Editor’s Note:

I’ve taken this valuable information from a very brave, unnamed young man at http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ .   Pay him a visit.

After reviewing the video’s left online and his few valuable posts, I find the testimony credible and extremely well researched.  To tell you the truth, I never thought to deny the veracity of the holocaust fables until now. Truth is, many Jews, somewhere between 700,000 to 3,000,000 in fact did perish during the war. The 6,000,000 figure was a guestimate given during a congresional investigation before anyone had done any hard fact finding.  It has stuck ever since and few have challenged it.

Far greater numbers of different ethnic and religious persuasions also perished, and most of the dead bodies and emaciated figures shown in WWII footage became so, not because of German mistreatment but because Allied bombing had disrupted water and supply lines, which then led to disease and starvation towards the end of the war.

The makers of the films were Hollywood Jews and Psyop Jews attached to the US Army who later led mainstream news, movies and publications all across America. In addition, the fact that Jewish Wall Street bankers and Skull & Bones Initiates like grand-papa Bush financed all sides of the war and even the instruments of death that killed their fellow Jews is hardly discussed in any academic or political venue because to do so equates to career suicide.

With this being said, it’s time for those who care about truth to look at the facts rather than the emotional propaganda and outright lies that surround this inflated myth and protect Israeli fascism, genocide, and the Zionist arrogance that engenders the NWO government of Al’Dajhal.  – oz

_________________________

Interview given by Professor Robert Faurisson to the Algerian Arabic-language daily Echorouk (Dawn) on January 17, 2009. The interviewer is Mourad Ouabass.

Who are you, Robert Faurisson?

I’m about to turn 80 years of age. I was born near London in 1929 to a French father and a Scottish mother. I’m both a British subject and a French citizen. I’ve been a university professor. I taught at the Sorbonne and at a university in Lyon. I earned the “agrégation des lettres” (a degree obtained after the highest competitive examination) in modern and classical languages and literature (French, Latin, Greek) and hold a doctorate in literature and the social sciences (which encompass history). My two specialities have been modern and contemporary French literature and the appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media). I have taken a special interest in Second World War propaganda.

Can you briefly inform Algerian readers of your research work, the aim of which has been to revise the history of what today is called the Holocaust of the Jews?

At the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), a court made up of the victors of the recent war accused a vanquished Germany of the following: 1) of having ordered and planned the physical extermination of the Jews of Europe. 2) of having, to that purpose, designed, built and used weapons of mass destruction called, particularly, gas chambers. 3) of having, essentially with those weapons but by other means as well, caused the death of six million Jews.

How have you revised those accusations?

To back up that triple accusation, repeated for the past sixty years and more by all the big Western media, no evidence capable of withstanding serious examination has ever been produced. I’ve therefore come to the following conclusion: The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people “but not their leaders” and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

What effects have there been of your publishing the findings from your historical research, which conflict with the generally held belief in what is called the Holocaust?   

My life became hell from the day in July 1974 when I was denounced by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth. From 1974 to today I have suffered ten physical assaults, I’ve had countless court cases and convictions and have ended up being deprived of the right to teach at university. In France, in order to silence the revisionists that we are, the Jewish lobby got a special law passed, the Fabius-Gayssot Act of July 13, 1990, modelled on an Israeli law of July 1986. Laurent Fabius is a Socialist member of parliament, extremely rich and a Jew, whilst Jean-Claude Gayssot is a Communist MP. The Fabius-Gayssot Act provides for up to a years imprisonment, a fine of 45,000 and still other sanctions for those who challenge the alleged Holocaust . In nearly all the Western world, with or without any special law, revisionism is severely punished. A certain number of my revisionist colleagues or friends have been or are now in prison, some for long years, especially in Germany and Austria, countries with which no [real] peace treaty has yet been signed following the end of hostilities in 1945 and whose governments remain subject to the will of the victors of the Second World War.

Has the Holocaust become a worldwide taboo?

In the Western world, people have the right to challenge all religions, except the religion of the Holocaust . One may make fun of God, Jesus, Mohamed but not of what Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel and Simone Veil have had to say about the alleged genocide or the alleged gas chambers. Auschwitz has become a holy shrine. Pilgrimages to it are organised. Visitors see the alleged relics of the alleged gassing victims: shoes, eyeglasses, hair, and steel cans that once contained Zyklon B, an insecticide presented as having been the substance used to kill the Jews whereas it was actually used for disinfecting clothing or buildings in camps ravaged by typhus epidemics. We are told that the Germans sought the *final solution* of the Jewish question in Europe and that those words concealed, apparently, their desire to exterminate the Jews. That’s false. There mustn’t be any cheating here. The Germans, in reality, sought a final TERRITORIAL solution of the Jewish question. They wanted to expel the Jews to a territory that would then be their own. Its accurate to say that before the war they thought, for a time, that the territory might be in Palestine but, very quickly, they reckoned that solution would be impossible, and that it must be discarded out of consideration for “the noble and valiant Arab people” I guarantee that those were their words.

What really happened, then?

During the war the Germans, keen to neutralise the Jews, placed a certain number of them in concentration or labour camps to wait out the conflict. They put off the definitive solution till after the war’s end. During the war, and up to the last months thereof, they said to the Allies: You marvel at the Jews, do you? Take them, then. We’re ready to send you as many European Jews as you want but on one express condition: that they remain in Britain until the end of the war; on no pretence must they go to Palestine; the Palestinian people have already suffered so much at the hands of Jews that it would be an “indecency” (sic) to add to their martyrdom .

With that you prompt me to ask you your opinion on the massacre now going on in Gaza.

Today, more than ever, the Palestinian people are enduring an appalling plight. The Israeli army, after having inflicted on them Operation Grapes of Wrath , then Operation Jenin Defensive Shield followed by Operation Rainbow and Operation Day of Repentance, is now inflicting Operation Cast Lead on them. In vain! In vain for, in my view, the State of Israel will not live even as long as the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem did, that is, 89 years. Most of the Jews there will quit those lands in the same panic as the French colonists quitting Algiers in 1962 or the American army abandoning Saigon in 1975. Palestine will become once more a free country where Moslems, Christians, Jews and others will be able to live together. At least that’s the wish I myself hold, I who for 34 years have been treated in France like a sort of Palestinian. I said this on December 11th and 12th, 2006, during the conference on the Holocaust organised in Tehran under the aegis of President Ahmadinejad: we all have the means to help in the liberation of Palestine. These means consist in making known to the whole world the findings of revisionist research. All credibility must be taken away from the alleged Holocaust , which has become the number one weapon of Zionism and the State of Israel; this lie is the sword and shield of that State. It would be absurd to try to defend against the Israeli’s military armament whilst sparing their number one worldwide propaganda weapon.

I’ve recently learned that still another court case against you looms because of your persistence in challenging, as is forbidden in France, the reality of the Jewish Holocaust. When will your troubles in the law-courts ever end? After all, you’re about to reach the age of 80.

I’ll tell you now that at my next trial, of which I don’t yet know the date, I shall make the following declaration to the three judges in the 17th chamber of the Paris criminal court (2 and 4 Boulevard du Palais, 75001 Paris): I shall declare to the judges the following: “Whoever allows himself to claim that the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews are a historical reality is, whether he likes it or not, giving support to a horrid lie that has become the number one war propaganda weapon of the State of Israel, a colonialist, racist and imperialist State. Let whoever has the nerve to support the Holocaust myth look at his hands! His hands are red with the blood of Palestinian children!”

____________________

______________________

Testimony From Herr Konrad Morgen A wrench in the works of the Holocaust Myth

I used to have all 4 hours of my video “One Third of the Holocaust” on Youtube.com, but then holocaust denial censorship finally kicked in and all episodes were removed.(1) Even episodes with titles as milk toast as “Reader’s Digest” were deleted, where I look at a 1943 issue of that magazine. It’s interesting to note that videos which claim 9-11 was an inside job orchestrated by George W. Bush, are not videos that get deleted.(2) In other words, on Youtube it’s o.k to say that a president of the United States deliberately killed thousands in the World Trade Center (I don’t believe that theory) but it’s not o.k. to say that Jews did not die in gas chambers in East Europe 60 years ago. Strange isn’t it?

But before my videos got deleted, I noticed a recurring response from the Youtube community: How could I be denying the holocaust when millions of people saw it happen? Were they hallucinating? Here’s the answer: According to standard holocaust history, there weren’t even hundreds of witnesses who saw it happen. There’s a difference between seeing Jews leave on trains and seeing them killed. Holocaust believers and holocaust deniers both believe Jews were sent to camps and lots of people saw that. But deniers believe those camps were not death camps. They believe they were labor camps. Germany was kicking Jews out of Europe and temporarily putting them into camps in the East.(3)Thus the photos of Jews waiting at train stations; and the photos of Jews inside trains, those are real. They fit with what deniers believe.

So the issue is not about Jews leaving on trains or being in camps, it’s about what happened in the camps, and that hinges on what was seen and known by camp staff and by inmates. But because the alleged death part of the camp was supposedly secret (at Auschwitz for instance) not every inmate or guard saw it. We thus don’t have tens of thousands of witnesses as so many people think. We are narrowing it down to a select group of camp staff and inmates forced to work in the alleged killing section of a camp. The alleged victims can’t be witnesses because they’re dead. So the number of first-hand witnesses to the holocaust (who made statements after the war) if I had to make a rough guess, is about 50 inmates and 100 camp staff. The small numbers are confirmed by the holocaust research literature where the primary sources which various scholars use, are a fairly small group of people. It’s not a situation of picking a witness randomly out of a hat because there’s so many to choose from, which is what so many people on youtube thought.(4)

But if members of the camp staff were close enough to see something, then they were also close enough to be accused of being involved. Those 100 or so camp personnel would be the only ones in the world to know first-hand that a giant lie was being put upon the German people. Here’s what happened to those administrators and guards: Most were executed or given life sentences in court cases run by the Americans, British, Polish, and Soviets. These cases often had Jewish witnesses, most were former camp inmates, offering obviously fraudulent testimony with their motivation being revenge.(5) When the German and Ukrainian camp staff fell through the gallows floor, their first-hand knowledge of the camps died with them.(6) And the ones sent to prison weren’t exactly going to have a forum to express their views that the holocaust was a myth. I, an American, couldn’t even do that on Youtube 60 years later!

But there was one German SS officer, with inside knowledge of concentration camps, who couldn’t be accused of taking part in the killing: Georg Konrad Morgen. His situation was unique: he was an SS Judge who investigated the camps for wrongful conduct and had himself charged leaders of concentration camps with murder. He’d imprisoned and charged the Chief of Police at Auschwitz, Maximillian Grabner, with murder. He’d charged the camp commander of Buchenwald with murder and then sentenced him to death. Like the lyrics to the song “Rollercoaster” by the Ohio Players, your response might be, “Say what!?”

Short bio on Konrad Morgen:
Having the dual role of both investigator and judge, Morgen prosecuted SS camp administrators and guards as head of an internal SS apparatus against corruption. (The SS ran the camps.) Of particular note is what he did in the Buchenwald camp. Four people were arrested, including the former camp commander’s wife, Ilse Koch. After a lengthy 8 month investigation of the camp, where rumours and allegations were looked into, and inmates were interviewed; it was determined that 3-4 prisoners had been killed some years earlier.(7) For that Morgen sentenced the former commander of Buchenwald, Karl Koch (along with his deputy) to death, and Karl Koch’s wife, Ilse, was acquitted on a charge of embezzlement. Morgen also investigated the charge against her levelled by the inmates of making items out of human skin. That charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence. That allegation would later become notorious around the world when the allied Psychological Warfare Department would fabricate a story about it.8 But before that happened, Morgen had interviewed the prisoners at Buchenwald, but couldn’t prove their stories about Ilse making tattooed lamp shades and thus dismissed the charge.

In short, Morgen couldn’t be charged with murder after the war by the allies, because he himself charged camp commanders with murder. That made him a threat to those promoting the holocaust myth, because Morgen knew what was going on in the camps, but couldn’t be accused of taking part.

No one disputes Morgen’s extensive wartime prosecutions. He described them in his own words at the Nuremberg Trial:

“I investigated about 800 cases, that is, about 800 documents, and one document would affect several cases. About 200 were tried during my activity. Five concentration camp commanders were arrested by me personally. Two were shot after being tried.”(9)

And his career also had other Allied brownie points: In 1936, he put out a book called War Propaganda and the Prevention of Warwhich was against the militarization of Germany. True Morgen was a member of the SS, but even that couldn’t be used against him. At Nuremberg he explained,

“I was drafted compulsorily into the General SS. In 1933, I belonged to the Reich Board for Youth Training, whose, students’ group was completely incorporated into the General SS.”(10)

It’s hard to reconcile Morgen’s actions with the standard holocaust story. Think of the movie Schindler’s List: the camp commander wakes up in the morning and shoots Jews for fun. In between yawning and stretching from a good night’s sleep he cocks his rifle for another shot. That description melds with most holocaust survivors’ descriptions of camp guards. The camp commander portrayed in the movie Schindler’s List is Amon Goeth and though the movie portrayal is largely false, there is a kernel of truth: Goeth was scheduled to go before an SS tribunal headed by none other than Konrad Morgen and charged with theft of Jewish property, but the end of the war prevented the tribunal from taking place. In other words, there were isolated cases of the SS acting acting cruel, but it couldn’t have been that widespread and the SS prosecuted for it. Even the guy portrayed in Schindler’s List was scheduled to go before Morgen!

What Morgen’s wartime job tells us is that most “survivors” who report a carnival of death mayhem in the camps are simply lying. Their accounts of camp guards shooting Jews for fun anytime they want can’t be true. Contrast with more details of Konrad Morgen’s Buchenwald investigation: he moved to the Buchenwald area for 8 months in the middle of the war in 1943 and 1944, and had to really look, having his staff live in the concentration camp itself. He wasn’t investigating the current camp commander Hermann Pister, but rather the former camp commander who had left 2 years earlier. After some major sleuthing, Morgen found some corruption practices but turned up no murder leads. Finally, near the end of 8 months, and looking at records that were 3-5 years old, Morgen uncovered a stealthy way in which the camp commander, Karl Koch, with the help of the camp doctor had killed around 4 inmates, and Koch was tried and sentenced to death. Would Morgen have really done this if it was typical for your average camp guard to kill a couple Jews for fun before breakfast? (11)

Thus Morgen was a wrench in the works of the holocaust myth, and the best way to deal with him would have been if he had conveniently died, which is what according to him almost happened.

“The Americans almost killed me.”

John Toland was an American historian best known for writing a biography on Adolf Hitler. In 1971 he interviewed Konrad Morgen. The transcript of this interview was later given to the Roosevelt Library at Marist College in New York. When controversial British historian David Irving was doing research on his book called Nuremberg The Last Battle, he went to the library and found the unpublished transcript. Irving wrote the following about Morgen:

“But (Morgen) refused to give perjured testimony at Nuremberg to the effect that Ilse Koch, widow of the commandant hanged by the S.S., had made lampshades out of human skin. That was a legend, he said: totally untrue. ‘The Americans almost killed me,’ recalled Morgen. ‘They threatened three times to turn me over to the Russians or French or Poles.’”12

To mention a minor point: Irving errors as Karl Koch was shot at the Buchenwald camp (not hanged.)

We see related testimony from Morgen when he testified at the Nuremberg Trial on August 8, 1946:

“MORGEN: Yes. At the time of the (German government) collapse I was chief justice in Breslau. When I came to Germany after some time, I heard the CIC was looking for me on account of my knowledge about concentration camps. I reported to the CIC headquarters Mannheim-Seckenheim, 7th Army, and said I was ready to help clear up these crimes. I gave my testimony on the same lines which I attempted to follow today. I went to the CIC headquarters, Oberursel, and after I had given my testimony, I was locked up in a bunker in Dachau, together with the accused people whom I had previously arrested myself.”

Locked up after giving testimony about how he prosecuted concentration camp administrators? Why? Answer: So he couldn’t testify about Buchenwald as a defense witness at Nuremberg.

Morgen’s testimony mentions “CIC headquarters” in the above quote, and in context one would think the CIC was an investigative body connected with the Nuremberg trials. But that’s not the case. The CIC is the Allied Psychological Warfare Department, with it’s post-war name-change, to become the Center for Information Control. It controlled all the information the German people received and it fabricated holocaust atrocity stories which it then fed to the German population via it’s control of the German newspapers, bookstores, movie theaters, etc. Run mainly by the Americans, it’s showcase atrocity propaganda location was Buchenwald which put the CIC on a crash course with Konrad Morgen’s wartime investigation. That’s because Morgen was investigating Buchenwald long before Psyche Warfare arrived there. Psyche Warfare didn’t know about Morgen and his time at Buchenwald when they set up a display table with a supposed human skin lampshade, tattooed skin and shrunken heads, and made much about the “Bitch of Buchenwald” Ilse Koch. Famous director Billy Wilder, an Austrian Jew, even came in to help film Buchenwald and he himself strategized ways to psychologically manipulate the postwar German population. Thus one can see why Konrad Morgen was locked up at Dachau when he went to the CIC headquarters to help “clear up these crimes.”13

I have made a 2-hour video called “Buchenwald” and also a 25 minute video called “Nazi Shrunken Heads.” These videos fill in the story of how Buchenwald was used as a propaganda scam, and thus I won’t go into that in this essay. The next part of this essay looks at how Konrad Morgen collided with the US prosecutor’s presentation at the Nuremberg trial.

Thomas J. Dodd Presents A Shrunken Head At Nuremberg

What was meant to be some atrocity items, planted by Psyche Warfare, to then be filmed for denazification film strips, “blew back” into American media and also as Nuremberg trial evidence.

At the Nuremberg Trial, American prosecutor Thomas J. Dodd wants to give the court an idea of what the camps were like. In front of the courtroom there is a table with something on it, but no one can see what it is because a sheet covers it. Dodd mentions the depravity that went on at the concentration camps and offers an example from Buchenwald. Just then a clerk pulls the sheet off the mystery table to reveal a shrunken human head. It has a powerful effect, particularly since next to it, on a bulletin board, are hanging samples of tattooed human skin. Dodd describes the head and skin by reading from an affidavit taken from an inmate at Buchenwald named Andreas Pfaffenberger:

“There I also saw the shrunken heads of two young Poles who had been hanged for having had relations with German girls. The heads were the size of a fist, and the hair and the marks of the rope were still there.”(14)

Pfaffenberger’s statement also describes the skin. Dodd reads,

” ‘No one knew what the purpose was; but after the tattooed prisoners had been examined, the ones with the best and most artistic specimens were kept in the dispensary and then killed by injections administered by Karl Beigs, a criminal prisoner. The corpses were then turned over to the pathological department where the desired pieces of tattooed skin were detached from the bodies and treated. The finished products were turned over to SS Standartenfuehrer Koch’s wife, who had them fashioned into lamp shades and other ornamental household articles, I myself saw such tattooed skins with various designs and legends on them, such as “Hansel and Gretel,” which one prisoner had on his knee, and designs of ships from prisoners’ chests. This work was done by a prisoner named Wernerbach.”(15)

After this presentation Dodd left to go back to the United States and have Christmas with his family, and the trial went on without him. The next day a lawyer for the Germans has an issue about Dodd’s presentation. The part of the quote in bold is my emphasis:

DR. KAUFFMAN: “May I bring up two points with regard to yesterday’s and in future presentation of evidence on the section dealing with Crimes against Humanity.

Firstly, I request that the affidavit of the witness Pfaffenberger, which was submitted yesterday, be stricken from the record. The witness himself will later have to be cross-examined, since his affidavit is fragmentary in most important points. In many cases it does not appear whether his statements are based on personal observations or on hearsay, and therefore it is too easy to draw false conclusions. The witness did not mention that the Camp Commander Koch and his inhuman wife were condemned to death by an SS court, among other things, on account of these occurrences. It is, of course, possible to ascertain the complete facts by questioning the witness at a later stage of the Trial. But until then the Tribunal and all members of the Prosecution and the Defense must be continually influenced by such dreadful testimony.

The contents of this testimony are so horrifying and so degrading to the human mind that one would like to avert one’s eyes and ears. In the meantime such statements make their way into the press of the whole world, and civilization is justly indignant. The consequences of such prejudiced statements are incalculable. The Prosecutor clearly recognized the significance of this testimony and exposed the sorry documents in yesterday’s proceedings. If weeks or months pass before such testimony is rectified, its initial effect can never be wholly eliminated; but truth suffers and justice is endangered thereby.

Dr. Kaufmann, quoted above, made the mistake of saying Ilse Koch had been condemned to death by an SS court. In fact she was acquitted on embezzlement, and the charges dropped on the tattooed skin allegation due to lack of evidence. But the main point to notice from the above, is that Morgen’s wartime prosecution is beginning to enter the awareness of people in the courtroom.

Another German lawyer then chimes in and states that maybe the Prosecution knew about wartime Buchenwald prosecutions, but deliberately concealed that from the court:

DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for the Defendant Bormann): May it please the Tribunal, I should like to bring up one other point, which appears to me important, because it was apparently the real source of this discussion. According to our legal system it is the duty of the Prosecution to produce not only the incriminating evidence but also evidence for the defense of the accused. I can well understand that my colleague, Dr. Kauffmann, protests the Prosecution’s failure to mention a very important point, namely, that the German authorities indicted this inhuman SS leader and his wife and condemned them to death. It is highly probable that the Prosecution knew of this and that these horrible exhibits of perverted human nature, which were presented to us, were found in the files of the German Court.
I believe the whole discussion would not have arisen if the Prosecution had mentioned, as part of the ghastly evidence, the fact that the German authorities themselves passed judgment on this inhuman man and condemned him to death.(16)

Thomas J. Dodd came back after almost a month absence and on 1/14/46 he responded to the accusation. He told the judges the following:

MR. DODD: “I have one other matter that I should like to take up very briefly before the Tribunal this morning. It is concerned with a matter that arose after I had left the courtroom to return to the United States.

On the 13th of December we offered in evidence Document Number 3421-PS, and Exhibit Numbers USA-252 and 254. They were, respectively, the Court will recall, sections of human skin taken from human bodies and preserved; and a human head, the head of a human being, which had been preserved. On the 14th day of December, according to the Record, counsel for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner addressed the Tribunal and complained that the affidavit, which was offered, of one Pfaffenberger, failed to state that the camp commandant at Buchenwald, one Koch, along with his wife, was condemned to death for having committed precisely these atrocities, this business of tanning the skin and preserving the head. And in the course of the discussion before the Tribunal the Record reveals that counsel for the Defendant Bormann, in addressing the Tribunal, stated that it was highly probable that the Prosecution knew that the German authorities had objected to this camp commandant Koch and, in fact, knew that he had been tried and sentenced for doing precisely these things. And there was some intimation, we feel, that the Prosecution, having this knowledge, withheld it from the Tribunal. Now, I wish to say that we had no knowledge at all about this man Koch at the time that we offered the proof; didn’t know anything about him except that he had been the commandant, according to the affidavit. But, subsequent to this objection we had an investigation made, and we have found that he was tried in 1944, indeed, by an SS court, but not for having tanned human skin nor having preserved a human head but for having embezzled some money, for what – as the judge who tried him tells us – was a charge of general corruption and for having murdered someone with whom he had some personal difficulties. Indeed, the judge, a Dr. Morgen, tells us that he saw the tattooed human skin and he saw a human head in Commandant Koch’s office and that he saw a lampshade there made out of human skin. But there were no charges at the time that he was tried for having done these things.” (17)

A flawed lie for Thomas J. Dodd. Afterall, why would you bother futzing with a charge of embezzlement, if you’d seen a human head in that person’s office?

So Morgen’s name enters the court transcript, but as part of a lie Dodd is telling in order to save the integrity of his shrunken head presentation. Morgen would have been a devastating defense witness at that point. And as we’ve just read, one German lawyer would like to question the Buchenwald witness Andreas Pfaffenberger. So both Pfaffenberger and Morgen on the witness stand are a threat to Thomas J. Dodd’s presentation. Pfaffenberger won’t testify under mysterious circumstances, that likely involved strong-arming and/or intimidation by Dodd’s staff,18 and Morgen won’t be able to testify because he’s secretly locked up at Dachau.19 It begins to make sense why Morgen later told John Toland, “the Americans almost killed me.” Because Morgen wouldn’t agree to say he saw the lamphade and shrunken heads. (Dodd’s obstruction is all the more galling considering he went on to become a U.S Senator.) When Morgen was finally released from Dachau, and could testify, it would be after this part of the trial was over.

Morgen Testifies at Nuremberg
Konrad Morgen was called as a witness by Defense lawyer Horst Pelckmann toward the end of the trial in regard to the criminality of the SS. As Morgen was finally in the courtroom waiting for his turn to take the witness stand, he could have looked over at a depressed and dejected group of men: The former leaders of Germany, sitting for 10 months in this victors’ trial. Morgen was one of the few people who knew, first-hand, that a giant lie (the holocaust) was being put on them. His testimony however, wasn’t going to be about them. He was being called as a witness in defense of the SS, meaning not those defendants in the courtroom who were part of the SS, but the SS as an organization in Germany. Let me explain:

At the Nuremberg Trial, besides trying individuals, the court tried organizations. Thus the SS was charged just like an individual was charged. For instance Rudolf Hess had a lawyer and was charged with war crimes; and similarly the SS had a lawyer and was charged with war crimes. Morgen was called to testify by Horst Pelckmann, the lawyer defending the SS. Morgen, himself a lawyer, would have understood that the Nuremberg Court, in declaring the SS to be a criminal organization, had the potential to effect thousands of wartime SS members. This was due to “Control Council Law #10.” The Control Council was the first allied governing body of postwar Germany. Skipping the legalese, Law #10 stated,

“Any person…is deemed to have committed a crime…if he was…a member of any organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime.” 20

In other words, if the Nuremberg Court found the SS to be a criminal organization, then Control Council Law #10 could be referred to, and any person in that organization could be deemed to have committed a crime. It would be a melding of what the Nuremberg Court declared and the Control Council declared.

Control Council Law #10 then went on to describe punishment:

3. Any persons found guilty of any of the crimes above mentioned may upon conviction be punished as shall be determined by the tribunal to be just. Such punishment may consist of one or more of the following:
(a) Death.
(b) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without hard labor.
(c) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labour, in lieu thereof.
(d) Forfeiture of property.
(e) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired.
(f) Deprivation of some or all civil rights.

Theoretically at that moment in postwar Germany, a member of the SS could be sentenced to death for being in the SS, if the SS was declared to be criminal by the Nuremberg Court. Later, in the Nuremberg Judgment, that point was confirmed, but a number of limitations were also placed. Indeed the Nuremberg Court judges intended their declarations regarding the SS to work in conjunction with Control Council Law #10. 21 At the time of Morgen’s testimony though (before the judgment of course) the implications of the SS being found to be a criminal organization looked grim for the future of Germans who had been in the SS during the war.

So Morgen was called as a witness to try to persuade the judges to not declare the SS to be a criminal organization. Morgen couldn’t deny the holocaust. If he did that, he wouldn’t have been called as a witness in the first place. It would have been too much. It would have hurt the S.S. case. Commenting on what defendants in holocaust trials had to do, Robert Faurisson states,

“That ought to remind us of the unfortunates who in the Middle Ages were accused of having met the devil on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, in such and such a place. They would have been able to deny it fiercely. They would have been able to go so far as to say: “You know very well that I could not have met with the devil for one excellent reason, which is that the devil does not exist.” The unfortunates would have condemned themselves by such responses. They had only one way out: to play the game of their accusers, to admit that the devil was there without doubt, but … at the top of the hill, while they themselves, located below, heard the horrible noise (sobs, groans, cries, racket) made by the victims of the devil. (22)

That’s exactly what Morgen did. He created an alternate version of the holocaust myth where the chain of command bypassed the SS, so that the SS would not be seen as in the loop. 23 His strategy was to say that the killing happened but the SS was not greatly involved. Take note while reading the following, that Morgen’s non-SS version of the holocaust is certainly a nutty story:

Morgen tells the court how he first began to learn about the extermination program: By hearing about a surprisingly lavish wedding in of all places a Jewish Labor camp near Lublin. He testifies:

“1,100 guests participated in this Jewish wedding. What followed was described as quite extraordinary owing to the gluttonous consumption of food and alcoholic drinks. Among these Jews were members of the camp guard, that is to say some SS men, who joined in this revelry.” (24)

Thus begins Morgen’s bizarre alternate story, begging such questions as: How could Jews in a concentration camp, who sleep on bunk beds, put on a wedding with so many guests? How could they afford the food and drinks? And why in the world would German SS men be invited to take part in the celebration?

Something seems fishy to investigator Morgen. Perhaps there’s some corruption going on in Lublin. So he travels there and talks to an administrator, Christian Wirth, and right away Wirth confesses to an enormous secret killing operation. Morgen then describes how Wirth recruited Jews to kill other Jews.

“Wirth staged an enormous deceptive maneuver. He first selected Jews who would, he thought, serve as column leaders, then these Jews brought along other Jews, who worked under them. With that smaller or medium-sized detachment of Jews, he began to build up the extermination camps. He extended this staff of Jews, and with these Jews Wirth himself carried out the extermination of the Jews.

Wirth said that he had four extermination camps and that about 5,000 Jews were working at the extermination of Jews and the seizure of Jewish property. In order to win Jews for this business of extermination and plundering of their brethren of race and creed, Wirth gave them every freedom and, so to speak, gave them a financial interest in the spoliation of the dead victims. As a result of this attitude, this sumptuous Jewish wedding had come about.”(25)

Thus Morgen creates a non-SS version of the holocaust myth to try to keep the SS from being declared a criminal organization. Because of Morgen’s extensive knowledge of the camp system, he figures-in the deceased Christian Wirth as a major part of the holocaust story. This famous trial, which at the time had been going on for 10 months had never had anyone mention Christian Wirth, but in the subsequent story of the holocaust myth, such as put forth by historians Raul Hilberg and Yitzhak Arad, Wirth figures prominently. That’s because Morgen with his extensive knowledge of the camps, could in some ways fabricate a better holocaust myth than the prosecution could at that time.

Morgen later said the German SS involved at the top, were so few you could count them on your fingers.(26) To recap Morgen’s version of the holocaust: Christian Wirth recruited 5,000 Jews to kill their own people. Hence the suspicious wedding of 1,100 Jews. And the reason everyone is friends with one another at this wedding? They are in on a multi-level scheme of killing other Jews and taking their money. So enthusiastic are they, that they even invite the Germans to celebrate at the wedding with them.

Morgen is filling-in a vacuum because the prosecution was not able to explain the inner workings of the alleged genocide, and Morgen knew enough to be able to fabricate that. This can be seen inThomas J. Dodd’s interruption of Morgen’s testimony below. Dodd, who after 10 months of trial plus additional months of trial preparation, should be one of the most knowledgable people in the world on the holocaust. Yet instead of protesting Morgen’s crazy story, he tells the judges he has no problem with it. While Morgen is testifying, Dodd interjects,

MR. DODD: “Mr. President, we do not have the first responsibility, of course, for this defense. But I have discussed with Mr. Elwyn Jones my objection, he has it in here, and he finds no fault with it. It seems to me that what we are hearing here is a lecture on the Prosecution’s case, and I do not see how it in any sense can be said to be a defense of the SS.” (27)

When Morgen gets to the Auschwitz part of the story, he mentions that the killing happened in a section called Monowitz. Some of the Germans on trial, in their mix of depression, daydreaming, worrrying, and thinking, might have been actually listening to the proceedings. If they didn’t already know that Morgen was creating a fake story, they might have pricked up their ears on hearing the word “Monowitz” since some of them would have known that Monowitz was a giant industrial section of Auschwitz that was run by private companies. The killing couldn’t have happened there. Morgen adds a description:

“The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.”(28)

Morgen then describes a secret killing operation at Monowitz, done mainly by the Jews themselves, with the external perimeter guarded by non-Germans from the Baltic countries dressed up as SS officers. The non-Germans are impersonating SS officers so that it appears they are doing basic SS guard duty and not keeping people out of an area where Jews are helping to kill Jews. In other words the actual SS isn’t even involved in guarding the perimeter of the killing site. (29) Standard holocaust history today involves no such account.

In short, the irony is that Morgen knows the truth, but is telling a lie. The lie is an alternate version of the holocaust myth that exculpates the SS. The truth that there was no secret gassing operation wouldn’t be acceptable at the trial.(30)

Morgen’s testimony was to no avail. The SS was declared to be a Criminal Organization, declared guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. Largely based on the holocaust myth.31 The Court judgment stipulated certain limitations such as that a local German Denazification Law should supercede it in some West German territories.32 But in East Germany declaring the SS to be criminal was likely a moot point, since thousands of former SS were sent to labor camps where they perished from lack of food, disease, cold, and depression; and were buried in mass graves.33In other words no “legal paving of the way” was needed.

Morgen went on to have a successful law practice in Frankfurt, West Germany. He died in 1982. Unbelievably, holocaust scholars, in a conundrum on how Morgen can fit into the myth, tend to present him as a “righteous gentile.” In the befuddled world of holocaust scholarship where cherrypicking facts that fit, is the order of the day, scholars use Morgen as a source. Raul Hilberg, for instance, in his book The Destruction of the European Jews uses Morgen as a source multiple times.34 Historians of course discard Morgen’s “complicit Jews having a lavish wedding” part.

CONCLUSION
Three key points to walk away with from this essay are:

1) If the holocaust had really happened, there wouldn’t have been a person like Konrad Morgen investigating camp staff like he did.

2) At the Nuremberg Trial, the truth that the holocaust was a myth wasn’t acceptable, and thus Morgen crafted a lie when he was called as a witness.

3) Most people who knew what Morgen knew, were camp guards or administrators and were either executed or sent to prison after the war, but Morgen’s unique job prevented that from happening.

Thus Konrad Morgen stands out as an unusual and problematic figure for the holocaust myth.

Originally posted in July 2007. Reworked in January 2010.
Written by Denierbud

N O T E S

1) I had 30 chapters of my 4 hr. 15 min. video One Third of The Holocaust, and my 25 minute video Nazi Shrunken Heads. All were removed. Here is a “screen capture” of one of the messages:
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/inappropriate_content_2.jpg

also see:
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/inappropriate_content.jpg

2) See the video Loose Change on Youtube. Notice the view count is in the millions.

3) Prior to this, there was a plan to create a Jewish homeland in Madagascar. It was called the “Madagascar Plan.” But with the war this wasn’t possible. It’s important to note that a lot of Jews also wanted a homeland somewhere. Israel was the ideal place but Uganda and Madagascar had also been possibilities. In other words, besides the Nazis who wanted the Jews out of Germany, there was a huge movement called Zionism which had the aim of Jews leaving Europe as well.

4) Take Philip Mueller and his book “Eyewitness Auschwitz.” He claimed to be a sonderkommando. That is an inmate who worked in the death part of the camp. He is featured in Claude Lanzmann’s movie Shoah, and he is used as a source in Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews. Both Hilberg and Lanzmann use the same person because there aren’t that many people to use as a source.

5) Probably the last case, the John Demjanjuk Sobibor trial in Germany, going on at the time of my reworking this essay in late 2009, early 2010, has as it’s biggest witness Thomas “Toivi” Blatt who is an obvious fraud. See my exposé of him here.

6) In fact no one could say anything 10-20 years later. There was no statute of limitations on being arrested and put on trial. 20 years later, all kinds of holocaust trials occurred and more administrators, and camp staff were put in jail or executed.

7) Karl Koch had left for another camp in 1941. Ilse Koch had stayed at Buchenwald. In 1943 Morgen arrested them as well as the deputy commander Hermann Florstedt, (who had also since moved to another camp) and a Buchenwald doctor Waldemar Hoven. All for stuff that had happened from 1937-41. In other words, Morgen was there in 1943 investigating things that happened in 1937-41 involving camp administrators, some of whom weren’t even there anymore. During his investigation, the head of the camp was Hermann Pister.

8) See the video “Buchenwald” found at holocaustdenialvideos.com

9) Morgen’s testimony at Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals, page 488 (website shows page numbers):
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

10) Nuremberg Trial, pages 486 and 487
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

11) The camp commander Karl Koch and the deputy commander, Herman Florstedt were both executed for being involved in secretly and illegally killing 3-4 inmates. But this is not to say that executions did not happen at Buchenwald. The camp briefly had “legal” executions of Soviet Political Commissars. Most of whom were Jewish, but executed for being commissars, not Jews. This is often used by historians to falsely state that Buchenwald was a concentration camp that killed Jews as part of the holocaust. Seeepisode 20, called “Buchenwald Executions” of the video “Buchenwald.”

12) Nuremberg The Last Battle by David Irving. Focal Point Publications, 1996, page 223. This book is a free download.

13) Nuremberg Trial, page 511
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-08-46.asp

The CIC headquarters was right next to Oberursel which Morgen mentioned as the place he was sent to. Buchenwald inmate Eugen Kogon was also sent to Oberursel, and given a house by Psychological Warfare Lieutenant Albert G. Rosenberg, so that he could write “Der SS Staat.” The SS State, which is a seminal book on Nazis and the concentration camps. The contrast of Morgen and Kogon both there, and Kogon getting a house in which to write his book, while Morgen was sent to Dachau, elucidates the hidden agenda of the CIC.

In June 2007 I telephoned the above-mentioned Albert G. Rosenberg, who had been at Buchenwald, and was no doubt the person verbally berating the German residents of Weimer on their forced tour of Buchenwald. Rosenberg was 89 years old when we spoke. I’ve discussed that phone conversation in another place.

Regarding Billy Wilder strategizing ways to psychologically manipulate the postwar German population. See “The Wilder Memorandum” in the book The Americanization of Germany by Ralph Willett, page 40. Published in 1989 by Routledge. See my archived copy of the Wilder Memorandum here.

14) Nuremberg Trial transcript, page 515. The website includes page numbers:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-13-45.asp
For internet video footage of this moment in the courtroom, click the following link to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website, and then select the first video entitled “Concentration Camp Evidence presented at Nuremberg Trial.”

Also see topic #1 on the webpage for the video “Nazi Shrunken Heads.”

15) Nuremberg Trial transcript, page 514:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-13-45.asp

16) Nuremberg Trial Transcript. Beginning of the day’s proceedings.

Bergold starts on the bottom of page 547.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-14-45.asp

17) Nuremberg Trial transcript, page 199: (website shows page numbers)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-14-46.asp

18) See my video Buchenwald, episodes 16 and 17.

19) Nuremberg Trial transcript. Pelckmann explaining why Morgen couldn’t testify earlier, end of page 481 and page 482.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

20) Nuremberg Trials Final Report Appendix D:
Control Council Law No. 10

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imt10.asp

I’ve shortened Article II, number 2, so that the point is understandable.

21) Nuremberg Trial Transcript, 9/30/46, page 499, 500:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp

The Control Council Law #10 was issued December 20, 1945. The Nuremberg Judgment which made it clearer, came out 9 months later. Morgen testified in between.

22) Confessions of SS Men who were at Auschwitz by Robert Faurisson. Journal of Historical Review. Summer 1981. Found online at:
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p103_Faurisson.html

23) An assertion put forth by Arthur Butz in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 1976, page 217.

24) Nuremberg Trial Transcript. Page 491
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

25) Nuremberg Trial transcript page 492 (website shows page numbers)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

26) Nuremberg Trial transcript page 494 (website shows page numbers)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp

27) Nuremberg Trial transcript page 496 (website shows page numbers)
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-08-46.asp

28) Nuremberg Trial transcript. Page 503
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-08-46.asp

29) Nuremberg Trial transcript. Page 503
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-08-46.asp

30) Arthur Butz in his 1976 book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century comments on Morgen’s strategy and his “better ideas” for the myth and writes:

“the inventors were so concerned with getting some real fact into their story that it did not occur to them that there are some real facts that a good hoax is better off without.”

See The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, page 217-218.

31) See this section of the Judgment beginning at the end of page 514 through page 516.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp

32) Nuremberg Trial Transcript, 9/30/46, page 499, 500:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/09-30-46.asp

33) Buchenwald Memorial Website. Information on Soviet Special Camp #2

http://www.buchenwald.de/media_en/en_ct_ges_hist1.html

“The conditions of life in the Soviet special camps were nothing short of disastrous in certain phases, accounting for the high mortality rate. According to official Soviet documents, 7,113 persons died in Special Camp 2 Buchenwald. They were buried in mass graves, their families receiving no notification of death.”

The above link is a frame in this page, in the “history” section:

http://www.buchenwald.de/index_cten.html

34) Revered holocaust historian Raul Hilberg frequently uses Morgen as a source, and the structure of how Morgen described the killing operations at Nuremberg became essentially the inner workings of the “Operation Reinhardt” part of the standard holocaust story.

See Hilberg using Morgen’s affidavits as a valid holocaust source in the footnotes on pages 872, 873, 892, 896 of:
The Destruction of the European Jews
Holmes and Meier, 1985