David Myatt

There are several excellent reasons why the story of "the Jewish holocaust" is a fictional tale - a product of Zionist propaganda - and why the so-called "evidence" which is produced, and which has been produced, in support of this story is suspect or false. These reasons should raise the doubts of anyone possessed of the faculty of reason - that is, anyone who can think, logically and constructively, and who therefore critically analyses what others say, what they write, or what has been said or written about a particular topic.

Most of these reasons for disbelieving the holocaust story are "scientific" or historical, although one reason - hitherto neglected - may be said to be philosophical, and I shall deal with this neglected reason first.
 

(1) One of the most important reasons to be critical of the holocaust story - and to suspect that the "evidence" presented to support it is either suspect or false - is fundamentally a philosophical one. This reason concerns the real nature of National-Socialism itself, and the true beliefs, attitude and intentions of Adolf Hitler. There are only two alternatives. Either National-Socialism, and Adolf Hitler, were as portrayed by his opponents, or they were not. That is, either Adolf Hitler, and his followers, wanted to and did try to exterminate the Jews, or they did not.

An analogy is of a person charged with a specific criminal offence who is on trial in a Court of Law. Either the person did commit the offence with which he is charged, or he did not.

If he did not commit the offence, then any evidence which the Prosecution in his trial produce to show or prove that he did commit the offence is either false, or has been mis-interpreted.

Thus, if in this case, witnesses appear for the Prosecution and affirm that the person did commit the offence, they are either lying or are mistaken. If a person is innocent of something, then they are innocent - whatever the evidence produced against them.

There are many instances in ordinary Courts of Law where innocent people have been wrongly convicted because a Judge or Jury, or both, believed false testimony or made false deductions from Prosecution evidence - or because they were impressed by the eloquence or arguments of the Prosecution. There have also been some cases where innocent people have been convicted simply because a Judge or Jury, or both, disliked the defendent, and simply ignored any evidence which favoured the defendent. There have even been cases when evidence which might have proved the innocence of a defendent was 'lost' or never produced in Court for some reason.
 

The same applies to the case of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism in the matter of the claim of the extermination of the Jews. If Adolf Hitler and his followers did not do this, they did not do this - regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

It is fundamentally a question of personal knowledge of, or understanding of, National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Thus, if one accepts, or knows - from personal knowledge - the true nature of National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler, then one accepts or knows that the holocaust, and other such stories, are propaganda designed to discredit National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler. Thus, if the truth and the reality of, about and concerning National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler, is that Adolf Hitler was a noble, just, honourable, civilized person who loved and cared for his folk, with his National-Socialism being a practical expression of what was cultured, civilized, noble, just and honourable, then it follows that the holocaust is a lie or a hoax.

This truth is independent of any amount of "evidence" which has been, or which could be, mustered against it. If it is the truth, then any "evidence" which seems to contradict it must, ipso facto, be suspect or false. An analogy here would be the truth that the Earth is a spherical-type planet in orbit around the sun. This objective fact - this truth - exists independent of whether we, or others, believe it. This truth is also not affected by the existence of "evidence" which some people may have used to show, or try to prove, that the Earth is stationary, with the sun (and other planets) revolving around it. Many people, for a very long time, believed or assumed that the Earth was stationary, just as some people believed that evidence existed to prove this belief or assumption. Such a belief became, in time and in some societies, a dogma which had to be believed in, on pain of punishment, just as in such societies many people believed that such a belief had been "proved beyond all possible doubt".

One either accepts, knows or believes that Adolf Hitler was and remained a noble, civilized, person, who loved and cared for his folk - and who therefore could neither have wanted to nor have sanctioned the brutal extermination of the Jews, or others - or one does not believe this or accept it. One either accepts, knows or believes that the National-Socialism of Adolf Hitler is an expression of what is noble, just, civilized and honourable - or one does not. If one does not accept or believe these noble things about Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, then one either has no interest in such things, or one accepts or believes some or all of what the opponents of Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism have said or written. If one does accept, know or believe that National-Socialism was and is noble and civilized - and that Adolf Hitler himself was and remained noble and civilized - then one cannot accept the story of the holocaust, and has to regard any and all "evidence" however and by whomsoever presented, as suspect or false; in brief, as untruthful propaganda.

I, personally, believe I know and understand the true nature of National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler - because I have known those who knew Adolf Hitler, and those who were and who are National-Socialists. And also because I have satisfied myself by conducting my own scientific, historical and philosophical researches.
 

Every person should make their own assessment, about the nature of National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler. However, the National-Socialist "side of the story" is never told, openly. It is actively suppressed, even outlawed. That is, those who know the truth - or who believe they know the truth - are seldom if ever allowed to present their case, in public, in print, in the 'Media'. Their opponents, on the contrary, can say or write what they want about National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler. The result is that most people obtain or receive a biased view. The fact that National-Socialists are not allowed, in our societies, to defend National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler, is highly indicative.

A suitable analogy here in respect of the Prosecution case against National-Socialism is that of a criminal trial where the defendant is charged with serious offences. In this trial, the prosecution employs several professional lawyers, with these lawyers allowed access to any material they like. They further have the luxury of vast resources both in terms of manpower and financially. In this trial, there is a jury, who are supposed to decide on the guilt of the defendant on the basis of the evidence they hear during the trial. The defendant is only allowed - by the Court trying the defendant - to be represented by one person who is not only not a professional lawyer, but also: (1) who believes the defendant to be guilty, (2) who has little interest in the trial,  (3) who cannot even speak the language of the defendant and who (3)actively dislikes the defendant. The Court has refused to allow the defendant to be represented by someone who believes the defendant is innocent.

The prosecution is allowed is introduce "hearsay" evidence, with the defence instructed that they cannot challenge this evidence, as they cannot "cross-examine" any witnesses produced by the prosecution. Any "evidence" which the prosecution introduce cannot be challenged by the defence, because the Court has ruled that this evidence is "factual, accurate" and has been proved "beyond all possible doubt" by the expert witnesses the prosecution has brought into Court, or whose statements have been read to the Court. Such expert witness for the prosecution cannot, of course, be cross-examined by the defence, as their Statements cannot be challenged. The defendant is allowed to make a short statement, in his own defence - but this statement is cut short by the trial Judge who orders the defendant to be quiet. When the defendant refuses, the Judge orders the defendant removed from the Court - "for contempt". The defence try to produce some evidence and some statements, to show or prove the innocence of the defendant, but most of this evidence, and the statements, are ruled "inadmissible" by the Court, or ruled "not relevant".

The result of all this is, of course, an unfair, unjust, trial. At the end of this trial, the jury are naturally convinced by the prosecution case, and pronounce a verdict of guilty. In effect, the Court, the judge and the prosecution are determined to obtain a guilty verdict, and rig the trial to obtain one. The jury never get to hear "the other side of the story", just as no one is allowed to speak on behalf of the defendant, not even the defendant himself. What is most astounding of all, is that the jury never even question the fairness of such a trial - they are content to allow the opponents of the defendant to present both the prosecution and the defence case, as they are content to allow a Judge who dislikes the defendant, who believes him to be guilty and who wants him to be convicted, to preside over the trial. Such a trial is how the case against Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism has been presented, with unchallenged "evidence" for the holocaust ruled admissible, and with no one allowed to defend Adolf Hitler or National-Socialism.

Such an unjust trial should raise the suspicions of anyone who possesses the faculty of reason and anyone who possesses a sense of justice. The truth is that the National-Socialist view of National-Socialism, and Adolf Hitler, has been suppressed and outlawed. National-Socialism has hitherto been presented and examined - since 56 yf [1945] - by those opposed to it, just as Adolf Hitler has been described - since 56 yf - only by his opponents.
 

The philosophical truth about the holocaust is that until National-Socialists - who know, or who believe they know, the truth about National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler - can present their case openly and justly, then the whole holocaust story will remain suspect, with individuals unable to make a reasoned and balanced judgement. Every law designed to restrict or outlaw what National-Socialists can say, write or publish - in public and in private - is further evidence for the holocaust being a lie, just as every law designed to make "holocaust denial" a crime, and every prosecution under such a law, is further proof that the holocaust is, in fact, a lie.
 

2) The second reason to be critical of the holocaust story is a scientific one. Either the victims of this holocaust were killed in the manner which has - since 56 yf - been claimed, or they were not. All accounts of the holocaust insist that a majority of them were "gassed" in gas chambers, using the chemical Zyklon B. At Auschwitz, held up as a symbol of this holocaust, some of these gas chambers - and some the crematoria said to be used to dispose of most of the bodies - are said to still exist, as they are in some other camps, such as Birkenau and Majdanek.

If the holocaust had occurred, in the manner claimed, then this method of killing people would have worked, in the manner described, just as the facilities for such killing, and the disposal of bodies, would have worked. Furthermore, there should be some forensic evidence - for example, traces of the chemical used, in the brickwork of the gas chambers, and piles of ash, produced from the millions of corpses.

A scientific examination of the remains of what has been claimed to be "gas chambers", by an expert in execution gas chambers (still used to kill a single individual in the USA) has been undertaken, with forensic samples taken from sites where killings were alleged to have taken place. These forensic samples were taken to try and find traces of the chemical killing agent used - that is, hydrogen cyanide.

The findings were published in two reports, and given in evidence during the "holocaust denial" trial of the Canadian, Ernst Zundel. The reports are The Leuchter Report and A Technical Report on the Execution Gas Chamber. The Technical Report concluded that Zyklon B could not have been used in the manner described by holocaust story-tellers. The forensic analysis failed to find the levels of cyanide which would have been scientifically expected had the facilities been used in the manner described by the holocaust story-tellers.

The general conclusion is that the method of extermination which has been alleged, in the manner described by all historians, all so-called "survivors" of the camps, and all so-called academic "authorities", and in the facilities described by them, is scientifically impossible.

Either the exterminations, at Auschwitz and elsewhere, occurred in the manner which has been systematically claimed since 56 yf - or they did not. If they did not occur - or could not occur - in the manner claimed, then those claims are fraudulent, and the authority, unbiased credentials, judgment, reason or faculties of those so making such claims must be called into question, however many such claims there are, however rationally and unbiased they seem to be presented, and however esteemed or academically eminent are those making such claims.

Of course, since the above Reports are so damaging to the whole holocaust story, many attempts have been made to discredit them, and their author, with the author having been physically attacked, subject to intimidation and legal proceedings in an attempt to remove him from his employment because of his "unpopular and heretical" views. Such attacks on such a person, and such attempts to discredit such a person and remove them from their employment, are in themselves highly indicative of the false nature of the holocaust story.
 
 
 

3) Another reason to be critical of the holocaust story is the fact that the works of contemporary historians, and academics, concerning Adolf Hitler, National-Socialist Germany and National-Socialism itself, cannot be relied upon to be unbiased and factual, and that therefore it is not possible to quote such "authorities" and their work(s) in support of some argument or counter-argument, particularly when such an argument or counter-argument relates to such things as German policy toward the Jews before and during the Second World War.

The veracity of most if not all post-war historians, and all academics, who have dealt with or who deal with such topics as National-Socialism and "The Third Reich" must be called into question quite simply because they have accepted lies, propaganda, forgeries and rumours as historical facts, and because their work, while often purporting to be unbiased, never once presents a reasonable and genuinely unbiased analysis of National-Socialism, Adolf Hitler and the events of the period 30 - 56 yf [1919-1945]. Furthermore - as will be explained - the documentary evidence often used to support both the story of the holocaust and the "official version" of the events of the period, has been tampered with.

Three examples of the basically flawed approach used by such historians and academics will be given, although very many more could be cited. The first was the general acceptance of "Hitler's Secret Book" (published by Grove Press in 72 yf) as genuine - when in fact it is a blatant forgery. The second was - and is - the general acceptance of the so-called "Hitler's Secret Conversations" or "Hitler's Table Talk" (published by Signet, in 72 yf) when this is also a forgery. The third was - and is - the general acceptance of the testimony and memoirs of survivors of the "death camps", former "repentant Nazis" and so on, without subjecting these to logical or scientific analyses, and without any other reliable corroborating evidence the substantiate the claims. Two examples of this are the "Hoess Memoirs" - allegedly written by one of the former Commandants of a "death camp" while awaiting trial after the war - and the "Gerstein Statement" ⁽¹⁾.
 

Basically, historians can write and have written what they want to, with hardly any fear of objective scrutiny. The truth is that the opponents of National-Socialism - the post-war governments of America, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and what was West Germany - have in their possession all the official German documents relating to the period 30 -56 yf, and they have systemically removed or destroyed any and all documents which do not support the official, anti National-Socialist, history they have created for that period. They have done this because their very existence and their policies, now, in the future and in the past, depends on this "official history"; because the officials of such governments have vested interest in protecting the established reputations of their war-time, and post-war, leaders and officials, and because they have to continue to justify the total war which was fought to defeat National-Socialist Germany, and the continuing post-war persecution and Show-Trials of National-Socialists. The modern Zionist State of Israel, in particular, has a vested interest in such things, since it owes its own existence to the story of the holocaust, and since this story has been used and is being used by this Zionist State to further the interests of that State. Some of these post-war governments have also connived to produce false documents. It needs to be repeated that after the end of the Second World War the victorious Allies, and the Soviets, captured every single German official document which existed, and captured all the archives of the German government and the NSDAP. Many such archives - and tons of such official documents - were removed wholesale, during the post-war Allied and Soviet Occupation, ostensibly "for safe-keeping", or "historical research", or for "war-crimes" trials. These Allies, and the Soviets, had conducted a total war against National-Socialist Germany, ruthlessly bombing German cities and towns, and ruthlessly using their superior fire-power and manpower to defeat German troops. The Allies and the Soviets were dedicated to the total eradication of German National-Socialism, and to this end conducted an intense propaganda campaign designed to discredit Adolf Hitler and National-Socialism, and designed to rally the fighting spirit of their own troops. As such, the victorious Allies and the Soviets were hardly unbiased toward the German government and toward National-Socialism.
 

What modern historians and academics have done, almost without exception, is to tell, re-tell and in some cases create an "official" version of events for the period 30 - 56 yf, with any research or work which contradicts this official version discouraged, disallowed, derided, forbidden or destroyed. Furthermore, because of the loss or destruction of many documents, the documentary evidence - which historians often rely on - has been tampered with, so that those pursuing such "evidence" generally find only what the anti National-Socialist authorities want them to find.

In addition, such has been the official State-sponsored pressure on students of history, for example, and on their teachers, to accept this official version, that no such thing as "free enquiry", unbiased research, academic freedom or even historical truth has existed. This pressure has increased, rather than lessened, with the passing of the years, until any student or teacher in any academic institute who dares in any way to be at all critical of this official version of history soon discovers the reality of suppression and repression which exists. Students have been expelled, teachers "retired" or dismissed. Students and teachers have been physically attacked, with many forced to "recant their heretical views" in order to continue with their studies, their work or their careers.

In most instances, the authors of such published works which deal with the period in question are rather like professional journalists - content to tell a story, and content to use whatever material they can, truthful or not, which supports their underlying argument, their thesis, their political views, or which enhances their own career and their own academic standing. They are generally as untruthful, as biased and as unscrupulous as such journalists.
 

One anticipated new development in this modern saga of unreliable historians, is the fabrication, using modern technology, of documents and "evidence" in support of the holocaust, and in support of the official version of recent history. There already has been the miraculous discovery of original plans for Concentration Camps, and 'gas chambers' in hitherto secret Russian archives. ⁽²⁾In fact, the fall of Communism in the former Soviet Union gives forgers of holocaust documents an ideal opportunity. Many such 'documents' can suddenly be discovered, and then 'authenticated'. We can expect, over the next few years many such fabulous finds - perhaps even documents allegedly signed by Adolf Hitler and Himmler which order the 'extermination of the Jews'. Perhaps even secret Memoirs. Or maybe rare archive film of 'gas chambers' in operation. The possibilities are certainly interesting. Already teams of Israeli agents and 'historians' are rummaging through the archives of the former Soviet Union and former East Germany. With modern computer and other technology, it is not hard to fabricate documents and give them the appropriate vintage and authentic appearance. Without doubt, many new documents will suddenly be found, as some original documents will secretly and silently disappear.
 
 
 

Conclusion

Either the holocaust occurred, in the manner described by all official historians - or it did not. If it did not, then the veracity of such historians is questionable, and their "evidence" false.

An unbiased knowledge and understanding of National-Socialism, together with a reasonable and reasoned examination of recent history, the holocaust story, and the events surrounding this story - including the modern events relating to such things as making "holocaust denial" a crime - can lead to only one conclusion. This is that such a story - alleging mass exterminations - is unreasonable and unlikely.

There is the evidence of the total war conducted against National-Socialist Germany. There is the evidence of how biased the victors of this war were toward National-Socialism itself. There is their capture and removal of documents and archives. There is the refusal to allow National-Socialists to defend National-Socialism and Adolf Hitler, with the continuing suppression of National-Socialism and the continuing persecution, imprisonment and killing of National-Socialists. There is the fact that National-Socialism is only and always portrayed - in Schools, colleges and Universities, and in books - by enemies of National-Socialism, with no free discussion allowed, and no real dissent about this official portrayal allowed. There is the evidence of the vested interest of Israel, and other nations, in upholding the official version of history which has been created. There is the evidence of the torture used to extract confessions from German National-Socialists while in Allied custody after the war; there is the evidence of the biased and unjust nature of the Nuremberg Trials; there is the evidence of how those National-Socialists, charged with exterminating Jews, who refused to confess and who steadfastly pleaded their innocence, suddenly "died" while in Allied custody after the war⁽³⁾.

All this - and much more - circumstantial evidence is highly indicative. Add to such circumstantial evidence the specific scientific evidence, and the known historical evidence (for forged documents, disappearing documents and so on)⁽⁴⁾ and the case against the holocaust story is convincing to anyone possessed of the faculty of reason.
 
 
 

 Issued by Reichsfolk

1. See, for example, Butz : The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Also Journal of Historical Review (California, USA) Vol. I, # 2.

2. A further example of how documents have been tampered with is given by John Ball in his Air-Photo Evidence and his The Ball Report.

3. The evidence for such things as these is outlined in Chapter III of Vindex - The Destiny of the West.

4. For further specific scientific and historical evidence, see, for example, the following. Butz: Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Michael A. Hoffman: The Great Holocaust Trial. Journal of Historical Review, Vol. I, #1; Vol. I, #2; Vol. 2, # 3. John Cobden: Dachau - Reality and Myth in History. See also Robert Lenski: Holocaust on Trial - The Case of Ernst Zundel.