This critique has presented new sources, and cast new light on old sources, which demonstrate the many different forms of proof that exist for the Aktion Reinhard extermination program. We have clearly established in Chapters 2-4 the timeline through which policy evolved from decimation to extermination, and how the planned locations shifted from the Strongpoints to the death camps in Poland. We have synthesized documents from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials with those in American, German and former Soviet archives to build a detailed picture of how the policy of extermination was understood and implemented at the centre and at the sites of death themselves. We have taken the twisted road to Belzec via this documentation and shown how the twists in the road can be better understood in the light of the convergence of evidence.
We have then gone into the death camps themselves in more detail on some issues than has ever been attempted before in published form by an academic historian. Four full chapters present our extensive findings from over 65 years’ worth of site report, maps and excavations. We have proved conclusively that “no mass graves” is a denier fantasy, repetition of which would make MGK seem as moronic as the posts that appear from denier cheerleaders on the Internet. The perpetrator testimonies from the NIOD files and from the Trawnikis that we have presented here have enabled us to put to rest denier memes such the diesel issue, although we would expect this meme to be too big a crutch for deniers to throw away even with such a comprehensive review of the witnesses. We have also demonstrated how denial arguments concerning such technical matters as skin color, which Kues in particular has chosen to embrace, are based on misreading and mistranslation of sources.
It is important to contrast this with what we have shown to be the mediocre output and skewed logic of MGK. We can summarize the failures of their work, not only in the order of our chapters here, but also by following the perverse chapter structure which they impose on their own books, such as in Sobibór. Our chapter structure shows their non-existent grasp of Nazi policy, deportation realities, the political economy of Nazi occupation of the East (such as food supply, which made resettlement impossible), the nature of eyewitness testimony, and the scope and findings of postwar site investigations. Their own structure shows a failure to document a conspiracy in World War II; their inability to confront the real sequence by which knowledge of extermination came to be accepted in the West; their lack of any methodology or internal consistency in how they treat witnesses; their reliance upon a view of West German legal processes that is taken from paranoid fiction; and their total inability to document the survival of the Aktion Reinhard deportees whom the rational world and legal system assumes to have died in the camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor.
Conspiratorial reasoning cannot explain why West German defendants gave testimonies that converge with those given by Trawnikis that have been buried for decades in obscure files. It is unable to reason with the sentencing of defendants whose terms bore no relation to whether they made admissions or not. It leads them to overlook facts documented in judgments, such as the fact that Oberhauser’s sentence was reduced in West Germany because he had already served a sentence in East Germany, having been convicted in Magdeburg in 1948.
Conspiracy also cannot grasp why evidence concerning Aktion Reinhard was given by perpetrators during postwar interrogations concerning other sites. For example, as we showed in Chapters 2 and 5, Wirth was linked to a euthanasia task in the Lublin area by the T4 testimony of Gorgass. He was shown to have already shot Jews at Hartheim by the testimony of Nohel. MGK also never discuss why Eichmann described extermination to Sassen while a free man; or why Rauff gave a deposition while free in Chile; or why Gomerski accepted after his release on health grounds that he had deserved a custodial sentence, albeit a shorter one. Kues’ paranoid fantasies about defendants being ‘conveniently’ murdered, usually by unnamed Jews, are built on false assumptions and a selective reading of newspaper sources, deliberately omitting details that disprove his thesis.
Graf’s conspiracism regarding West Germany in the 1960s exaggerates the nation-state’s power to control all dissenting information at that time. This can be shown by the example of the USSR dissidents Sinyavsky, Daniel and Ginzburg whose trials were reported in the west. In 1969, Daniel and Ginzburg, “along with four other prisoners [wrote] an open letter to the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, urging "corrective legislation" to change the regulations in camps like Potma, where, according to official designation, "especially dangerous political prisoners" are held […] [The] letter was being circulated widely in Moscow.” Why couldn’t MGK’s persecuted Nazis smuggle out such letters? Why did they not give exculpatory details anonymously to third parties (sympathetic pro-Nazis like MGK themselves) who would have been only too happy to courier them? Why did these victims of the hoax not even retract their confessions on their death-beds or in private manuscripts that could later be sent to denier outlets after the perpetrator’s death?
This raises another problem: the resettlement hypothesis. If the Soviets could not eliminate dissent from three dissidents, how could they silence all the witnesses to the resettlement of the Jews? The resettlement hypothesis does not just require the state to silence most witnesses most of the time, but all of them all the time in all places, even after Jews emigrated from the USSR to Israel and the USA. State repression must attain perfection and be enforced on a global scale, which is simply a mirage of the conspiracy theorist.
This is just one of many problems that MGK have with witnesses. A further insurmountable problem is that Mattogno and Kues fundamentally disagree on the value of witnesses. Mattogno misuses Baynac out of context to insist that “testimony, if not supported by a document, is worthless from the historical point of view, regardless of the notion of “converging testimonies”, as is shown by the example of the “converging” testimonial evidence for the Auschwitz 4 million victim figure.” In contrast, Kues attempts to use convergence of witnesses without documents to prove resettlement, as we showed in Chapter 4. This contradiction can only be sustained through cognitive dissonance on the part of both parties. Furthermore, Mattogno breaks his own rule in his policy chapters, such as in his reliance upon Höss and Wisliceny to dispute the historiography of the spring 1942 escalation, while ignoring the copious documentation on that escalation that we discussed in chapters 2 and 3. Mattogno’s obsession with “the ‘converging’ testimonial evidence for the Auschwitz 4 million victim figure” ignores the fact that Höss gave lower figures.
Such contradictions and confusions arise, in part, from MGK’s refusal to spell out their working assumptions when they discuss testimonies. They rely on the reader’s incredulity, but such reliance can only preach to the converted denier. A neutral reader will always ask why such-and-such an anomaly should matter, or why this testimony is being highlighted while others are ignored. We are compelled to conclude that this silence is designed deliberately to permit MGK to choose methods of convenience, which then makes them unaccountable for their omissions and selective biases. This is also a major reason why MGK avoid peer review.
MGK have also, by pursuing this strategy, made themselves unaccountable to other deniers. For example, Mattogno’s use of Himmler’s racial policy document of May 1940 to support a policy of ‘emigration’ can be traced all the way back to his first ‘Myth’ essay of 1985, but this was implicitly rejected by Walendy, who declared it a forgery in 1991. If Mattogno cannot defend his case against refutations by Revisionists with whom he concurs elsewhere in his texts, why should we expect him to engage with opponents such as ourselves who deal with the evidence in good faith? Or is Mattogno brushing this Revisionist dissensus under the carpet in the knowledge that such open disagreements on method expose negationism as actually having no method except negation?
This leaves MGK grasping at the “no mass graves” straw, but this rings more hollow every year. The attempt to poison the well by blaming the Soviet investigators for effectively hoaxing mass graves ignores the fact that western journalists were shown human remains at Babi Yar, Klooga and near Majdanek, and a huge store of plundered property in Lublin.
The misrepresentations in MGK’s work are too systematic to be simply due to misreading and miscomprehension. There are numerous occasions when their statements about a text are contradicted by the very text that is front of their noses. For example, Sobibór attacks Henry Friedlander and claims there is no documentary proof, only post-war testimony, of the use of gas chambers in the euthanasia program, yet the Friedlander book they cite has such a document clearly spelled out, in which gas canisters were delivered from I.G. Farben’s BASF site.
The numerous mistakes found in MGK can be classified under the following types: contradictions amongst themselves and within their own arguments, quote-mines of various material (documents, witnesses, and secondary literature), selective citations of the available evidence or historiography, blatant misrepresentations of the evidence of historiography, arguments based on incomprehension and incredulity, and various other types of logical fallacies (e.g. falsus in uno). Many of the mistakes arise from the basic shortcomings found in their work, most notably a lack of reading, a lack of archival research, as well as their piecemeal approach to the evidence. In short, MGK have failed to address the evidence, let alone do so in a reasonable fashion. This critique then has demonstrably proven their works to rely largely on ignorance and dishonesty, two attributes most associated with Holocaust denial by the public at large. Which flaw is more central to MGK’s work, the present authors shall leave as an open question.
As MGK are the most prolific and research driven of all active Revisionists, and are also typically the most praised authors among the few deniers that actually read their own literature, the downfall of MGK then serves as a telling sign about the state of Revisionism. If they are the best, what does that say about the rest? Nothing good, as should be fairly obvious. Indeed, as the only Revisionists left who have visited an archive, and producing the most credible attempts to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, MGK’s failure to honestly and openly argue the available evidence should remove all possible doubt to any ‘skeptics’ about the lack of professional integrity and accuracy of Holocaust denial. Simply refuting their work, however, misses a crucial part of a proper analysis of MGK, namely the driving force behind MGK’s fraudulent work.
This need to misread Holocaust historians, in order to defame their work, derives partly from envy of genuine academic achievement but also, most strongly, from a commitment by all three authors to neo-Nazi politics and/or antisemitic beliefs. Sobibór is dedicated to Jürgen Rieger, the deceased former deputy chairman of the National Democratic Party of Germany. The final chapter of the same work contains a eulogy to Horst Mahler, who once stated that "billions of people would be ready to forgive Hitler if he had murdered only the Jews." Sobibór also has unsourced speculation by Graf that Zionists were “unhesitatingly prepared to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own brethren.” The same page then blames Zionists for “firing up” German anti-Jewish feeling in 1933. Graf is happy to play the typical racist blame-the-victim game.
Indeed, among the three authors Graf’s political statements and beliefs emerge as the strongest. He joined the pro-Stalinist Institute of the Russian Civilization, a group that spreads antisemitic positions, such as through reprinting and defending the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and accusing Jews of using Christian blood in their rituals. In a 2002 interview, Graf asked, “What to do with those Jews? We’re cultured people, we can’t exterminate them. What to do with them? I don’t know.” Graf has stated that he believes that we are living in "a globalist system of pseudo-democratic régimes in which Jews control the government and the opposition at the same time (the classic examples being the U.S., Great Britain, and France)" and that "in any European society the Jewish Community will attempt to continue its destructive work.” He deplores the "fallacious doctrine of racial equality", which he believes "made possible the catastrophe of forced racial integration in the USA, which has done immeasurable harm to both the white and the black populations..."
Furthermore, in a recent response to Christian Lindtner, a Revisionist who later became convinced about the truth of exterminations, Graf unleashed a barrage of horrid antisemitic attacks. In desperately trying to explain why some German perpetrators who provided confirmation of exterminations and gassings were given life imprisonment (instead of leniency or pardons, as Graf argues as a method of coercion, see Chapter 1), Graf writes that such long sentences arose because “after all, the Jews wanted their pound of flesh!” Graf provides no evidence that Jews had any power over the German judiciary system in the postwar period, while such a reference to “pound of flesh” harks back to many centuries old religious attacks on Jews of the blood libel type. Graf then goes on to accuse Lindtner of identifying with “the Jewish version” of events, and even using “Jewish newspeak” by labelling Revisionism as denial. Thus, in his fit of rage against Lindtner, Graf further exposed his antisemitic beliefs.
Mattogno is much more guarded in his statements but, in 2010, wrote an article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which stated that the “aspiration to world domination by the Jews…is already expressed explicitly” in rabbinical texts and constitutes “the very essence of Jewish messianism.” Mattogno cites approvingly the claims by Bernard Lazare and his own brother that Jews have, throughout history and across all societies in which they have settled, brought persecution upon themselves through their own behaviours. His brother has also given an interview in which he has stated that:
From the Talmud, the Midrash and other rabbinical texts of the tradition we learn that the murder of non-jew [sic] is not only permitted but also required, and that this murder could take the form of an actual ritual sacrifice offered to Yahweh. It is a subject that deserves to be investigated, starting from the concept of "cherem", anathema, the extermination of votive enemies of Israel, the annihilation of the Jewish goyim consecrated to God.
Distaste for Jews was expressed by Mattogno when he wrote the following regarding van Pelt in 2003:
[Jean-Claude Pressac] was no longer a valuable goldmine to the guardians of the 'Holocaust' orthodoxy, but had turned into a more and more rebellious and uncontrollable Goy, jeopardizing the official historiography with each new publication.[...]
For this reason, the position as the "world's leading Auschwitz expert," until then occupied by Pressac, was taken by a trustworthy Yehudi, who was to take Pressac's theses - cleaned from all revisionist waste - and embed them into an unalterable, definitive version of Auschwitz.
It is very noteworthy that Mattogno identifies the two historians most damaging to his work on Auschwitz, Jean-Claude Pressac (‘uncontrollable Goy’) and Robert Van Pelt (‘trustworthy Yehudi’), with Jewish names and terms.
Perhaps the most elusive of the trio in terms of antisemitism is Thomas Kues. Kues sees the global community, particularly the European Union and NATO, as being run by “Zionist masters.” Kues offers no proof that Israel controls such entities, but simply assumes that this is the case based on a 2008 letter from the chairman at Yad Vashem to the Lithuanian prime minister; not any statement from a US, EU, or NATO figure. Kues attacks Jewish historian Yitzhak Arad as an “NKVD hangman”, without any shred of evidence. He plays up Jewish guilt for various things, such as serving as “butchers” during the Second World War (presumably in the form of partisans or NKVD officials), while also chastising Israel for being “a haven for any criminal who can prove Jewish ancestry.” This is a strawman of the real history of the Law of Return, which has infact been used to exclude persons “with a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare.” Kues also ignores the fact that the Law of Return is a subject of controversy in Israel itself; like all antisemites, he treats Israeli politics as monolithic. It seems that Kues is happy to neglect basic research and crucial distinctions when he has a polemical agenda. Kues understands his audience and the support they would offer to such statements; for instance, see Kues’ requests for revisionist information from Brazilian white nationalists on Stormfront.
When asking his readers to decide between two groups of intellectuals on whose work our civilization rests (creating an artificial division which no respectable philosopher or intellectual historian would allow, as ideas from the given writers transgress such divides), Kues lists the lesser intellectuals as “Freud, Marcuse, and Elie Wiesel.” Is it just coincidence that these three are all Jewish?
It is an easily observed point that conspiracy theorists (such as Holocaust deniers) have a strong propensity to believe in more than one conspiracy. Obviously, if the world and its history are not as we are told for one instance, than every agency involved with that instance should be interpreted differently. As no occurrence is wholly independent from its circumstances, conventional reasons for previous and subsequent events are then to be altered to reflect a different trajectory of historical development, better reflecting reality if the original conspiracy were true. This brings about a cascade or avalanche of conspiracies and fringe beliefs in the continued attempt to establish a true history of events, based on the core conspiracy claim. The idea that conspiracy theorists “live in their own world” thus is not simply criticism of their mental capacity, but also a statement sufficiently describing reality and historical events as they are typically understood by conspiracy theorists.
It is in this light that one should view the conspiracy claims that MGK make across their work regarding the hoax of the Holocaust, many of which have been discussed in the chapters of this critique. This also accounts for the conspiracy claims made by the trio beyond the years of 1933-1945. For instance, Graf and Mattogno’s defense and association with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion fits this pattern, as does Kues’ belief that “sick Jewish gangsters and their ilk” were behind the suicide of German death camp perpetrators far into the postwar years. So too does Graf’s belief that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks upon the United States (one of the states dependent on the lie for the Israeli state, allegedly) were an example of a “self-inflicted” attack, which he fears is part of the possible wider “response of democracies to Revisionism.” No doubt these conspiracy claims are fuelled by antsemitism, as already shown, to varying degrees amongst the three authors.
These antisemitic and conspiratorial politics, combined with systematic lying, are clearly a major factor in the refusal of Holocaust historians to debate MGK, yet they continue to play the role of the aggrieved party. The Holocaust Handbooks series carries this promotional spiel:
These books are designed to have the power to both convince the common reader as well as academics in this field. And it is very successful with this approach! The final goal is to eventually tip the academic scale, so that academia will start doing its duty: to demand and pursue public scrutiny of this most influential topic of all western societies. Because as long as academics don't do this, the media and politicians certainly will not do it either.
If MGK subscribe to this belief, we must question their ability to acquire any self-awareness over a lifetime of failure to convince any academic historian that they may have a point.
In the light of their politics and dishonesty, and the hammering their work has received in our foregoing chapters, we must also ask: where now for the Three Stooges of Revisionist pseudohistoriography? A major problem they face is simply the lack of an audience. The crew at Holocaust Controversies are now virtually the only people taking more than a passing interest in the writing of Mattogno as he enters his second quarter-century as an author. For example, according to an Internet search done by ourselves, in the twelve months spanning August 2010 to July 2011, Mattogno was mentioned only 112 times at CODOH, whilst Kues received 70 mentions and Graf, who has become the runt of this litter, only 48. Many of these mentions were generated by Internet exchanges between HC authors and Mattogno or Graf, thereby confirming that MGK are dependent on traffic from HC to a degree that must cause them discomfort. Ironically, however, Kues, Graf and Mattogno have failed to respond to the vast majority of points made in articles which we wrote about them between 2006 and the present.
Moreover, what does the term ‘research’ mean to MGK? For Kues, it does not yet seem to have included visiting an archive, although his reading of the up-to-date secondary literature seems to be more thorough than that of Mattogno. Although Mattogno has visited archives, his bibliography in Sobibor is missing entire collections that would be essential to such a project. In other cases, he has visited relevant archives in Warsaw and Lublin but evidently did not spend long enough there to find a number of frequently cited files widely used by genuine specialists in the field. The greatest omission is really his ignorance of the core captured German documents and BDC materials, available in the USA and in Germany. In the entire trilogy, Mattogno cites from just one file from the Bundesarchiv and two from the German Foreign Office archive. This is a sufficiently low number that one could justifiably doubt whether Mattogno has even seen the files in question. He cites from just one file from the National Archives of Belarus which is misnumbered in Treblinka. Would Mattogno expect us to believe that he stopped off in Minsk and asked to see a single file?
It is therefore to be expected that MGK’s work will continue to decline in quality, and will lean increasingly on Kues’ IH outlet, where he can focus narrowly on just one piece of the jigsaw at a time. Meanwhile, potential converts to their work will continue to become disaffected and walk away from their circle, as one founding member of IH has already done. Comments from that former member can be found in the Afterword.
In case MGK have the courage to respond to this critique, we would like to set some provisions required for us to take any ‘risposta’ into serious consideration. We will not accept any effort that only deals with our critique in a piecemeal and isolated fashion, hence we will be little concerned with any response that just focuses on the technical minutiae of the camps without recognizing the importance of Nazi policy. The Reinhard camps weren’t created in a vacuum, and we expect MGK to recognize that fact. That is why we dare MGK to follow the structure of the present critique, so as to put things in proper perspective. As mentioned, arguments not told in narrative form often fail a simple bullshit test.
While we don’t expect MGK to deal with all of the evidence (we haven’t either, which goes to show how much exists), we do insist that they deal with far more than they have so far in their previous failed attempts. It is also incumbent upon them to include all relevant contexts for the evidence they do select, and thus avoid isolating documents as if they too were created in a vacuum. For example, in looking at Korherr’s use of “Sonderbehandlung” in his famous report, the understanding that such a phrase meant killing does not stand on its own but exists inside a wider pattern of abductive inferences from many other sources related to Nazi-Jewish policy. A reversion by MGK back to old ways of decontextualization and isolation of the evidence is simply unacceptable to us, and will meet a grade of non sufficiente.
We also expect MGK to take note of many of the serious errors which we have spotlighted in this critique. We have demonstrated that they are unequivocally wrong on innumerable occasions. Simply adapting or omitting their mistakes from future versions of their work will not be good enough; instead, we would hope that MGK admit their mistakes in an honest fashion, open to their readers and the public.
The late Raul Hilberg once said, deniers "are like children who say: prove it! And so we must, prove it!" Hilberg could have added that deniers are asking historians to reinvent the wheel, because the Holocaust was already proven in the 1940s. We have therefore responded to a child who is not asking for proof beyond reasonable doubt, but is instead insisting on proof beyond unreasonable doubt. We have shown that the unreasonable doubts are based on bad faith, yet we have still managed to overcome them by providing proof that even a manic hyper-positivist would find hard to deny. We therefore request MGK to make a reasonable response to this critique, but we can only predict that their response will be unreasoned, hysterical and not fully honest.
 JuNSV Lfd. Nr.585 Bd.XX, pp. 628-47; LG München I vom 21.1.1965, 110 Ks 3/64:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/german-trials/belzec-urteil.shtml ; DJuNSV Lfd.Nr.1551, LG/BG Magdeburg vom 24.9.48, 11 Ks 246/48.
 ‘A Day in the Life of Yuli Daniel’, Life, 6.6.69:
Carlo Mattogno, ‘Rebuttal to Joachim Neander’, Inconvenient History blog, 8.2.10: http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2010/02/rebuttal-to-joachim-neander/ ; Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek, p.239. Joachim Neander responded and pointed out Mattogno’s misuse of Baynac: Joachim Neander and Sergey Romanov, ‘Dr. Neander responds to Carlo Mattogno,’ Holocaust Controversies, 13.2.10, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-joachim-neander-responds-to-carlo.html. Romanov’s Postscript to the article responds to Mattogno’s “Auschwitz 4 million” canard.
 Höss affidavit, 20.5.46, NI-034.
 Himmler an Hitler, 25.5.40, NO-1880.
 Mattogno, ‘The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews: Part I’.
 Udo Walendy, ‘Lügen um Heinrich Himmler. 1. Teil’, Historische Tatsachen 45, 1991, pp.3-11.
 New York Times, 29.11.43; the reporter, W.H. Lawrence, was sceptical about the number of deaths claimed: Laurel Leff, Buried by The Times: the Holocaust and America’s most important newspaper, Cambridge, 2005; Bill Lawrence, Six Presidents, Too Many Wars, New York, 1972, p.92.
 ‘Nazi Death Camp: A Scene of Horror,’ New York Times, 6.10.44, p.6; John Hersey, ‘Prisoner 339: Klooga’, Life, 17/18, 30.10.44, pp.72-83, including photographs.
 ‘Nazi Mass Killing Laid Bare in Camp’, New York Times, 30.8.41, p.1. The journalist, again W.H. Lawrence, expressed uncertainty regarding the reliability of the Soviets’ 1.5 million death estimate, but personally witnessed “three of ten opened mass graves and looked upon 368 partly decomposed bodies of men, women and children who had been executed individually in a variety of cruel and horrible means” at nearby Krepiecki. He also visited “a warehouse in downtown Lublin in which I saw hundreds of suitcases and literally tens of thousands of pieces of clothing and personal effects of people who died here”; and he “had the opportunity of questioning a German officer, Herman Vogel, 42, of Millheim, who admitted that as head of the clothing barracks he had supervised the shipment of eighteen freightcar loads of clothing to Germany during a two month period and that he knew it came from the bodies of persons who had been killed at Maidanek.” Vogel was later executed by the Poles.
 MGK, Sobibór, pp.276-81.
 Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide, p.331n.65, citing correspondence between the KTI, the KdF, and IG Farbenindustrie. DÖW, E18370/1, and BAK, R58/1059. See also De Mildt, Dick, In The Name of the People. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996, pp.78-94, citing JuNSV Bd. 733.
 MGK, Sobibór, p.400.
 MGK, Sobibór, p.373.
 See the interview with Graf here: http://www.svenlib.sandy.ru/pugovichki/vesti/graf.htm.
 Jürgen Graf, ‘"The New Jewish Question," or The End of Guillaume Faye’, CODOH, 29.10.07: http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vpfaye.html.
 Jürgen Graf, ‘Review of Vladimir Avdeyev: Rasologia’, 30.11.07: http://www.velesova-sloboda.org/misc/graf-avdeyev-rasologia-review.html.
 Jürgen Graf, ‘The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of a Scholar: Dr. Christian Lindtner and Holocaust Revisionism,’ National Journal, 22.7.11, Part four: ““Eyewitness evidence” and “confessions””
 Ibid., see Part 7 on “The ‘Vergasungskeller’ letter.” Graf should also have a conversation with pseudonym Denierbud and Friedrich Paul Berg over their use “Jewish newspeak,” as both readily identify themselves as ‘deniers’.
 Carlo Mattogno, ‘I Falsi Falsi Protocolli Scopo E Significato Dei “Protocolli Dei SaVi Anziani Di Sion”’, parte 3. http://olo-dogma.myblog.it/archive/2010/06/22/i-falsi-falsi-protocolli-scopo-e-significato-dei-protocolli2.html.
 Carlo Mattogno, ‘My Memories of Jean-Claude Pressac’, The Revisionist 1(4) (2003), pp. 432-435.
 The letter involved Lithuania’s investigation of former Yad Vashem chairman Yitzhak Arad for war crimes while fighting as a partisan in Lithuania against Nazi Germany. Kues never bothers to consider the public relations interest that Yad Vashem had over the issue involving its former personell, but instead identifies the institute with a Zionist control over Europe.
 The investigation mentioned in the previous footnote was stopped due to insufficient evidence.
 Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/Other_Law_Law_of_Return.html . ‘In Search of Meyer’, Jewish Magazine, February 2009, on-line: http://www.jewishmag.com/130mag/meyer_lansky/meyer_lansky.htm.
 Thomas Kues, ‘Speaking about Satan-A Note on Yehuda Bauer’s foreword to Filip Müller’s Three Years in the Gas Chambers’, http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrtkbauer.html. Kues offers the superior thinkers as Aristotle, Voltaire, and Nietzsche. Nietzsche would hardly enjoy being invoked by Kues. As Nieztsche once wrote to his sister in the 1880s, “ Your association with an anti-Semite expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me ever again and again with ire or melancholy...It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to anti-Semitism, namely opposed as I am in my writings...My disgust with this party (which would like all too well the advantage of my name!) is as outspoken as possible. And that I am unable to do anything against it, that in every Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet the name of Zarathustra is used, has already made me almost sick several times.”
 See post of ‘LaurentzDahl’ (aka Thomas Kues) of January 25, 2007 at http://revforum.yourforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=3674&start=15.
 Graf, Neue Weltordnung,pp.145-146. Graf actually misspells revisionism in the section title.
 Jason Myers, ‘CODOH: The Forum That Moderated Itself to Death’, Holocaust Controversies blog, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/02/codoh-forum-that-moderated-itself-to.html.