Thursday, November 12, 2026

Rigging Holocaust Testimony

 

From David Irving via Carlo Mattogno to Thomas Olson

 

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/rigging-holocaust-testimony/

 

by Germar Rudolf

October 11, 2026

Last updated on October 14, 2026

 

In late June of 1996, I moved to England’s beautiful sunshine coast, taking up residence with my family in Pevensey Bay, right in the middle of 1066 country. That move had been suggested by a number of friends, among them British historian David Irving, who suggested that I finish my PhD studies in the UK. Several weeks later, Irving asked me whether I would join him in his van delivering his latest book Nuremberg: The Last Battle. He had to drop off a pallet of it at Gardners, which had their main warehouse in Eastbourne, a few miles west of where I lived, and then deliver another couple of pallets headed for the U.S. at a London freight forwarder.

 

It honestly baffled me why he would ask me to accompany him, but since I had nothing better to do at that time, I agreed. During the ride from Eastbourne to London, Irving revealed the reason why he wanted me to join him. He told me that he was preparing a libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt and her British publishing company Penguin book. Irving didn’t like the way Lipstadt had maligned him in her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust. He told me that most media outlets he had threatened with lawsuits in the past had agreed on settling out of court, so he hoped the same here. In case Lipstadt and Penguin wouldn’t settle, he planned on presenting evidence demonstrating how writings such as those by Lipstadt lead to censorship, stigmatization, ostracism, persecution and even prosecution of scholars voicing responsible but dissident views on the Holocaust. He wanted me to play a crucial role in this as a young fledgling scholar testifying, and supporting with documents, how my livelihood had been turned upside down as a result of my forensic research into Auschwitz, resulting in a landslide of persecution. I have described that history in my book Hunting Germar Rudolf. Irving moreover assured me that my research results would not be part of my possible testimony, as he wanted to keep the Holocaust itself outside the courtroom. He wanted to focus only on the devastation which writings such as Lipstadt’s have on people. I assured Irving that I would be happy to assist.

 

History took a completely different turn, though. Lipstadt and Penguin Books decided to put the Holocaust itself centerstage during that trial. Irving was utterly unprepared for this. First of all, because he had not expected to have to address this topic at all in court. But more importantly, because he was not an expert on that topic. In fact, he had never written a single article about it, let alone a book, and had done no research in that field either. In fact, when I visited him in late spring of 1996 in his London abode, he showed me a copy of my book Grundlagen zur Zeitgschichte (English: Dissecting the Holocaust, now in its 4th edition) standing in one of his bookshelves. However, as he was quick to point out, he prided himself on not having read it. “I never read other people’s books. I only consult primary sources,” he told me. But that, he hadn’t done either when it comes to the Holocaust.

 

As was to be expected, the resulting trial was a disaster for him, as he didn’t know what he was doing. He rejected offers by us revisionists to join him in the courtroom in order to organize his defense. He merely wanted me to write an expert report critically analyzing and “expert report” submitted by Jewish-Dutch historian of architecture Robeert Jan van Pelt on Auschwitz.1] When all this was unfolding in the fall of 1999, the British media were starting a witch hunt against me. Regional TV stations in the south even showed portraits of mine during news reports, claiming that I was part of a “new breed of dangerous Nazis.” Germany was asking for my extradition to throw me into prison for my forensic research. To top it off, in early 2000, Her Majesty’s government answered an inquiry by a Labour member of parliament, saying that “the police have also been informed” of me being in the country. That all threw a few monkey wrenches in my ability to prepare the promised expert report for Irving, especially because I decided in November of 1999 that the ground in the UK was getting too hot for me. I left the country in late November 1999 and flew to the U.S., with the plan to never return to Europe unless they come to their senses and stop the witch hunts. I’m waiting for this to this day…

 

In the end, Irving couldn’t make use of my quickly cobbled-together expert report2] for several reasons. As a consequence, Dr. van Pelt’s narrative ultimately prevailed. Ever since, mainstream media as well as the Holocaust orthodoxy have been crowing that the “evil deniers” have been thoroughly defeated and refuted during that cataclysmic London libel trial. The problem with this claim is that revisionist arguments and the plethora of evidence backing them up have never been presented during that trial. Irving’s ignorance in this field may have been exposed, but that’s as far as it goes.

 

In 2002, van Pelt’s expert report appeared in a revised and expanded edition as a book.3] Both in his 1999 expert report and in his book, van Pelt made ample use of the term “convergence of evidence.” This concept means that different items of evidence of various types, while not conclusive by themselves, still prove a claim beyond reasonable doubt, because they all point to, hence converge in, one and the same conclusion. That term was introduced into this discussion already in 1994 by California-based science historian Michael Shermer, who, in an article published in his periodical Skeptic Magazine, tried to refute revisionist claims about the Holocaust.4] Shermer later expanded on that article by writing an entire book about it,5] although he got a Jewish commissar assigned to his side to make sure Shermer doesn’t get off the orthodox track: Alex Grobman, the Jewish founding editor-in-chief of the Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual. That makes you ponder, “why would that have been necessary?” Well, after his initial 1994 Skeptic article, Shermer had accepted an invitation by the California-based Institute for Historical Review, back then the world’s leading revisionist institution. During the resulting panel discussion on July 22, 1995, Shermer showed professional courtesy to the revisionist scholars and made several concessions toward their position.6] Five years later, the revisionist position had been buttressed by the discovery of many new documents heretofore hidden in Moscow archives. Hence, Jewish pressure groups must have been nervous about Shermer making even more concessions. With Commissar Grobman on his side, however, Shermer backpaddled completely in his 2000 book.

 

Enter Italian Holocaust historian Carlo Mattogno into the fray. That’s like putting the revisionist fox in the orthodox henhouse. He put pen to paper and utterly, devastatingly shredded both Shermer’s7] and van Pelt’s8] delusions about Holocaust evidence presumably converging into their “truth.” Mattogno demonstrated on the one hand that both van Pelt and Shermer misrepresented and/or misinterpreted documents, forcing them to converge into a preordained point, although their actual contents as well as historical and documental context proves the exact opposite. On the other hand, Mattogno shows that, yes, there is a convergence of anecdotal evidence, meaning of witness accounts telling similar stories. However, these tales do not converge into a truth, but demonstrably into falsehoods, clearly showing that these witnesses must have been groomed in one way or another to tell the same lies.

 

Mattogno’s – and in extension the revisionists’ – week point is that he does not provide any evidence for such grooming. In the books on other so-called extermination camps he co-authored with others, Mattogno provides more cases of witness testimonies converging into lies. The most glaring of them is the case of the Sobibór Camp, where early witness statements converge on an absurd tale that was subsequently ditched by the orthodoxy and replaced by a completely different narrative.9] More to the point, early witness claims about the three “Aktion Reinhardt” camps – Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka – are surprisingly divergent either with regard to each other or to what the orthodoxy’s claims to be true. I have laid this out succinctly in the respective chapters of my book Nazi Gas Chambers: The Roots of the Story.10] Again, we have several circumstantially smoking guns, but no direct proof of anyone rigging the anecdotal record.

 

That has now changed. In a paper published  in this issue of Inconvenient History titled “Oskar Strawczynski and the Cross-Pollination of Holocaust Memory,”11] U.S. researcher Thomas Olson takes a deep look into the background of survivor testimony on the Treblinka Camp, which is claimed to have been the deadliest among the so-called pure extermination camps with some 800,000 victims. Olson reveals how survivors of the Treblinka Camp created an association for themselves, which cooperated closely with the Central Jewish Historical Commission. That commission spearheaded Jewish efforts to document what presumably happened during the war, and to create “evidence” for criminal investigations. As such, they all cooperated closely with Poland’s Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi Crimes in Poland, whose Investigative Judge Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz ultimately wrote the Treblinka narrative as it is told to this day.

 

More to the point, Olson documents that these Treblinka survivors met regularly with the main purpose of recording their testimonies. However, this was not done by having every witness submit their own recollections independently. Instead, as documents about the applied methods state explicitly, witnesses were encouraged to meet, to recount what they “knew” to others, and to read written accounts to them in order to “jog” their memory. Participants could provide “additional information, corrections” to what a witness knew off hand. The resulting written testimonies were often the work of several authors, recognizable by some of these accounts being written by several distinct handwritings.

 

With regard to witness testimony, the argument of “converging evidence” makes sense only if the witness accounts are independent from each other, all pointing in the same direction. If they have been polluted by outside information, especially by what other witnesses claim to know – a process Irving once called “cross-pollination” – then these accounts are no longer independent, and cannot be used to argue that they reinforce each other’s reliability or credibility. In fact, the intentional and systematic cross-pollination of witness testimony committed by those Jewish survivor organizations in Poland completely pulls the rug out from underneath the “convergence” approach. If anything, it proves the opposite.

 

I am looking forward to more deep-diving archival studies by Thomas Olson. We are proud to have him on our team of fiercely independent historical researchers.

 

Check here for all of Olson’s papers published so far.


Endnotes

 

1. The Pelt Report, 1999; in: www.hdot.org/vanpelt_toc.

 

2. A slightly revised version is posted online at www.vho.org//GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html.

 

3. The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial. Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis, 2002.

 

4. Michael Shermer, “Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the Restoration of History,” Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 2, No. 4 (June 1994), pp. 32-57, especially his chapter on “A Convergence of Evidence: The Key to Historical Proof,” online at https://www.nizkor.org/a-convergence-of-evidence/.

 

5. Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, Denying History. Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, University of California, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 2000/2002/2009.

 

6. Mark Weber, “Debating the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1996, pp. 23-34; https://codoh.com/library/document/debating-the-undebatable-the-weber-shermer-clash/; this include an almost 2-hour-long video recording of the debate.

 

7. C. Mattogno, “‘Denying Historyֹ? – Denying Evidence!” The Revisionist, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2005, pp. 9-44; https://codoh.com/library/document/denying-history-denying-evidence/; currently as a stand-alone book: idem, Bungled: “Denying History.” How Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman Botched Their Attempt to Refute Those Who Say the Holocaust Never Happened, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2017; https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/bungled-denying-history/.

 

8. C. Mattogno, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 3rd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2019; https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the-real-case-for-auschwitz/.

 

9. Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jürgen Graf, Sobibór: Holocaust Propaganda and Reality, 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2020; https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/sobibor/.

 

10. 3rd ed., Armreg Ltd, London, 2026; https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/nazi-gas-chambers/.

 

11. Inconvenient History, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2026; https://codoh.com/library/document/oskar-strawczynski-cross-pollination-holocaust-memory/.

Monday, November 9, 2026

The 16-th Martyrs of November 9th, 1923

 

At half-past twelve in the afternoon of November 9th, 1923, those whose names are given below fell in front of the Feldherrnhalle and in the forecourt of the former War Ministry in Munich for their loyal faith in the resurrection of their people:

 

Alfarth, Felix, Merchant, born July 5th, 1901

Bauriedl, Andreas, Hatmaker, born May 4th, 1879

Casella, Theodor, Bank Official, born August 8th, 1900

Ehrlich, Wilhelm, Bank Official, born August 19th, 1894

Faust, Martin, Bank Official, born January 27th, 1901

Hechenberger, Anton, Locksmith, born September 28th, 1902

Koerner, Oskar, Merchant, born January 4th, 1875

Kuhn, Karl, Head Waiter, born July 25th, 1897

Laforce, Karl, Student of Engineering, born October 28th, 1904

Neubauer, Kurt, Waiter, born March 27th, 1899

Pape, Claus von, Merchant, born August 16th, 1904

Pfordten, Theodor von der, Councillor to the Superior Provincial Court, born May 14th, 1873

Rickmers, Johann, retired Cavalry Captain, born May 7th, 1881

Scheubner-Richter, Max Erwin von, Dr. of Engineering, born January 9th, 1884

Stransky, Lorenz Ritter von, Engineer, born March 14th, 1899

Wolf, Wilhelm, Merchant, born October 19th, 1898

 

So-called national officials refused to allow the dead heroes a common burial. So I dedicate the first volume of this work to them as a common memorial, that the memory of those martyrs may be a permanent source of light for the followers of our Movement.

 

The Fortress, Landsberg am Lech,
October 16th, 1924

Adolf Hitler

Friday, November 6, 2026

Jewish Invention Myths: Due Process

 

https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-due-process/

 

by Karl Radl

 

Periodically I come across claims by that jews that they invented something in history that they patently did not. One such claim is that made by the best-selling jewish historian and writer from Finland (of all places) Max Isaac Dimont in his 1984 book ‘The Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People’.

 

That claim is that the jews created the concept of Due Process which then ‘anticipates’ Magna Carta which was first composed and signed in England in 1215 and is famously the foundation of much of the Constitution of the United States of America. (1) It is also the first true formalization of some key concepts of British common law like Due Process.

 

Dimont claims that:

 

‘Several of the main provisions of the Magna Carta (1215 C.E.) were concepts already embodied in the Torah or Talmud and introduced in England by the Jews. So, for instance, the due process of law provisions in the Magna Carta were first spelled out by Talmudists in the tenth century C.E. Maimonides stated it this way: “Every law which the king enacts for all… is not robbery. But when the king takes away from one person only, not in accordance with the law known to all… it is robbery.”

 

The two main provisions of the due process of law – that men have the right to live by laws applicable to all, and that no crime can exist until there is a law forbidding that act to all – were incorporated in the Talmud commentaries for centuries before they were incorporated into the Magna Carta and later into the American constitution.’ (2)

 

Now as we’ve already seen Magna Carta was not ‘inspired by jewish legal concepts’ at all but rather was based on pre-existing Anglo-Saxon and Norman legal ideas that had been implicit for more than a century by 1215 A.D.; however the reason these had been formalized and written down was to combat the extra-judicial and tyrannical behaviour of jewish moneylenders against the English people. (3)

 

What I explicitly left out in that article was addressing Dimont’s specific claim that the idea of Due Process comes from ‘concepts embodied in the Torah or Talmud’ and from ‘the Talmudists’. Now Dimont only cites one authority who he claims Magna Carta is copying with that authority being Maimonides (aka Rambam).

 

The quote Dimont uses is partial and is from Hilchot Gezelah va’Avedah in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah.

 

The full quote reads:

 

‘The general principle is: Any law that a king decrees to be universally applicable, and not merely applying to one person, is not considered robbery. But whenever he takes from one person alone in a manner that does not conform to a known law, but rather seizes the property from the person arbitrarily, it is considered to be robbery. Therefore, when the king’s tax collectors and enforcement officers sell fields because the owner did not pay the fixed tax for the field, the sale is binding.

 

A head tax, however, is the personal responsibility of each person and it may not be collected from his property. Thus, if a field was sold because an individual was delinquent in paying the head tax, the sale is not binding, unless this is the law enacted by this particular king.’ (4)

 

Maimonides is here discussing kingship specifically in regard to legal and illegal confiscations and taxation. Dimont claims that this somehow the same as Magna Carta clause 39 – which is otherwise known as the ‘Due Process’ clause and in shorter later editions is sometimes re-numbered to clause 29 – that reads:

 

‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.’ (5)

 

They aren’t remotely the same; all Maimonides is saying is that a king must pass laws that must be universally not individually applicable as well as not retroactive, while Magna Carta says that no subject of the state – not just a king – should be imprisoned or be asset stripped/taxed unless he has been found guilty by a jury (‘the lawful judgement of his equals’ largely equating the barons incidentally) or he broke the ‘law of the land’.

 

The key element here is Magna Carta’s version doesn’t outlaw the individual stripping of assets nor retroactive legalisation as long as it isn’t purely arbitrary (i.e., it can be conducted by a jury of someone’s peers and/or by the state as long as there is just cause), while Maimonides regards such as ‘robbery’ (i.e., illegal).

 

We can thus see that Maimonides’ idea on this point is far more ‘letter of the law’ rather than ‘spirit of the law’ with his focus being on ‘thou shalt not’ where-as Magna Carta focuses on the ‘spirit of the law’ and on ‘thou shalt’ in the sense that Maimonides wants to arbitrarily rule what is and what is not just, while Magna Carta leaves what is just to ‘the law of the land’ and ‘judgement of equals’ which is what we might call the ‘spirit of justice’.

 

The former is a typically Semitic point of view as it focuses on the utility of the law for its own sake rather the latter is a typically Aryan point view as it focuses on achieving justice through the application of law, which allows for far more flexibility in the law.

 

Magna Carta in many ways echoes the then recently rediscovered (c. 1050 to 1100 A.D.) ‘Corpus Iuris Civilis’ (lit. ‘Body of Civil Law’) of Justinian (c. 535 A.D.) which was a compilation of Roman law from the entire history of the Roman Empire from Augustus onwards (6 and contains the following comment on how the law works which embodies the ‘spirit of justice’ of Magna Carta but yet oppose the legalistic fault-finding of Maimonides:

 

‘Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give to everyone that to which he is entitled. The precepts of the law are the following: to live honourably, to injure no one, to give to everyone his due.’ (7)

 

Indeed, it is to the then newly re-discovered ‘Corpus Iuris Civilis’ that we likely owe Magna Carta’s ‘new ideas’ – (8) and even then, they had been kicking around for quite some time among the baronage of England (9) albeit not for as long as later legal English scholars liked to claim – (10) albeit it is difficult to prove conclusively. (11)

 

So, no despite Dimont’s claim jews did not ‘invent’ or ‘inspire’ the legal idea of Due Process in British common law but rather Roman law did.

 

Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.


References

 

(1) https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/magna-carta

 

(2) Max Isaac Dimont, 1984, ‘The Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People’, 1st Edition, Behrman’s Jewish Book House: New York, p. 110

 

(3) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/jewish-invention-myths-magna-carta

 

(4) Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Gezelah va’Avedah, 5:14

 

(5) https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/magnacarta.asp

 

(6) George Mousourakis, 2015, ‘Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition’, 1st Edition, Springer: New York, pp. 243-245

 

(7) Digest, 1.1.10

 

(8) R. H. Helmholz, 1999, ‘Magna Carta and the ius commune’, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 309-310

 

(9) George Macaulay Trevelyan, 1926, ‘History of England’, 1st Edition, Longmans, Green & Co.: London, p. 170

 

(10) R. H. Helmholz, 2016, ‘The Myth of Magna Carta Revisited’, North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 5, pp. 1490-1492

 

(11) Helmholz, ‘Magna Carta and the ius commune’, Op. Cit., pp. 310-311

 

via Karl Radl’s Substack

Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Jewish Invention Myths: The Touchscreen

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-invention-myths-the-touchscreen/

 

by Karl Radl

 

A recent ‘jewish invention’ myth that I discovered is the claim – related to the claim that jews invented the smartphone and/or the iPhone – is that jews ‘invented the touchscreen’. (1) No detail was given in the claim as to what specific jew was meant, but I think having done a little digging I have figured out where the claim comes from as well as it not only simply wrong but outright dishonest.

 

There are two possible iterations of the ‘jews invented the touchscreen’ claim.

 

Namely that there is the touchscreen that uses a stylus to interact with it and there is the touchscreen that a person uses their finger to interact with it.

 

Now the inventor of the touchscreen that used a stylus to interact with it was the American electrical engineer William Denk who – while he was working for the Philadelphia Battery Company (aka ‘Philco’) – submitted first ever patent for this technology in 1946 as patent number US2487641A. (2)

 

While the American engineer working Leon Harmon – his surname is of English origin and there is no evidence of jewishness I can find before anyone desperately claims ‘he was jewish’ – at Bell Telephone Laboratories significantly improved Denk’s original design and made it independent of the light produced by the touchscreen device in a 1960 patent submission that was granted in 1962 as patent number US3016421A. (3)

 

Thus, we can see that jews certainly did not invent the touchscreen that used a stylus to interact with it.

 

But what about a touchscreen that a person uses their finger to interact with it?

 

Did the jews invent that?

 

The short answer is no.

 

The touchscreen that a person uses their finger to interact with it was first invented by the British electrical engineer Eric Johnson in 1965 at the Royal Radar Establishment in Malvern, England and which he subsequently made substantial (and more practical) improvements to in 1967. (4)

 

At around the same (circa 1967/1968) German electrical engineer Rainer Mallebrein – while working for Telefunken Konstanz – developed a similar touchscreen display that became the ‘Touchinput-Einrichtung’ (lit. ‘Touch Input Facility’) for Telefunken Konstanz’s SIG 50 computer terminal in 1971. (5)

 

In other words, jews did not invent either the touchscreen that uses a stylus to interact with it or the touchscreen that a person uses their finger to interact with it.

 

So where does this myth likely come from?

 

This is likely the claim that two engineers from CERN – the European Laboratory for Particle Physics – named Frank Beck and Bent Stumpe came up with an improvement to Johnson’s and Mallebrein’s earlier finger-based touchscreens in 1972 and which began to be used in 1973. (6)

 

Beck was jewish, while Stumpe was Danish.

 

Now what has happened is that someone somewhere has taken Beck and Stumpe’s improvement to Johnson’s and Mallebrein’s earlier invention of the finger-based touchscreen. Then written Johnson and Mallebrein as well as Stumpe out of the history of the touchscreen to claim that ‘the touchscreen was a jewish invention’ which is simply untrue, but par for the course in ‘jewish invention’ myths. Since jews and their apologists often simply systematically ignore and/or minimize earlier versions of the same idea, scientific discovery and/or technology in order to misrepresent it as a ‘jewish invention’ so as to try and buttress the myth of jewish achievement.

 

Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.


References

 

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqBjZKmTKt8&t=57s (0 minutes: 52 seconds)

 

(2) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/024793442/publication/US2487641A?q=pn%3DUS2487641A

 

(3) https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/022108688/publication/US3016421A?q=pn%3DUS3016421A

 

(4) https://mraths.org.uk/?page_id=531

 

(5) Oral History of Rainer Mallebrein, Computer History Museum, 13th February 2018, Ref. X8517.2018, p. 13; also https://www.suedkurier.de/ueberregional/wissenschaft/Entwickler-aus-Singen-ueber-die-Anfaenge-der-Computermaus-Wir-waren-der-Zeit-voraus;art1350069,9590558

 

(6) https://web.archive.org/web/20161116094427/https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/june-2010/cern-touch-screen 

Tuesday, October 27, 2026

The "Russian" Revolution

 

Part I


"The Red Terror became so wide-spread that it is impossible to give here all the details of the principal means employed by the [Jewish] Cheka(s) to master resistance; one of the most important is that of hostages, taken among all social classes. These are held responsible for any anti-Bolshevist movements (revolts, the White Army, strikes, refusal of a village to give its harvest etc.) and are immediately executed. Thus, for the assassination of the Jew Ouritzky, member of the Extraordinary Commission of Petrograd, several thousands of them were put to death, and many of these unfortunate men and women suffered before death various tortures inflicted by cold-blooded cruelty in the prisons of the Cheka.

I have in front of me photographs taken at Kharkoff, in the presence of the Allied Missions, immediately after the Reds had abandoned the town; they consist of a series of ghastly reproductions such as: Bodies of three workmen taken as hostages from a factory which went on strike. One had his eyes burnt, his lips and nose cut off; the other two had their hands cut off.

The bodies of hostages, S. Afaniasouk and P. Prokpovitch, small landed proprietors, who were scalped by their executioners; S. Afaniasouk shows numerous burns caused by a white hot sword blade. The body of M. Bobroff, a former officer, who had his tongue and one hand cut off and the skin torn off from his left leg.

Human skin torn from the hands of several victims by means of a metallic comb. This sinister find was the result of a careful inspection of the cellar of the Extraordinary Commission of Kharkoff. The retired general Pontiafa, a hostage who had the skin of his right hand torn off and the genital parts mutilated.

Mutilated bodies of women hostages: S. Ivanovna, owner of a drapery business, Mme. A.L. Carolshaja, wife of a colonel, Mmo. Khlopova, a property owner. They had their breasts slit and emptied and the genital parts burnt and having trace of coal.

Bodies of four peasant hostages, Bondarenko, Pookhikle, Sevenetry, and Sidorfehouk, with atrociously mutilated faces, the genital parts having been operated upon by Chinese torturers in a manner unknown to European doctors in whose opinion the agony caused to the victims must have been dreadful.

It is impossible to enumerate all the forms of savagery which the Red Terror took. A volume would not contain them. The Cheka of Kharkoff, for example, in which Saenko operated, had the specialty of scalping victims and taking off the skin of their hands as one takes off a glove...At Voronege the victims were shut up naked in a barrel studded with nails which was then rolled about. Their foreheads were branded with a red hot iron FIVE POINTED STAR. At Tsaritsin and at Kamishin their bones were sawed...At Keif the victim was shut up in a chest containing decomposing corpses; after firing shots above his head his torturers told him that he would be buried alive. The chest was buried and opened again half an hour later when the interrogation of the victim was proceeded with. The scene was repeated several times over. It is not surprising that many victims went mad." (S.P. Melgounov, p. 164-166; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 151-153).


"The overthrowing of imperialistic governments by armed uprisings and the organization of an International Soviet Republic is the way of the international dictatorship of the working class. The most forceful way to maintain the international revolution is by the organization of the armed forces of revolution...The workmen of all Europe will do, and in fact are already doing, the same...Sooner or later we will have the International Republic of Soviets." (Memorandum on Certain Aspects of the Bolshevist Movement in Russia, p. 46, Issued by the Department of State, Washington, D.C., 1919).


"Being ill, Raskolinkoff dreamt that the whole world was doomed to a peculiar but dreadful, unknown plague, sweeping from the depths of Asis towards Europe. Everybody had to perish with the exception of several, very few chosen. There appeared some kind of new germs, microscopic creatures which penetrated into human bodies...

Men who were affected by them immediately became possessed with a devil, falling into madness. But never, indeed never, did men feel themselves more clever and more firm in their beliefs than those affected by the disease. Never did men consider their judgments, their scientific conclusions, their moral convictions and faith more steady and firm.

Entire communities and cities, whole peoples, became affected by this disease and acted as insane. Everybody was alarmed and nobody understood, each being convinced the the truth was in him alone, and everybody suffered, looking at others, beating their chests and wringing their hands in despair. It was not known who would be persecuted, nor how, nor what should be considered as being evil or good. Neither was it known who should be accused, who should be defended. People slew each other in a state of irrational fury. Armies were raised against each other; but while on their march they suddenly began to tear themselves to pieces, their ranks became destroyed, and soldiers attacked each other, killing, biting and devouring one another. In the cities alarm bells were rung all day long. People were calling together but nobody knew who was making the appeal nor for what purpose and everybody was alarmed.

The usual trade was discontinued because everybody insisted upon his own thoughts, presenting his own amendments, and no agreement could possibly be reached. Agriculture was suspended. In some places men gathered in groups, agreed upon something and took oath not to part, but immediately after that they began to do something quite different from what they themselves had anticipated and then they began to accuse and to slay each other. Fires broke out and famine started." (Crime and Punishment, Epilogue, Translation from the Russian, Raskolinkoff Dostojevsky; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 37-38).


"By sending Lenin to Russia our (German) Government had, moreover, assumed a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low. But our Government should have seen to it that we also were not involved in her fall. The events in Russia gave me no cause for complete satisfaction. They considerably eased the military situation, but elements of the greatest danger still remained." (Luden dorff's Own Story, Vol. II, pp. 126-127, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1919; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 67).


"There was not a political organization in the vase Empire which was not influenced by the Jews or directed by them; the Social-Democrats, the Revolutionary Socialist Parties, the Polish Socialist Party, all counted Jews among their directors; Plehve was perhaps right when he said that the combat for political emancipation in Russia and the Jewish question were practically identical." (The Pioneers of the Russian Revolution, Dr. Angelo Rapport).


"Among them" narrates Princess Radziwill, "was a man named Kameneff, whose name was found later on among the signatures at the bottom of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk and who introduced himself as a confidential friend of both Lenin and Trotzky. This Kameneff was another repulsive Jew, but undoubtedly an intelligent creature whose only principle was to enrich himself at any price and in the shortest of time. He was eager for action, because he realized that it was only through some upheaval or other that he would be enabled to lay his greedy hands on the Russian public exchequer. Captain Russtenberg heard afterwards that when it came to the partition of the millions which Germany paid for the betrayal of Russia to the Bolsheviks (Jews), Kameneff was the man who got the lion's share." (Princess Catherine Radziwill, The Firebrand of Bolshevism, pp. 203-204, Small, Maynard & Company, Boston, Mass., 1919. Kameneff, whose real name was Rosenfeld, was one of the most notorious Soviet officials. He replaced Krassin as Chairman of the Bolshevist delegation to Great Britain, which was dispatched to conduct negotiations for the resumption of trade relations between England and Soviet Russia. Rosenfeld-Kameneff is said to be a brother-in-law of Trotzky (Bronstein); (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 68).


"During the summer of 1916 a secret report was received by the Russian General Headquarters from one of its agents in New York. This report, dated February 15, 1916, reads in part as follows: 'The Russian Revolutionary Party of America has evidently resumed its activities. As a consequence of it, momentous developments are expected to follow. The first confidential meeting which marked the beginning of a new era of violence took place on Monday evening, February 14, 1916, in the East Side of New York City. It was attended by sixty-two delegates, fifty of whom were 'veterans' of the revolution of 1905; the rest being newly admitted members. Among the delegates were a large percentage of Jews, most of them belonging to the intellectual class, as doctors, publicists, etc., but also some professional revolutionists...The proceedings of this first meeting were almost entirely devoted to the discussion of finding ways and means to start a great revolution in Russia as the 'most favourable moment for it is close at hand.' It was revealed that secret reports had just reached the party from Russia, describing the situation as very favourable, when all arrangements for an immediate outbreak were completed. The only serious problem was the financial question but whenever this was raised the assembly was immediately assured by some for the members that this question did not need to cause any embarrassment as ample funds, if necessary, would be furnished by persons in sympathy with the movement of liberating the people of Russia. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was repeatedly mentioned.' It was further added in the report that: 'The soul of this new revolutionary movement is the German Ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. Dr. Albert, the financial agent attached to the German Embassy in Washington, is manager of this revolution which took place in Mexico. He is aided in his task by the first Secretary of the German Embassy.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 69-70).


"Indeed, this was more than a German plot; it was a world-conspiracy, first against Russia and next against Christian civilization at large. The following two documents throw a peculiar sidelight upon the nature of this sinister enterprise.

1. Copenhagen, June 18, 1917. Mr. Ruffner, Helsingfors. Dear Sir: please be advised that from the Disconto-Gesellschaft account 315,000 marks have been transferred to Mr. Lenin's account in Kronstadt, as per order of the Syndicate. Kindly acknowledge receipt: Nilandeway 98, Copenhagen, W. Hansen & Co. - Svensen.

2. Stockholm, September 21, 1917. Mr. Raphael Scholan Haparanda. Dear Comrade: The office of the banking house M. Warburg has opened in accordance with telegram from president of Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotzky. The attorney (agent) purchased arms and has organized their transportation and delivery up to Luleo and Varde. Name to the office of Essen & Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorized to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotzky. - J. Furstenberg. (The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy, issued by The Committee on Public Information, Washington, D.C., p. 27, October, 1918. The documents as above quoted were never repudiated by the Disconto-Gesellschaft or the Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate).


"It will be recalled that Furstenberg, who also assumed the name of Ganetzky, together with his Jewish friend Rdek, alias Sobelsohn, became later prominent members of the Soviet Government. In March, 1917, Furstenberg took an active part in the 'defeatist' propaganda in Russia, and it was through his medium that part of the money contributed by the German-Jewish bankers to the leaders of the destruction of civilization was forwarded to Russia. The documents above quoted reveal the active participation of international banking organizations in the 'undertaking of Comrade Trotzky.' The Disconto-Gesellschaft, the Rheinish-Westphalian Syndicate, the international banking firm of Warburgs, the various subsidiary banking institutions in Scandinavia, such as the Nya Banken, all of them were working in harmonious accord with the red generals of the world-revolution. This was the 'one big union' the aim of which was the complete destruction, if possible the annihilation , of 'holy Russia'' the corner-stone of European Christianity." (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 71-73).


"Only now, after the terrible events...it has become possible to appreciate fully the accuracy of the information presented in the secret report of Count Lamsdorf, former Russian Foreign Minister, to Emperor Nicholas II, dated January 3, 1906, on the international aspect of the first revolutionary outbreak in Russia in 1905. Some of the passages in this report are so striking that we feel it necessary to quote them in extends: 'The events which took place in Russia during 1905, and which assumed especially acute forms at the beginning of October last, when after a series of strikes, they brought about an armed revolt in Moscow, and many other towns and localities of the Empire, plainly indicate that the Russian revolutionary movement; apart from its deeper, internal, social-economic and political causes, has also quite a definite international character...The most decisive indications which warrant this conclusion are given by the circumstances that the Russian revolutionaries are in possession of great quantities of arms which are imported from abroad, and of very considerable financial means, because there can be no doubt that the leaders of the revolution have already spent on our anti-government movement, the organization of all sorts of strikes included, large amounts of money. Since, however, it must be acknowledged that such support given to the revolutionary movement by sending arms and money from abroad can hardly be ascribed to foreign governments (with very special exceptions, as, for instance, that of Sweden supporting the revolutionary movement in Finland, and of Austria which helped the Poles) one is bound to come to the conclusion that there are foreign capitalists' organizations which are interested in supporting our revolutionary movement. With this conclusion the fact must be confronted that the Russian revolutionary movement has the outspoken character of a movement of the heterogeneous nationalities of Russia which one after another, Armenians and Georgians, Letts and Esths, Finns, Poles and others, arose against the Imperial Government...If we add to the above, that, as has been proved beyond any doubt, a very considerable part among these heterogeneous nationalities is played by Jews, who, individually, as ringleaders in the other organizations, as well as through their own (the Jewish Bund in the Western Provinces), have always come forward as the most bellicose element of the revolution, we may feel entitled to assume that the above-mentioned foreign support of the Russian revolutionary movement comes from Jewish capitalist circles. In this respect one must not ignore the following concurrences of facts which lead to further conclusions, namely, that the revolutionary movement is not only supported but also to a certain degree directed from abroad. On one hand, the strike broke out with special violence and spread all over Russia not before and not after October, that is, just at the time when our government tried to realize a considerable foreign loan without the participation of the Rothschilds and just in time for preventing the carrying out of this financial operation; the panic provoked among the buyers and holders of Russian loans could not fail to give additional advantages to the Jewish banks and capitalists who openly and knowingly speculated upon the fall of the Russian rates...Moreover, certain very significant facts, which were also mentioned in the press, quite confirm the obvious connection of the Russian revolutionary movement with the foreign Jewish organizations. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned importation of arms, which according to our agents' information was carried on from the European Continent through England can be duly appreciated if we take into consideration that already in June, 1905, a special Antlo-Jewish committee of capitalists was openly established in England for the purpose of collecting money for arming fighting groups of Russian Jews, and that the well-known anti-Russian publicist, Lucien Wolf, was the leading member of this committee. On the other hand, in view of the fact that the sad consequences of the revolutionary propaganda affected the Jews themselves, another committee of Jewish capitalists was formed in England, under the leadership of Lord Rothschild, which collected considerable amounts of contributions in England, France and Germany for the officially alleged purpose of helping Russian Jews who suffered from pogroms. And lastly, the Jews in America, without thinking it necessary formally to distinguish between the two purposes, collect money for helping the pogrom sufferers and for arming the Jewish youth.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 73-76).


On the fifteenth day of March, 1917, Emperor Nicholas II abdicated from the Russian throne for himself and for his son. Six days later the following Army Order No. 371 was issued by General Alexeev, Chief of Staff of General Headquarters: 'Emperor Nicholas II, who abdicated the throne, before his departure from the region occupied by the army in the field, addressed the troops with the following farewell words: 'For the last time I apply to you, much beloved armies. After abdicating for myself and my son from the Russian throne, the power was transferred to the Provisional Government which was established on the initiative of the Imperial Duma. Let the Lord help it to lead Russia in the path of glory and prosperity. Let the Lord help you, gallant troops, to protect our fatherland against a wicked foe. For two and one-half years continuously you rendered hard battle service. Much blood was shed. Many efforts have been made and the hour is close when Russia, tied to her gallant Allies, by means of one combined effort towards victory, shall break the last resistance of the enemy. This unprecedented war must be pursued to a final victory. He who at present thinks about peace, he who strives for it, is a betrayer of his country; a traitor. I am confident that every honest soldier is of this belief. Therefore, perform your duty, bravely protect our great country, obey the Provisional Government, obey your superiors, and remember that every weakening in military discipline is to the advantage of the enemy. I am firmly convinced that you boundless love for our great country is not extinguished. May the Lord bless you, and may St. George, the martyr and the victor, lead you to final victory. Nicholas.'" (The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, pp. 88-89).


"The Revolution is on. We received today the only cheering news within the last three years of the bloody World War. The hearts of every working man and woman burst with joy and gladness at this news. Nicholas is overthrown. The Duman has taken the Government in its hands and the liberal government rules. Hurrah!" (The Forward, a Jewish daily paper published in Hew York City).


"He considered the Rvolution a victory for the Jews, which opinion, he said, prevailed on the East Side where rejoicing knew no bounds. We felt, added Mr. Cahan, that this is a great triumph for the Jews' cause. The anti-Jewish element in Russia has always been identified with the anti-revolutionary party. Jews having always sat high in the Councils of the revolutionists, all of our race became inseparably linked with the opponents of the government in the official mind." (New York Call, March 17, 1917, Upheaval in Russia Is Fight for Liberty, Abraham Cahan).


"...It was in England, the home of the Jews, says Mr. Pitt-Rivers, that the Tsar's Government was always systematically vilified, for years made out as the blackest home of tyranny and oppression in the world. although there were English writers like Mr. Stephen Graham who, years ago, went out to Russia to live there because he considered it the freest country in Europe. It was, of course, the least commercialized, while England, one of the most commercialized countries; and the greatest lovers and entertainers of Jews, in the world, in consequence, sees no merit in a simple agricultural existence. Neither is it surprising in view of her cult of unlimited industrialism, and its consequences; an ever expanding industrial and urban population, free commercial exploitation by all and sundry middlemen, usurers, Jews; and the translations of all values into money-values, by which alone can be realized that ideal of personal equality, dad-levelness and compulsory mediocrity in which she glories under the name of Liberalism and Democracy. Can England with her tradition of three hundred years of Jeww-loving free-mammonism, democratic-shopkeeping, Puritanism, and obsessional urban-industrial expansion, in any case understand the healthier ideal of rural simplicity and paternal government, which, in spite of the obvious shortcomings of his successor, was the ideal of Alexander III." (George Pitt-Rivers, The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, with preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, pp. 20-21, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1920).


"Wrangel pretended to combat the Bolsheviks, Bolshevism is Jewry. In order to retain the favour of the Jews holding the real power in England, France and the United States, Wrangel showed to the Jews signs of his submission to them. Thereafter the Russian masses abandoned Wrangel as a traitor or as a comedian. It is impossible simultaneously to be an auxiliary of the Jew and an enemy of the Bolsheviki who are Jews. Be it incoherence or treason, Wrangel deserved the same fate as Denikin and he got it." (La Vieille-Fraonce, No. 200, December 2, 1920, article entitled The Enigma of Wrangel Explained; The World At The Cross Roads, Boris Brasol, p. 342).


"The goal of Russia is in the first instance a World-Revolution. The nucleus of opposition to such plans is to be found in the capitalist powers, England and France in the first instance, with America close behind them. There follows a certain community of interests (of Russia) with Germany, which is being threatened by the demands of these powers. The most profound animosity of Russia is directed against Poland, the ally of the world Powers and Russia's immediate neighbour. Herein lies the point of Russia's closet rapprochement with Germany...The fact that the Western Powers, by helping Russia, expose themselves to a great danger is too obvious to require further proofs...As far as we are concerned, this danger exists considerably nearer, but nevertheless our position between France and Poland compels us to try to remain in constant touch and in close understanding with Russia in order not to fall into complete dependence upon the Western countries. This position will remain compulsory for us no matter whether the present regime in Russia continues or not." (General von Seckt, Speech delivered on January 24th, 1931, before the Economic Society of Munster, in Westphalia. by C.F. Melville, The Russian Face of Germany, pp. 158-159; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)


"Bolshevism (Judaism), this symbol of chaos and of the spirit of destruction, is above all an Anti-Christian and Anti-Social Conception. This present destructive tendency is clearly advantageous for only one national and religious entity: Judaism. The fact that Jews are the most active element in present day revolutions as well as in revolutionary socialism, that they draw to themselves the power forced form the peoples of other nations by revolution, is a fact in itself, independent of the question of knowing if that comes from organized world-wide Judaism, from Jewish Free Masonry or by an elementary evolution brought about by Jewish national solidarity and the accumulation of the capital in the hands of Jewish bankers.

The contest is becoming more definite. The domination of revolutionary Judaism in Russia and the open support given to this Jewish Bolshevism by Judaism the world over finally clear up the situation, show the cards and put the question of the battle of Christianity against Judaism, of the National State against the International, that is to say, in reality, against Jewish world power." (Weltkampf, July 1924, p. 21; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 140).


"...the new Bolshevist orthodoxy of Stalin is probably more dangerous to Europe in the long run than the more spectacular methods of Trotsky and the more vocal methods of Zinoviev in the heyday of the Third International. I say more dangerous...and more formidable, because a more practical conception than the old Trotskyist idea...It is just the growth of this Stalinist conception which has made possible the continuance, on an ever-increasing scale, of the secret relationship between 'Red' Russia and 'White' Germany." (The Russian Face of Germany, C.F. Melville, pp. 169-170; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fahey, pp. 20-21)


"The Soviet movement was a Jewish, and not a Russian conception. It was forced on Russia from without, when, in 1917, German and German-American-Jew interests sent Lenin and his associates into Russia, furnished with the wherewithal to bring about the defection of the Russian armies...The Movement has never been controlled by Russians.

(a) Of the 224 revolutionaries who, in 1917, were despatched to Russia with Lenin to foment the Bolshevik Revolution, 170 were Jews.

(b) According to the Times of 29th March, 1919, 'of the 20 or 30 commissaries or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent, are Jews...among minor officials the number is legion.'

According to official information from Russia, in 1920, out of 545 members of the Bolshevist Administration, 447 were Jews. The number of official appointments bestowed upon Jews is entirely out of proportion to their percentage in the State: 'The population of Soviet Russia is officially given as 158,400,000 the Jewish section, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, being about 7,800,000. Yet, according to the Jewish Chronicle of January 6, 1933: Over one-third of the Jews in Russia have become officials." (The Catholic Herald, October 21st and 28th and November 4, 1933; The Rulers of Russia, Denis Fehay, p. 31-32)


"The Communist soul is the soul of Judaism. Hence it follows that, just as in the Russian revolution the triumph of Communism was the triumph of Judaism, so also in the triumph of fascism will triumph Judaism." (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Rabbi Harry Waton, p. 143-144).


"The sombre destiny of the Russian Empire was profoundly terrified souls and brought trouble into the world. The Bolshevik ideology by its nature and the will of its creatures, is in the first place international; so that it may have a chance to triumph, it is not enough to subjugate Russia, it must also disorganize and subjugate the rest of the world. For this end the Treasury of Russia, fallen into the hands of the Moscow tyrants, is placed at the service of an intense outside propaganda, and the funds are sent into all countries by clever propaganda agents; if three-quarters of the Bolshevik staff are Jews, its agents abroad with rare exceptions are all Jews...It appears, therefore, that Bolshevism is one of the most power and actual causes of the universal anti-Semite movement." (Le Probläme Judic, (1921), Georges Batault).


"Almost all the Russian sects, as they existed in the time of the rule of the Tsars, and still exist in the midst of the Bolshevik world of orthodox materialism, show in their spiritual principles a predominantly religious-rationalist character. It is true that there are also a number of brotherhood of orgiastic, mystical tendencies; but in their rites, religious worship and articles of faith, a trained psychologist will also recognize, without difficulty, many of the roots and first stages of present day Bolshevism...If we pass in review all these Russian sects we can...establish a remarkable advance in the form in which they express the idea of communism, which is fundamental in them all, the Molokay and the Dukhobors and all the other rationalist sects confined themselves to proclaiming a community of earthly possessions (to these, we are told, Tostoi owed his system of social ethics); but among the Khlysty we see an advance; love, marriage and the family have ceased to be a private matter, and with them we find promiscuous sexual intercourse...

Finally, if we consider that we can hardly be in error in estimating the number of the members of these sects, before the Revolution, at about one-third of the total population of this enormous country, we are bound to admit that we are here confronted by a phenomenon of truly elemental power, which must be of the greatest significance, not only from the religious, but also from the socio-political point of view. For these rationalistic- chiliastic (millennium) notions of the Russian sects...soon forced their way into the higher strata of the Russian intelligentsia, and even into the world of ideas of the politicians...Linking up these half-mystical notions with the modern principles of Marxist materialism, for it was only by the amalgamation that the whole was prepared for the Bolshevik revolution." (René Fulop-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism (1927)).


"Then Karolyi came and prepared the way for Bolshevism in the education of Hungary's younger generation. The mass appointment of Jewish Masonic professors and teachers; the Bolshevik reform of school books; the destruction of the souls of the children; the degradation of parental authority; the systematic destruction of moral and patriotic principles; the revelation of sexual matters; all these were the work of Karolyi's Government." (An Outlaw's Diary, Cecile de Tormay).