Toronto [CP] – No scientific reports prove Jews were exterminated in Nazi gas chambers, a Holocaust scholar conceded Thursday at the trial of Ernst Zundel. But numerous historical documents show that Jews were killed during the Second World War, said Raul Hilberg, a University of Vermont political science professor. And even though German war documents contain no mention of killing Jews, euphemisms for death, such as ‘resettlement’ and ‘special treatment,’ were used so commonly that Heinrich Himmler, head of the Gestapo, requested substitute phrases, Hilberg added.
Hilberg, who has spent 36 years studying the Holocaust and the subsequent Nuremberg trials of war criminals, testified earlier for the Crown that five million Jews were killed during the war.
Zundel [46], a West German citizen living in Toronto, is charged with two counts of publishing statements known to be false and likely to injure or mischief the public interest in maintaining social and racial tolerance. Two of his publications – one called ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’ – postulate that the Holocaust was a hoax to vilify Germans and exact compensation payments from them.
‘Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory?’ defense counsel Douglas Christie asked Hilberg in a day-long rapid-fire cross-examination. ‘I am at a loss,’ Hilberg replied. ‘You are [at a loss] because you can’t, ‘ Christie said.
The witness countered that there are aerial photographs of concentration camps, examples of ruined or reconstructed gas chambers. German industrial documents describing the lethal nature of various gases and filters for gas masks were found at the camps.
Hilberg agreed with Christie that there are no autopsy reports indicating that even a single person died from exposure to poisonous gas in chambers. He has uncovered, however, a written request by a German scientist for some human subjects he wanted to kill by gassing in order to cut off their heads for anatomical research.
‘In terms of thousands of Nazi documents, people were ‘resettled’ or ‘the Jewish problem was solved,’ but the word killing was used only for dogs, not in reference to the annihilation of Jews, ‘ Hilberg said.
Hilberg quoted from the book ‘The Destruction of European Jews’ a message to Himmler from a Nazo official named Greiser stating that the ‘special treatment’ of 100.000 Jews at a concentration camp would be complete in two or three months. Grieser then asked permission to have 35.000 tubercular Poles transferred to the camp for special treatment so they wouldn’t infect Germans.
When Christie questioned Hilberg’s interpretation of the last request, an exasperated Hilberg replied: ‘This was not a hospital.’ Zundel, a balding, heavy-set man, took extensive notes from the prisoner’s box during the day. Hilberg told the district court jury of eight men and two women that Zundel’s published accounts of some details of the Nuremberg war trials, which lasted from 1946 to 1949, were ‘fanciful.’
His exhaustive research has not uncovered any evidence to support Zundel’s supposition that Nazi officials were tortured to exact untrue statements implicating German war criminals, he said.
Christie introduced numerous accounts by German officers, and a report by two American judges sent to investigate allegations ot torture of German prisoners to back Zundel’s claim that in one case, 139 prisoners were flogged until they bled, and their genitals were trampled upon.” Source: The Sault Star, Friday, 18, 1985. https://x.com/BrockRiddickIFB/satus/2119160155619364289
These ‘two American judges’ were Edward L. van Roden and Gordon Simpson.
Read what Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno wrote about this case:
“In a 1986 book, the captors of Rudolf Hóss, former commandant of Auschwitz, admitted how they tortured him in order to receive a confession from him, which was intended to be used during the post-war trials. Or simply read what British journalist Alan Moorehead reported about what was happening in Allied prisons in Germany after the war in preparation for the infamous war crimes trials:
“As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant’s language became ferocious. ‘We had an interrogation this morning,’ the captain said. ‘ I am afraid they are not a pretty sight.’ The sergeant unbolted the first door and […] strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in front of him. ‘Get up,’ he shouted. ‘Get up, get up, you dirty bastards.’ Half a dozen men lay half-lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and face spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees, and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in front of him, trembling violently. ‘Come on, get up,’ the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled beard. […] ‘Why don’t you kill me?’ he whispered. ‘Why don’t you kill me? I cannot stand anymore.’ The same phrases dribbled from his lips again and again. ‘He’s been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard,’ the sergeant said.”
And if that’s still not enough, here is what Edward L. van Roden and Gordon Simpson had to say about these procedures. Van Roden served in World War II as Chief of the Military Justice Division for the European Theater. Together with Justice Gordon Simpson of the Texas Supreme Court, Van Roden was appointed in 1948 to an extraordinary commission to investigate claims of abuse during U.S. trials in Nuremberg. Here is an excerpt of what Van Roden wrote:
“AMERICAN investigators at the U.S. court in Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to obtain confessions: Beatings and brutal kickings. Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws. Mock trials. Solitary confinement. Posturing as priests. Very limited rations. Spiritual deprivation. Promises of acquittal. […] We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked. […] The American prohibition on hearsay evidence had been suspended. Second- and third-hand testimony was admitted. […] Lt. Colonel Perl of the Prosecution pleaded that it was difficult to obtain competent evidence.
Perl told the court, ‘We had a tough case to crack, and we had to use persuasive methods.’ He admitted to the court that the persuasive methods included various ‘expedients, including some violence and mock trials.’
He further told the court that the cases rested on statements obtained by such methods. […] The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four, and five months. They were confined between four walls, with no windows, and no opportunity to exercise. They shoved two meals a day through a slot in the door. They were not allowed to talk to anyone. They had no communication with their families or priest during that time. […] Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused’s head, and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with a rubber hose.
Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out; some had their jaws broken. All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure for American investigators. Perl admitted to using mock trials and persuasive methods, including violence, and said the court was free to decide the weight to be attached to evidence thus received. But it all went in.
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement that was being dictated to him. When they reached the 16th page, they locked the boy up for the night. In the early morning, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering: ‘I will not utter another lie.’ When the jailer came later to get him to finish his false statement, he found the German hanging from a cell bar, dead. However, the statement that the German had hanged himself to escape signing was offered and received in evidence in the trial of the others.
Sometimes a prisoner who refused to sign was led into a dimly lit room, where a group of civilian investigators in U.S. Army uniforms sat around a black table with a crucifix in the center and two candles burning, one on each side. “You will now have your American trial,” the defendant was told. The sham court passed a sham sentence of death. Then the accused was told, ‘You will hang in a few days as soon as the general approves this sentence; but in the meantime, sign this confession, and we can get you acquitted.’ Some still wouldn’t sign. […] In another case, a bogus Catholic priest [actually an investigator] entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a friendly tip: ‘Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it’s false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you’d tell.’ Source: revisionists Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno in their book ‘Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies & Prejudices on the Holocaust ‘ [The Barnes Review], revised second edition, July 2011, pages 9-10.
In addition, a large-scale anti-German propaganda campaign was waged before and during WW II [mainly from the U.S.], in which German ‘atrocities’ took center stage. It should therefore be clear now how that ‘Holocaust’ came about.
