Tall Stories

Tall Stories

Elie Wiesel was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Due to this and through his dozens of books he has somewhat assumed a “Messiah of the Holocaust” mantle. Translated into 30 languages, his 1958 book Night has sold no less than ten million copies. Yes, ten million! Like the Denis Avey book we discussed earlier, it’s a stolen-identity tale: he is pretending to be Mr Lazar Wiesel who was fifteen years older than he, and who really did have the “Auschwitz number” A7713 tattooed on his left arm.

In 2009, the fellow Hungarian Jew Nikolaus Grüner, after twenty years of investigating the topic, issued this press release:

“Elie Wiesel A-7713 has never existed, and the man claiming himself to be ‘Elie Wiesel’ with the concentration camp number A-7713, knowing full well that this number belonged to someone else, is an imposter of the worst kind. For this statement, I, Nikolaus Grüner A-11104, have certified and written knowledge of.” Grüner is courageously ignoring the death threats he keeps receiving, declaring that copies of all his documents are safely stored and will be released should he be killed. He has summoned Elie Wiesel to appear at a court hearing in Budapest and has published his book Stolen Identity A7713. ⁴⁰⁰ Elie Wiesel appears to have no tattoo on either arm. Grüner knew the Auschwitz inmate whose identity has here been stolen.

Grüner has ascertained that registration cards and official documents from the Auschwitz Museum archives show that Lazar Wiesel, born Sep-tember 4, 1913, received the number and tattoo A-7713; as likewise his brother, Abraham, born Oct. 10, 1900 was given the adjacent number A-7712. That latter number is the one which Elie Wiesel claims belonged to his father Shlomo, who was with him. No such registration records exist for Elie and or father: they are not there. This is another stolen identity story. Maybe the word “lie” in this fellow’s name is no accident. He is the world’s greatest living liar.

On Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2010, in the Italian chamber of Deputies, the President of the Chamber introduced Elie Wiesel as “the most authoritative living witness of the horrors of the Shoah amongst the survivors of the Nazi concentration camps.” In April of 2012 Wiesel introduced President Obama at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and rebuked him for not yet having initiated war against Iran. Can Wiesel even instruct the US President about who to bomb?⁴⁰¹ In 2012 the US Holocaust Memorial Museum named its highest award:

“In honor of Wiesel’s extraordinary vision and moral stature, which not only created the Museum but inspired a worldwide movement of Holocaust remembrance and education, the award henceforth will be named the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Elie Wiesel Award.” The US Holocaust Memorial Council is the governing body of that Museum, enjoying 55 presidential appointees and ten Congressional representatives. See “Elie Wiesel cons the world” by Carolyn Yeager, www.eliewieseltattoo.com. A thousand-dollar reward had been offered by Kentucky man Robert Ransdell for anyone who can show Nobel-Peace-Prize winning Elie Wiesel has that tattoo (May 2012). There is an identity-paradox for this Messiah of the Holohoax, the fraudulent and lying Wiesel.

Having been written as early as 1958, Night does not feature any gas chambers! Instead of Zyklon, it has huge Moloch-type pits of burning babies:

“Not far from us, flames, huge flames, were rising from a ditch. Something was being burned there. A truck drew close and unloaded its hold: small children. Babies! Yes, I did see this, with my own eyes … children thrown into the flames.” The wicked Nazis were unloading truckloads of little babies into the huge burning pits, and the bodies were flammable.

Human bodies are 70% water. They really don’t burn by themselves.

Not surprisingly, “A little farther on was another and larger ditch for adults.” Ten thousand persons were sent to their deaths each day in Buchenwald. In a hallucinatory manner, cohorts marched towards the fiery pit. He himself keeps being part of a contingent marching towards the inferno, then miraculously he survives while his friends get immolated. Even Mother Earth was shocked by this:

“Later, I learn from a witness that, for month after month, the ground never stopped trembling; and that, from time to time, geysers of blood spurted from it.” The blood of God’s Chosen People was demanding release… He meets of course the fiendish Dr Mengele:

“Dr. Mengele was holding a list: our numbers. […] I had but one thought: not to have my number taken down and not to show my left arm.” Ever since people have tried to scrutinize his left arm, vaguely expecting to find his tattoo number – but… it’s not there.

These Holo-hallucinations terminated rather abruptly when Fred Leuchter arrived in 1988: his Report dryly noted that no pits could have been dug without filling up with water, and certainly nothing would have burned in them.⁴⁰² The high water-table was due to the confluence of three rivers. Thus was fiery fantasy replaced by cold, scientific fact. America’s only gas chamber expert did write with a certain authority.

Many have enjoyed such learn-how-to-hate books about the fiendish SS. Eyewitness Auschwitz by Filip Müller (1979) was found by The New Republic to be “jammed with infernal information too terrible to be taken all at once.” In the foreword, Yehuda Bauer remarks that Müller was “the sole survivor of the whole span of the murder operations of the Auschwitz-Birkenau killing center.” Uh-huh. Müller’s tale might indeed have been “a tale of unprecedented, incomparable horror,” as the Jewish Press Features observed, but was it true? He described “the burning pits in which the Jews were consumed”⁴⁰³ at Auschwitz. Dug two metres deep, these hellish pits would burn up to 2,500 dead bodies in a few hours! “White-hot flames” leapt up.⁴⁰⁴ The red hue of these macabre funeral pyres could be seen from far away, added another dubious witness-survivor Pery Broad.⁴⁰⁵ Well over a thousand persons were somehow made to march into the gas chamber, Müller recalled. Yes, they were stark naked, men and women – and no, there are no photographs. His book is subtitled Three years in the Gas Chambers, and he claimed to have worked assisting the SS in their fiendish task. His book has the classic line:

“And then they walked into the gas chamber. Zyklon B crystals extinguished their lives.” The alleged gas chamber of Krema I in the Auschwitz main camp, where Müller initially claimed to have worked,⁴⁰⁶ lacked an external door through which such a macabre procession could have strolled. The door separating the morgue-turned-gas-chamber from the oven room actually had a swinging door, which would have been impossible to lock against a panicking crowd and seal against noxious gases escaping! Explosive cyanide gas from the alleged homicidal gas chamber would have wafted through this door into the cremation furnaces where it could possibly have ignited – as Leuchter noted. No way could this morgue have been adapted to serve as a gas chamber.⁴⁰⁷ This point was rather simple. For that matter (not wishing to quibble) there were no Zyklon B crystals: they were gypsum pellets into which the liquid hydrogen cyanide was absorbed, and someone claiming to have been operating the system for three years might possibly have noticed this.

Müller found one day that he had no stomach for assisting the SS any more and decided to end his life. He himself stepped into the gas chamber together with all the crowd of victims. But then a group of beautiful girls “in the bloom of their youth” stark naked surrounded him and said, “We have to die, but you must live!” And they threw him out of the still-open door!⁴⁰⁸ O, what memories! No wonder Germany has forked over billions of Deutschmarks to Holocaust survivors.

Sado-masochistic readers will thrill to Müller’s account of the heartless SS guard with gun cocked making a mother undress herself and her little daughter before shooting them both. They will also enjoy his account of how, after shooting victims, the fiendish SS chucked fresh human muscle into a bucket: “The muscles of those who had been shot were still working and contracting, making the bucket jump about.” Surely we are in Dr Mengele’s office!

Müller’s book described how the gassing worked quickly, and “after the screaming stopped” the SS prison commandos would come in a couple of minutes later to pull out the corpses. They didn’t even need gas masks! Like so many of the early holohoax stories, this would quickly have killed the guards. You don’t need me to tell you that the whole scenario is totally physically impossible – as Fred Leuchter’s Report duly noted.

A prize-winning best-seller, Müller’s book is required reading in many Holocaust study courses. “Filip Müller”⁴⁰⁹ was actually a German ghost writer, Helmut Freitag, who plagiarized the story from the equally-faked Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account, attributed to Miklos Nyiszli.
Raul Hilberg’s supposedly authoritative three-volume Destruction of the European Jews repeatedly quotes from it.

The Müller book made no real contact with the physical architecture at Auschwitz; it was just a fairy tale from Hell, pandering to a collective need to fantasize about infernal realms. A sea change later took place with the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it became possible for visitors to legally visit the site. The “official” works by Pressac represent an attempt to reconcile belief in the Holocaust with detailed geography of the actual bombed-out ruins. In 1989 he published his magnum opus about the Tech-nique and Operation of the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz. Construction drawings showed the “Gaskammern” i.e. “gas chambers” in the original German design plans of these buildings.

By way of contrast with these fantastic holohoax tales, we have encountered three different authentic eyewitness accounts of the Auschwitz camps in the course of this treatise. There was, firstly, the International Red Cross’s three-volume report published in Geneva in 1948. They regularly inspected the camps. This commented for example upon the shower units at Auschwitz:

“Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged.” These are the real shower-units – not the ones which metamorphosed into the hallucinatory homicidal gas chambers! Secondly there was the book by the judge Wilhelm Stäglich, his powerful Der Auschwitz Mythos which described how he used to visit the camps around Auschwitz (English: Auschwitz: a Judge looks at the Evidence). Then in Chapter 13 we described in some detail Thies Christophersen’s recollections of living at Raisko, a mile east of Auschwitz during the war (in Die Auschwitzlüge, The Auschwitz Lie, 1973).⁴¹⁰ Last but not least, we saw how Dr Charles Larsen came immediately after the war in order to inspect the bodies.

400 It’s online at: Nikolaus Grüner “Stolen Identity,” www.nazigassings.com/PDFs/StolenIdentity2.pdf: “This shameless profiteer turned the graves of Auschwitz-Birkenau into an industry and himself into an ‘impostor’ of the worst kind,” etc.

401 In a December 2009 speech in Budapest, Wiesel urged Hungary to make Holocaust denial illegal. It did so the next year!

402 The Leuchter Report, Toronto 1988. www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report.jpg

403 Filip Müller, Eyewitness Auschwitz, Thee Years in the Gas Chambers, Chicago 1979, foreword quote by Terrence Des Pres in The New Republic.

404 Ibid, p. 130.

405 E. Kogon et al. (eds.), Nazi Mass Murder: A Documentary History of Use of Poison Gas, YUP, 1993. p. 170.

406 In his deposition during the trial against the Auschwitz guards; see C. Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Caser for Sanity, p. 599.

407  The purpose of the morgue was to lay out and prepare the bodies prior to being incinerated in the cremation ovens (which cremated one body at a time): typhus-infested bodies could not be buried because of the high water-table, as their decomposition would have polluted the drinking water supplies.

408 Müller, ibid, p.113.

409 Filip Muller, Eyewitness Auschwitz, Thee Years in the Gas Chambers, Chicago 1979, quote from the foreword.

410 Then there were two accounts by prisoners to which we have alluded, more briefly: Pri-mo Levi’s If This Be a Man (1959) and that of Marc Klein, where we cited his swim-ming pool comments: De l’Université aux camps de concentration, Paris 1947.

from the book Breaking the spell  the Holocaust, myth  reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom

ODIGO WARNINGS or One Israeli Death

 Nearly 500 foreign nationals from over 80 different nations were killed in the World Trade Center. The next day, September 12, the  Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli embassy in America was bombarded on 9/11 with calls from 4,000 worried Israeli families. It quoted Israel’s PM Shimon Perez: ‘The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attack.’ [71] The Foreign Ministry had compiled the number from Israeli relatives who in the first few hours after the attack, contacted the Israeli Foreign Ministry and gave the names of Israeli friends and relatives who worked in the WTC or who had business scheduled in it or its adjacent structures. 

“Logic alone would tell you that there would be many hundreds, if not thousands of Israelis in the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks.

The international Jewish involvement in banking and finance is legendary. Two of the richest firms in New York are Goldman-Sachs and the Solomon Brothers; and both firms have offices in the Twin Towers. Many executives in these firms regularly commute back and forth to Israel. New York is the center of world wide  [72]Jewish financial power and the World Trade Center is at its epicenter. One would expect the Israeli death toll to be catastrophic.” 

On September13th, “Four Israelis were almost certainly in the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center when they collapsed, the Israeli consul in New York said this evening.” This number kept dwindling. A week later, President Bush stated that 130 had died, but 129 of these were found to be still alive. The NY times (22nd September) found that 3 Israelis were confirmed dead, two from planes and one from the Towers [73], [74]. Of this total the British historian David Irving wrote: “We are happy to report that the 4,000 figure dwindled eventually to three (not three thousand, but three), then two, then one: the unfortunate Daniel Lewin.” [75]Two Mossad agents were present, on Flight UA 175 and Flight AA 11 respectively: the latter had Daniel Lewin, a 28-year old graduate of Israel’s elite commando unit, the “World’s most elite anti- hijacking team”.

He was a captain in this unit, and the story soon developed that he had been shot by Satam Al Suqami, as the four Arabs attempted to storm the cockpit. (Satam was the one whose passport supposedly fluttered down to Ground Zero where the FBI found it). Sayeret Matkal is Israel’s elite team that handles aircraft hijackings and assassinations, specializing in aircraft takeovers. During the 1970s and 1980s, this secretive Israeli anti-terrorist unit (akin to the Delta Force) thwarted many attempted hijacks. Members of this unit are trained in looking and thinking like an Arab. Flight UA 175 (Boston to LA, allegedly hijacked to fly into the south tower) had the Israeli citizen and probable Mossad agent named Alora Avraham. This 27 year old was raised in the Israeli settlement of Ashdod. One surmises that Lewin may not have died, but had some key role in, whatever happened.

On the morning of 9/11, a two-hour advance warning to stay out of the towers was received by the Israeli firm of Odigo, [76] whose Research and Development center is in Herzliya, Israel, a town north of Tel Aviv where Mossad is headquartered. This messaging company, with its office a mere two blocks from the former WTC, received a warning originating from an Israeli branch. One never heard details, but Odigo’s vice president Alex Diamandis said, “The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did – almost to the minute.” Odigo has a feature called “People Finder” which allows a user to send an instant message to a large group based on a common characteristic, such as Israeli nationality, while maintaining user privacy. This is surely the explanation, as to why no Israeli nationals working in the Towers died that morning (there was one who died, but he was just visiting). “Comverse and Odigo have had a long-standing partnership and together have developed instant communications products and services that we have recently begun to offer to operators around the world,” declared Zeev Bregman, CEO of Comverse [77].

Nick Kollerstorm Who Did 9/11?

A View from Across the Pond

**

ODIGO WARNINGS

In the first days and weeks after 9-11, I paid very close attention to the large number of Israeli terror suspects arrested, which was more than two hundred by November 2001, and investigated the published reports that an Israeli instant text message service had been used to warn Israelis of the attacks in New York, hours before they occurred. Many Israelis were evidently forewarned of the attacks through an Israeli instant messaging service called Odigo. This story, which presents the clearest evidence of Israeli prior knowledge of the attacks, was reported only very briefly in the U.S. media – and then forgotten.

According to the published reports, Israel-based employees of Odigo reported having received warnings of an imminent attack at the World Trade Center hours before the first plane hit the north tower. Odigo, an Israeli-owned company, had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the World Trade Center, but the forewarned Odigo employees did not pass the terror warning on to the authorities in New York, an act that would have saved thousands of lives.

Two weeks after 9-11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, said, "The messages said something big was going to happen in a certain amount of time, and it did – almost to the minute." "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message," Diamandis said. Four thousand Israelis were expected to have been working at the World Trade Center on 9-11, yet only one was reported to have died at the complex. Based on the Israeli government figure that 4,000 Israelis were expected to have been at the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks, it seems evident that many Israeli Odigo users got the message of warning.

Odigo, which offers real-time messaging, has a feature called "People Finder" which allows a user to send an instant message to a large group based on a common characteristic, such as Israeli nationality. "People Finder" allows Odigo users to search for online "buddies," with filters like Israeli nationality, while maintaining user privacy at all times. The message was probably sent in Hebrew. The Internet address of the sender of the warning was allegedly given to the FBI. Two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. Since then there have been no further media reports about the Odigo warning of 9/11.

These two news stories about the fake Israeli "movers" and the Odigo messages, which clearly indicated that some Israelis had very specific prior knowledge of the attacks, were published in American and Israeli newspapers shortly after 9-11. Had the recipients of these Odigo instant messages contacted the New York police department, thousands of lives could have been saved. The question that has not been asked is, why didn't they?

CUI BONO?

There were several early indicators that Israelis were involved in 9-11 and that it was a spectacular "false flag" terror attack designed to serve as a casus belli to drag the United States    into the "War on Terror." Apart from the previously mentioned evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, there were also the amazingly insensitive comments of Netanyahu about 9-11 being "very good" in his view.

Netanyahu, it should be noted, is the author of several books which call for the western nations to engage in a global "War on Terror." Since 1986, Netanyahu has urged the United States and western democracies to take up arms against the enemies of Israel in the name of "fighting terrorism," which is the title of one of his books. The "terrorists" that Netanyahu wants the West to wage war on, however, all happen to be the people and states opposed to Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

I approached the 9-11 investigation with a twenty-five year history of having lived in and followed the events of the Middle East. After many years of traveling in Europe and the Middle East, I obtained a degree in History from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1992. My academic emphasis was on Palestine and Israel. After the first U.S. war against Iraq, which I was actively opposed to, I spent my final year of university training researching the Soviet occupation of the newly liberated Baltic republics and completing my courses at the University of Bergen in Norway.

Fate brought me into the proximity of another mass disaster on the morning of September 28, 1994, when I arrived by ship in Sweden and learned that the Baltic ferry named Estonia had sunk during the night with 852 victims lost at sea. My wife's first husband, a famous Estonian singer named Urmas Alender, was among the missing. While it was abundantly clear that something much more explosive than a "monster wave" had sunk the ferry, the Swedish government and media pretended that natural forces had caused the catastrophe. In the process of investigating what happened in the ferry disaster, I came to realize that a modern "democratic" state, like Sweden, could actually be complicit in the cover-up of the mass murder of hundreds of its own citizens.

When in the year 2000, I began working as a journalist for the Washington-based Spotlight, later to become the American Free Press, I turned my attention to the mysterious 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of New York. I attended the final sessions of the government agency (NTSB) involved in investigating the "crash" of Flight 800 and was appalled at the obvious cover-up of the facts. I watched how three Jewish members of the board completely dominated the NTSB final sessions and how the testimonies of more than 100 eyewitnesses, who had testified to having seen a streaking object hitting the aircraft in flight, were categorically dismissed because, according to a young Jewish member of the board, based on the time of the observations, all of the witnesses must have been drunk and hallucinating. After the two-day presentation of the NTSB findings there was no press conference or session allowing for questions from the media or public. This was clearly another cover-up.

I had also studied the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and seen how the U.S. government and military had covered up the truth of the Israeli military attack on the unarmed Navy vessel off the coast of Egypt in 1967. With this background I approached the events of 9-11. Well aware of the history of false-flag terror, the overwhelming Zionist influence in government and media, and dishonest official investigations into recent mass disasters, I was a natural skeptic from the start.

Quote from the book Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed The World  by Christopher Bollyn

Nick Kollerstrom - Branded as a Heretic

To deny the danger posed by the Holocaust religion and its followers is to be complicit in a growing crime against humanity and against every possible human value. —Gilad Atzmon

It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislature bodies and courthouses. 

—Michael Santomauro, Ed., Theses & Dissertations Press 

Of course, no physical evidence whatsoever was shown to verify the alleged homicidal gas chambers, despite knowledge of their existence being denied by every single defendant. 

—Jason Myers, on the Nuremberg trials of 1946,  Smith’s Report, July 2009

If Nick Kollerstrom had been wrong, he would have been refuted – not fired. The mindless persecution of Kollerstrom, and his opponents’ inability to answer his arguments convincingly, suggests that the story of the Nazi gas chambers cannot withstand critical analysis. —Dr. Kevin Barrett

Branded as a Heretic 

After somewhat over a decade of quiet academic research, my life changed rather abruptly as I became ethically damned, thrown out of polite, decent groups, banned from forums and denounced in newspapers, with half my friends not speaking to me any more – while the other half still would, provided I kept off “that awful subject.” So as a philosopher I was granted an unusual and excellent opportunity to ponder the difference between what is real and what is illusory.

I should be grateful to my fellow-countrymen for absolutely refusing rational debate on this topic, for insisting on my silence over it, and for trans-forming discussion into insult. I know what I have been through. I have been well-cooked, and what you have now in front of you is the end-result. 

The damnation cast upon me was ostensibly political – people were suddenly averring that I was “far right,” and I had to try and figure out what that meant and why it was being applied to me – whereas no-one seemed interested in what I had actually done, namely synthesize a couple of chemical investigations concerning residual wall-cyanide taken from World War II labour camps. The damnation cast upon me did not require any opinion from me to confirm it – I was merely informed. And it wasn’t just our corrupt media, the BBC, Sunday newspapers, radio stations; oh no, it was blogs as well. 

Going into my local, or even my gym, I felt as if some Mark of Cain had been branded onto my forehead. I had done something so awful that we could not even discuss the matter. The Mediaeval crime of Heresy was back alive and well, even if I was not going to be tortured to recant. From The Observer to Private Eye, from the Metro to the Morning star, from the Jewish Chronicle to the Evening Standard, readers perused the shocking news about my awful heresy, with me being allowed little or no right of reply. 

I had long noticed how collective hate against the “Enemy” seemed to be the deepest emotion, collectively speaking, the British people got to experience, whereby for example during the Cold War one could be inten-sively damned if one did not sufficiently hate the Russians, Reds or Communists. NB, “holocaust” was then used in its proper sense, “the nuclear holocaust,” with no upper-case “H,” and meant a fiery process. 

Then in 2009 I wrote a book about the new “enemy” of Islamic terrorists, explaining how this had been fabricated by the Establishment to warrant more wars. This got me further ethically damned as an “apologist for terror.” The media could not say why I was investigating the London bombings – i.e. writing the definitive book on the subject2 – so I was averred to enjoy a “ghoulish” interest in the dead. 

The blessing which Jesus Christ promised to the peacemakers may finally come to them, but in the meantime they are likely to get damned in a war-maker civilization like our own, where hating and fearing the correct enemy is a primary requirement of being a good citizen. That demonizing process is essential, in order that a politician standing up on his hind legs can bray about the “enemy” and thereby call for more military expenditure, a new war, more trashing of our democratic liberties etc. – as Adam Curtis described in that BBC classic trilogy “The Power of Nightmares.”3 But this rhetoric does a lot more than start new wars: it closes down your frontal-lobe capacity for higher reflective thought and erases what possibility we might have had, collectively, to ponder what it means to be human. 

We here try to wonder, which Plato said was the beginning of philosophy, to open the gates of wonder. Please do not regard me as an expert, as you peruse these chapters. Maybe put some brown paper over the book’s cover, or just read it in Kindle. We here look at the primal myth that keeps this nightmare, death-in-life Eternal-War civilization going. Why does the word “Nazi” conjure up images of hate far worse than any modern enemy image, as if the War had just ended yesterday instead of seventy years ago? 

I, as your guide though this minefield, am a mere science historian, strug-gling to seek out primary-source data on this matter. 

**

The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps. This is considered to be absolutely forbidden. How strange is that? After being a member of my college for 15 years I was thrown out with one day’s warning, having been given no opportunity to defend myself, a fact announced on its website.4 What I had done was so terrible that it could not announce what my crime was: I felt like Faust caught making his pact with the devil. The British media had carte blanche for their character-assassination.5 Fortunately, a few friends could still bring themselves to talk to me. 

I majored in the History and Philosophy of Science precisely because I believed that we are a science-based civilization, and that therefore controversial aspects of historic science and technology should be critiqued and studied. But generally this seemed a crusty academic discipline about to disappear into oblivion under challenges from more exciting college courses. 

One day it dawned upon me that there was a chemical angle to “the Holocaust,” because a simple chemical reaction had taken place in walls where cyanide gas had been used in World War II. I understood that young men had gone out, illegally chipped away bits of old wall, then had their careers terminated by what they found out. I was intrigued by the permanence of the iron-cyanide bond, which promised a fairly simple approach to finding out what had happened, sixty years ago. Naively, I did not ap-prehend that what I reckoned or hoped to be a scientific question was ap-parently more like a deeply religious one. 

As a founder-member of the dynamic 9/11 “truth” movement in London, I liked the people there and their angle on world affairs. I don’t know much about politics: I don’t read the papers or watch television, and I try to forget the names of politicians. I would learn at that group about current events, and hear experts – for that is what they were – debating the apocalyptic and ever-mysterious 9/11 event. Then in 2010 the group broke up, and I found myself being blamed for this and banned from their web-forum. This damnation wasn’t because of anything I had said during the meetings, but because of something which they had discovered that I believed relating to events of seventy years ago in Eastern Europe. This turned out to be vastly more important than any mere discussion about 9/11, because it was totally fundamental. Well, if it was so important, could we not discuss the subject? No, it turned out that we couldn’t: the group did not wish to discuss so terrible a topic! 

After I was expelled, the group disintegrated, for there was nothing further it could do.6 The pressure of not being allowed to debate the subject, which was so awful that I had to be expelled, kind of made it impossible to meet any more. That’s why the two UK 9/11 truth websites both have disclaimers – in case you’re interested – asserting that no Holo-debate is permitted. Thousands of people, or more likely tens of thousands, are in jail right across Europe7 for the crime of trying to find the truth of what happened sixty years ago, and what calls itself a UK “Truth” movement cannot discuss the topic.

You’re reading a treatise about something in history which never existed, a process in history which never took place. The understanding of this will involve a Copernican revolution. I seem to be in the position of taking away from people their worst nightmare, which has been the very foundation of their Unbelief and denial of Divine Providence, and has given us the comic-book concept of Pure Evil which endlessly enables our civiliza-tion to hate the collective Other, the Other-who-is-to-be-bombed.

That concept of Pure Evil has ruined our post-war culture. While being hammered with the Three Synonyms “Nazi! Anti-Semite! Holocaust-Deni-er!” I had cause to reflect upon what Jesus meant with his words about the Beam and Mote: we are required to perceive the view of the Other, who is being demonized. Europe needs that honest debate, where people are allowed to express their views and conclusions about What Really Happened without continually having false motives attributed to them. Europe has no worthwhile future unless it is prepared to have that debate. In my opinion, Revisionists are now going to win any such debates, which is why they cannot be allowed to take place.

Prelude

In centers recognized from time immemorial as epicenters for free thought and free debate, that so many would take hardened and unfalsifiable stances on the Holocaust is a paradox of the highest nature. —Jason Myers1

I might as well write Britain’s only Revisionist textbook, on what has to be the most deeply forbidden topic in our modern world. Just say that word, “the Holocaust,” and people shudder – as indeed they are supposed to; but by the same token it is, I affirm, the most important topic in the world for us to find out about. We need to find out how to discuss it calm-y, how to respect different viewpoints, and what are the primary sources we should be consulting. Can one hope to avoid abuse and insult while doing so? As the sole member of staff of University College, London (UCL), ever to have been expelled for ideological reasons (in 2008) – after having worked there as a science historian – I should be allowed to have an opinion as regards how the insecticide Zyklon had been used in World War II. That is essentially what drew me into the subject, and I still believe it is the best starting-point.

1 Myers, review of Mark Turley’s From Nuremberg to Nineveh: War, Peace and the Making of Modernity (Vandal Publications, 2008), Smith’s Report July 2009.

2 N. Kollerstrom, Terror on the Tube, Behind the Veil of 7/7. An Investigation, 2009.
www.terroronthetube.co.uk.

3 2004 BBC Documentary series, The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear: on Youtube

4 UCL, April 2008: “The views expressed by Dr Kollerstrom are diametrically opposed to the aims, objectives and ethos of UCL, such that we wish to have absolutely no association with them or with their originator.”

5 I was “promoting the Nazi agenda” according to a centre-page Observer article by Nick Cohen, “When Academics lose their power of Reason” (May 4 2008), to which I was allowed no right of reply. It expressed a death-wish against me; that I needed to be stuffed and placed next to the effigy of Jeremy Bentham at UCL. (Bentham has been described as the “spiritual founder” of University College London; editor’s remark)

6 I became in 2012 the only Briton to have been invited to speak at a US 9/11 truth event, the Vancouver 9/11 symposium. My paper on what hit the 2nd tower is online:
www.donaldfox.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/nick-kollerstroms-vancouver-presentation/

7 According to Gordon Duff writing on Veterans Today in 2010: “Two thousand people in Europe are in prison today for questioning some part, no matter how minor, of the holo-caust.” (“Who speaks up for Holocaust Survivors?”) That has to be quite an under-estimate. Around fifteen thousand German citizens are tried each year for the Thought Crime, so-called “right-wing extremism.” The prosecution of dissidents, patriots and na-tionalists in Germany has grown increasingly severe in recent years. “Aside from widely publicised high-profile cases, it is impossible to definitively state the specific number of victims who have fallen under the punitive arm of Holocaust denial legislation since these laws were first enacted. It has been estimated that over 58,000 individuals in Germany alone have been prosecuted for various thought-crimes during the period 1994-1999. During the course of one year, 1999, Germany’s aggressive policy of enforcing these repressive laws accounted for 11,248 convictions.” J. Bellinger, Smith’s Report, “The Prohibition of Holocaust Denial,” Sept 2009. Germany has also become the only country in the Western world where defending oneself in court can be unwise, because it risks committing the very offence for which one is charged! Ask Sylvia Stolz (Santiago Alvarez, “Germany Proud of Persecuting Dissidents,” The Barnes Review newsletter, 5 August 2012; www.barnesreview.org/wp/archives/577)

from the book Breaking the spell  the Holocaust, myth  reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom

If you have any questions about this story …

 Five Minutes with James Corbett

What Really Happened on the most decisive day in modern history? We begin with a sardonic review of the madly-unhinged tale that the world has been fed – as recounted by British expat James Corbett (with kind permission).

On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man  on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on four commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down three buildings with two planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corkscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where Department of Defence staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001. Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes (‘Osama bin Laden’), the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.

 The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. 

It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.The DIA destroyed 2.5 terabytes of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.

The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping. 

NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7’s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety.“

The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.

 Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple of dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies (Iraq) and mobile production facilities (Colin Powel at the UN, the ricin fantasy) and the rescue of Jessica Lynch.

If you have any questions about this story … you are a paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.

This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. 

Because ‘Ignorance is Strength’.”[5]Let us shed a tear for the impairment of cognitive function, that surely must have resulted, amongst all the millennials fed this story.

Nick Kollerstrom

Who Did 9/11? A View from Across the Pond

The first time in history that the U.S. hasn’t used ‘deception’ to start a war?

 Who benefits?

I suggest that Dubya Bush would have had no clue as to what his foreign policy was supposed to be, without 9/11. It gave him Terrorism as the new Enemy, able to threaten all that we hold dear, and his presidency is unthinkable without it. The Enron scandal and Bush’s transparent electoral fraud were closing in on him, when he was rescued by 9/11. 

After the attack it was Christmas every day for the national security establishment and its corporate cohorts. All their wish lists were fulfilled, and then some. In short order, they massively increased defence spending; shamelessly stifled social spending; promoted obscenely extensive tax breaks for the largest corporations; greatly increased surveillance and prosecutory powers over the citizenry, including license to enter their homes virtually at will, to an extent a dictatorship might envy; tore up the Bill of Rights for non-citizens, including legal residents; created a new Office of Homeland Security”, etc. (Blum,  Rogue State, xxi).

The Bible of the new American right has been Brzezinski’s  The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives (1997), spelling out the brutal and devious world-domination strategies of the US. It encountered the problem that, ‘… as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.’ So, where might that come from? Likewise the ‘Project for a New American Century’ (2000, ‘ Rebuilding America’s Defences’), a key document written by the ultra-right wing now in power, lamented that America hardly had the capability of waging two wars at once (p.3). The process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force," it explained, could be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" (p.51). Thus, two of the sacred texts of the New American Right have called for a cataclysmic event, of just the kind which then materialized. 

The US military had endured twelve difficult years without an Enemy. Did it generate its own, somewhat as a virtual reality exercise? The alleged Arab hijackers refuse to come into focus and appear increasingly as media-constructed images. None of us know what the answer is, though the event affects all of us. Of one thing we may be sure: the world will not be a safe place, until we find the guilty culprits. The US has always in the past relied upon deceptive war-precipitating incidents to make possible the wars that it wants, eg the sinking of the Lusitania 1915, Pearl Harbour 1941 and the Gulf of Tonkin 1964. A review of these terrible but phoney events concluded that: “If, indeed, September 11 was caused solely by Al Quaeda, then that would be the first time in history that the U.S. hasn’t used ‘deception’ to start a war” (‘How to start a War’,  Global Outlook, Summer 2002 17).

from: Who Did 9/11?

A View from Across the Pond

Kollerstrom - Holocaust Jurisprudence in Europe

This article originally appeared as Appendix IV “Your Rights” in Kollerstrom’s Breaking the Spell.

1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 71:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
1953: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 10:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

Restrictions on this apply “for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others...

There is a content-based restriction to this protection of rights, and that deals with the “dissemination of ideas promoting racism and the Nazi ideology, and inciting to hatred and racial discrimination.” This is said to reflect the “paradox of tolerance: an absolute tolerance may lead to the tolerance of the ideas promoting intolerance, and the latter could then destroy the tolerance.”

Our concern here has been with what the Nazis did, historically: which does not constitute an endorsement of their actions. Indeed, research into what they did, which is the normal business of the historian, must surely help in enforcing a law prohibiting the “promoting” of “Nazi ideology,” so that it can be applied more effectively.
1976: European Court of Human Rights

Ideas that offend, shock, or disturb the State or part of the population are deemed to have the full protection under freedom of speech. It considers that any limitation of this freedom must correspond to an “imperative social need,” affirming this in the landmark case of Handyside:[1]

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to Paragraph 2 of Article 10... it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.’

This “Handyside paradigm” means that a democracy is required to protect the right to express minority opinions. But such a right to freedom of expression is not absolute, as indicated by Section 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention, above-cited.[2]

It should be the business of courts to sentence crime and promote justice, not attempt to throttle historical investigation by enforcing belief in US/UK atrocity propaganda left over from World War II, in which only a minority of the world still believes due to its vanishing credibility. The concept of crime involves in essence the inflicting of unacceptable harm on another, and should not cover a possible effect of fear induced in an ethnic or racial group, whether intentionally or not.

Revisionists are liable to find themselves accused of promoting anti-Semitism or hate-crime: it therefore becomes important to affirm that it is the currently accepted view which is promoting race-hatred – against Germans – whereas a revisionist view endeavors to describe European history without the hate and blame, but rather with mutual responsibility. It is the demonized-enemy images that create the hate.
2008: EU Legislation

In 2008 the European Union adopted a motion “Combating Racism and Xenophobia”, which obliged all EU member states to criminalize certain forms of so-called “hate speech.” “Hate speech” is a notoriously wooly concept, whose definition is always going to depend on who is in power. Its Article 1 defines criminal law applicable to member states:


Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following intentional conduct is punishable:

(a) publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin;

(b) the commission of an act referred to in point (a) by public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material;

(c) publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite to violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Here, it is not the belief as such which can put anyone in jail, but beliefs which are liable to incite violence etc. The legal trigger is the act of incitement, not the “denial” as such. And nothing in this text alludes to World War II: the Rome Statute of the ICC here alluded to sets up quite general definitions, e.g., of genocide. The denying or trivializing of “crimes of genocide” is said to be punishable, but this law does not say what these crimes are; and moreover, it is only punishable if it is likely to cause something publicly visible, i.e. incites violence. The mere expressing of an opinion is not here defined as crime.

Anyone accused of inciting “hate speech” should insist that a qualified psychologist is present to testify that the emotion in question, namely hate, has been aroused, and say in whom, where and when it was aroused, as a consequence of the said speech: the court should not just accept the word of the prosecution concerning the alleged emotion.

A revisionist accused under this legislation may wish to bring a copy of Shlomo Sand’s book The Invention of the Jewish People into the courtroom: that Jewish history professor shows in this book that European Jews are not an ethnic, national or racial group: Ashkenazi Jews may share some racial-genetic characteristics, but these are not however shared by the Sephardic Jews; Jews are an international and cosmopolitan social elite, of whom a small proportion are religious. The categories of this Act are not applicable to them.

Article (c) is actually incoherent and does not make sense: for example, if a historian investigates the alleged genocide of Armenians by Turks in 1915-16 (the “denial” of which has been made a crime in France, as of 2012): that investigation cannot be “directed against” a group of persons of a race, colour, nation etc. – that does not make sense. A historian’s conclusion may spark anger, but that is no reason to criminalize it.
2011: UN Human Rights Committee


Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in Paragraph 3 or required under Article 20.[3]

There is a helpful discussion of this important new edict by Fredrick Töben.[4] The first sentence of the above quote has a footnote alluding to the Faurisson case: “So called ‘memory-laws,’ see Communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France.” Here, the UN Human Rights Committee is affirming that “laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts,” like France’s Gayssot Act used to outlaw revisionism, are incompatible with the criteria for “freedom of opinion and expression.”

Turning to the previous paragraph of the 2011 UN document, it places a limit upon the application of blasphemy laws – “Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system.” Over the decades of its sorry existence, European legislation against Holocaust revisionism has only ever protected the allegedly hurt feelings of one specific ethnic or religious group, viz. Jews. This paragraph makes clear that


It would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers.

French lawyers need to discuss how this impacts upon enforcements of the Gayssot Act, which in practice has always protected only one specific belief system.
Just Law

Crime should be in essence a deed, not an intention or feeling. The policeman catches the villain who has committed a crime: the criminal has done something wrong. But, once the category of “Thoughtcrime” is introduced, then respect for the law will soon be replaced by fear of law enforcement. If Jews have collectively a self-perception of their ancestors being put into gas chambers, and if they “feel” that they do not like people pointing out that this perception is untrue, then that is regrettable – but, it has no business being a crime. Citizens need to demand that the laws of their nation are just and fair.

Explaining why the right of freedom of speech as expressed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) was not applicable to Faurisson, after he appealed to them, the UN’s Human rights Committee alluded to a right of “the Jewish community to live free from fear.” Was any psychologist present to testify that Faurisson’s writings had induced fear in anyone? Faurisson was beaten up by a Jewish gang in 1989. Is anyone concerned that he has a right to live free from that fear? If the term “hate speech” is going to be used against revisionists in return for their work in ascertaining what happened in World War II, then a court needs to summon a psychologist to testify that such an emotion has in fact been generated. Citizens should campaign against bad law which convicts on the basis of an alleged 

emotion that might have been aroused.

Portrait of Dutch philosopher Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677), ca. 1665
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The great Dutch philosopher Spinoza wrote books about just law. Holland is a nation that has traditionally cared passionately about individual liberties, has no Holocaust Denial ban in its law and has only about half the fraction of its population in jail as compared to that in the UK. Let’s have a quote from Spinoza that might be engraved on the walls of police stations:

Those laws which prohibit one from doing that which causes no harm to one’s neighbor, are fit only for ridicule.

This is a secular humanist viewpoint, differing from that of earlier centuries, when voicing defiance or heresy upon sacred matters could land one in jail; an era which, unless we are careful, may now be coming back.

Dutch prosecutions do however take place on grounds of racial discrimination: it being there prohibited to “deliberately offend a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs.” Accused in this manner, one should tell the Court that most people could be glad, not offended, at being told that their relatives had not died in gas chambers.

Bad Law

Of the new Oxford University Press textbook on the subject,[5] Michael Hoffman has rightly argued:

Genocide Denials and the Law is intended to serve as an inquisitor’s manual, providing the definitive legal rationale for jailing modern-day heretics in the dungeons of Europe by first dehumanizing them as ‘deniers.’ […] a manual for inquisitors cloaked as an Oxford law study. It offers a rationale for punishing gas chamber heretics with long imprisonment, as a just and imperative penalty for daring to reject idolatry and collective false witness. This is a disgraceful work. (“On the Contrary” 20 June 2011) (http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2011/06/bow-to-their-holocaust-idol-or-go-to.html)

Its chapter titled “Defending Truth” is about how the people who are trying to find the truth need to be jailed. Its author Kenneth Lasson, Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore, a Jew, has basically written a chapter about how the goyim have to believe what they are told and how they need to be jailed if they don’t.

The American authors of this text need to be asked why they have omitted to mention the fifty to a hundred million Native Americans whose lives were erased by the White Man, the greatest genocide in recorded human history. It’s one that did really happen, so they would presumably argue that nobody is trying to “deny” it. Native Americans are America’s real “Holocaust survivors.”

Two people have been jailed in the UK for “denying the Holocaust,” after distributing a comic book called Tales of the Holohoax. It seems to have been the pushy way they distributed this sensitive material rather than the content itself which landed them in jail. They posted it to the local synagogue in Leeds. This comic (with some rather fine text by Michael Hoffman) is in the great tradition of British satire, from William Hogarth to Private Eye.

They were jailed under the Public Order Act, with the Crown Prosecution Service saying they had gone too far, they had crossed the line, etc. Muslims might want to test the water by re-publishing this and selling it. After all, the Mohammed cartoons were allowed, and so was Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, which scoffed at Islam.

We now examine two national Holocaust-Denial laws, French and German.
1990: The French Gayssot Act

On the subject of the liberty of the press, France’s Gayssot Act of 1990 made it an offense “to contest the category of crimes against humanity[6]as defined in the London Charter of 1945.”It applied to the press, i.e. newspapers, specifying how they will be punished if they contest:

l’existence d’un ou plusieurs crimes contre l’humanité tels qu’ils sont définis par l’article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l’accord de Londres du 8 août 1945.

Can this be used to convict revisionists, accused of “denying the Holocaust”? Nothing in it alludes to ordinary citizens; it is simply an Act “sur la liberté de la presse.” Yet twenty or so French revisionists have been prosecuted under it.

The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal here alluded to (of 8th August 1945) simply laid down the procedures by which the Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. (NB: This was in-between the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki!) That Charter established three new categories of crime that were going to be applied retrospectively against the defeated Nazis: crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.[7] The judgement of Nuremberg was handed down in 1946, but this Gayssot Act relates solely to the category of crime to be used there – not to any later judgements, as is commonly supposed.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 2002 re-stated these three new categories of crime as laid down in 1945. I suggest any French revisionist on trial should bring a copy of this into the Court and read out these categories, affirming that he/she is in no way disputing or contesting them. Article 6 of the Charter states, for instance:

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,

etc. One should welcome the category of Crimes against Humanity – and hope that Bush and Blair will in due time be prosecuted under them. Revisionists are in no way called upon to doubt or “contest” these categories, through whatever process of historical inquiry they are led.

France’s Gayssot Act also prohibited “any discrimination founded on membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a religion.” So France, wishing to promote uniformity and full racial-cultural assimilation, has in essence banned any clubs or meetings that are for a specific religion, race or nationality. Again I don’t see why this should be a problem for revisionists.

Robert Faurisson was deprived of his professorship in symbolist poetry at the University of Lyon in 1991 under this law, and he appealed to the UN Human Rights Committee, on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. His appeal (Robert Faurisson v. France, 1996) was denied – on the basis that Faurisson’s statements were “of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-Semitic feelings.”

Prosecutions brought under that Gayssot Act in the two decades it has been working have all been against one specific ethnic/racial group, viz. Gentile French males, with charges brought by one ethnic/racial group, viz. Jews; which in itself sounds rather discriminatory under the terms of this act.
1985 The German “Public Incitement” Law (with Major Revisions in 1994 and 2005)

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

a. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

b. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished […]

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 Subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law [=Acts of Genocide], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished […]

(4) Whoever, publicly or in a meeting, approves of, glorifies or justifies the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule, and by so doing disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims, shall be punished […]

Strangely, this law is primarily emotional, concerning various people’s alleged feelings, rather than facts. There are several kinds of untruths which a prosecution under this Act imposes upon the accused, untruths concerning motive and identity. I therefore suggest the accused needs to feel their own innocence, feel whatever heart-purity they can summon, upon walking into the Court, and maybe say to themselves the words of Jimi Hendrix: “I am who I am, thank God.” German courts have no jury and so the judge will be the final authority for whatever calumny the court casts upon the revisionist.

The worst course of action for the revisionist is to attempt to defend the truth of whatever they have said: propounding such historical-factual issues is likely to be viewed by the Court as compounding the offense – and providing grounds for further charges!

Against the accusation of “inciting hatred against sections of the population […] in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace,” witnesses have been summoned to testify that the views expressed have not disturbed nor are they capable of disturbing the public peace, but in vain – these have not been allowed, or have been disregarded. It should however be no business of the accused to summon such witnesses because citizens should be presumed innocent until proved guilty, not the other way round – the onus should lie upon the prosecution to demonstrate the impossibly vague notion of “capable of disturbing the public peace.” Every one of us knows what disturbs the “public peace” – guns, loud noises, unruly crowds, people with megaphones etc. Nobody can disturb the public peace by writing a book. In vain an author may dream or hope of disturbing the public peace by writing a book, but it’s not going to happen!

The mere testimony of the prosecution cannot here suffice as regards what might possibly disturb the public peace.

Whoever “assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population” is here liable to imprisonment. It is the normal business of comedians to do this; indeed it could be hard to ply that trade, if this crime-category is insisted upon. A crime should involve unacceptable harm or loss and not just a feeling that someone has been insulted.

The third section (“Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism…”) is hardly relevant, because revisionists are not known for proclaiming their views at public meetings. Publishing a book is a public act and so could here be alluded to. The last book to appear “in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace” was arguably Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848.

The accused may tell the Court that persons disturbing the public peace generally do not read books, that pamphlets and flyers rather than books have disturbed the public peace, and that, if they wish to prosecute on such grounds, the onus lies on them to explain why the millions of books published since Marx’s Communist Manifesto have failed to cause any such disturbance. The whole idea of this clause is inherently absurd as applied to revisionists. The accused should tell the Court that this clause might have been relevant to a previous generation who grew up in the aftermath of the War, but applied to modern truth-seeker historians is simply absurd.

The slur or untruth is here cast against the revisionist, that their motive in ascertaining historical truth is political, namely that they are covert neo-Nazis. The Court is here lying through its teeth and knows it. The accused should use polite and respectful language, e.g. state that, in the past, German courts have deceitfully sought to ban inquiry into World War II historical truth by pretending that it was motivated by pro-Hitler loyalty or anti-Jewish feeling, and he trusts that the present court will not likewise err. If the aim is to criminalize anyone who “approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism,” then clearly historical investigation must be permitted into what those acts were. Otherwise, how can the Court know whom to punish? Judges are not trained to be historians, as historians are not trained as judges.

Implicit in this encounter is the judge’s presumption that his career depends upon his accepting the good-versus-evil victor’s narrative laid down at Nuremberg, so that anyone who tries to re-tell the German history must therefore be a wicked Nazi. The revisionist in the dock has to affirm that he or she is the historian, is the only historian present in the Court, and is therefore competent to advise the Court about “an act committed under the rule of National Socialism” in relation to genocide, as this Volksverhetzung law specifies.[8] An act not subsumed under said rule cannot be of relevance to the Court, can it?

The fourth section is more of the same: “whoever, publicly or in a meeting, approves of, glorifies or justifies the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule, and by so doing disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims” – again this cannot logically be applicable, because, as we have seen, a book published can hardly disturb the peace, and other private statements by revisionists likewise will not do so. Witnesses need to be called by the prosecution to demonstrate that any such approval or “glorification” has publicly taken place.

The definition of revisionism by Faurisson should be given to the Court, whereby it is not a political program but “a quest for historical exactitude.” The accused needs to believe he or she is harmless. Only that can negate the various afactual categories tied up in this nefarious law. The Court should be told how only a quest for historical truth in World War II can properly share out blame and responsibility and thereby dissolve the hate images. It is not or should not be the business of the historian to endorse a Manichaean dualism, a cosmic good-versus-evil struggle, found within the historical process – as is implied by this Act.

The first section of this Act will work better under a mirror-reversal, whereby it is promoters of the Holocaust mythology who are continually inciting “hatred against segments of the population” and who are assaulting “the human dignity of others,” in a manner prohibited under this Act, whereby a “segment of the population” is made to suffer continually for something that should be relegated to the past. (The “segment” here comprises the remaining but diminishing older generation who fought in the War.) The public peace is very much disturbed by the inquisitors who check through personal libraries for books to be banned and burnt, and who monitor e-mails.

It is probably best to avoid using the J-word, but if it is insisted upon, one could point out that there were various social groups in the German labor-camps: gypsies, Poles and Russians as well as Jews, and that the story of what happened does not belong exclusively to any one of them.

In summary I suggest it is not this law as such which puts the revisionist behind bars, but rather its misuse through unfair and untrue indictments and judgments.

Notes:

[1] Handyside v. UK, 1976.
[2] Genocide Denials and the Law, L. Hennebel & T. Hochman, Oxford University Press 2011.
[3] UN Report of the Human Rights Committee CCPR Centre 2011: para 49 of a section “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” p. 257.
[4] Dr. Fredrick Töben, “Human Rights, the Holocaust-Shoah and Historical Truth,” The Barnes Review Blog, 15 April 2012, here starting at Section “9. Human Rights, the United Nations, and Free Expression” (online).
[5] Genocide Denials and the Law, Ed. L. Hennebel and T Hochmann, 2011.
[6] Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
[7] These three categories have been more recently re-stated in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 2002.
[8] Online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

How Britain Pioneered City Bombing

By Nicholas Kollerstrom

The Blitz on London in 1940 came in response to the initiation of city bombing by Britain some months earlier. Few now accept this rudimentary fact, central to Britain’s role in initiating World War II. Britons nowadays – or, all of them that I ever talk to – just see the Blitz as proof of Hitler’s wickedness and do not acknowledge the cause-and-effect connection. Winston Churchill and the War Department set up a situation where London would be blitzed, without telling the people that Britain had started the process several months earlier. This had the effect of getting Britons into a mood for total war, without the traditional restraints of civilised ‘laws’ or conventions, restraints which had hitherto established that civilians would not as such be targeted:

‘The exclusion of non-combatants from the scope of hostilities is the fundamental distinction between civilised and barbarous warfare.’[1]

Britons should take a more responsible attitude, and understand that it was their country and no other which pioneered the bombing of cities in a way that was not mere ‘collateral damage’ but was the deliberate targeting of working-class homes. Lies are always created by those who wish to wage war and the worst one here ought surely to have become clear to the British people sixty years after the event. But no! One finds today as historian A.J.P. Taylor remarked,

‘ … the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted.’ [2]

One thing the British people do really, really enjoy is their hate-and-fear enemy image. Britain is one of the most militaristic nations which has ever existed and for its ‘moral’ well-being it always has to demonise whoever it is making war upon.

I here wish to argue that, if civilised life existed on earth, then the Nuremberg trials from 1946 onwards would have focussed primarily upon Britain’s role in initiating city bombing – town-and-village eradication with over one million tons of bombs dropped on Germany[3] – as well of course as the US nuclear incineration of two Japanese towns, which were a kind of logical development of what Britain had pioneered. Mortality of those two A-bombs was of a far smaller magnitude than what Britain had inflicted upon German cities.

1936: ‘Bomber Command’ comes into existence, and long-range bomber planes start to be constructed. Its purpose was candidly described by J.M.Spaight of the Air Ministry: ‘The whole raison d’etre of Bomber Command was to bomb Germany should she be our enemy.’[4] So, those who wanted war started planning for it[5].

Germany and France had nothing resembling these bomber-planes.[6] In 1918, the highly punitive Treaty of Versailles had forbidden war-shattered Germany from ever developing an ‘active defence,’ alluding to such things as searchlights, flak guns etc.

Hitler repeatedly sought to secure a truce in city bombing, and that in any future conflicts bombing should be confined to the narrow zone of military operation[7]. Existing conventions and laws of war did not specifically allude to air bombardment, and therefore he repeatedly made offers to restrict the conduct of war by ‘confining the action of war to the battle zones.’

The war of 1939 was ‘less wanted by nearly everybody than almost any other war in history,’ wrote A.J.P. Taylor. In September 1939 a state of war had been declared, but not much was happening, because Germany in no way desired war against Britain[8]. On 15^th February, 1940, PM Neville Chamberlain in the House of commons affirmed, ‘Whatever the length to which others may go, H.M.Government will never resort to deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians, for the purpose of mere terrorism,’ in a reply to Captain Ramsey[9] This reaffirmed his position given on 14^th September[10]. City bombing, he emphasised, ‘was absolutely contrary to international law’[11]

1940: Churchill ousts Chamberlain as Prime Minister on May 10^th, and on May 11^th city-bombing begins[12]. On that night, the day after Churchill’s election, Bomber Command was first permitted to fulfil the purpose for which it was built. Newspapers merely reported that, that night, ‘eighteen Whitley bombers attacked railway installations in Western Germany.’ Winston Churchill and his advisors extended the definition of ‘military objectives’, which had been accepted for two and a half centuries to include factories, oil plants and public buildings – as, would include any town or village. They rendered the definition meaningless.

‘This raid on the night of May 11^th, 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilised warfare that hostilities must only be waged against enemy combatant forces.’[13]

For 12^th May, the War Cabinet minutes noted on ‘Bombing Policy,’ that the Prime Minister was ‘no longer bound by our previously-held scruples as to initiating “unrestricted” air warfare[14].’

On 25 August, 81 bombers made their night raids over Berlin, then on 6^th September the Luftwaffe replied. Only after six surprise attacks upon Berlin in the previous fortnight did the Blitz begin, and thus Germany justifiably called it a reprisal. ‘The British people were not permitted to find out that the Government could have stopped the German raids at any time merely by stopping the raids on Germany,’[15] to quote professor Arthur Butz. They still have not found this out. Winston Churchill never gets the credit he deserves for establishing The Blitz. . The German bombs took some one-tenth of the lives of civilians as compared to the British offensive, and Britons do not seem very aware of this ten-to-one ratio[16].

The testimony of J.M. Spaight, who was principal Assistant Secretary to the Ministry of Air during the war, is here crucial. His 1944 book Bombing Vindicated proudly defended city-incineration as pioneered by the RAF:

‘Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of the distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11^th 1940 the publicity which it deserved. That surely was a mistake. It was a splendid decision.’[17]

He emphasised that Hitler would have been willing at any time to have stopped the slaughter should the Brits agree: ‘Hitler assuredly did not want the mutual bombing to go on. …Again and again the German official reports applauded the reprisal element in the actions of the Luftwaffe… ‘If you stop bombing us, we’ll stop bombing you.’[18]

On 16^th December 1940 a moonlight raid by 134 planes took out the defenceless city of Mannheim, focussing on its charming town centre. Flying high enough to be safe from the anti-aircraft flak, the night-time bomber pilot releasing his cargo never hears the mother’s scream, nor sees the child’s burning flesh. That was the real Holocaust, a word meaning, death by fire. RAF pilots would return home announcing the destruction of assigned ‘military’ targets. This charade continued until August 1941 when a shocked British Cabinet was shown aerial photographs of the undamaged targets[19]. ‘Of all the aircraft credited with having bombed their targets only one-third had in fact bombed within five miles of them’.[20]

Air Marshall Arthur Harris took over Bomber Command at High Wycombe on 22^nd February 1942, a week after its primary focus had been defined as ‘the morale of the civilian population, and in particular industrial workers’ by an Air Staff directive. Harris was wont to boast, “I kill thousands of people every night." The Blitz ‘failed’, on his view, due to the ‘short-sightedness of the Luftwaffe chiefs in not providing themselves in peacetime with long-distance bomber planes designed for attacks on an enemy civilian population’, as had Britain, an omission which, he declared, ‘lost Germany the war.’ Thus in September 1940 the Germans found themselves with “almost unarmed bombers.’”[21] Germany lost the war because it had not planned for city bombing!

In March 1942 Churchill’s War Cabinet adopted the ‘Lindemann plan[22]’, whereby civilian targeting became official. Working-class homes were preferred to upper-class because they were closer together, and so a greater flesh-incineration-per-bomb could be achieved[23]. The Jewish German émigré Professor Frederick Lindemann[24], Churchill's friend and scientific advisor had by then become Lord Cherwell. He submitted a plan to the War Cabinet on March 30^th urging that German working-class houses be targeted in preference to military objectives, the latter being harder to hit. Middle-class homes had too much space around them, he explained. He was not prosecuted for a ghastly new war-crime, hitherto undreamt-of. Thereby all cities and town over 50,000 inhabitants could be destroyed, or at least brought to ruin. The War Cabinet realised that no inkling of this must reach the public. [25]

The Lindemann plan swung into action on 28^th March 1942 when the old port of Lubeck was attacked by 234 aircraft of Bomber Command. It had no military or industrial importance but was chosen because, as Air Marshall ‘bomber’ Harris remarked, the city was ‘built more like a firelighter than a human habitation.’ Its old mediaeval houses and narrow streets and its cathedral were erased, by ‘a first class success’ of the RAF. On 30 May 1942 a thousand aircraft dropped high explosive and incendaries on the medieval town of Cologne burning it from end to end. The devastation was total.

Other ‘first class-successes’ followed, culminating in the incinerations of Hamburg and the beautiful, baroque city of Dresden[26]. On July 27, 1943, ‘that night when the most densely populated parts of Hamburg became a roaring furnace in which thousands of men, women and children were throwing themselves into the canals in order to escape the frightful heat.’[27] Seven hundred Allied bombers arrived over the city at one o'clock in the morning, and dropped ten thousand tons of high explosives and incendiary bombs on several districts of the city. That night in this one raid alone, more than 45,000 men, women, and children were killed. It was bombed round the clock for four days, American planes by day and British by night. A firestorm of an intensity that no one had ever before thought possible arose. More than a million Germans fled into the surrounding countryside. These were people who had never voted for Hitler, nor had any means of removing him.

Spaight writing in 1944 enthused about how ‘today great four-engine bombers are tearing the heart out of industrial Germany’ and added, ‘Germany had nothing approaching them’[28] France and Germany had not prepared for city-bombing as had Britain. After Spaight’s perhaps unduly candid book,

‘…it was impossible for anyone, however credulous, to accept the repeated and solemn assertions of His Majesty’s Ministers in Parliament that the bombing of Germany was being carried out with strict regard to the dictates of humanity in accordance with the rules of civilised warfare[29]’.

Ministers had been lying through their teeth to Parliament, but this was no ordinary lie. It was the betrayal of the core principal on which civilised life depends – that civilians and civilian buildings shall not be as such subject to attack. Instead, terror was now coming from the sky, terror beside which the deeds of ordinary killers paled into insignificance. A thousand-year-old urban culture was annihilated, as great cities, famed in the annals of science and art, were reduced to heaps of smouldering ruins.

In the year 1940, British bombers ‘only’ unloaded five thousand tons of bombs onto German cities, whereas by 1944 they were sometimes exceeding that total in a single day. In the spring of ’44 German cities were being pounded with over one hundred thousand tons a month. German civilian deaths from British and American bombing of German cities have been estimated to have been around 600,000, and some 61 cities were turned to virtual rubble, while some 60,000 civilians were killed in the UK. Those cities had an estimated population of 25 million’[30] Germany was thereby reduced to a worse state than that produced by the 30 years’ war. In return the centres of London, Coventry and Portsmouth were attacked by German planes.

While this was going on, it was imperative to stifle public discussion, the Secretary for Air explained, lest public outrage undermined the morale of the bomber pilots.[31] But, despite official denials, anti-war protesters were gleaning some idea of what was happening. Vera Brittain declared in a wartime booklet that Britain’s present policy would ‘appear to future civilisation as an extreme form of criminal lunacy.’[32] Thus, one person managed to find adequate words for Britain’s war-policy.

What was the purpose of city-bombing? Its primary purpose was to goad the German people into reprisals – or, so an official HMSO document of 1953 averred:

If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably head the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.’[33]

The purpose was get their war on, which neither the German people nor the British wanted. Germany never wanted war against Britain and Hitler always professed his great admiration for Britain and the British Empire[34]. Germany sought and was refused peace-negotiations in July 1940[35]. The British view ‘surviving the Blitz’ as their finest hour, and have imagined that it was part of a plan to invade and occupy Britain[36]. It would be better to say that the cause of the Blitz lay in the British ardour for war, whereby they set out to generate the conditions that produced it.

After the war, terror-bombing was not a recognised term, it had officially never happened, still less had anyone heard of the Lindemann plan. The truth was suppressed for two decades, even though there was no legal machinery of censorship, and only emerged when it was mere ‘past history,’ in 1961. This posed a serious problem for the ‘trials’ held at Nuremberg: If the most obvious of Hitler’s crimes was his initiation of indiscriminate bombing in the Blitz, why was there no mention of this at Nuremberg? The truth, that this was a mere tiny fraction of what had been visited on Germany[37], and only came months later as a legitimate ‘reprisal,’ clearly could not be told to the British people[38].

Not until 1961 did C.P.Snow[39] reveal in his Harvard Lectures on Science and Government the existence of the Lindemann plan, and that it was ‘put into action with every effort the country could make:’ C.P.Snow’s explanation, about a diabolical plan which concentrated on working-class homes, ‘caused a sensation throughout the civilised world’[40], becoming immediately translated into every language on earth. Later that year, the official account of how the UK had developed terror-bombing in accord with the Lindemann plan[41] revealed the shocking death total of 60,000 RAF lives so lost. These disclosures induced widespread horror.[42]

In 1961 Labour MP Richard Crossman remarked upon the ‘screen of lies’ behind which the ‘terror bombing was carried out’ such that the War cabined ‘felt it necessary to repudiate publicly’ the policy of their order to bomb[43]. Ministers had proclaimed with absolute mendacity ‘We were not bombing women and children wantonly for the sake of so doing’ (Under-Secretary of Air), when that is precisely what they were doing – hundreds of thousands of women and children.

Blitzkrieg

‘The stock apology then put forward was that it [British policy] was only a reprisal for the German bombing of Warsaw and Rotterdam. Mr Spaight dismisses this argument with the contempt it reserves. “When Warsaw and Rotterdam were bombed,” he points out, “German armies were at the gates. The air bombardment was an operation of the tactical offensive.”[44] Captain Liddell Hart accepts the same view. “Bombing did not take place, he writes, until the German troops were fighting their way into these cities and thus conformed to the old rules of siege bombardment.”’[45] ‘Bombardment’ was not illegal under the terms of Article 25 of the 1907 Hague convention. Nine hundred died with the tragically mistaken air raid on Rotterdam[46]. Citizens of Warsaw were given time to evacuate their city before any general bombardment[47]. To quote Dr Wesserle, who was in Prague when the US and UK bombed it,

“There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other.”[48]

Law

The Hague Convention of 1923 (Articles 22, 23) proposed to outlaw indiscriminate urban bombing (‘aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorising the civilian population’) but alas, the five organising powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the US) never signed it[49]. Britain’s Prime Minister affirmed to the House of Commons in 1938 that any such bombing would be an "undoubted violation of international law," then a resolution passed by the League of nations in September 1938, ‘The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal’ had been proposed by the British government and passed without dissent – who could object to such a self-evident truth? ‘…we have no intention of attacking the civil population as such’ said the British representative during an Anglo-French staff conversation on August 14, 1939, just before war broke out. Shortly after, the League of Nations unanimously passed a resolution affirming that such bombing was illegal. And yet, by 1943 Britain with America signed the Treaty of Casablanca, which encouraged the stepping up of city bombing – ‘morale bombing’ as it was called.

The dilemma, the schizophrenia, the failure of Nuremberg is summarised by three dates, dates engraved rather unforgettably in the memory of mankind: August 6^th, august 8^th and the 9^th, 1945. The Nuremberg Charter, defining norms of international law relevant to warfare (‘planning and preparing a war of aggression’), was signed as the London Agreement on August 8^th, 1945. They blow up one city, they blow up another city, and in between they sign the Nuremberg Charter!

American Century?

In a radio broadcast of 1^st September 1939, two days before war broke out, Roosevelt called upon the European powers to make a promise, that ‘armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of undefended cities[50]. Alas the Americans were unable to take their own advice: the fire-bombing of Japan of March 9-10, 1944 killed near 100,000 Japanese civilians, more than died the next year at Hiroshima. In the war overall, the bombing of Japanese cities might have killed about 337,000.[51]

When, after the war, Churchill suggested to Stalin that they find ‘some unshattered town in Germany’ at which to meet, for the Potsdam conference in July 1945, that was not easy. Then, rather swiftly in March, 1946, Churchill discerned a newly-looming threat, at his Iron Curtain speech at Fulton, Missouri, and this he affirmed warranted the stockpiling of America’s newly-developed nuclear weapons[52].

One might have thought that the British War Ministry would have felt some shame over initiating the most frightful crime in the annals of recorded history, but apparently not: in 1946 a report on ‘Future Developments in weapons and Methods of Warfare’ was handed to the British Chiefs of Staff. ‘The most profitable objects of attack by the new weapons will normally be concentrations of population’ it recommended, including a blueprint of 58 large Soviet cities having populations of over 100,000. Henceforth it was to be a normal, bureaucratic activity to discuss and refine methods of city-extermination. In the next year, 1947, the first US Strategic Air Command forces came to Britain. Thus Britain contributed to the encirclement of Russia with nuclear bombers when the latter was still a smouldering wreck from WWII, having suffered a mortality of somewhere around twenty million, years before Russia was in a position to threaten anyone in return.

Of the Korean war 1950-53, the former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay recalled that he asked if the Pentagon would let him ‘burn down’ five of the biggest cities in North Korea, claiming that it could be done in a few days. ‘Its too horrible,’ he was told. ‘Yet over a period of three years or so...we burned down every town in North Korea.’ [53] Three million Koreans died, to protect the world against an alleged ‘Yellow peril.’[54] Thus did the legacy of British city-bombing pass over to America.

Postscript

In 1919-1920, the British developed the technique of bombing towns and villages, bombing Kabul, Afghanistan, and rebellious tribal groups along the border areas of India. And in the 1920s, the British intentionally bombed rebel villages in Somalia and Yemen and undertook an extended bombardment campaign against civilian populations in rebel areas in British-controlled Iraq for several years. The death toll from Germans bombing Guernica in 1937 was, according to David Irving, around ninety-eight.[55]

---

Endnotes

For an excellent recent discussion of this topic, see http://rense.com/general87/church.htm

[1]

F.Veale, Advance to Barbarism, The Development of Total War from Serajevo to Hiroshima, IHR 1979, 176. www.heretical.com/miscella/veale.html

[2]

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War,1972, 16.

[3]

W.G.Sebald, A Natural history of Destruction, 2003 (an odd translation of the German title, Luftkreig und Literatur 1999), 3.

[4]

J.M. Spaight, Bombing Vindicated, 1944, 60.

[5]

In 1936 Churchill remarked ‘Germany is getting too strong, we must smash her’ to the American military advisor General Wood: H.Barnes, Blasting the Historical Blackout, 1961, 24 www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p163_Barnes.html

[6]

Max Hastings, Bomber Command 1979, 50: the Lancasters were ‘heavy bombers which no other country in the world could match.’ Germany and France had lighter bombers ‘primarily for air support,’ or ‘tactical air power’.

[7]

Sir Basil Liddell Hart, The Revolution in Warfare, 1946, 86.

[8]

Hitler declared, ‘I want to live in peace with England and to conclude a definite pact; to guaruntee all the English possessions in the world and to collaborate,’ on 14 Aug 1939: Taylor (ref 2), 308. For his re-advocacy of this position at Dunkirk, see B.Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, Germany’s generals, their rise and fall, with their own accounts of events 1939-45, 1948, 1970, 186.

[9]

A.Ramsey, The Nameless War 1952, 64.

[10]

The words were nearly identical: A.C.Grayling, Among the Dead Cities, was the Allied Bombing of Cities in World War II a Necessity or a Crime? 2006, 149.

[11]

For Those who Cannot Speak M. McLaughlin, Historical Review Press 1979 monograph, 24.

[12]

David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden, 1963, 1974, 19.

[13]

Veale (ref 1), 170

[14]

The Churchill War Papers, 1993 Ed M.Gilbert, Vol. I, 18.

[15]

Butz, The Hoax of the 20^th Century, 1976, 70.

[16]

Of the 131 German towns hit by heavy strategic raids, 46 cities had half of their built-up area destroyed. Berlin had 6427 acres, Hamburg 620 acres, Duesseldorf 2003 acres and Cologne, 1994 acres destroyed. Whereas London had 600, Plymouth 400 and Coventry 100 acres destroyed.[16] A. Wesserle, The Journal of Historical Review, 1981, vol. 2, 381-384. www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/4/Wesserle381-384.html

[17]

Spaight (ref 4), 74.

[18]

Spaight, 43.

[19]

Irving (ref 12), 32; Hastings (ref 6), 99.

[20]

Veale (ref 1), 180: the Bensusan-Butt Report..

[21]

A.T. Harris, Bomber Offensive, 1947, 42; summarised by Veale (ref 1), 174.

[22]

CP Snow Science and Government, OUP, 1961, 47-51.

[23]

www.lewrockwell.com/orig/raico-churchill5.html

[24]

www.ety.com/HRP/rev/terrorbombing.htm

[25]

Irving (ref 12), 220.

[26]

“Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig:” Dr Wesserle, ref. 16. www.exulanten.com/kep3.html

[27]

Veale (ref 1), 171.

[28]

Spaight (ref 4), 38.

[29]

Veale, 177

[30]

R. Harwood, Nuremberg, 1975, Historical Review Press, 61

[31]

Veale, 28. Archibald Sinclair was then the Air Secretary.

[32]

V.Brittain, Seed of Chaos, what Mass Bombing Really Means, 1944, 116; Gaylor (ref.10), 183, 281. With this in the British Library is a fine collection (made by George Orwell) of anti-war pamphlets.

[33]

The Royal Air Force 1939-1945, Vol. 1 ‘The Fight at Odds,’ HMSO 1953, p.122.; Veale, 184.

[34]

For Hitler’s admiration of Britain and its empire, see: www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p163_Barnes.html During and after the war, it was hard to obtain an English translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, a central theme of which was Hitler’s ‘admiration for and longing for friendship with Great Britain:’ Ramsey (Ref 9), 49. Captain Arthur Ramsey, Conservative MP, found himself jailed for the duration of the war, accused (quite rightly) of undermining the war effort.

[35]

The two German peace offers to Britain came in October 1939, after defeating Poland, and in July 1940, after defeating France, both spurned: Captain R. Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War guilt and the Future of Europe, NY 1954, 201.

[36]

For the but faintly-imagined and conditional German plan to invade Britain in the summer of 1940, see Hart (ref 7), pp.212-222; and his History of the 2^nd World War 1970, pp.93-6.

[37]

Anglo-American strategic bombers dropped 2690 kilotons of bombs on Europe (1,350kt on Germany, 590kt France, 370 kt Italy, etc), while Germany dropped 74 kt of bombs including V-1 and V-2 rockets on Britain in WWII: a mere 5%, or one-twentieth as much: Dr Wesserle, Ref. 26.

[38]

Veale, 29, 32.

[39]

Snow, ref. 22.

[40]

Veale, 197.

[41]

C.Wester & N.Frankland, The Strategic Air Offensive HMSO, 1961, Volume I.

[42]

Veale, 201, 197.

[43]

Sunday Telegraph, 1.10.61, Veale, 198.

[44]

Spaight, 43.

[45]

Hart (ref 7), 72; Veale, 171.

[46]

This was a mistake as Holland had surrendered: Gaylor (ref 9), p.34; Irving (ref 12), 21.

[47]

David Irving: ‘In fact the bombardment of Warsaw did not begin until September 26, 1939, after all the military niceties had been observed: warning leaflets dropped on to the civilian population, open routes provided for the Polish civilians to leave before the timed hour of bombardment, a formal ultimatum to the commandant of the fortress Warsaw to capitulate before the bombardment began, which was rejected”. Hitler’s War, 1977, 2001, 239 www.fpp.co.uk/books/Hitler/

[48]

Wesserle, ref 16.

[49]

Grayling (ref 10), 143.

[50]

Gaylor (ref 9), p.149.

[51]

www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.10.5.03.HTM

[52]

D.F.Fleming, The Cold War and its Origins, 1961, Vol. I, 349

[53]

www.brianwillson.com/awolkorea.html; R.Howe, Weapons, London 1981, 500.

[54]

Fleming (ref 52), 656.

[55]

www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Guernica/DTel250487.html