The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (58 page)

The tragic fate of Patton convinced many others of his loyal colleagues and their honourable compatriots of the uselessness of fighting against the Elite-controlled war powers.
 

The Nuremberg Trials were created by the Elite to prosecute the German general-staff and thereby eliminate anyone in authority that was aware of the pact signed between the Zionists and Hitler in 1923.
 
The end of the German resistance in WWII was only the end of the first stage of the political ploy by the Zionists to illegally found the new home for themselves inside Palestine.

That they were a fair and impartial hearing seems very unlikely.
 
That the evidence used against the defendants was very dubious and obtained by even more dubious methods is however, very clear.
 
An example of the techniques employed is described by the distinguished English historian, David Irving in his book, ‘Nuremberg: The Last Battle’…

“Garnering usable documentary evidence became a mounting nightmare for Jackson [the chief prosecuting attorney]. He had become disenchanted with the productivity and intelligence of General Donovan's OSS.
 
They had promised much but delivered little.
 
What Donovan regarded as evidence, he certainly would not.
 
'I never had any feeling that anybody had trapped me into the thing,' Jackson commented later.
 
‘But I was in the trap!’”

It soon became clear that the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) had intended all along to stage-manage the whole trial along the lines of an Soviet NKVD show trial, with Jackson engaged as little more than a professional actor.
 
As part of the stage-management they proposed to run a pre-trial propaganda campaign in the United States with 'increasing emphasis on the publication of atrocity stories to keep the public in the proper frame of mind.'
 
To this end the OSS devised and scripted for the education of the American public a two-reel film on war crimes, called 'Crime and Punishment'; it was designed to put the case against the leading Nazis.
 
Jackson declined to participate.
 
He refused even to read the speech that the OSS had scripted for him to read into the cameras.
 
'As you know,' he wrote to the OSS officer concerned, ‘the British are particularly sensitive about lawyers trying their cases in the newspapers and other vehicles of communication.'

The film proposal was followed by an explicit OSS suggestion for launching 'black propaganda' during the course of the trial, with agents in selected foreign countries starting rumours designed to influence public opinion in favour of the trial and against the defendants.
 
This would be far more effective, they pointed out, than mounting a straightforward public relations campaign which would obviously be seen as emanating from the powers conducting the trials.
 
One of Jackson's staff secretly notified him that the suggestion was 'fantastic, if not entirely dangerous’, and the justice himself pencilled a pithy comment on the letter: 'The scheme is cock-eyed.
 
Give them no encouragement.'

Vestiges of the unsavoury methods of the OSS can still be seen among the earlier Nuremberg records.
 
For instance, at the pre-trial interrogations the defendants were not accompanied by lawyers and were frequently persuaded by trickery or intimidation to subscribe to testimonies incriminating others which we now know to have been false.
 
The files are full of curiosities, for instance anonymous typed extracts of documents instead of the originals and sworn statements by witnesses like Höss, commandant of Auschwitz, in which all the 'witnesses to his signature' have signed, but not Höss himself.
 
Indeed it is well known that Höss’s confessions were all obtained by torture.
 
The Americans also submitted as exhibit 1553-PS a file of invoices for substantial consignments of Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide pellets) supplied to the pest-control office at Auschwitz but they concealed the fact that the same file contained invoices for identical quantities of Zyklon B delivered to the camp at Oranienberg near Berlin, where it was never alleged there had been any 'gas chambers'.

These examples are of course only a very brief overview of the innumerable deficiencies of the 'evidence' at Nuremberg.
 
The overwhelming Jewish presence behind the scenes as prosecutors, judges, interrogators, jailers and torturers is covered elsewhere in Irving's excellent, but far from complete, study.
 
The sampling of techniques employed however, is more than sufficient to demonstrate that truth was never the objective of the orchestrators of the trial.
 
The key point in evaluating Nuremberg is that all the evidence, real and faked at the trial, was evidence in pursuit of a pre-determined verdict.
 
It was regarded desirable to demonstrate that the Germans were uniquely evil, that the Germans had waged aggressive, illegal war, that the Germans had committed great 'crimes against humanity' and that the greatest of these alleged crimes was the alleged systematic extermination of six million Jews.
 
To reach these pre-determined verdicts, the court manipulated and distorted evidence on a massive scale.
 
Therefore, any honest assessment of the German National Socialist government built on Nuremberg conclusions is inherently flawed.
 
It is another supreme example of the art of writing history based on the propaganda of the victor.

The story contained within Anne Frank’s diary, that world famous testimony to the sufferings of a Jewish family during World War II, may well be a true story as far as it goes, but it is one hundred percent certain that what was published and subsequently became a worldwide best seller was not written by Anne Frank herself.

Anne’s letter to an American pen-pal

Anne’s diary

Of the above examples of Anne’s handwriting, the first example was written to an American pen friend who introduced the letter to the world after Anne had become posthumously famous and recognised the name – and the other is supposedly taken from the pages of Anne’s diary, purportedly written shortly after the first sample.
 

Now, I would be the last to admit to being a handwriting analyst but there can surely be no doubt that those two samples were written by two completely different individuals.
 
I do not believe it possible that one’s handwriting could change that much over an entire lifetime let only in someone of poor Anne’s tender years.
 
And just to further prove the point, it is strange is it not that the latter example purporting to be her original diary is written in ballpoint pen?
 
Ballpoint pens were invented by a Hungarian by the name of Laszlo Biro in the mid-1940s and most certainly did not become commercially available until well after Anne’s death at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp from typhus at the age of fifteen in 1945.

‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ was first published in 1952 and immediately became a bestseller.
 
It has been re-published in paperback, with over 40 printings and it is impossible to estimate how many people over the last 50-60 years have been touched and moved in some way by the subject matter.

An interesting question to consider is why the trial involving the father of Anne Frank, bearing directly on the authenticity of this book has never been officially reported by the overwhelmingly Zionist media?
 
In royalties alone, Otto Frank profited greatly from the sale of this book, purporting to depict events in the tragic life of his family, but is it fact, fiction or propaganda or a combination of all of these?
  
It certainly claims to be the truth but to what degree does it appeal to the emotions through misrepresentation?
 
It was certainly convenient for Otto Frank that he was the only family member to survive the war – and I mean that in the sense of there being no-one left alive to corroborate or deny the story and in no way to diminish the anguish he must have suffered at the loss of his entire family.

School-book publishers have promoted this book for young people for many years, presenting it as the actual work of Anne Frank.
 
Advertising in advance of the release of the movie certainly promoted the drama as being factual but do not writers of such editorials and promoters of such advertising in this way, keep alive the prejudices and hatred they profess to deplore and could this be the actual objective?

The Franks were upper-class German Jews, both parents emanating from wealthy families. As children, Otto and his siblings lived on the exclusive Meronstrasse in Frankfurt and Otto attended a private preparatory school and also the Lessing Gymnasium, the most expensive school in Frankfurt.
 
Upon leaving school, Otto attended Heidelberg University from whence he eventually graduated.

In 1925 Anne's parents married and settled in Frankfurt, Germany where Anne was born in 1929.
 
The Frank's family business included banking, management of the springs at Bad Soden a famous spa and the manufacture of cough sweets.
 
Anne's mother, born Edith Holländer, was the daughter of a wealthy manufacturing family and in 1934 Otto and family moved to Amsterdam where he bought a spice business, Opekta, which manufactured pectin, a form of gelatine used in the making of household jellies.

In May 1940, after the Germans occupied Amsterdam, Otto remained in the city where his company did business with the German Wehrmacht, whilst his mother and brother moved to Switzerland to escape the German occupation.
 
From 1939 to 1944, Otto sold pectin to the German army to be used as a food preservative, an anti-infectant balm for wounds, a thickener for increasing blood volume in blood transfusions and also as an emulsifier of petroleum to be used in the manufacture of fire bombs and flame-throwers.
 
However, by supplying the Wehrmacht, Otto Frank became, in the eyes of many of his Dutch friends and neighbours, a Nazi collaborator.
 
None of this aspect of the official story of course is ever mentioned or even alluded to.

On the 6th July 1942, Otto moved the entire Frank family along with two family friends into the so-called 'secret annex'.
 
The annex was within a three storey townhouse that shared a garden park with fifty other apartments facing inwards to form an approximate square, but was not visible from the street.
 
Whilst allegedly still in hiding, Otto Frank continued to manage his business, venturing downstairs to his office at night and at weekends.
 
Anne and the others would also periodically go to Otto's office and listen to radio broadcasts from England.