Germany. (104)

The defence of Josef Kramer and his fellow defendants was spirited, in fact it was so spirited that it totally destroyed the prosecution case! That being said, the military court ignored the evidence and brought in verdicts of guilty against all the main defendants. (105)

The defendants included not only former concentration camp staff – men and women – but former inmates. One of these latter, Ignatz Schlomowicz, was a Jew. The most bizarre defendant though was Oscar Schmitz alias Schmeditz, a petty crook who ended up in the dock after putting on an SS uniform. (106) Schmitz was identified by Frank Hoessler as a prisoner in Camp II, (ie Birkenau). (107) Both he and Schlomowicz were acquitted.

On the twenty-fourth day of the trial, the prosecutor, Colonel Backhouse, said that the official Soviet film of Auschwitz was to be shown. Defence lawyer Major Cranfield (108) objected; he called it a propaganda film, and said that its showing would prejudice the accused. (109) It was said to have been made months after the liberation of Auschwitz. (110)

In his short memoir on the Belsen Trial, Major Winwood, who defended Commandant Kramer, makes some interesting observations. (111) Winwood qualified as a solicitor in 1938 and was a serving officer in early summer 1945 when he replied to “a notice” from Army Headquarters on the Rhine asking for the names of serving officers who were qualified barristers or solicitors. He met Kramer and his other clients only two to three weeks before the trial was due to start. (112)

According to Winwood, Kramer was relieved that he was not to face charges in connection with the Natzweiler camp, where gassings were also alleged to have taken place.

This seems a strange thing for him to have been relieved about if one accepts the Auschwitz gassing stories, but there is an alternative explanation. Kramer knew that prisoners had been murdered at Natzweiler (where he had also been a Commandant), (113) and therefore took these allegations at face value, while obviously he had no idea that he was to be implicated in the alleged murders of four million people at Auschwitz. This was the original figure, in fact one witness – who should have known better – claimed that four million people had been exterminated in one Krema! (114)

The evidence that people were gassed at Natzweiler is actually quite impressive; unfortunately for the Exterminationists, if Kramer’s (fabricated) confession (115) to involvement in gassings at this camp is true in substance, it is further proof that mass gassings are impossible – as if further proof were needed.

The reader will recall that according to Pressac – the arch-anti-Revisionist, remember – Kramer’s confession re the Struthof/Natzweiler gassings cannot be deemed credible because if he had proceeded in such a manner “He would have ended up gassing himself.”

Keren tried to argue in alt.revisionism that Kramer’s lack of knowledge of chemistry was the only issue here; it is not; the laws of physics are universal, whether or not Kramer understood them.

The most telling point about Kramer’s alleged confession though is that he claimed to have gassed a total of 80-85 individuals on 4 or 5 different occasions, ie in total, over a period of three days. (116) It is doubtful if killing people by such a method could be accomplished any quicker, at least without imperilling the executioners. Which does rather undermine the claims of gassings at Auschwitz. Kramer’s activities at Natzweiler also beg two questions: why was it necessary to transfer the victims from Auschwitz to gas them if there were working gas chambers in the mill of death? And why was this particular act of mass murder carried out in strict secrecy?

The answer to the first question is obvious; the answer to the second is that it was a criminal offence to murder Jews in Nazi Germany, even at that stage of the war. In fact as late as April 1945, Kommandant Koch was executed by the SS for offences including murder. (117)

Incidentally, it is not true that all Revisionists as often claimed, and more often asserted, deny that there were any gassings at all. The unethical and inhuman medical experiments conducted by the Nazis are neither disputed nor condoned by any mainstream Revisionist. Professor Butz goes further and suggests that the stories of mass gassings arose out of the euthanasia programme, which again no mainstream Revisionist denies. (118)

One final point re medical experiments, although they can and should be condemned on humanitarian grounds, it may be that the in some cases the position was not as straightforward and clearcut as is generally believed. At the Ravensbrück Trial, witness Helena Piasecka testified that she had been the victim of a medical experiment on her leg. (119) Under cross-examination she was asked if she had been sentenced to death in Poland; she agreed that she had been sentenced in her absence. So had her sister. (120) It was then suggested that she was told her death sentence would be commuted if she took part in an experiment, although she denied this. (121)

Returning to the Belsen Trial, in his memoir, Major Winwood wrote “There were immense problems facing the defence. The charges were heinous, time was short, and pressure came from the British Government to get the trial over before the Americans got going at Nuremberg.” In addition to all that, “the Royal Warrant, under which War Crimes Trials were set up in the British Zone, ruled out the defence of acting under superior orders and rendered admissible hearsay evidence, both written and oral, subject to the weight to be given to it. This meant that the many statements of the inmates of the Camp could not be tested...”

The question of hearsay evidence is very complicated; generally speaking it is inadmissible in criminal and in civil proceedings, but there are many exceptions. Hearsay can be admitted by consent if it is non-contentious; there is no point in cross-examining a witness if the evidence he tenders is not disputed. But if a witness statement or affidavit cannot be tested by cross-examination, how can the veracity of the evidence presented be tested? Winwood writes that most of the deponents had disappeared “into the chaos that was Germany”, and in addition to that “We had little time to formulate a coherent defence policy”; the Court didn’t like the Defence team’s objections to jurisdiction and other legal matters, and “We were therefore called one evening to see the President of the Court”. Winwood and his fellow defence lawyers didn’t like this because “We had taken the job as a duty...and were determined to do our best for our clients...” Which they certainly did.

The trial evidence was given in English and German and, when Polish accused were involved, in Polish. There were no simultaneous translations. This could hardly have helped the accused.

Defending Kramer, Winwood said that although he had been referred to as “The Beast of Belsen”, he should instead be referred to as “The Scapegoat of Belsen”. (122) The quality of the evidence presented at this trial has already been alluded to. (123)

The law report on the Belsen Trial makes equally fascinating reading. It was the first report on concentration camp trials. (124) Here are a few of the juicier extracts:

Page 87: “From the evidence it appeared that the usual ground for inferring that people had been gassed was that they disappeared.”

That is evidence of gassing? As Major Cranfield pointed out on the 47th day of the trial: “The court will remember Cecilia Frommer who came here and told us that her brother was selected at Auschwitz, and only since the liberation did it turn out that he had been discovered at Buchenwald, another concentration camp.” (125)

At page 88 of the law report it is stated that: “There [were] four killings alleged against Grese and one against Lobauer. (126) All allegations were made by affidavit except one made against Grese which was produced as an afterthought in re-examination. None of these stories were corroborated.” On such evidence was Irma Grese branded the “Bitch of Belsen” and condemned to death.

Page 95: in court, Litwinska accused Ilse Forster of murdering a young girl. In her affidavit she accused Ehlert of a different murder. (And don’t forget she was also gassed!)

Page 96: affidavits were prepared from statements taken by other people, mainly by police officers, then turned into affidavits by Major Smallwood. “the accused were never present or really present when these accounts were being made.” Exactly what is meant by being “really present” is not at all clear.

The credibility of depositions was said to have increased somewhat when Major Champion took over. It remains to be seen if their veracity likewise increased.

Page 130: the Royal Warrant provided for “a certain relaxation of the rules of evidence otherwise applied in English Courts.”

We have already seen what this entailed, but on pages 130-1 it is spelled out. It included the admission of documents and statements “appearing on the face of it to be authentic, provided the statement or document appears to the Court to be of assistance in proving or disproving the charge...”

Page 138: hearsay evidence was admitted both in affidavits and in the witness box.

Winwood’s comment about witnesses disappearing “into the chaos that was Germany” may ring true, but there is no guarantee even that many of these witnesses existed. One such witness whose existence has been challenged is Dr Miklos Nyiszli, who is (reputedly) the author of a memoir of Auschwitz. In fact, Dr Nyiszli most certainly did exist, even though his alma mater had no trace of him. (127) However, his book is even less credible than most such testimonies, (128) and to the best of my knowledge this most important witness never gave evidence to any criminal court, although he made a deposition in July 1945. (129)

Returning to Winwood, three of his four clients were hanged. It is clear from a reading of the transcript and from a reading of the law report that in spite of its numerous handicaps, the defence as good as destroyed the prosecution case against almost every defendant, and that the trial was based on shoddy evidence and even shoddier legal precepts, but for the most part the court ignored the evidence and convicted most defendants anyway. This by the way, with the exception of jury trials, is the way most criminal courts operate to this day. (130)

The pattern of duplicity having been established, there is no reason for us to give any more credit to such allegations at any subsequent trial, whether held under the auspices of our glorious war time allies the Communists, or under German or Allied control during the sixties, or even later.

The forgers of history were already hard at work during the course of the war, there are even one or two candid admissions to that effect. For example, in the second volume of his smug autobiography, the British propagandist Sefton Delmer boasted of planting fake stories in newspapers. His team even planned the printing of a fake copy of the Völkischer Beobachter, the official Nazi Party newspaper, but this fell through for technical reasons. (131)

Delmer instructed his team thus: “’Accuracy first,’ I used to tell the writers. ’We must never lie by accident, or through slovenliness, only deliberately!’” (132)

And said of his handiwork: “We never attacked internationally known big shots like Göring, Goebbels, and Himmler. They were the routine targets of all enemy propaganda.” While of lesser Nazi luminaries: “We spread over them a slime of obloquy as foul as that which they themselves had spread over the Jews.” (133) This included alleged sexual aberrations. (134) Delmer’s department even operated a special Rumour committee. (135)

His work did not go unnoticed by the Nazis; he was the thirty-third person on the list of those to be arrested in the event of a German invasion of Britain. (136)

The documents of the International Military Tribunal are full of utter nonsense. Consider this extract from Document 3311-PS, which can be found in Volume XXXII of the Blue Series at pages 156-7:

“The second building consists of three chambers and a boiler-room. The steam generated in the boilers is led by means of pipes to the chambers. There are terracota floors in the chambers which become very slippery when wet...All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move quickly were driven on by rifle butts, by whipping and kicking...Many slipped and fell, the next victims pressed forward and stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After being filled up to capacity the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over.”

Irving didn’t bother to raise this nonsense at the High Court, and neither do the guardians of the legend any more; for the likes of Deborah Lipstadt and David Cesarani, the steam chambers of Treblinka are best forgotten, yet at the time, teams of document forgers produced reams of this nonsense. That which was subsequently considered too outrageous for even the most gullible of the goyim to swallow hook, line and sinker was quietly consigned to the memory hole. All that remains is for the likes of Deborah Lipstadt to paper over the cracks by referring to the Nazi manufacture of human soap from the cadavers of dead Jews as “rumors” and condemn as crazy or “anti-Semitic” those of us who point out that such soap was actually manufactured (by the Soviets) (137) and presented as “evidence” at the International Military Tribunal. (138)

It is a rule of thumb for Exterminationists that any and all Nazi/German documents which appear to support the extermination claims, however peripherally, are to be taken at face value, while those that do not, are to be ignored, ridiculed or explained away. The classic examples of this have to be the doctoring of the words Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) which is interpreted invariably to mean “gassed” or “exterminated”, and selections which meant selections for labour (but could mean practically anything) but which are interpreted by Exterminationists to mean selected for the gas chamber.

Another is a letter which Kramer wrote to Gluecks (139) on March 1, 1945, protesting about conditions in Belsen camp. In cross-examination, prosecutor Backhouse said “I suggest to you that that letter was never sent at all?” (140)

This led to the intervention of the Judge Advocate General: “Col. Backhouse, if some suggestion is being made against the witness will you make it quite clear to the Court what you suggest?”

Backhouse replied: “I am suggesting this letter was concocted, that the copy is a copy of a letter which was never sent at all.”

The JAG asked: “Concocted while he was at Belsen or afterwards?”

And Backhouse replied: “Afterwards. I suggest it is not a genuine letter at all.” (141) The same technique is used to this day; documents which support the Revisionist position are ridiculed, explained away or more often, ignored.

However, just because a document appears to be genuine or even if it is, does not mean that all or any of the information it contains is to be taken at face value. The British anti-Nazi propagandist Ellic Howe claims to have coined the apothegm “If it’s printed it’s true and if one can find a plausible excuse for using or faking a rubber stamp impression on the printed document, then it must be doubly true!” (142)

Howe – who for the record was Jewish – was the protegé of Sefton Delmer, whom he greatly admired, and boasted that the KGB and the CIA “with their inflated staffs” couldn’t hold a candle to Delmer and his “handful of gifted colleagues” (which included Howe, of course). (143) Howe, Delmer and their team spent the war years churning out forged Nazi stamps, running sham radio stations and all manner of covert black operations. The full extent of British fakery in the Holocaust will very likely never be known. The Psychological Warfare Executive was liquidated immediately after the war. According to Howe, an archivist was engaged “to destroy rather than preserve”. She doesn’t appear to have been very knowledgeable about the department but “As could be expected, no files containing material which was regarded as sensitive reached the PRO.” (144) Now all that remains of the dirty work of Sefton Delmer, Ellic Howe and their largely anonymous gang, are the gloating reminiscences of a few heavily self-censored memoirs.

Anyone who doubts the extraordinary lengths black propagandists, hard core Exterminationists and most of all the authorities will go to in order to manufacture evidence – be it of gassings or of anything else – should read Yoram Sheftel’s aforementioned book on the Demjanjuk case.

It is, as stated, well known that there is not in existence – and obviously never was – any direct order from Hitler or the German High Command stating expressly that the Jews are to be exterminated. Nor is there any order relating to the extermination of Jews – or anyone – in gas chambers. However, in his opening address to the military court, Kramer’s Counsel, Major Winwood, made the following curious claim: “I shall produce before you the original telegram from the office in Berlin appointing Hoess as Commandant of Auschwitz No. 1 for the particular purposes of carrying out the duties with regard to the gas chamber. You will hear from Kramer that when he arrived at Auschwitz that order was passed on to him and he was told that the gas chamber was nothing to do with him.” (145)

Giving evidence on the 19^th day of the trial, October 8, 1945, Kramer himself said “I received a written order from him that I had nothing to do with either the gas chambers or incoming transports”. (146) Kramer was speaking of Hoess, onto whom he attempted unsuccessfully to shift the entire blame. Of course, this order was never produced. If it had been, and if it had been authenticated, I wouldn’t be writing this, Irving himself would never have brought his action against Lipstadt and her publisher, and indeed, Holocaust Revisionism (in its present form) would never have come into existence.

Writing in the Sunday Times after the Irving v Lipstadt verdict, David Cesarani, no less, hit the nail bang on the head. Of Irving he wrote “To those familiar with Holocaust denial literature, it was always clear that veracity was subordinate to ideology.” (147)

My first reaction on reading this was that he should choke on his words. Of all the whining, snivelling hypocrites who subordinate veracity to ideology, who could be both more blatant and more vile than David Cesarani? (148) But what else could I, or anyone else, expect from Cesarani? This is the way he sees Irving – and all other Revisionists – because this is the way David Cesarani, and all his kind, are. The proof of the pudding is to be found in the history of anti-Semitism, not in the phenomenon itself, but in the way it has been, and continues to be, recorded.

Many scholarly books have been written on anti-Semitism, the majority of them by Jewish or Jewish-affiliated academics, and they all have one thing in common: the Jew is always and forever totally blameless. You can trawl through any standard work on anti-Semitism and you will find not the merest suggestion that at some point in time some Jew or group of Jews has done something which might conceivably bring their race into disrepute. It is possible to find standard works which reflect badly on white Gentiles, on Christians, on Moslems, on Nigerians, on blacks – on all manner of ethnic, racial and religious groups – but perish the thought that the Children of Israel have ever rubbed anybody up the wrong way.

Over the past twenty and more years this has changed somewhat, owing principally to the well-publicised excesses of successive barbaric Israeli régimes, but criticism of Jewry has been limited to the Israelis and less parochially to political Zionism. (149)

Organised Jewry are entitled to crow about their sham victory over Irving, but it is notable that a far more important trial concerning the Holocaust – two such trials in fact – received far less attention. These were the trials of German-Canadian Ernst Zundel in Canada, which also put the Holocaust on trial. The first trial received quite a lot of publicity in its early stages; the second trial received much less, even though Zundel was convicted first time round. His second conviction for distributing “false news” was subsequently overturned on constitutional grounds. Zundel’s trials were criminal trials, but the attempts to silence him backfired. Although Organised Jewry will continue to lobby to make the misnamed Holocaust Denial a criminal offence, they will not want any further confrontations of the Zundel type, although we cannot rule out their employment of another shill like Irving in less extensive and less dramatic proceedings just to make sure that the gullible goyim never forget who suffered most in World War Two.

So let us pose this question again: what now for Holocaust Revisionism? The official persecution of Revisionists will undoubtedly continue, although with the rise of the Internet, all forms of censorship are looking increasingly futile. Holocaust Revisionism is here to stay, and in spite of or even because of Irving, it will win further adherents. For years, Revisionists were given the silent treatment; that didn’t work. Then they reverted to calling us names; that didn’t work either. They are still endeavouring to silence us – both by overt censorship and by the aforementioned silent treatment – and they will never stop calling us names, but they have for many years had to try to respond, however feebly, to the evidence and arguments we adduce.

We have even seen Revisionism by “legitimate” academics and others, the most telling example of which has to be the exposure of fantasist Binjamin Wilkomirski, whose pseudo-Holocaust memoir Fragments, first published in Switzerland in 1995, was translated into more than a dozen languages (including Japanese). (150)

In February 1998, the gullible Anne Karpf wrote an uncritical review of Wilkomirski’s book for the Guardian in which she said he “miraculously survived” the liquidation of the Riga ghetto, and both Majdanek and Birkenau camps. Not only that but in Majdanek “he became a child who could recognise the sound of skulls breaking.” (151) This is obvious emotive nonsense. Wilkomirski, the uncircumcised “Jew” was eventually exposed by Israeli author Daniel Ganzfried. (152) The obvious motivation for this is that Jewish propagandists are becoming increasingly and rightly concerned that the uncritical endorsement of obvious liars is a risky business and that the goyim are waking up. If the likes of Wilkomirski are subsequently exposed by Revisionists, the spell might eventually be broken.

Wilkomirski’s book, which like the man himself, had been showered with accolades has now been withdrawn. (153) As has his 1997 Jewish Quarterly-Wingate Award. (154) The 1999 BBC1 documentary which is probably the most widely known exposé of Wilkomirski in Britain also exposed his fellow fantasist, American Laura Grabowski, who like the man himself is a Gentile born during the Second World War. Not only does she claim to recognise Wilkomirski from Auschwitz, she is also the author of a bogus book on Satanic abuse! There are, it seems, no limits to what even the American public will swallow in the holy name of the Holocaust.

Revisionists must not fall into the same trap of uncritical endorsement of anything which undermines or appears to undermine the Exterminationist legend. Although they will continue to smear us as Nazis and anti-Semites ad nauseam we should never forget that first and foremost Revisionism is a dissident historical tradition whose roots go back to American intervention in the First World War. The founding father of Historical Revisionism was the American historian and Libertarian Harry Elmer Barnes, who was no manner of Nazi or Nazi apologist. Revisionists – Holocaust Revisionists and otherwise – continue to be drawn from disparate and dissident traditions, and we must continue to uphold this noble tradition by researching, publishing and proselytising the results of our endeavours without fear or favour. Revisionists must whitewash no ideology, no race, no government, and no individual. We must reject all dogmatism and be worthy of the illustrious names of our predecessors who will be hailed as true keepers of the flame when the likes of Cesarani, Lipstadt, and Irving himself, are long forgotten.