Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
certain. The wartime policy of Washington was to claim extermination, and the
post-war policy was to hold trials, at which there was generated the only evidence
that we have today that these wartime claims had any foundation. That is also certain.
The policies of both states are necessarily of interest, and if there is any respect,
in which this book may be breaking fundamentally new ground on the
problem, it is in its insistence in seeing Washington as an active agent in the generation
of the story. Thus, we are interested not only in what Hitler, Himmler,
Göring, Goebbels, and Heydrich were doing during the war in regard to these
matters, but also what Roosevelt, Hull, Morgenthau, and the New York Times and
associated media were doing during the war, and what the various tribunals controlled
or dominated by Washington did after the war. This is not only a fair but,
more importantly, an illuminating historical approach.
The conclusion is that Washington constructed a frame-up on the Jewish extermination
charge. Once this is recognized, the true nature of German Jewish
policy will be seen.
The War Crimes Trials
Before we review the details of the story, it should be pointed out that there are
excellent a priori grounds for expecting a frame-up. There is of course the very
general argument that political enmity of a magnitude to bring on armed conflict
between two states necessarily excludes the impartiality on the part of one of
them, which is a necessity for a fair trial and for which there exists no substitute.
The judges had pursued political careers in the contexts of the internal politics of
the Allied powers hostile to Germany and after the trials would, assuming they
had not done anything highly improbable at the war crimes trials, return to these
careers. They had, in addition, for several years heard only the anti-German viewpoint.
In sitting on the military tribunals, they were ad hoc political appointees.
Such considerations exclude approximate impartiality.
There are, however, much more specific reasons for expecting a frame-up. In
order to see this, it is only necessary to consider the easily obtainable facts concerning
the various tribunals involved.
First, there was the “big trial” conducted by the “International Military Tribunal”
(IMT) at Nuremberg immediately after the war. This was the trial of the top
Nazis Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, et al., which ran from November 1945 to October
1946. The judges and prosecutors were American, British, French, and Russian.
As with all “military” tribunals, there was no jury. There were three acquittals,
seven prison sentences, and eleven death sentences. The latter were carried
out almost immediately after the trial, except that Göring escaped the noose by
swallowing a potassium cyanide capsule just before the hangings. It was never determined
where Göring had obtained the poison or how he had managed to hide it
for any length of time. A unique sequel to this episode was that the first Nuremberg
prison psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas M. Kelley, a leader in the treatment of psy-
34