Nowadays the Anne Frank House at Prinsengracht 263 is the most popular tourist attraction in Amsterdam. It is open 362 days per year, receiving 600,000 paying visitors annually, and it routinely has scores of tourists queuing outside waiting to go in. During the holiday months it achieves a quite astonishing throughput of over 300 tourists hourly, generating an income of over fl. 2000,– ($1250) per hour. Its annual income is around 5 million guilders. Half of the revenue obtained is immediately sent to Switzerland to the benefactors of Otto Frank’s estate; the remainder is used by the Anne Frank Foundation for the maintenance of the house and other activities. Specifically the Foundation “produces lesson material on the Second World War as it relates to today, the multi-ethnic society and anti-racism” and “organizes courses and training sessions aimed at the creation of equal opportunities for ethnic minorities.” Despite its enormous income the leaflet which guides visitors around the premises still finishes with an invitation for donations: “Gifts are of essential importance... your support is more than welcome.”

The Foundation has not escaped local criticism and recently reports have appeared of a rift between it and the parent Foundation in Basel. It has been claimed that it was not Jews that the Nazis were against so much as Jewishness (Butz p. 73) and the Anne Frank Foundation may be a modern incarnation of it.

AMF was 13 when her diary was started and 15 when the last entry was made. The impression which emerges from its complete form is of a prolific but otherwise generally unremarkable individual possessing the high sex-drive and tenuous grasp of reality which is characteristic of her race. A whole array of other Jewish racial characteristics are waiting to be isolated from the text. Anne and Margot look down on the Dutch children playing outside in the street (12 December 1942, Version b); Anne in particular seems to have picked up and adopted any idea willy-nilly. There is Peter’s inferiority complex and “tinge of dishonesty” (16 February 1944, Version a). We might expect the persecution complex to be not long in becoming apparent, but since the eight in hiding really were being persecuted we need an example which does not directly involve them, and in the entry of 30 September 1942 we have it. Mr. Bunjes was a projectionist at a local cinema. “Mr. Bunjes has been sacked from Cineac because one evening he cut a film a bit short in order to catch the last tram, but they really did it because he is quarter Jew, but doesn’t count as one” (Version a, omitted).

Evidence of a matriarchal bias appears in several entries (“he’s only a boy” etc.) and the entry for 13 June 1944 (Version a, omitted) is naught but an immature, and characteristically dishonest, feminist tract. (In fairness it should be stated that its inspiration came from a Dutchman, Paul de Kruif.) Stereotypical vacillation and absence of identity is displayed by Mrs. van Pels in the entry of 2 May 1943 (Version a, omitted, and preserved by having being written into blank pages at the end of Part 1): “First Kerli says ‘I’ll have myself baptized later’ and the next day it’s ‘I always want to live in Jerusalem, because I only feel at home among Jews’!” In that same entry it is said that Pfeffer, who supposedly has a medical degree, “invents everything at random” and later makes “splendid promises, none of which he ever actually keeps” (17 November 1943, Version b, omitted). Almost all of the group seem to make claim to be something they are not (unassuming, modest etc.). There are several squabbles about food and instances of hoarding from each other, including even from their protectors (1 May 1943, Version b, omitted; 25 March 1944, Version a, omitted).

It seems to be generally agreed that the stringency of the German forces in occupied Holland was because Queen Wilhelmina, the Prime Minister and most of the Dutch Government had fled to relative safety in London: “Our beloved Queen... is taking a holiday in order to be strong for her return to Holland” (11 May 1944, Version a). In the eyes of the Reich, Holland had been deserted by its leadership and hence its right to mediate for its people had been forfeited. Holland was also a potential Allied invasion site.

Concerning England, on 22 May 1944 (Version a) AMF wrote: “No country is going to sacrifice its men for nothing and certainly not in the interests of another.” Later in this entry there is evidence that many of the Dutch were coming round to the Axis point of view, and this could account for their arrest ten weeks later: “The attitude of a great many people towards us Jews has changed. We hear that there is anti-Semitism now in circles that never thought of it before.” By others however there were comments about “the idle English” (13 June 1944, Version a). The entry continues with a most heartening statement of the Nationalist point of view: “This sort of argument boils down to saying that the English must fight, struggle and sacrifice their sons for the Netherlands and other occupied countries... What, I wonder, would have become of the Netherlands and her neighbours had England signed a peace with Germany, which she could have done on so many occasions?” (Version a, omitted). Readers hoping to find consistency in the Frank accounts will be disappointed; so much is said, with varying degrees of credibility, that one can almost make of it whatever one wishes. This may be a feature common to many writings possessing a religious flavour, and it is proposed that this is the particular characteristic which the Frank industry exploits. Then it follows that the building at Prinsengracht 263 performs not so much the role of a museum as a shrine.

A rational and consistent argument exists that in the Holocaust legend we are dealing with recycled wartime propaganda which certain factions find very advantageous to sustain. Indeed the list of those factions is so multifarious that it is easier simply to specify the single group to whose benefit it is not: decent, White, heterosexual males. In the long term however by destroying Occidental civilization with such dishonesty – which it is quite capable of doing – it will benefit no-one. By relentlessly extending the boundaries of taboo, by suppressing open discussion of plain facts about the differences between men and women and the different traits of races, these factions have succeeded in instituting what is effectively a new religion. We find Roosevelt in the unlikely role of prophet: at Teheran on 30 November 1943 (the day after Stalin had proposed shooting 50,000 German Officers after the war: Taylor p. 125),

The President finished up by returning to the tint theme and said that the effect of this war would be to blend all those multitudinous tints, shades and colours into a rainbow where their individuality would be lost in the whole, and that this whole rainbow represented the emblem of hope... (Bryant p. 99).

Three essential components of a religion are hope, faith and the resolution of guilt. Christianity has been in decline for several decades in Western society, but humans are still religious creatures and the distortions arising from the Holocaust legend have satisfied the human need for something to believe in. Faith is vested in the Utopia on Earth which is to arrive when we achieve the ideal of a multiracial, ‘rainbow’ society in which racism has been eradicated and everyone, regardless of their colour or creed, will live together in harmony.

Guilt is placed squarely onto the shoulders of males; every perceived misdemeanour is used as ammunition against him. Paramount among these, of course, is the Holocaust. Occidental males are incapacitated by false guilt and self-doubt: ‘Look what happened last time White males followed their instincts.’ Every race is encouraged to be proud of its culture except Whites, and one can talk about thoroughbreed dogs but never humans. Every kind of pollution is bad except, it seems, the genetic variety.

In Holland the creed is explicit and thus readily perceived: the trick of redefinition is used, and it is unselfconsciously stated, particularly by females, that “there’ll be no racism when everyone’s the same colour.” Presumably crime will also disappear when all the laws are repealed. It cannot work and it will never work, because any system based on dishonesty will ultimately fail.

This hypothesis of the essentially religious nature of the Holocaust explains the uncritical acceptance of obviously faked photographs (see Walendy, Forged War Crimes) and the incredible death rates which were supposed to have been achieved in the camps. Similarly, despite the knowledge that no gas chambers existed in the German camps it does not stop emotional, guilt-laden homages to them by Germans. Others return giving overtly religious testimonies of how ‘the birds stopped singing’ or ‘the flowers refused to grow.’ The vitriol and vilification which can be provoked when questioning the veracity of the Holocaust is directly comparable to what would have ensued when questioning the existence of a Supreme Deity a couple of centuries ago. Indeed Butz has compared the Nuremberg Tribunals to early witchcraft trials in which the existence of the Devil was never questioned, and its denial was completely impractical as a defence (Butz pp. 188-189). The defendants at Nuremberg were placed in just as impossible a position. Comparisons can be drawn between images of Jews being herded into the Nazi’s infernal gas chambers and the Devil shovelling coals to torment the wicked in the fires of Hell. In this case however, the victims are portrayed as completely innocent.

It may well be that in the Jewish accusations of genocide, particularly by the large contingent of German-Jewish émigrés among the staff of the post-war military tribunals, they were actually projecting their nature onto the Germans. In other words, had they been in a position of power they really would have pursued a genocidal policy against the Germans, and were assuming that the Germans had acted as they would in similar circumstances (see the articles by Shahak and Bourne). The Nazis neither intended, nor indeed achieved any such objective: Butz, Harwood and Rassinier have all expended considerable effort showing demographically that large numbers of ‘Holocaust survivors’ remained. Holland was particularly harshly treated for the reasons stated; many Jews were simply isolated in ghettos.

Several expressions of a Jewish desire to make the German race extinct (by forced sterilization for example) appeared in books published shortly before and during WWII. Jews openly advocate limiting freedom of speech and this is invariably the first move of any dictator.

These conclusions, as indeed the realization by the writer that he was a member of the huge proportion of the population which has been utterly brainwashed, were arrived upon following three years of investigations into human sexuality in Amsterdam. Contemporary sex difference and evolution theory was used as a basis for the research. The undertaking was often arduous, sometimes entertaining but always enlightening. It might be added that these results were unexpected and surprising, and the reader is provided here with a summary of my findings.

The male instinct is to be logical and direct: according to evolution theory, the strongest strategy for the furtherance of a male’s genes is to impregnate as many reproductive females as possible, going from one to the next as quickly as possible. Since this he generally cannot do, substitution and sublimation have evolved. Typical substitutes for the male are business (resolve one deal, make a profit, go on to the next) and sport (climax in one race, learn from any mistakes, go onto the next). Sublimation is the redirection of sexual drives to art, literature and, in its most evolved form, science.

Females, by contrast, are illogical. Since the costs of sex for females are huge compared to those for males, females have evolved a multiplicity of mechanisms to avoid sex. Until comparatively recently for example, around one in six females could expect to die in childbirth or during attempts to induce abortions; for this reason the best female strategy is to prevaricate and delay while she selects an optimum mate. The female instinct is to obfuscate; if this were not so, and she was logical, she would be too easy a conquest. Females will use any argument, however ludicrous, to avoid sex. An immediate corollary is that females will use any argument, however ridiculous, if it suits their purpose. The frustrated male takes refuge in the relative logicality of science and technology, and by this means sublimation evolved and is reinforced.

It is stressed that we are not necessarily talking here about male and female individuals but about male and female evolution strategies. This is a doubly important point, for reasons which will become clear. The payoff for an evolution strategy is the number of offspring which is produced, including how successfully they in turn produce offspring.

The natural domain of the male is things: objects like engines and computers. The natural domain of the female is relationships, particularly with children. All of the roles which females perform in work and business have been defined by males; since these are within the natural domain of the male, the female imitates him. Relationships are the area in which females excel, and in which males cannot (neglecting physical force) compete with females, so some males will imitate females or, more specifically, they will employ female strategies.

Not only may males imitate females in some restricted spheres but males can actually possess female characteristics, since females have been selecting males possessing female characteristics for generations. Like is attracted to like or, as Richard Dawkins puts it, ‘the gene is selfish.’ A ready example is provided by monogamous males. As has been intimated, males are essentially polygamous while females are monogamous, but females will very definitely prefer a monogamous male to a polygamous one. A male who is monogamous is expressing a female characteristic. True male characteristics still exist however: our civilization depends on them. One of the most important male characteristics is the ability to sublimate.

Since males vary more than females, the situation can arise where some males express female characteristics more strongly than do females themselves. An example is provided by the male feminist Paul de Kruif who, quoted via Anne Frank, believed that “women suffer more pain, more illness and more misery than any war hero just from giving birth to children” (13 June 1944, Version a, omitted). The plain truth, especially nowadays, is that if females did not want children they would not have them. Practically all of the major contemporary problems of the world, such as environmental pollution, global warming and the large numbers of endangered species, are the ultimate consequence of over-population.

The female strategy is to use signals (Table 8) because they are ambiguous and therefore manipulative. By signals is meant body language, particularly gestures of a sexual nature. Signalling is an elemental mechanism by which neurosis is transferred onto males, and the less likely the male is to respond, the more likely the female is to signal. Many female characteristics derive from the greater physical strength of males, and these mechanisms have evolved to compensate for this. Females are incapable of sublimation because it is not required: the primary sexual activity of females is relationships and relationships, according to this analysis, is sex. Ultimately females have only one strategy: to raise the value of sex, because this is their only unique commodity.

A breakthrough – if not a rude awakening – came at a point in the author’s investigations when it was realized that it was not female and, by antithesis, male characteristics which were being analysed, but female and White male characteristics. The notion developed of the ‘Double Reinforcement of Female Characteristics.’ In other words, males of non-European races express female characteristics. The discovery was made that many male characteristics are partially or completely absent in non-Occidental races.

Some female characteristics are plainly disruptive, even destructive, but their elaboration is unfortunately outside the scope of this treatise. Four characteristics which are particularly relevant however, because they appear to be strongly expressed by Jews, are the control of information, Malign Encouragement, transduction and the persecution complex.

If a man takes his wife to an office Christmas party and a pass is made at her by a tipsy subordinate, an entirely different outcome may ensue according to when the information is divulged. If the event is relayed on the way home immediately afterwards it may well be laughed off, but if the information is withheld until six months later (at a time when the employee is being considered for promotion say, and by which time the incident has been somewhat embroidered) the effect might be entirely different; he may not be promoted but dismissed. (Note that here, as is typical, the costs of sex are being maximized and incurred without any physical sex taking place.) Younger females tend to divulge information immediately, but as experience is acquired it is more likely to be reserved for the occasion when it achieves maximum advantage or effect. In the female way of things however the information is rarely withheld entirely; hence, perhaps, the maxim ‘The truth will out.’

Females conspire and males compete. Conspiring (acting in concert) gives rise to the tendency of disparate elements to forge ‘unholy alliances’ in order to achieve a common purpose or rally against a common opponent. Conspiracies may not be so much secret as instinctive. There is a natural conspiracy among females to increase the costs of sex, and particularly to encourage monogamy: a female who did not conform would be exploited by practically every male in the tribe, and would be unlikely to be supported by a male when she bore a child of unknown paternity later.

Malign Encouragement is encouraging an opponent to pursue an adverse strategy. If country A goes to war against B, it is clearly in A’s interest to encourage B’s pacifist movement. One likely origin of Malign Encouragement is the intensification of male breeding competition: if a male takes a girl out on a first date and as soon as his back is turned another male makes an approach, then the female is employing Malign Encouragement if she is as receptive to the approaching male as she is to the one who is supposed to be taking her out. This is an example of how females can discourage males from using female strategies against them (it is noteworthy however that there is usually little to prevent males using female procedures against each other).

Transduction is defined as the induction of a false feeling. Archetypal transduction might be the guilt felt by a customer on being observed by a security guard in a supermarket, even though nothing has been stolen. Overt transduction is laughing at someone unjustly, but a subtler form of transduction is often encountered in leaving behaviour, for example quitting a place because a certain person has arrived.

That some males strongly express female characteristics explains why, as an example, females are generally better at cooking (because of their greater sensitivity to taste and smell) but the best chefs are male. It also provides us with a possible origin of the persecution complex; it may be that the persecution complex is a stronger male expression of the ‘subordination conviction.’ In former times females were subordinate, so the subordination conviction is, or was, founded in reality. The stronger, male expression of it in the form of the persecution complex however is not. If a group possessing the persecution complex is tolerated the trait becomes advantageous to them, and this will inevitably be to the detriment of any coexistent race which does not possess the trait.

The advantage the persecution complex confers will be proportional to its separation from reality. Thus the world is fixed on the deaths of an unquantifiable number of Jews while neglecting the extraordinary suffering of all the others, 41 million of whom died (Messenger pp. 242-243). This figure is based on that data and the presumptions that the Russians may have exaggerated their losses while the Chinese under-estimated theirs, and that between 300,000 and one million Jews perished. Messenger’s total neglecting the Jewish six million claim is 41,151,000.

Because of their common tendency to conspire and other factors, neither non-Occidental males, nor homosexuals, nor other females in positions of power are likely to attempt to limit the excesses of females. Males who behave excessively find themselves in prison; consistently 95% of the prison population is male. The excesses of females, facilitated by males continually giving their womenfolk the benefit of the doubt, progress by gradual but increasingly pernicious degrees. “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy” wrote Orwell.

Behaviour progressively becomes abnormal, because normal behaviour involves obligations which females find advantageous to avoid. At the mundane level this involves not keeping appointments, not sitting next to someone known in a bar (Sitting Apart), ignoring acquaintances in the street and not acknowledging greetings (Stonewalling), and the interpretation of every friendly remark as an approach (Enhancement of Self and removal of Male Ambiguity of Intention). Such behaviour, the author found, is routine in Amsterdam. Females strive to transfer their neurosis onto males and in this manner males are confused and become easier to manipulate.

In Amsterdam it is absolutely commonplace to see Dutchmen pushing prams and Dutchwomen taking Negro partners; indeed, according to the situation and the time of year, mixed race relationships (specifically, White females with Negro or other immigrant male partners) can comprise the majority of the relationships in evidence. Surveys were undertaken which have confirmed that it is considerably more commonplace for White females to take immigrant males as partners than is the opposite case. Charlotte Kaletta, the blonde woman who took Pfeffer as a live-in partner before he joined the group in hiding in Prinsengracht 263, is an early example of a female who delivers the ultimate insult to the males of her own race by choosing a partner from another. Otto Frank was almost certainly the expurgator of the passage “He lives with a much younger, nice Christian woman, to whom he is probably not married, but that doesn’t matter” (10 November 1942, Version b, omitted).

Recall that the female strategy is to obfuscate. By foreign denizens’ inherently different signals, mores and practices the social environment is made immeasurably more complex and ambiguous; by the presence of different races the female objective of obfuscation is fulfilled. Males are territorial: a high population density and especially the presence of alien races flies in the face of male instincts, further confuses males and makes them yet more readily manipulable by females. The very presence of immigrants empowers females. A further result is the complete disruption of Western social cohesion. If a race which sublimates coexists with one which does not, the former will be at a reproductive disadvantage while the latter will multiply in greater numbers. This is precisely what we see.

Although it is buried beneath layers of confusion and conditioning, the true male instinct on the sight of one of the females of his race with a male of another is to kill. It is the view of the writer that the portrayal of such relationships, firstly via the media and then (by imitation) in real life, accounts for the dramatically increased male suicide rates in recent years in both Britain and America.

Actually, this is an over-simplification: at the outset it appears that mentally unstable females perform the role of pioneers, establishing that an unwritten rule can be broken without incurring retribution. Thereafter such relationships are portrayed in the media (particularly in soap operas, which females quote as if they were reality: this is the recently defined Reidentification Syndrome) then, by imitation, they are embarked upon more generally.

Big Sister is big because of the greater uniformity of females and their tendency to conspire. The measurements establishing females’ predominant role in miscegenation taken in Amsterdam have also been replicated in London. This bias is manifest across females of all ages, all social classes and in many other countries besides Holland and Britain. Many female traits, although they may be less obvious, follow the same pattern. The female inclination in this regard demonstrates that anti-Nationalist influence, which is presently acute, has a female origin, and its dysgenic effects are obvious.

As already noted, Big Sister’s ranks are not restricted to females: Her most forceful proponents are likely to be males who combine both male and female characteristics. Other males simply know no better. Some females, usually elder ones, will occasionally make statements of striking reasonableness but these will generally be lost amid the opposing clamour. The predominant female instinct is to increase the costs of sex: practically every word females utter serves, either individually or collectively, to raise its value. (Raising the perceived value of sex is the unstated role of sexual images in advertising.) Giving females a voice and allowing them to express their opinions on contemporary social problems is rather like asking the Devil for advice on how to cure sin.

Women appear to have been most instrumental in maintaining the eight German Jews hiding at Prinsengracht 263 and, since females are selfish (because, in the biological terminology, reproductive females are always gravid), the question may be posed as to what they had to gain from it. It is proposed that by having a group of frightened and vulnerable Jews dependent on them they were themselves promoted.

If it were Big Brother we were dealing with there would be a leader, a symbol and a readily identifiable target to oppose. The control Big Sister exerts is much more subtle and pervasive, and doubly dangerous as a consequence. As a regime it is singularly intolerant, despite claims to the contrary: dissension, even in jest, is not permitted. The result is to be a world which is filled, both literally and metaphorically, with cats and diseased pigeons. It will be, in some places has already become, the age of the half-caste third-rate Bimbo. It will be a society which discriminates in every subtle and significant way against the very people who are most valuable to it.

The ability of the mass media to manipulate minds is a power which would have been unimaginable a century ago. This capacity to control information, like all of the tools which females employ, was created by males, but it is now firmly in the hands of Big Sister: the onslaught of propaganda is incessant. The female strategy is to take the power which males provide and then use it against them. Females will also create problems and then blame males (Creative Transduction). As Darwin, Nietzsche and Rousseau all concluded, women are inferior, and giving a weak person power makes them not strong but strongly weak. Intelligence may be used to solve problems and create wealth or alternatively it can merely be employed to divest others of wealth by clever manipulation.

Diversionary Purpose is ostensibly pursuing one objective while actually pursuing another. Yet another female procedure is Vicarious Generosity: giving away, often enthusiastically, something which is not one’s to give. “We didn’t ought to ‘ave trusted ‘em... I said so all along. We didn’t ought to ‘ave trusted the buggers” said the old man in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but he had forgotten who ‘they’ were.

The Holohoax religion, for which the Book of Frank was just a prototype, suits Big Sister just fine.

Baker, John R. Race. Oxford University Press (Oxford) (1974); Foundation for Human Understanding (Athens, Georgia) (1981).
Baudot, Marcel et al. The Historical Encyclopedia of WWII. Macmillan (London) (1981).
Bourne, J. The rending pain of re-enactment. Race and Class 32(2): 67-72 (London) (1990).
Bryant, Arthur. Triumph in the West: 1943-1946: Based on the Diaries and Autobiographical Notes of Field Marshall, The Viscount Alanbrooke. Collins (London, 1959).
Butz, Arthur R. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Historical Review Press (Brighton) (1976).
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press (Oxford) (1977).
Faurisson, Robert. Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine? Institute for Historical Review (Torrance, California) (1982).
Faurisson, Robert. The Müller Document. The Journal of Historical Review. Spring 1988, pp. 117-126. Reproduced here from The Second Leuchter Report. pp. 44-45.
Frank, A. M. et al. The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition. Viking/ Penguin (London) (1989).
Frank, A. M. et al. De Dagboeken van Anne Frank. Staatsuitgeverij (Den Haag), Bert Bakker (Amsterdam) (1986).
Frank, A. M. et al. Het Achterhuis (‘Revised and Increased Edition’). Bert Bakker (Amsterdam) (1991).
Harwood, Richard. Did Six Million Really Die? (2nd ed.) Historical Review Press (Brighton).
ICRC. Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War (Geneva, 1947).
ICRC. Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War (Geneva, 1948).
Kammerer, R. & Solms, A. The Rudolf Report. Cromwell Press (Uckfield, Sussex) (1993).
Keegan, John. The Second World War. Hutchinson (London) (1989).
Kogon, Eugen (editor) et al. Nazi Mass Murder: a Documentary History of the Use of Poison Gas. Yale University Press (New Haven, Connecticut) (1994).
Leuchter, Fred A. The Leuchter Report: The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz. Focal Point Publications (London) (1989).
Loewenheim, Francis L. et al. Roosevelt and Churchill: Their Secret Wartime Correspondence. Dutton (New York) (1975).
Lüftl, Walter. The Holocaust: Belief and Facts. Reported in Süddeutsche Zeitung (South German Times) 13-14 March 1992; Washington Post 24 May 1992.
Messenger, Charles. The Chronological Atlas of World War Two. Macmillan (New York) (1989).
Orwell, George. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Penguin (London) (1990).
Rassinier, Paul. The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses. Institute for Historical Review (Costa Mesa, California) (1978).
Shahak, I. History remembered, history distorted, history denied. Race and Class 30(4): 80-86 (London) (1989).
Shahak, I. The ideology of Jewish messianism. Race and Class 37(2): 81-91 (London) (1995).
Taylor, A. J. P. The War Lords. Penguin (London) (1978).

Further Reading

Bacque, James. Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners of War After World War II. Macdonald (London) (1989).
Costello, John. Love, Sex and War: Changing Values 1939-45. Collins (London) (1985).
Lisus, N. A. & Ericson, R. V. Misplacing memory: the effect of television format on Holocaust remembrance. British Journal of Sociology 46(1): 1-19 (London) (1995).
Morrison, Robert J. Russia’s Short Cut to Fame: A Fifty-Year Hoax Exposed. Morrison (Vancouver, Washington); Robert Hale (London) (1987).
Ponting, Clive. 1940: Myth and Reality. Hamish Hamilton (London) (1990).
Porter, Carlos. Not Guilty at Nuremberg: The German Defense Case. Historical Review Press (Brighton) (1988).
Smith, Graham. When Jim Crow Met John Bull: Black American Soldiers in World War II Britain. Tauris (London) (1987).
Walendy, Udo. Forged War Crimes Malign the German Nation. Verlag für Volkstum und Zietgeschichtsforschung (Vlotho/Weser) 2nd ed. (1989); Heretical Press (Hull) (1996).