Internment Camps: IRC Records disclose more than just death figures of 271,301 from Typhus during WWII – Soviet sabotage and German patronage


Sealed and guarded since the end of WWII at Arolsen, Germany: Official IRC records reveal the actual Concentration Camp total death toll was 271,301.


  1. 271,301 people of various religious denominations, races and social status’ died of disease and starvation (NOT 6 million Jews by intentional Extermination Policy).
  2. The Jewish Bolsheviks who occupied and ‘Liberated’ certain camps (namely Auschwitz), deliberately stopped food and medical supplies organised by the IRC, from reaching internees, causing further deaths and suffering.
  3. Divisions of the Reich both funded and facilitated the establishment of Jewish communities with virtually independent autonomy.
  4. Germany continued to facilitate those European Jews who wished to immigrate, from the transitional camps to various foreign lands.
  5. Approximately, more than 2.5 million Jews were not interned by the Reich and were enabled to live freely and independently in Europe, within the guidelines of various Reich policies.

Documented Facts

One of two, of the most important surveys of the Jewish Question in Europe during World War II, is David Irving’s examination of the Russian archives after the wall came down. Irving published his findings in his book, Hitler’s War and said not one word about gas chambers.

When questioned about this purported omission, he said that there was no reference to any gas chambers in the Soviet archives, therefore, he did not discuss the question of gas chambers as there was no material as evidence to support his authorship. Irving was arrested in several countries for Hate Speech for his alleged oversight of the assumed Status Quo.

The other exceedingly important survey, was that of the International Red Cross who had regular access to internment camps and during the latter period of the war, even had ICRC administration offices within camp grounds. The ICRC successfully applied the 1929 Geneva military convention, in order to gain access to civilian internees held in Central and Western Europe by the German authorities. Almost unique in its honesty and objectivity, compared with other accounts on camp activity of the day, the ICRC explained in the opening pages of their Report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality… and herein lies its great value.

The International Red Cross published their analysis in a three volume – Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War(download available) –  published in Geneva in 1948. This analysis expanded findings of two previous publications;
‘Sur L’activite’ du CICR en faveur des civils detencus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Geneva, 1946) and ‘Inter Arma Caritas: The Work of the ICRF during the Second World War’ (Geneva, 1947).

In 1949, the International Red Cross interviewed internees from the German camps, to see if standards were kept within the convention guidelines – and they were. However, in defiance of the Geneva Convention, IRC personnel were forbidden to interview mostly (German, Russian, Ukrainian etc) civilian prisoners and POW’s in the Jewish Bolsheviks Gulag camps, which were extremely more harsh and true “Death Camps.”
Soviet Bolshevik powers refused to ratify the convention, but regardless, Articles 82 – 97 still applied.

The German camps held political internees (Schutzhaflinge), POW’s and those convicted of crimes. The German administration who provided supplies for internees, also welcomed the Red Cross to distribute food, medicine and clothing to the inmates. However due to international propaganda focusing solely on the plight of Jewish people in Europe, the ICRC deliveries were originally organised for mainly Jewish recipients, who were given preference over other races and religious denominations in the camps.

Parcel Receipt

Grateful inmates sent letters of appreciation from Dachau, Buchenwalk, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Fibha, Ravensbruck, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen and others.

Camp internees were provided with post-cards, stamps and other materials to communicate with the IRC, family and friends, from the camp Post Offices.

Regarding Theresienstadt, the Red Cross reported, “…where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries, was a relatively privileged ghetto” (Vol. III, p. 75).

“The Committee’s delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions … From information gathered by the Committee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich … These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy … two delegates were able to visit the camp on April 6, 1945.
They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit”
(Vol. I, p. 642).

The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania, where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanians, but only up until the time of the Jewish Bolshevik occupation.

The aid then ceased and the ICRC also complained bitterly that it never succeeded “in sending anything whatsoever to Russia” (Vol. II, p. 62).
The same situation applied to other German camps after their coined “Liberation” by the Bolsheviks Gallant Red Army.

The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period prior to the Jewish-Bolshevik occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward to other locations, such as Bergen-Belsen for example, where the camp became overrun with inmates fleeing the east. A great majority voluntarily left with German officials due to the fear of the encroaching Red Army. Unfortunately, thereafter, the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Bolshevik control, were futile.

However, food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg etc.

No Mention of Gas Chambers

One of the most important aspects of the Report by the ICRC, is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps towards the end of the war.
Says the Report:

“in the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims.”

Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government informed the ICRC of the predicted reduction in supplies on February 1, 1945… then in March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S., Ernst Kaltenbrunner, gave even more decisive results.

“Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp.” (Vol. III, p.83).

Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able to as well.

Onsite ICRC Nurses
Red Cross staff on routine monthly inspections of the camps, visit and meet with internees in the camp hospital wards – keeping with the Geneva Convention, which Germany was signatory to.

The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of internees they had protested on March 15, 1944 against “the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies” (Inter Armet Caritns, p. 78).
[Barbarous Aerial Warfare Confirmed by the Allies Extermination Policy – the ‘Dehousing Paper’]

By October 2, 1944, the ICRC had warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable.

In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatsoever of “gas chambers.”
[‘The Allied Committee of Inquiry’ agrees: “No poison gas was ever used”here]

The original 1946 edition did not even make mention of ‘extermination’ or ‘death camps’ but after the emotional impact of the Nuremberg Show Trials and Western media hysteria, the Red Cross appeared “compelled” to introduce into the expanded 1948 Report several, very cursory references to ‘death camps’ (Vol. 1 p. 641).
It is true, many people died within the camps, but the ICRC did not reference any means of deliberate extermination… and from their on-site administrative positions, never witnessed any gas chambers.

In all of its 1,650 pages, the three-volume Report does not ever mention such a thing as a ‘gas chamber’. It acknowledges that Jews and many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of ‘gassing’ is ample refutation of the ‘Holocaust’ legend.

Fortunately for the ICRC team – unlike David Irving – they were not arrested for ‘Hate Speech’ in regards to their record keeping omission of ‘Gas Chambers’.

Not all were interned

Volume III of the Report of the ICRC, Chapter 3 (I. Jewish Civilian Population) deals with the “aid given to the Jewish section of the free population and this chapter makes it quite plain that by no means all of the European Jews were placed in internment camps but remained, subject to certain restrictions, as part of the Free Civilian Population.

This conflicts directly with the “thoroughness” of the purported “extermination programme” and with the claim in the forged Hoess memoirs that Eichmann was obsessed with seizing every single Jew he could lay his hands on.
In Slovakia, for example, where Eichmann’s assistant Dieter Wisliceny was in charge, the Report states;

“A large proportion of the Jewish minority had permission to stay in the country, and at certain periods Slovakia was looked upon as a comparative haven of refuge for Jews, especially for those coming from Poland.”

Those who remained in Slovakia seemed to have been in comparative safety until the end of August 1944, when an extensive Allied rising against the German forces and people took place. While it is true that the law of May 15, 1942, had brought about the internment of several thousand Jews, these people, along with other nationalities, were held in camps where the conditions of food and lodging were tolerable, and where the “internees were allowed to do paid work on terms almost equal to those of the free labour market” (Vol. I, p. 646).

More on camp money, coupons and where and what it could be spent on: here

Not only did large numbers of the three million or so European Jews of conflict zones avoid internment altogether, but the emigration of Jews continued throughout the war, generally by way of Hungary, Rumania and Turkey. Ironically, post-war Jewish emigration from German-occupied territories was also facilitated by the Reich, as in the case of the Polish Jews who had migrated to the French zone before the ‘German-French Armistice’ (the zone the west likes to refer to as “Occupied”).

“The Jews from Poland who, whilst in France, had obtained entrance permits to the United States were held to be American citizens by the German occupying authorities, who further agreed to recognise the validity of about three thousand passports issued to Jews by the consulates of South American countries” (Vol. 1, p. 645).

As future U.S. citizens, these Jews were held at the Vittel Transitional camp in southern France for American aliens. The emigration of European Jews from Hungary in particular, proceeded during the war unhindered by the German authorities. “Until March 1944,” says the Red Cross Report, “Jews who had the privilege of visas for Palestine were free to leave Hungary” (Vol. 1, p. 648).
Even after the replacement of the Horthy Government in 1944 (following its attempted armistice with the Soviet Union) with a government more dependent on German authority, the unhindered emigration of Jews still continued.

The Committee secured the pledges of both Britain and the United States “to give support by every means to the emigration of Jews from Hungary” and from the U.S. Government, the ICRC received a message stating that;
“The Government of the United States… now specifically repeats its assurance that arrangements will be made by it for the care of all Jews who in the present circumstances are allowed to leave” (Vol. 1, p. 649).
[However, the U.S. ‘statement’ was merely political lip-service, as the behind the scenes manipulations by powerful Jewish organisations and diplomats, ensured Jewish migration to the U.S. was purposely obstructed, as they were pushing to funnel Jewish migration to Palestine only – see here]

Official International Red Cross Records Released
Sealed and Guarded Since The End Of WWII At Arolsen, Germany,
The Official IRC Records Reveal the actual Concentration Camp Total Death
Toll was… 271,301

Besides the deaths caused by starvation due to the Allies Barbarous Aerial Warfare campaign of Europe, what is it that most of these 271,301 poor souls succumbed to?
Let Dr. Charles Larson explain, who was one of America’s leading forensic pathologists, a Colonel assigned to the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Department.
As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson performed thousands of autopsies at some twenty German camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses.
To Dr. Larson’s knowledge, he “was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European Theatre” and as such, confirmed that “never was a case of poison gas uncovered.”
What Dr. Larson did discover was, just as the ICRC discovered, that internees died of starvation and predominantly, Epidemic TYPHUS (better-known as Camp Fever or Famine Fever etc), a historical scourge to mankind that until recently, flourished in places where populations were crowded together in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in Germany after the Allied aerial assault on Europe at wars end.
Dr. Larson’s findings are corroborated by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D. and Dr. Russell Barton, here:


For years, people around the world – “the West” in particular – have been repeatedly told that “six million Jews were systematically murdered by Germans in ‘Concentration Camps’ during World War II.”

Hundreds of thousands of honest people disputing this claim, have been viciously smeared as hateful anti-Semites and several countries around the world continually jail and heavily fine people for disputing the claim that “6 Million” Jews were killed by deliberate extermination policy… Even though the Jewish World Almanac recorded an increase in the Jewish population over the war period, or that even the unfortunate deaths at Auschwitz have ‘Officially’ been revised from 4 million down to 1 million – 3 million Jews rose from the dead by the flick of a pen.
People are having their lives destroyed for having a different opinion than the colloquial rumour – they are jailed for a purported Thought Crime.


Provided below is a scanned image of an Official International Red Cross document, proving the so-called “Holocaust” narrative is a fabrication. Many Jews around the world have intentionally exaggerated and perpetually lied for the purpose of gaining political, emotional and financial advantages for themselves… the latter in the form of “Holocaust Survivor” Pensions, to which non-Jews who endured the same, are not eligible.
They have committed willful, criminal FRAUD upon billions of trusting people around the world!

Tax-payers of Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Latvia, Poland and many other nations have had multiple billions of dollars taken from their wages to be paid out to Holocaust Survivors and their descendants, for something that DID NOT HAPPEN… and least of all, what did in fact happen, was not an exclusive Jewish suffering, nor the result of German destruction – rather All-lied destruction.


The tax-payers of the United States in particular, spend Billions each year in direct and indirect military support for the State of Israel [an illegitimate, illegal and brutal occupation according to hundreds of UN Resolutions – here] which was established through the false (however ‘Official’) Sympathy of this lie.

This is intentional, criminal fraud on a scale so massive it is incomprehensible.
Where do the innocent Germans, Americans and others go to get a refund, or perhaps reparation of their own? And what of the Palestinians, who have been pushed from their land, had their homes bulldozed and people continually slaughtered from war crimes and breach of international humanitarian law? (see above link)

The Red Cross death figures, of people from a variety of ethnicity’s and religious persuasions, combined in all camps, is precisely 271,301 – approximately half of which were Jewish. These unfortunate people died from, predominantly, Epidemic Typhus and starvation due to the Allies almost complete destruction of mid-western Europe, making the delivery of food and medical supplies, impossible.

The interviews with former Auschwitz inmates that Spielberg chose to omit from his Shoah, where they speak of camp sports on weekends, arts, plays and theatre, post office, library, musical intruments and orchestra’s, money to spend at the kantina for beer and cigarettes, movie cinema, entertainment for the children… and so much more.


The full Red Cross Report can be read and downloaded here

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.

The Jewish Question? Why a “Solution” to a “Question” – or was it a “Problem”?

Who coined the term, what is the historically enduring question and why is there a need of a question?

The ‘Jewish Question’ first became a political topic in Great Britain around 1750, initially intended to be a neutral expression to create political thought and discussion, regarding the continual negative attitude toward Jews, who were persistently surrounded by historical friction, from a national, ethical, religious, political and legal view-point, to which a ‘Solution’ needed to be sought.


Hopkinsville Kentuckian, September 4, 1913

The styled slogan of it being a ‘Question’ was a political and linguistic approach to address what was actually an incessant ‘Problem.’ A ‘Question’ provokes an ‘Answer’ – a ‘Solution’ is only ever in direct response to a ‘Problem’ – in this case, ‘The Jewish Problem.’ Unless it is, of course, manipulation of a Problem-Reaction-Solution, in which case, ‘Who Benefits’, then indicates who or what is behind the deliberate cause of any political problem.
The histories of Jewish emancipation and the canard of European Anti-Semitism are filled with a great variety of proffered “Solutions to the Jewish Question.”

220px-Bruno_BauerFrom 1750’s Great Britain, the Question was next discussed in France – ‘la question juive’ – after the French Revolution in 1789, before arriving in Germany via Bruno Bauer’s treatise “Die Judenfrage” (The Jewish Question).
From that point hundreds of tractates, pamphlets, newspaper articles and books were written on the subject, with many offering ‘Solutions’ to the ‘Problem’ including resettlement, deportation and assimilation of the Jewish population. Similarly, yet out-weighing in abundance, hundreds of pieces of literature were actually written by Jewish intellectuals themselves, whom, opposing these solutions and, although having offered solutions such as integration and education, the most favourable solution  to meet these sub-solutions, was complete freedom in all civic positions in order to administer them.

This debate, however, ultimately resulted in confusion at not being able to ascertain whether the problem of the ‘Jewish Question’ had more to do with the problems posed by the German Jews themselves, or their opponents? Was it ‘Anti-Semitism’ or ‘Anti-Gentilism’?

From around 1860, under the newly coined description to the historical problem, Jews were described as a stumbling block to the identity and cohesion of the German nation and as enemies within the Germans’ own country. The Question was declared by many as a racial ideology and cultural problem, unsolvable through integration and that the removal of Jews from their over-representation and socially dominant positions, of the press, education, culture, state politics and economy, was necessary to restore ethical and cultural balance back into the lives of the German people.

12163827392An early use of the expression “Jewish question” appeared during the ‘Jew Bill of 1753’ debates in England, though not yet a political slogan. It was formally called; The Jewish Naturalisation Act – 1753.
Joseph Salvador, a prominent Banker and leader of London’s Sephardi Jewish community, petitioned the government for legislation to enact a wide range of accommodations for foreign and local Jews, financial benefits for the higher classes being dominant… The contradictions within the petition and the legal implications, left puzzled those who debated it and wondering what was the true intent behind the Bill itself, as it would open up further hostilities toward Jewry. This was a foreign concept to the XVIII century Christian mind, which could not understand the intentional purpose – and ultimate benefit – of civil unrest and political chaos.

Although the Bill passed, it was hurriedly repealed a few months later, citing; “Wherein the motives of all parties interested therein are examined: the principles of Christianity, with regard to the admission of Jews are fully discussed […] Wherein the false reasoning, gross misrepresentation of fact and Perversions of Scripture, are fully laid open and detected.” It was colloquially termed an “Abandonment of Christianity.”

Bruno Bauer, in his book; ‘The Jewish Question’ published in 1843, argued that Jews could achieve political emancipation, only if they relinquished their particular religious consciousness, since political emancipation requires a secular state, which he assumed did not leave any “space” for social identities such as religion. True political emancipation, for Bauer, required the abolition of religion.

karl-marx-on-the-jewish-questionMordechai Levi ( better-known as Karl Marx), replied to Bauer in his 1844 essay titled, On the Jewish Question.’ Marx contradicted Bauer’s view that the nature of the Jewish religion prevented Judaism’s assimilation. Instead, he focused on the specific social and economic role of the Jewish group in Europe which, according to Marx, was lost when capitalism, the “material basis for Judaism,” assimilated the European societies as a whole.
Marx argued, that Bauer was mistaken in his assumption that in a ‘secular state’, religion would no longer play a prominent role in social life. In Marx’s analysis, the ‘secular state’ is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it.

After a century of political discussion, the abundance of printed material disseminated into the psyche of the newly-literate populations of Europe, along with the Jewish Enlightenment movement (Haskalah) and, a succession of Revolutions, the progression of the Question expansively grew into an international geopolitical question, from its initial discussions on mere internal, civic issues.

herzlthTheodore Herzl, stated in his  1896 pamphlet, ‘Der Judenstaat’ (The Jews’ State);
“The ‘Jewish Question’ persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers. Wherever it does not exist, it is brought in together with Jewish immigrants. We are naturally drawn into those places where we are not persecuted, and our appearance there gives rise to persecution. This is the case, and will inevitably be so, everywhere, even in highly civilised countries—see, for instance, France—so long as the ‘Jewish Question’ is not solved on the political level.”

The ‘British Uganda Programme’ or, the ‘Uganda Scheme,’ was a plan in the early 1900s to give a portion of British East Africa to the Jewish people as a homeland. The idea was brought to the Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903, at Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an “ante-chamber to the Holy Land” and a Nachtasyl (temporary night shelter), and many felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish State in Palestine and, also that the Jewish nation would not be able to claim itself as native to the land of Africa. Before the vote on the matter, the Jewish-Russian delegation stormed out in opposition. According to Author, Zionist, later Territorialist and close associate of Theodore Herlz – Israel Zangwill, who, as President of the International Jewish Territorial Organisation, stated during his address at the annual Vienna Conference, that; “the gradual abandonment of the [Uganda] project, [was] partly from the fear that our neo-Jewish civilisation, would be based on black labour.”

The Uganda Debate is still used as a metaphor in present-day Israeli politics. Israeli occupiers place supreme importance on settling in the Biblically-hallowed Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and some have used the term “Latter-Day Ugandists” to describe others who are willing to accept a Jewish state based on the 1947 United Nations plan or, the 1949 Armistice Agreements (excluding the West Bank). This term implies that liberal Israelis—like the adherents of the Uganda Programme or Latter-Day Ugandists, are simply interested in a place where Jews can live in peace, and care little about supposed historical and/or biblical matters.

weizmann1Chaim Weizman (first President of Israel) stated in a 1907 speech;
“The governments of the world will pay attention to us, only as they will ‘become convinced’ that we are capable of ‘Conquering Palestine’ through persistent practical work.
Political Zionism means, to make the ‘Jewish Question’ an ‘International Question.’ It means going to the nations and saying to them: “We need your help to achieve our aim; but we ourselves are doing all in our power to strengthen our position in the land, because we regard Palestine as our homeland.” We must explain Zionism to the governments in such a manner that they shall understand it as the Jews understand it.”
How the Palestinians understand it, was not proffered at all.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-2006-1009-500,_Archim_GerckeIn National Socialist Germany, the term “Jewish Question” (Judenfrage) referred to the sense that the existence of Jews in Germany had posed great problems for the nation, especially well-founded since the 1848 Revolution, the 1918 Revolution, the 1919 Communist-Spartacist Uprising, the repeated and deliberate economic crashes and escalated problems, moreover, since the Treaty of Versailles. In 1933 – the same year International Jewry Declared War on Germany – theorists Johann von Leers and Achim Gercke, both proposed that this particular Jewish problem and, the Jewish Question over all, could be solved most humanely by resettling Jews in Madagascar or elsewhere in Africa. Both intellectuals discussed the pros and cons of supporting the German Zionist Jews as well, but von Leers asserted that establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine would create humanitarian and political problems for the region. This percipient prediction has since been proven so, since The Benefit of WWII, led to the establishment of a Jewish [Terrorist] State in Palestine, which has caused the region to be consumed with wars, terrorism, genocide and chaos, ever since.

AlfredRosenberginBerlinThese theories were expanded on and proposed to the International Refugee Committee (today, International Rescue Committee), between National Socialist representative, Alfred Rosenberg, IRC Director George Rublee and other international delegates.
Rosenberg reflected on all possible proposals and after a process of elimination, such as rejecting Alaska – as it offered too harsh a climate – proposed Guiana or Madagascar, as both had been officially offered by other governments prior.
Opposing a Jewish ‘Reservation’ in Palestine, Rosenberg said it was too small and experience had shown that the British Mandate Government of Palestine could not come to agreement with the Arabs. Further he asserted, that the territory should be set aside with contributions by “Jewish Millionaires and billionaires from all the world,” to the International Refugee Committee in London. Supervision of the ‘Reservation’ by a police administration under the command of a Governor or a League of Nations was also an important recommendation by Rosenberg.
He added, “If the democracies want to prove the truth of their friendship for Jews now, they must within a reasonable time make clear, which of these territories shall be established as a Jewish Reservation.”
“I stress the word “Reservation” for there can be no talk either at present or in the future about a Jewish-State…” Rosenberg said.


After nearly two centuries of progressive political manoeuvring, debates, revolutions and the overthrow of Autocratic political systems (except the short revival in the Third Reich) that could not have their policies rapidly manipulated by infiltration, like Democracy caters to (WWI – the final implosion of the old world Autocratic systems; German, Russian, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empires) and before the world could examine the economic, political and social systems of Germany that brought it such prosperity – while the rest of the world suffered the Depression – the time was ripe for the finalè to establish a new world capital and a state of eternal Jewish impunity from accountability… and the mother of all excuses and political sympathy was required for this purpose – a travesty – a Holocaust!
It was make-or-break and no Atrocity Propaganda was neglected, because a Nachtasyl would never be acceptable.

The Final Solution: Germany’s Madagascar Resettlement Plan – see here


“It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish State in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university of budding crooks.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The only “Questions” that should be accurately answered and absent of fanciful theories of unfounded prejudice is…

Why hasn’t there been a persistent;
“Asian Question”
“Indian Question”
“African Question”
“European Question”
“Arab Question”
“Aboriginal Question”
“Polynesian Question”
“Spanish Question” or
“All other peoples Question”
just the “Jewish Problem”?

And now, we have an additional modern day Question/Problem to find a ‘Solution’ for…
How do we hold criminals accountable, now that a ‘Jurisdictional-State [of Impunity]’ has been established, as a safe-haven for criminals to shelter and to retreat to?

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic

“No Poison Gas Was Ever Used… Witnesses Have Lied” ∼ Allied Committee Of Inquiry

“It could be proven that torture was used to extract confessions, and witnesses have lied”



Memo Nr: 31/48

“The Allied Committee of Inquiry has to date proven that no poison gas was ever used to kill prisoners in the following concentration camps……

Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenburg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen, and satellite camps..Natzweller, Neuengamme, Niederhagen(Wewelsberg), Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthoff, Theresienstadt, In all cases where gassings were alleged, it COULD BE PROVEN THAT TORTURE WAS USED TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS, AND WITNESSES HAVE LIED. Any former inmate who, during their debriefing continues to allege that Poison gas was used to murder people – in particular Jews – are to be reported to this office, and if they insist on lying further, they are to be charged with perjury.”

Signed Major Miller
Commanding Officer..Allied Military Police Vienna

Witnessed by: Lieutenant Lachout MP

[Note: Auschwitz was not included in this camp list, as it was under the jurisdiction of the Jewish Bolshevik Soviets, not the Allies.]

Allied Military Police - Vienna

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.


Declassified documents Confirm Dresden Holocaust which Churchill claims is “Impressive”

Churchill: Terror and Destruction is “Impressive”

Winston Churchill reveals his blood-lust for terror and admits the atrocity of the genocide of Dresden

Churchill wrote in a memo dated 28th March, 1945, of his concerns regarding the All-lies “wanton destruction” and “increasing terror” of Germany.
The destruction and terror was not his concern, he found that to be “impressive” – it was (as the lines of complete victory were within sight), that if the All-lies continued the terror and destruction, they would come into possession of a completely ruined land, with nothing left for them to pillage from, for themselves.
Even though he acknowledges the terrorism and the annihilation of Dresden and its people, only for the sake of All-lied reputation (the worst single premeditated genocide in a few short days, in recorded history), he still, only in this late date, wished to begin targeting military and oil locations (instead of people), purely for interests of material benefit of the All-lies, not for any remorse or for the reduction in suffering of the German people.

As Churchill’s cold, callous character and intentions were clarified in his personal writings, General Ismay had to rewrite it for him, in attempt to present Churchill in a more reasonable fashion, whilst erasing his admission in regards to Dresden and of his blood-lust for destroying a people, their cities, their culture and their history.

First quote: Churchill’s personal thoughts.
Second quote: General Ismay’s rewrite on behalf of the Prime Minister.


10 Downing Street,

See General Ismay’s minute on 30/3/45 submitting a redraft of this on 30/3

“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. We shall not, for instance, be able to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforth be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than that of the enemy.

The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.”



10 Downing Street,

C.A.S. (copy sent)

“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of the so called “area bombing” of German cities should be reviewed from the point of view of our own interests. If we come into control of an entirely ruined land, there will be a great shortage of accommodation for ourselves and our Allies: and we shall be unable to get housing materials out of Germany for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the Germans themselves. We must see to it that our attacks do not do more harm to ourselves in the long run than they do to the enemy’s immediate war effort. Pray let me have your views.”



Source: UK National Archives.…/transcript/g1cs3s3t.htm.

The plan to genocide the German people via aerial bombardment was manifested by the ‘Dehousing Paper’ enacted in British Parliament – here

Churchill Memo Dresden

Dresden fires seen for miles

The following short documentary film, briefly examines the genocide of the people of Dresden, to which Sir Winston Churchill referred to as “Impressive.”

On the 70th Anniversary of the Dresden Holocaust, former British POW, Victor Greg, recalls what he describes as the Allies “Pure Evil” attacks on the civilian and refugee population of Germany.


The ‘Dehousing Paper’ – the Real Extermination Policy – How to Murder 25 Million Germans and get away with it

The British R.A.F. policy to murder at least a third of Germany’s civilian population and “Break their spirit” – manifested from the ‘Dehousing Paper’


On 30 March 1942, Professor Frederick LindemannBaron Cherwell, the British government’s Chief Scientific Adviser (appointed by Churchill), who wielded more influence than any other civilian adviser and was said to have “an almost pathological hatred for Germany, and an almost medieval desire for revenge” as part of his character – sent to the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a memorandum, which after it had been accepted by the Cabinet, became known as the ‘Dehousing Paper.’

The paper was delivered during a debate within the British government about the most effective use of the nation’s resources in waging war on Germany. Should the Royal Air Force (RAF) be reduced to allow more resources to go to the British Army and Royal Navy, or should the strategic bombing option be expanded to civilian targets?

The paper argued that the demolition of people’s houses (containing mostly women and children, as men were absent on military duties) was the most effective way to affect the German morale, even more effectively than killing their relatives.
Given the known limits of the RAF in locating targets in Germany at the time and providing that the planned resources were made available to the RAF in the near future, destroying about thirty percent of the “Housing Stock” of Germany’s fifty-eight largest towns was considered the most effective use of the aircraft of RAF Bomber Command, because it would “Break the spirit of the Germans.”
After a heated debate by the government’s military and scientific Advisers, the Cabinet voted for the “Expanded” strategic bombing campaign, over the other options available to them… in complete violation and defiance of all International Humanitarian Laws, the Hague Conventions, Laws of War and the Geneva Conventions – essentially, voted to approve of committing War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

Since November 1941 the RAF had been husbanding its resources and awaiting the introduction of large numbers of four-engined “heavy” bombers and the GEE radio-navigational device into front-line service.
Bombing policy had, in actuality, already moved away from attempts at precision bombing.

The paper was produced by Cherwell and the information was given by the researchers in response to questions posed by Cherwell.

“The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany.

We know from our experience that we can count on nearly fourteen operational sorties per bomber produced. The average lift of the bombers we are going to produce over the next fifteen months will be about 3 tons. It follows that each of these bombers will in its life-time drop about 40 tons of bombs. If these are dropped on built-up areas they will make 4000–8000 people homeless.

In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in fifty-eight towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be easy to find and hit. Our forecast output of heavy bombers (including Wellingtons) between now and the middle of 1943 is about 10,000. If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these fifty-eight German towns, the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home… [that is political linguistics for saying, mass murder, terrorism or genocide]

Investigation seems to show that having one’s home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the fifty-eight principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people.

Our calculation assumes, of course, that we really get one-half of our bombs into built-up areas. On the other hand, no account is taken of the large promised American production (6,000 heavy bombers in the period in question). Nor has regard been paid to the inevitable damage to factories, communications, etc, in these towns and the damage by fire, probably accentuated by breakdown of public services.”

Source: Wikipedia
Featured picture above:
German victims of the February 1945 genocidal attack on Dresden
often claimed as Jewish victims by “German Atrocities”

ChurchillStated in British Parliament 1943

Lindemann believed that a small circle of the intelligent and the aristocratic should run the world, resulting in a peaceable and stable society, “led by supermen and served by helots.” Many sources say he was Jewish, others do not, but for an immigrant born in Germany and the son of a wealthy banker, to hold such hated toward Germans, one can only surmise. Sometimes considered to be anti-democratic, insensitive and elitist, Lindemann was in complete support and promotion of eugenics, he held the working class, homosexuals, Germans and blacks in contempt and, supported sterilisation of who he saw as mentally incompetent. Referring to Lindemann’s lecture on Eugenics, Mukerjee concluded science could yield a race of humans blessed with “the mental make-up of the worker bee”….At the lower end of the race and class spectrum, one could remove the ability to suffer or to feel ambition….Instead of subscribing to what he called “the fetish of equality,” Lindemann recommended that human differences should be accepted and indeed enhanced by means of science. It was no longer necessary, he wrote, to wait for “the haphazard process of natural selection to ensure that the slow and heavy mind gravitates to the lowest form of activity.”

Pictures: Lindemann’s “Housing Stock” turned
“Out of House and Home”

Holocaust: (frm Greek) Holos Kaustos – ‘Whole Burnt’

0c08ee0df5579e72440d4afe0471ad51A Real ‘Holocaust Survivor’

Declassified documents confirm the horror of this policy and that Winston Churchill finds this kind of wanton destruction and terror “Impressive”see here

“The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany is the goal… It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy.  They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”
Air Marshal Arthur Harris (aka ‘Bomber Harris’), Bomber Commander, British R.A.F., October 25, 1943 – Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare, Tammi Biddle (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220.

“Will there be room [for the German refugees, fleeing before the Red army] in what is left of Germany? We have killed six or seven million Germans and probably there will be another million or so killed before the end of the war.”
– Winston Churchill, as noted by James F. Byrnes‘ at the Plenary Session at Yalta, February 7, 1945 – 5 days before the Dresden Holocaust – (H. S. Truman Library, Independence, Missouri)

“The Prime Minister said that we hoped to shatter twenty German cities as we had shattered Cologne, Lubeck, Dusseldorf, and so on. More and more aeroplanes and bigger and bigger bombs. Marshal Stalin had heard of 2-ton bombs. We had now begun to use 4-ton bombs, and this would be continued throughout the winter. If need be, as the war went on, we hoped to shatter almost every dwelling in almost every German city.”
– Official transcript of the meeting at the Kremlin between Winston Churchill and Josef Stalin on Wednesday, August 12, 1942, at 7 P.M.

“The destruction of factories, which was nevertheless on an enormous scale, could be regarded as a bonus.  The aiming-points were usually right in the center of the town.”
– Arthur Harris, Bomber Offensive (London: HarperCollins, 1947), p. 147.


Somehow, War Criminals who, in complete contravention of every International Convention and Treaty they were signatory to; intentionally planned, voted for and physically conducted one of, if not the biggest Crimes Against Humanity ever committed… then exhalted themselves into a position of Prosecution against the defeated at the Nuremberg Show Trials, while proclaiming themselves exempt from the so-called law which they administered – in the biggest spectacle of ‘Conflict of Interest‘ the world has ever been subjected to!
Therefore, legally speaking, all findings of the Nuremberg Show Trials should be revoked and a new trial convened, in order to bring light to; the true crimes and partied criminals – who have never been brought to accountability – public acknowledgement of the true victims, posthumous exoneration for those convicted at the Show Trials and in the very least… an apology!

“We should never allow ourselves to apologize for what we did to Germany.”
– Winston Churchill to John Lawrence, quoted in Max Hastings, Bomber Command (NY: Dial Press, 1979), p. 107.

Watch ‘Hellstorm’ – the documentary film exposing the
Real Genocide of WWII Germany

“The millions of Jews living in America, England, France, North Africa and South, not forgetting Palestine, have decided to carry on the war in Germany to the very end. It is to be a war of extermination.”
~ ‘The Jewish newspaper, ‘Central Blad Voor Israeliten’ in Nederlands (13 September 1939)

In a BBC interview, allied witness and British POW, Victor Gregg, confirms the genocidal Western policy as “Pure Evil” – 70 years after he survived the unnecessary Holocaust of Dresden in February, 1945… at wars end, when German defeat was clearly evident and All-lied victory was already in sight – none of these people were a threat to anybody.

Victor Gregg speaks of the RAF Bomber Pilots who were just “Doing their job” and “Following orders” – they are not to be blamed?

History should not be judged by double standards!

Further reading: The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust, by Mark Weber

N. Jones is a Writer, Researcher, Historian and Literary Critic.