One of the BIGGEST LIES on Gun Control

Gun-Control-1948

Republican Ben Carson has been criticized for suggesting that gun control enabled the rise of the Nazis and led to the extermination of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust.  One might wonder how he even became a Doctor.  He certainly has not researched the 6 Million figure at all.

Carson_NPC
Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson discussed his thoughts about Nazi-era gun policies during a National Press Club speech. (Screengrab)

In his book, A More Perfect Union, Carson wrote that “German citizens were disarmed by their government in the late 1930s, and by the mid-1940s Hitler’s regime had mercilessly slaughtered six million Jews and numerous others whom they considered inferior.

“Through a combination of removing guns and disseminating deceitful propaganda, the Nazis were able to carry out their evil intentions with relatively little resistance,” he wrote.

Carson reiterated that argument at least twice — in an Oct. 8, 2015, interview with CNN host Wolf Blitzer, and then again in a speech at the National Press Club.

“You know, mid- to late-30s, they started a program to disarm the people and by mid- to late 40’s, look what had happened,” he said at the Press Club.

PolitiFact decided to analyze Carson’s claim on its Truth-O-Meter.

German gun laws

As the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, it inherited a 1928 gun registration law that had replaced a total ban on gun ownership imposed on a defeated Germany after World War I. The 1928 law created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition.

“But this order was followed quite rarely so that largely, only newly bought weapons became registered,” said Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University. “At that time, most men, and many women, still owned the weapons they acquired before or during the first World War.”

When they came to power, the Nazis used whatever gun records they had to seize weapons from their enemies, but Ellerbock told us the files included very few of the firearms in circulation.

“In my records, I found many Jews who well into the late 1930s possessed guns,” Ellerbock told us.

The Nazis adopted a new gun law in 1938. According to an analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University School of Law, it loosened gun ownership rules in several ways.

It deregulated the buying and selling of rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. It made handguns easier to own by allowing anyone with a hunting license to buy, sell or carry one at any time. (You didn’t need to be hunting.) It also extended the permit period from one year to three and gave local officials more discretion in letting people under 18 get a gun.

The regulations to implement this law, rather than the law itself, did impose new limits on one group: Jews.

On Nov. 11, 1938, the German minister of the interior issued “Regulations Against Jews Possession of Weapons.” Not only were Jews forbidden to own guns and ammunition, they couldn’t own “truncheons or stabbing weapons.”

In addition to the restrictions, Ellerbrock said the Nazis had already been raiding Jewish homes and seizing weapons.

“The gun policy of the Nazis can hardly be compared to the democratic procedures of gun regulations by law,” Ellerbrock told us. “It was a kind of special administrative practice (Sonderrecht), which treated people in different ways according to their political opinion or according to ‘racial identity’ in Nazi terms.”

They use the “Myth” of the “Evil Nazi” to justify always

The NRAFox NewsFox News (again)Alex Jonesemail chainsJoe “the Plumber” WurzelbacherGun Owners of America, etc., all agree that gun control was critical to Hitler’s rise to power. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (“America’s most aggressive defender of firearms ownership”) is built almost exclusively around this notion, popularizing posters of Hitler giving the Nazi salute next to the text: “All in favor of ‘gun control’ raise your right hand.”

In his 1994 book, NRA head Wayne LaPierre dwelled on the Hitler meme at length, writing: “In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon Law of 1938, signed by Adolf Hitler.”

And it makes a certain amount of intuitive sense: If you’re going to impose a brutal authoritarian regime on your populace, better to disarm them first so they can’t fight back.

Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

 

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

 

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general. Does the fact that Nazis forced Jews into horrendous ghettos indict urban planning? Should we eliminate all police officers because the Nazis used police officers to oppress and kill the Jews? What about public works — Hitler loved public works projects? Of course not. These are merely implements that can be used for good or ill, much as gun advocates like to argue about guns themselves. If guns don’t kill people, then neither does gun control cause genocide (genocidal regimes cause genocide).

So why are they lying?  What is the Agenda here?

Simple.  It is the promotion of the selling of, and use of and the training with GUNS that is being promoted, and promoting the fallacy that to be for Gun Control makes you evil.  Morph that further into a fantasy, a Nazi.

Just another example where they jump on top of a FANTASY to promote another evil FANTASY and should you not fall for it “hook line and sinker”, then you, yourself are one of the EVIL ONES.

This is a blatant example of how they start with a lie, then add to that lie (as with the Holocaust, and what is happening in the Middle East right now) to promote their newest lie.  In doing so, they also make a point of treating the first lie as indisputably true (like Saddam and WMD’s) to justify their agenda’s.  Looking at the basis is not something to even be thought of or discussed.

Their basis goes even deeper into a PROPAGANDA LIE as with the 2nd Amendment being about guns, in order to claim that guns and gun ownership in the USA is a  “Constitutional Right” which it is not.  This is something I have gone into deeper in other blogs found in About

The “short version” of this is that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to PREVENT WAR and instead of being all about guns, it was all about preventing the Federal Government having a “Standing Army”, enabling them to promote and enable “endless wars”, which the Dick Act destroyed when it (in fact) destroyed everything the 2nd Amendment was all about in the first place by making way for State and Federal monies to provide for the arming and training and promotion of those Standing Armies.

The “Right to Bear Arms” was part of the “British Bill of Rights” adopted by the USA and in fact not a right at all, but a requirement, overall to keep the citizenry armed and trained for War.  It was not declared in the 2nd Amendment but simply referred to.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place in order to require the Federal or State Governments to consult with and bargain with the CITIZENS (having no Standing Army of their own) should they find a need to declare War.

Therefore, the basis of this lie goes even back further than attempting to say that:

  • Nazi’s Are Evil
  • Nazi’s were successful with their populations through the use of Gun Control
  • Gun Control Advocation makes you, therefore, a Nazi
  • Nazi’s are BAD and do not forget the 6 Million

It is meant to keep the Citizenry armed and trained for War, and even at their own expense, using this propaganda to promote it.  Overall, the Wars which will be fought will be for the benefit of the ELITE and especially (today) ZIONISTS who use this propaganda to hoodwink you.

Yet again, it is a lie, standing on top of another lie, with a basis and foundation of another lie, in order to promote an Agenda of lies.

 

Swallow the Mainstream News

Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 3.26.43 PM

So much yelling over one another, but let’s look at her

Facts!

  • 6 Million Jews were killed?  Please show those “Factual Figures” lady!
  • Adolf Hitler perpetrated a Genocide?  Please show me ONE piece of fact on that lady!
  • The Auschwitz “Death Camp” existed?  Please show me how you explain this as a Death Camp lady, and how you morph a labor camp into one!  Come on!

These are your FACTS?  He has “Crackpot Theories”  Conspiracy Ones?

You have not got a legal leg to stand on about ANY of your so-called “Facts” whatsoever, and although the guy you are attacking, and speaking over, may be outrageous in some ways, your lies and lack of research and spreading of pure FRAUD in your News Media is worse than outrageous.

Viewer, look for yourself

Germanys Climb From The Depression

capitalism does not create jobs

A good reason to suppress the term “National Socialism” and to morph it into a slang of “Nazi” is that National Socialism was so successful. So successful in fact, that it must NOT be discussed in any kind of positive way, especially in the Media, and any hint of its success must be minimized as per the time spent analyzing it.  Well, that is, except here on Hollowhoax.

National Socialism started as a political movement in Germany in 1919. Its official name was the “Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (National Socialist German Workers’ Party); it soon became popularly known as the Nazi party, and its followers were called Nazis. When Adolf Hitler joined the party, Nazism consisted of a little group of unimportant malcontents in Munich. Yet within fourteen years, it became the greatest mass movement in German history, including in its ranks members of all groups of German society, from unemployed workers of the Lumpenproletariat to members of the imperial family of the Hohenzollerns and of several of the royal houses of the German states. By 1932 the Nazi vote had mounted to fourteen million; in the March 1933 election, the last in which opposing parties participated, seventeen million Germans (or 44 percent of the electorate) freely voted for the Nazi party, not to speak of several more millions who voted for nationalist and militarist policies that were barely distinguishable from Nazi objectives.

Thus well over half the German electorate voted for an anti-democratic, totalitarian, imperialistic program. After the elections, only the Social Democrats attempted to resist Nazism in the Reichstag (the Communists had not been allowed to take their seats in the Reichstag). Even the Roman Catholic (and generally democratic) Center party gave Hitler the dictatorial powers he asked for in the Reichstag on March 23, 1933. This was the only case of a modern totalitarian regime that was set up by a majority of the electorate and approved by the parliamentary body of the nation.

Once in power, the Nazi regime lived up to its promises. First, concentration camps were set up for political opponents. Very soon the political offenders were a small minority in the concentration camps; the large majority consisted not of persons who had committed a wrong but who (like the Jews) belonged to the wrong group. Later, during World War n, large numbers of civilians in the occupied countries were put into concentration camps, because they too belonged to a “wrong” social or political group.

We face today what Germany did then short of…

Unfair Reparations for WWI

and the Unfair Versailles Treaty

Yet Germany still did it.  Better, faster, stronger, with more support than any Political System in History, National Socialism made a diamond out of a “Piece of Coal”.  Yet YOU were taught nothing about this, were you.  No College or University Courses did you attend to analyze it. You are kept totally in the dark about this MAJOR success!

Except on Hollowhoax, and in this 1 hr Podcast

 

Oliver Stone’s History of the USA

20180218_123338 (1)_preview

Now on Netflix

It is always great to see another perspective put on History, and nice to see how untold stories coincide.  However, Oliver Stone (although doing a great job on US History) does a normal “Propaganda Outline” on WWII and especially National Socialist Germany.

He spends little time admitting that Germany (under the National Socialists and Hitler) was doing WELL by the time the World War started, and it is nice that he declares overall that it was the Soviet Union that ultimately won that war.

Yet when talking WWII, you cannot comment on the aftermath, and never comment on what led to it.  Oliver follows that progression, as Mainstream Media constantly does.

Kristallnacht (or Night of Broken Glass) cannot be discussed as an “Atrocity” as normal Mainstream Media does without explaining what led to it.  The Worldwide Boycott of German Goods.

It (I think) is for this reason that the Transfer Agreement and simply negating to discuss either of these things and pointing out the aftermath is (in my mind) CRIMINAL.

Just like the invasion of Poland cannot be reasonably discussed unless you also discuss the Polish Corridor or the Polish Troops sent into Danzig and the plight of the German People which this corridor was responsible for, Forcing Hitler’s Hand

You cannot talk about the Battle of Britain, and negate to discuss the constant Hitler Peace Offers, and have any credibility whatsoever, but Oliver does.  So does Mainstream Media.  Just like you cannot talk about German Bombing without discussing IN ANY WAY the Bombing of German Cities beforehand.  Yet Oliver does.

So while it may be refreshing to watch a New Documentary on History, please keep in mind…

Who Owns Your Media!

 

Patrick J Buchanan The Unnecessary War

Screen Shot 2018-02-18 at 8.19.01 AM

Were World Wars I and II inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen–Winston Churchill first among them–the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins.

Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations. Among the British and Churchillian errors were: • The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France • The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that mutilated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler • Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo-Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest

• The greatest mistake in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939, ensuring the Second World War Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “the Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned.

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

 

Ken O’Keefe Commentary – 9/11-Mossad

Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 9.24.29 AM

Ken tells it like it is.  You can love or hate him but…

He Does Not Lie

Ken O’Keefe provides additional commentary to his latest appearance on Press TV’s ‘The Debate’ in which guests discuss Afghanistan 16 years after invasion/occupation. Washington mouthpieces, however, are incapable of facing cold hard facts regarding 9/11 as an Israeli Mossad false flag carried out with “dual national” traitors in the US Government. This is a good example of the only way the tools of propaganda can respond to the truth.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 “Muckraker Report “ – June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought-provoking e-mail circulated through Internet newsgroups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1]  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is that the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Truth vs Washington Mouthpiece (40 Min)

 

David Irving: The Manipulation of History

irving in canada

David Irving: The Manipulation of History Part 1

David Irving: The Manipulation of History Part 2

Unlike Zionists, I will post both sides of the story on Irving…

What is historical objectivity? How do we know when a historian is telling the truth? Aren’t all historians, in the end, only giving their own opinions about the past? Don’t they just select whatever facts they need to support their own interpretations and leave the rest in the archives? Aren’t the archives full of preselected material anyway? Can we really say that anything historians present to us about the past is true? Aren’t there, rather, many different truths, according to your political beliefs and personal perspectives? Questions such as these have been preoccupying historians for a long time. In recent years, they have become, if anything, more urgent and more perplexing than ever. The debate about them has repeatedly gravitated toward the Nazi extermination of the Jews during the Second World War. If we could not know for sure about anything that happened in the past, then how could we know about this most painful of all topics in modern history?

Just such a question has been posed, and answered in the negative, by a group of individuals, based mainly in the United States, who are certainly far removed in intellectual terms from postmodernist hyper-relativism, but who have asserted in a variety of publications that indeed there is no real evidence to support the conventional picture of the Nazi persecution of the Jews. There is a thin but seemingly continuous line of writing since the Second World War that has sought to deny the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and other extermination camps, to minimize the number of Jews killed by the Nazis until it becomes equivalent to that of the Germans killed by the Allies, to explain away the killings as incidental by-products of a vicious war rather than the result of central planning in Berlin, and to claim that the evidence for the extermination, the gas chambers, and all the rest of it had mostly been concocted after the war.

A number of scholars have devoted some attention to this strange and disturbing stream of thought. The most important of their works is Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, by the American historian Deborah Lipstadt. Published in 1993, this book gave an extended factual account of the deniers’ publications and activities since the Second World War and identified them as closely connected with neo-fascist, far-right, and antisemitic political extremists in Europe and the United States. Whether or not Lipstadt was correct to claim that these people posed a serious threat to historical knowledge and memory was debatable. But the evidence she presented for the existence of the phenomenon and for its far-right connections seemed convincing enough. Lipstadt argued that denial of the Holocaust was in most cases antisemitic and tied to an anti-Jewish political agenda in the present. The denial of history was the product of political bias and political extremism, which had no place in the world of serious historical scholarship.

Yet how unbiased was Lipstadt herself? There was no doubt about her commitment to Jewish causes. Born in 1947 in New York of a German-Jewish immigrant father who was descended from a prominent family of rabbis, she had been brought up in what she described as a “traditional Jewish home,” she had studied at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for two years, and been present in Israel during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. She had studied modern Jewish history, the Third Reich, and the Holocaust at university, and taught courses on the history of the Holocaust at a variety of institutions, including the University of Washington and the University of California at Los Angeles, before joining the staff of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1993, where she held an endowed chair and was setting up a new Institute for Jewish Studies. She was also a member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council—a presidential appointment—and had acted as a consultant to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum while it was being built.

Aside from these academic credentials and activities, Lipstadt was also a member of the United States Department of State Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad. In 1972 she had visited the Soviet Union and inspected sites of major Nazi killings of Jews such as Babi Yar. This was a period when the controversy was being aroused by the Soviet authorities’ refusal to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate to Israel, and there was a good deal of subtle and sometimes not so subtle antisemitism on the part of the authorities. Lending her Jewish prayerbook to an elderly Jewish woman in a synagogue in Czernowitz, Lipstadt was denounced to the authorities and arrested by the KGB for distributing religious items, strip-searched, held in prison for a day, questioned, and deported. After this, she had continued for some years to work hard for Soviet Jews while they were being persecuted.

Combined with her many discussions with camp survivors in Israel, she reported, this experience had led her to study the history of antisemitism and, in particular, the Holocaust. Remembering the Holocaust was crucial in the perpetuation of Jewish tradition, but also in teaching lessons about the need to fight prejudice and persecution of many kinds in the world today. However, Lipstadt insisted, whatever her political and religious beliefs, she was convinced that the history of the Holocaust had to be researched to the highest possible scholarly standards and taught in a straightforwardly factual manner. She denied any wish to impose her views about the lessons of the Holocaust on her students. After the publication of her book, Lipstadt left no doubt that her work on Holocaust denial had led some of the deniers to engage in “a highly personal and, at times, almost vile campaign against me.” She had been vilified on the Internet, accused of fascist behavior, and phoned up by deniers and depicted by them in “an ugly and sometimes demeaning fashion.” They had also left notes in her home mailbox. This had not stopped her from working in the field. Her book Denying the Holocaust was an academic project, but it had also taken on a broader significance.

Lipstadt’s book, when taken together with her previous work, made it clear that her main interest was in reactions to the extermination of Europe’s Jews by the Nazis rather than in the extermination itself. After completing her work on Holocaust denial, she planned a book called America Remembers the Holocaust: From the Newsreels to Schindler’s List. She had never written about German history and had never been in a German archive. Indeed, as far as I could tell, she did not even read German. She was really a specialist in the history of the United States since the Second World War. Yet it was easy enough for her to include in Denying the Holocaust refutations of some of the principal arguments of the deniers on the basis of well-known secondary literature about the extermination. Given the main focus of her work, which was on denial as a political and intellectual phenomenon, that was surely all that was required.

Nevertheless, her book did not pull its punches when it came to convicting deniers of massive falsification of historical evidence, manipulation of facts, and denial of the truth. One of those whom she discussed in this context was the British writer David Irving, who certainly did read German, had spent years in the archives researching the German side in the Second World War and was the author of some thirty books on historical subjects. Some of them had gone through many reprints and a number of different editions. The great majority of them were about the Second World War, and in particular about Nazi Germany and its leaders. Before he was thirty, he had already begun researching and writing on twentieth-century history, publishing his first book, The Destruction of Dresden, in 1963, when he was only twenty-five.

Irving had also written The Mare’s Nest, a study of German secret weapons in the Second World War, published in 1964, and a book about the German atomic bomb, The Virus House, published in 1967. In the same year, Irving published two more books, The Destruction of Convoy PQ17, and Accident—The Death of General Sikorski. Despite their somewhat specialized titles, these books in many cases aroused widespread controversy and made Irving into a well-known figure. The Destruction of Dresden created a storm by alleging that the bombing of Dresden by Allied airplanes early in 1945 caused many more deaths than had previously been thought. The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17 aroused serious objections on the part of a British naval officer criticized by Irving in his book. Accident generated considerable outrage by its suggestion that the Polish exile leader in the Second World War, General Sikorski, had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill. By the end of the 1960s, Irving had already made a name for himself as an extremely controversial writer about the Second World War.

With the publication of his massive study of Hitler’s War in 1977, Irving stirred up a fresh debate. In this book, he argued that far from ordering it himself, Hitler had not known about the extermination of the Jews until late in 1943, and both before and after that had done his best to mitigate the worst antisemitic excesses of his subordinates. Irving heightened the controversy by publicly offering a financial reward to anyone who could come up with a document proving him wrong. The furor completely overshadowed his publication of a biography of the German general Erwin Rommel in the same year, under the title The Trail of the Fox. The following year, Irving brought out a `prequel’ to his book on Hitler and the Second World War, entitled The War Path. In 1981 he published two more books—The War Between the Generals, devoted to exposing differences of opinion among the commanders of Hitler’s army during the Second World War; and Uprising!, arguing, to quote Irving himself, “that the Uprising of 1956 in Hungary was primarily an anti-Jewish uprising,” because the communist regime was run by Jews.

The stream of books continued with Churchill’s War in 1987, Rudolf Hess: The Missing Years published in the same year, a biography of Hermann Göring (1989), and most recently a book on Goebbels: Mastermind of the `Third Reich‘ (1996). And while he was producing new work, he also published revised and amended editions of some of his earlier books, most notably, in 1991, Hitler’s War, which also incorporated a new version of The War Path, and in 1996 Nuremberg: The Last Battle, an updated version of a previously published book, reissued to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials.

Despite all this, Irving had never held a post in a university history department or any other academic institution. He did not even have a degree. He had started a science degree at London University but never finished it. “I am an untrained historian,” he had confessed in 1986. “History was the only subject I flunked when I was at school.” Several decades on from his self-confessedly disastrous schoolboy encounter with the subject, however, Irving clearly laid great stress on the fact that the catalog of his work demonstrated that he had now become a `reputable historian’:

As an independent historian, I am proud that I cannot be threatened with the loss of my job, or my pension, or my future. Other historians around the world sneer and write letters to the newspapers about `David Irving, the so-called historian’, and they demand, “Why does he call himself a Historian anyway? Where did he study History? Where did he get his Degree? What, No Degree in History, then why does he call himself a Historian?” My answer to them, Was Pliny a historian or not? Was Tacitus? Did he get a degree in some university? Thucydides? Did he get a degree? And yet we unashamedly call them historians—we call them historians because they wrote history which has done (recte: gone) down the ages as accepted true history.

This was true. Irving could not be dismissed just because he lacked formal qualifications.

Irving was clearly incensed by a reference to him on page 180 of Lipstadt’s book as “discredited.” Lipstadt also alleged in her book that Irving was “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence,” she wrote, “he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.” According to Lipstadt, Irving had “neofascist” and “denial connections,” for example, with the so-called Institute for Historical Review in California. More important, Lipstadt charged that Holocaust deniers like Irving “misstate, misquote, falsify statistics, and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources. They rely on books that directly contradict their arguments, quoting in a manner that completely distorts the authors’ objectives.” Irving himself, she claimed, was “an ardent admirer of the Nazi leader,” who “declared that Hitler repeatedly reached out to help the Jews” (p. 161). Scholars had “accused him of distorting evidence and manipulating documents to serve his own purposes … of skewing documents and misrepresenting data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions, particularly those that exonerate Hitler.” “On some level,” Lipstadt concluded, “Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.”

These were serious charges. Historians do not usually answer such criticisms by firing off writs. Instead, they normally rebut them in print. Irving, however, was no stranger to the courts. He wrote to Lipstadt’s English publisher Penguin Books in November 1995 demanding the withdrawal of Lipstadt’s book from circulation, alleging defamation and threatening to sue. Lipstadt responded, pointing out that her book mentioned Irving only on six out of more than three hundred pages. The publisher refused to withdraw, and Irving issued his defamation writ in September 1996. By December 1997, the legal process of mounting a defense against the writ was well underway, and a date for the proceedings to be held before the High Court in London was due to be fixed.

II

It was at this point that I became involved in the case on the initiative of Anthony Julius, of the London firm of solicitors Mishcon de Reya. I had never met him in person, but of course, I knew of him through his high media profile as the solicitor who had won a record settlement for Princess Diana in her divorce from the Prince of Wales. Julius was not just a fashionable and successful lawyer. He was also well known as a writer and intellectual, although in the field of English literature rather than history. He was the author of a scholarly if the controversial study of T. S. Eliot and antisemitism, and he wrote frequent book reviews for the Sunday papers. Julius was representing Deborah Lipstadt. When he phoned me toward the end of 1997, it was to ask if I would be willing to act as an expert witness for the defense.

Later, in his cramped and book-lined Holborn office, Julius explained to me in more detail what would be involved. The first duty of an expert witness, he said, was to the court. That is, the evidence had to be as truthful and objective as possible. Expert witnesses were not there to plead a case. They were there to help the court in technical and specialized matters. They had to give their own opinion, irrespective of which side had engaged them. They had to swear a solemn oath, to tell the truth, and could be prosecuted for perjury if they did not. On the other hand, they were usually commissioned by one side or the other in the belief that what they said would support the case being put rather than undermine it. At the end of the day, it was up to the lawyers whether or not they used the reports they had commissioned. I would be paid by the hour, not by results. So the money would have no influence on what I wrote or said. If I did agree to write an expert report, however, and it was accepted by the lawyers, then I would expect it to be presented to the court and I would have to attend the trial to be cross-examined on it by the plaintiff.

Why me? I asked. There were a number of reasons, Julius said. First, I was a specialist in modern German history. A copy of my most recent book in this field, Rituals of Retribution, was on his bookshelf. It was a large-scale study of capital punishment in Germany from the seventeenth century to the abolition of the death penalty in East Germany in 1987. Like much of my other work, it rested on unpublished manuscript documents in a range of German archives. So it was clear that I had a good command of the German language. I could read the obsolete German script in which many documents were written until the end of the Second World War. And I was familiar with the documentary basis on which a lot of modern German history was written. I had also for many years taught a document-based undergraduate course on Nazi Germany for the history degree at Birkbeck College in London University and before that in my previous post at the University of East Anglia. Clearly, the trial was going to turn to a considerable extent on the interpretation of Nazi documents, so the expertise of this kind was crucial, and it was expertise that the court itself could not be expected to possess. Second, a couple of months earlier, I had published a short book entitled In Defense of History, which had dealt with such vexed questions as objectivity and bias in historical writing, the nature of historical research, the difference between truth and fiction, and the possibility of obtaining accurate knowledge about the past. These in a way, Anthony Julius explained, were the central issues in the case that Irving was bringing against Lipstadt.

What Anthony Julius wanted me to do was to advise the court on whether Lipstadt’s charges were justified. I was in a good position to do so not only because of my previous writings but also because I had no personal connection with either of the two main protagonists in the case. Indeed, I had never actually seen either of them in the flesh. Irving was a famously combative figure, but he had never had occasion to cross swords with me. As I left Anthony Julius’s office, I tried to put together what was known about Irving’s reputation. Irving insisted that his works on the Second World War had a high standing and claimed in his libel suit that Lipstadt’s allegations had caused “damage to his reputation” in his “calling as a historian.” Yet as I began to plow through the reviews of Irving’s books written by a wide range of historians and journalists over the years, the case he made for his high reputation among academic reviewers began to crumble. Academic historians with a general knowledge of modern history had indeed mostly been quite generous to Irving, even where they had found a reason to criticize him or disagree with his views. Paul Addison, for example, an expert on British history in the Second World War, had concluded that while Irving was “usually a Colossus of research, he is often a schoolboy in judgment.” Reviewing The War Path in 1978, R. Hinton Thomas, professor of German at Birmingham University, whose knowledge of the social and political context of twentieth-century German literature was both deep and broad, dismissed the book as “unoriginal” and its “claims to novelty” as “ill-based.” “Much of Irving’s argument,” wrote Sir Martin Gilbert, official biographer of Churchill, about Hitler’s War in 1977, “is based on speculation.” But he also praised the book as “a scholarly work, the fruit of a decade of wide researchers.” The military historian Sir Michael Howard, subsequently Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford, praised, on the other hand, the “very considerable merits” of The War Path, and declared that Irving was “at his best as a professional historian demanding documentary proof for popularly-held beliefs.”

In similar fashion, the eminent American specialist on modern Germany, Gordon A. Craig, reviewing Irving’s Goebbels in the New York Review of Books in 1996, seemed at first glance full of praise for Irving’s work:

Silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933-1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher…. Hitler’s War … remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War, and, as such, indispensable for all students of that conflict …. It is always difficult for the non-historian to remember that there is nothing absolute about historical truth. What we consider as such is only an estimation, based upon what the best available evidence tells us. It must constantly be tested against new information and new interpretations that appear, however implausible they may be, or it will lose its vitality and degenerate into dogma or shibboleth. Such people as David Irving, then, have a indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.

Yet even reviewers who had praised “the depth of Irving’s research and his intelligence” found “too many avoidable mistakes … passages quoted without attribution and important statements not tagged to the listed sources.” John Charmley, a right-wing historian at the University of East Anglia, wrote that he “admires Mr. Irving’s assiduity, energy, and courage.” He continued: “Mr. Irving’s sources, unlike the conclusions which he draws from them, are usually sound.” But he also noted: “Mr. Irving is cited only when his sources have been checked and found reliable.”

Historians with firsthand research experience and expertise in Irving’s field were more critical still. An early, prominent instance of criticism from such a quarter came with Hugh Trevor-Roper’s review of Hitler’s War in 1977. Trevor-Roper had worked in British Intelligence during the war and had been charged with heading an official mission to find out the true facts about the death of Hitler. The result of his researches, published in 1947 as The Last Days of Hitler, immediately established him as a leading authority on Nazi Germany and especially on Irving’s home territory of Hitler and his immediate personal entourage. Reviewing Hitler’s War, Trevor-Roper paid the by now the customary tribute to Irving’s ingenuity and persistence as a researcher. “No praise,” he wrote, “can be too high for his indefatigable scholarly industry.” But this was immediately followed by devastating criticism of Irving’s method. Trevor-Roper continued:

When a historian relies mainly on primary sources, which we cannot easily cheek, he challenges our confidence and forces us to ask critical questions. How reliable is his historical method? How sound is his judgment? We ask these questions particularly of any man who, like Mr. Irving, makes a virtue—almost a profession—of using arcane sources to affront established opinions.

Trevor-Roper made it clear he found Irving’s method and judgment defective: “He may read his manuscript diaries correctly. But we can never be quite sure, and when he is most original, we are likely to be least sure.” Irving’s work, he concluded, had a “consistent bias.”

The same view was taken by Martin Broszat, director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History) in Munich when Irving published Hitler’s War. One of the world’s leading historians of Nazi Germany, Broszat began his critique of Hitler’s War by casting scorn on Irving’s much-vaunted list of archival discoveries. The evidence Irving had gathered from the reminiscences of Hitler’s entourage might provide more exact detail of what went on at Hitler’s wartime headquarters, he wrote, and it might convey something of the atmosphere of the place, but it did little to enlarge our knowledge of the important military and political decisions that Hitler took, and so did not live up to the claims Irving made for it. Broszat went much further, however, and included the allegation, backed up by detailed examples, that Irving had manipulated and misinterpreted original documents in order to prove his arguments. Equally critical was the American Charles W. Sydnor Jr., who at the time of writing his review had just completed a lengthy study, Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death’s Head Division, 1933-1945, published by Princeton University Press. Sydnor’s thirty-page demolition of Irving’s book was one of the few reviews of any of Irving’s books for which the reviewer had manifestly undertaken a substantial amount of original research. Sydnor considered Irving’s boast to have outdone all other Hitler scholars in the depth and thoroughness of his research to be “pretentious twaddle.” He accused Irving of innumerable inaccuracies, distortions, manipulations, and mistranslations in his treatment of the documents.

Peter Hoffmann, the world’s leading authority on the conservative resistance to Hitler and the individuals and groups behind the bomb plot of 20 July 1944, and a profound student of the German archival record of the wartime years was equally critical of Irving’s biography of Hermann Göring, published in 1988:

Mr. Irving’s constant references to archives, diaries and letters, and the overwhelming amount of detail in his work, suggest objectivity. In fact they put up a screen behind which a very different agenda is transacted…. Mr Irving is a great obfuscator…. Distortions affect every important aspect of this book to the point of obfuscation…. It is unfortunate that Mr. Irving wastes his extraordinary talents as a researcher and writer on trivializing the greatest crimes in German history, on manipulating historical sources and on highlighting the theatrics of the Nazi era.

Hoffmann commented that while the 1977 edition of Hitler’s Warhad “usefully provoked historians by raising the question of the smoking gun” (whether an order could be found from Hitler to perpetrate a holocaust against the Jews), twenty-two years on, so much research had been carried out in this area by historians that although he repeated it in Göring, “it is no longer possible to regard Mr. Irving’s thesis as a useful provocation.”

John Lukács, an American historian who had written extensively on the Second World War, declared in a review of one of Irving’s books in 1981 that “Mr. Irving’s factual errors are beyond belief.” He renewed his criticisms of Irving years later in a general survey of historical writings on Hitler.” “Few reviewers and critics of Irving’s books,” Lukács complained, not without some justification, “have bothered to examine them carefully enough.” Hitler’s War contained “many errors in names and dates; more important, unverifiable and unconvincing assertions abound.” There were references to archives “without dates, places, or file or page numbers.” “Many of the archival references in Irving’s footnotes … were inaccurate and did not prove or even refer to the pertinent statements in Irving’s text.” Lukács found many instances of Irving’s “manipulations, attributing at least false meanings to some documents or, in other instances, printing references to irrelevant ones.” Often “a single document, or fragment of a document, was enough for Irving to build a very questionable thesis on its contents or on the lack of such.” “While some of Irving’s `finds’ cannot be disregarded,” Lukács went on, “their interpretation … is, more often than not, compromised and even badly flawed.” He convicted Irving of “frequent `twisting’ of documentary sources” and urged “considerable caution” in their use by other historians.

Similar conclusions were reached by Professor David Cannadine, currently director of the Institute of Historical Research at London University when he came to consider the first volume of Irving’s biography of Sir Winston Churchill. Cannadine noted that the publishers to whom the book had originally been contracted (Michael Joseph in London and Doubleday in New York) had turned the manuscript down and it had been published by an unknown Australian company. “It has received almost no attention from historians or reviewers,” and, Cannadine added, “It is easy to see why.” Irving’s method was full of “excesses, inconsistencies, and omissions.” Irving, he charged, “seems completely unaware of recent work done on the subject.” “It is not merely,” he observed, “that the arguments in this book are so perversely tendentious and irresponsibly sensationalist. It is also that it is written in a tone which is at best casually journalistic and at worst quite exceptionally offensive. The text is littered with errors from beginning to end.” In Cannadine’s judgment, too, therefore, Irving’s work was deeply flawed.

“Perversely tendentious,'” “`twisting’ of documentary sources,” “manipulating historical sources,” “pretentious twaddle”: these were unusually harsh criticisms emerging from the wider chorus of praise for Irving’s energy and persistence as a researcher. Clearly, Lipstadt was far from being the first critic of Irving’s work to accuse him of bending the documentary record to suit his arguments. For many years, professional historians had seemed to regard him as an assiduous collector of original documentation, although there was some dispute over quite how important all of it was. But when it came to Irving’s interpretation of the documents, several eminent specialists were harsh, even savage, in their criticisms. Nor was this all. Irving’s writings had repeatedly landed him in trouble with the law. He had been sued for libel by a retired naval officer who considered Irving’s charge of cowardice against him in The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17 to be defamatory and had been forced with his publishers to pay damages of £40,000, later confirmed by the House of Lords. The award, made in 1970, was very large for the time and included £25,000 in exemplary damages, which can only be awarded when it has been shown that the defendant is guilty of a deliberate `tort’ or wrong committed with the object of making money. His allegation in the introduction to the German edition of Hitler’s War that the Diary of Anne Frank was a forgery had led to his publisher being forced to pay damages. In 1968 he had been sued for libel by Jillian Page, author of a newspaper article about him, as a result of his allegation that the article had been the result of her “fertile brain.” Irving had apologized in the High Court and paid costs on condition that Page agreed to withdraw the action. Similarly, he had also been obliged to pay costs in an unsuccessful libel action against Colin Smythe, publisher of a book (The Assassination of Winston Churchill) attacking Irving’s views on the death of General Sikorski.

During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Irving’s books had been published by a variety of mainstream publishing houses, including Penguin Books, who had brought out a paperback edition of the early version of Hitler’s War and its companion volume on the years 1933-39, The War Path; Macmillan, under whose imprint later editions of Hitler’s War had appeared up to about 1992; Hodder and Stoughton, who had published the original hardback; HarperCollins, whose paperback imprint Grafton Books had published an edition of Irving’s Göring biography in 1991; and Corgi paperbacks, who had produced more than one of the various editions of The Destruction of Dresden. Since the late 1980s, however, Irving had ceased to be published by major houses, but instead had brought out all his books under his own imprint, Focal Point. “If I write a bad book,” he said, perhaps rather surprisingly, in 1986, “or if I write two or three bad books, with boobs in it which the newspapers pick out, which I’m ashamed to admit are probably right, then of course the time comes when publishers turn their back on me.”

Moreover, while he had run into the law at various points in his career, most notably in his arrest and deportation from Austria in 1983, his difficulties in this respect had increased noticeably during the 1990s, with his conviction for insulting the memory of the dead in Germany in 1991 and his banning from entry into that country, into Canada, and into Australia, all in 1992-93. One would not have expected a reputable historian to have run into such trouble, and indeed it was impossible to think of any historian of any standing at all who had been subjected to so many adverse legal judgments, or who had initiated so many libel actions himself. Irving’s reputation as a historian, never entirely secure, seemed to have plummeted during the 1990s. In an interview with the American journalist Ron Rosenbaum in the mid-1990s, Irving himself had admitted as much, confessing that his reputation among historians was “down to its uppers,” though adding that it “hasn’t yet worn through to the street.”

Yet, because of his early reputation as a formidable historian, and because of his “articulate, plausible demeanor,” as the journalist, Sarah Lyall pointed out, “Mr. Irving has confounded efforts to write him off as a harmless crackpot.” Jenny Booth, indeed, writing in The Scotsman, thought that Irving “was still seen as a substantial scholar in England and the US.” The right-wing historian Andrew Roberts noted that “several distinguished historians, all of whom asked not to be named, told me how much they admired Irving’s tenacity in uncovering new material from Nazi sources.”

Yet such admiration was almost always highly qualified. Wolfgang Benz, director of Berlin’s Centre for the Study of Antisemitism, echoed the more dismissive tone of most German assessments of Irving’s reputation: “Irving,” he told an interviewer, “is overpraised as a writer for the general public. He has delivered details from the perspective of the keyhole—from conversations with courtiers and chauffeurs—and thereby mobilized the last knowledge that could be brought to light from Hitler’s entourage. But nothing really new.” The Irving of the early years had been an outsider who was to some extent to be taken seriously, Benz concluded, but he had subsequently radicalized his political views and could no longer be treated as a serious historian.

Criticism Aside…

 

David John Cawdell Irving was born on March 24, 1938, in Essex, England, the son of a Royal Navy Commander. After education at London University, he spent a year working in a steel mill in Germany, where he perfected his fluency in the language. (He later also learned to speak very good Spanish.)

His first book, The Destruction of Dresden, was published in 1963 when he was 25 years old. This was followed by many others, including The Mare’s Nest: The Secret Weapons of the Third Reich, The Rise, and Fall of the Luftwaffe, The German Atomic Bomb, The War Between the Generals and The Trail of the Fox, a best-selling biography of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel.

His books have appeared in a range of languages. Several have been serialized in prominent periodicals. He has contributed articles to some 60 British and foreign periodicals including the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Express in Britain, and Stern and Der Spiegel in Germany.

Irving has a track record of uncovering startling new facts about supposedly well-known episodes of history. Much of his effectiveness has been due to his extensive reliance on primary source materials, such as diaries, original documents and so forth, from both official archives and private sources. He is disdainful of scholars who engage in what he calls inter-historian incest, and who thereby help to keep alive myths left over from Second World War propaganda.

“Most of Irving’s books,” the Washington Post once noted, “are big, solid works… All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries.”

This fiercely independent and iconoclastic historian is widely acknowledged – even by adversaries – as an eminent authority on World War II, Hitler, and Third Reich Germany. British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, writing in the Sunday Times of London, once declared: “No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry.” He also called Irving one of the “few guides I would entirely trust … indefatigable in pursuit of the evidence, fearless in face of it, sound in judgment …” Another prominent British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, wrote: “David Irving is a patient researcher of unrivaled industry and success.”

Professor Gordon Craig of Stanford University, writing in 1996 in The New York Review of Books, remarked: “The fact is that he [Irving] knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933–1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications … Such people as David Irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.”

Following the publication in 1977 of Hitler’s War, probably his most important single work, he came under fire for its contention that Hitler did not order the extermination of Europe’s Jews. The mass killings must have been carried out by Himmler and his cohorts behind Hitler’s back, Irving concluded at that time. In 2002 a completely revised and updated deluxe edition of Hitler’s War was published under Irving’s own Focal Point imprint.

His 1981 book, Uprising!, an examination of the 1956 anti-Communist revolt in Hungary, also earned the ire of Jewish-Zionist groups because it did not ignore or whitewash the significant Jewish role in the Hungarian Communist regime. Irving’s biography of Hermann Göring was published in 1989. Churchill’s War: The Struggle for Power, the first volume of Irving’s monumental biography of Britain’s wartime leader, was published in 1987. The second volume, subtitled Triumph in Adversity, appeared in 2001.

Irving’s testimony in the Holocaust trial in 1988 of Ernst Zundel was a startling high point of that important court case. Appearing as the last of 23 defense witnesses, Irving stunned the packed Toronto courtroom by announcing that he had changed his mind about the Holocaust story. During his three days on the stand, he explained in detail why he no longer accepted that masses of Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II, or that Hitler ordered the extermination of European Jewry.

Irving has made successful speaking tours in Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the United States and other countries.

For example, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, he made triumphal speaking visits in what was still the “German Democratic Republic.” In February 1990 he addressed a large audience in Dresden on the 45th anniversary of the Allied firebombing of that once beautiful, baroque city. Large posters with Irving’s picture appeared throughout the city to announce his presence. He was greeted with flowers by Dresden’s cultural affairs director and was interviewed on television. When he appeared on stage before the microphones, more than a thousand people gave him a standing ovation. Speaking in fluent German, he recounted Churchill’s campaign to obliterate German cities. In June of that same year, he returned for another speaking tour in the GDR. In spite of a ten mark admission fee, large crowds came to hear him speak in Leipzig, Gera, and again in Dresden.

On April 21, 1990, Irving was arrested in Munich after having addressed a sell-out crowd in the Bavarian city’s famed Löwenbräu beer-hall because during his talk he had referred to the “gas chamber” shown to tourists at the Auschwitz main camp as a phony postwar dummy (“Attrappe”). His arrest was followed by a spontaneous demonstration of some 250 supporters, who carried posters of Irving and two other Holocaust skeptics, Robert Faurisson and Ernst Zundel. After the crowd made its way past the historic Feldherrnhalle, police waded in and arrested several of the demonstrators.

For that remark, a German court in January 1993 fined Irving 30,000 marks (about $20,000), and later that year he was banned from the country. On the basis of that ban, he was subsequently barred from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

As it happens, Irving’s 1990 remark in Munich was, in fact, the truth. As even the curator of the Auschwitz State Museum has since acknowledged, the “gas chamber” shown to hundreds of thousands of visitors to the site is indeed a fraudulent postwar reconstruction.

Over the years Irving has addressed several conferences and meetings of the Institute for Historical Review. For example, in an address at an IHR meeting on April 17, 2005, entitled “The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History,” he identified some of the many fraudulent historical documents that have been cited over the years by “conformist” historians of the Third Reich era.

In 1998 Irving filed a lawsuit in London against Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books. He charged that Lipstadt had libeled him in her book, Denying the Holocaust, by calling him a falsifier and a Holocaust denier. After a much-publicized trial in London in early 2000, during which Irving represented himself, the court ruled in favor of the defendants.

In a ruling made public on April 11, 2000, Judge Charles Gray praised Irving’s “thorough and painstaking research into the archives,” and commended his discovery and disclosure of many historical documents. He also noted Irving’s intelligence and thorough knowledge of World War II history.  On balance, though, Judge Gray’s lengthy statement was a severe rebuke of Irving, whom he called an anti-Semitic and racist “Holocaust denier” who had “deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence.”

Irving was obliged to pay substantial costs for the trial. He lost subsequent attempts to appeal the verdict and was forced into bankruptcy.

The FARCE of the Nuremberg Trials

kangaroo_court

  1. “[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles, and procedures. The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex-post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury, and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged. Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.”

    Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D. 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Re-appraisal,(Torrance: Institute for Historical Review, 1983) p.148\.

  2. “Unfortunately, humanity does not seem to have advanced beyond the motto, ‘The winner is always right’.”

    Lieutenant General Fahri Belen, Turkish Army
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 17\.

  3. “It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority… The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan… I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority…the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration.”

    Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 7\.

  4. “I consider the War Trials as one of the more disgraceful manifestations of the past war hysteria.”

    Vice Admiral, Richard H. Cruzen, U.S.N.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 39\.

  5. “No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community. By our standards that crime arose under an ex-post facto law. Goering et al deserved severe punishment. But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas 
    Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, (New York: Harper & Row, 1964),p.190\.

  6. “I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world…I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein. They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty…This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning. I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials. As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it. That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.”

    Edgar N. Eisenhower, American Attorney, brother of President Dwight D.Eisenhower 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.168\.

  7. “I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials… the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; furthermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.”

    T.S. Eliot, English poet and author
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 51\.

  8. “I shall always have doubts about the whole ‘War Crimes Trials,’ both in Germany and in Japan. I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty. It makes no difference what flag he fights under. To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.”

    George B. Fowler, Ph.D., Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 111\.

  9. “My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance. War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island. To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.”

    Major General J.F.C. Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.43\.

  10. “This kangaroo court at Nuremberg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’ That name is a libel on the military profession. The tribunal was not a military one in any sense. The only military men among the judges were the Russians… At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats. One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.”

    Rear Admiral, U.S.N. Dan V. Gallery 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., pp.XXI-XXII\.

  11. “I am quite clear that any trial of defeated foes by their victors is a mistake and a precedent which should not be followed by what is commonly described as civilized nations.”

    Dr. George Peabody Gooch, C.H., British historian and author. 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed.,p.87\.

  12. “It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people’s sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier’s death. Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.”

    Reichsmarschall Herman Göring 
    David Irving, Göring: A Biography, (New York: William Morrow and Co.,1989) p.506\.

  13. “I may, and do, say that I have always regarded the Nuremberg prosecutions as a step backward in international law, and a precedent that will prove embarrassing, if not disastrous, in the future.”

    Honorable Justice Learned Hand
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 1\.

  14. “I have a very long record of opposition to the holding of these trials, which began with speeches in the House of Lords during the war and has continued ever since.”

    The Rt. Hon. Lord Hankey, P.C., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., LL.D\.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 50\.

  15. “The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex-post-facto legislation in criminal matters. The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege” – a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty. Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.”
    In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future\.

    William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.xx\.

  16. “The Nuremberg Trials… had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States. Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death. But what kind of trial was this? …The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation. It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it. It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert Taft] was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.”

    U.S. President, John F. Kennedy 
    John Kennedy, Profiles in Courage p.189-190\.

  17. “The war crimes trials were a reversion to the ancient practice of the savage extermination of a defeated enemy and particularly of its leaders. The precedent set by these trials will continue to plague their authors.”

    Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, U.S.N.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 42\.

  18. “I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure.”

    Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.3\.

  19. “About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice. The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”

    U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft 
    Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p.191\.

  20. “I have always regarded the Nuremberg Trials as a travesty upon justice and the farce was made even more noisome with Russia participating as one of the judges.”

    Charles Callan Tansill, Ph.D.
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 47\.

  21. “To me, the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty of justice. This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life. In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders, and directions which they received from the head of their government\.
    If an officer… should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military services would fail in the one reason for their existence – the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.”

    Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald, U.S.N. 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.39\.

  22. “My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority… The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty. This is patently unlawful and immoral\.
    One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial. The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants. In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves. The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.”

    Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden, President Judge
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p. 67\.

  23. “The Tribunal claimed, in theory, the right — it certainly had the power –to declare any act a war-crime. But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers. As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime. For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.”

    F.J.P. Veale, English jurist and author 
    Thompson, and Strutz ed., p.146\.

50 Min I.H.R. Audio

David Irving 2 Hour Presentation

Do As You Are Told Goyim!

zionists hate heros

MOSTYN RESPONDS TO ROGER WATERS SINGLING HIM OUT FOR ZIONISM’S SAKE

In case you did not know him…

Michael Mostyn is the Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada and is the guy who is backing the Jailing of Monika Schaefer, a German-Canadian being held in Germany for telling the truth.

Yet Monika is not the only one on this freaks “Hit List”.

As B’nai Brith Canada continued to tour its anti-Roger Waters documentary Wish You Weren’t Here, CEO Michael Mostyn responded to the Pink Floyd co-founder’s outburst at one of his recent Toronto concerts, in which he singled Mostyn out.

Before the intermission at his second Toronto concert at the Air Canada Centre on Oct. 3, Waters, a spokesperson for the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, claimed that Mostyn said his shows feature “long, lengthy tirades against the country of Israel.”

“Well, we have 30,000 witnesses here tonight … along with 600,000 other witnesses who’ve been to my shows since we started, who also never heard a single word about Israel in any of my shows. So I just needed to mouth off for Michael Mostyn and that’s it,” said Waters.

Speaking to The CJN from Ottawa hours before a screening of the documentary, Mostyn said he was proud that Waters called him out while on stage.

“We’re very proud that he singled out B’nai Brith,” Mostyn said with a laugh, “because first of all, it means he took note of our campaign.

“He’s taking note of these film screenings that are taking place across the country, coinciding with his shows across the country, and it shows that it’s having an impact and that this campaign is very effective.”

Roger Waters LIVE “Us And Them”

He said the BDS movement itself is anti-Semitic, (What Language has to do with it, I don’t know)  a point the documentary, which was produced by Canadian author and filmmaker Ian Halperin, tries to drive home.

But, Mostyn added, when Waters denies speaking out against Israel at his shows, “he’s trying to split hairs.”.  I agree.  He should speak out more loudly, but I really doubt Mostyn and I see eye to eye on this.  Mostyn continues:

“It’s also an undisputed fact that anti-Israel propaganda does exist and did exist in his previous concerts and in fact some of our supporters witnessed and walked out of his previous tour … where there were anti-Israel sentiments (espoused) by Mr. Waters (at a concert) in California,” Mostyn said.

“There were also some reports out of Miami on his current tour that he had made anti-Israel statements. We’re currently investigating those reports.”

We can only hope it is true!

Mostyn said that even during his most recent show in Toronto, Waters used anti-Israel imagery.

“Specifically the wall, from the famous Pink Floyd song The Wall, the wall is still being held up and the Israeli protective barrier is being depicted during that song The Wall,” Mostyn said, referring mistakenly to a sequence in the song Us and Them, during which images showing multiple symbols that separate people from one another – including the Israeli protective barrier – are shown on the screen. See Youtube video above,  you’ll have to fast forward to the 2:30 mark.

“It’s more than a little bit disingenuous to say that he’s not saying anything about Israel when he’s using anti-Israel imagery at the show. Just because you’re not verbalizing something, doesn’t mean you’re not making a statement.”

As Waters’ Us + Them tour continues across Canada, film screenings will be held to coincide with his concerts in Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Vancouver.

Mostyn said it was interesting that Waters singled out B’nai Brith (rightfully so), considering that “every notable Jewish group in this country has spoken out against Roger Waters and his support for BDS.”  Every one?  Or just the Zionists there, Mostyn?  As a matter of fact, I doubt you would have 100% of even Zionists against and not loving Roger Waters, but you must have your fantasies.  You know… like the Holocaust?

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs circulated an online petition to send a message to Waters that “anti-Semitism, bigotry, and hatred are not welcome in Canada.” I am guessing they hate people being ANTI LANGUAGE and it seems to be a common cry among Zionists.  You know, this truth about Anti-Semitism.

“So many people have been talking about this and it has been having such an impact … and we’ll continue making a strong impact on behalf of the community.”

The Hoodwinking Continues