The Historical Review Press

We are the world's leading publisher of revisionist and hard-to-find political material -- serving the truth and fearing no-one! Visit our home website here!

Search This Blog

Sunday, 26 December 2010

Kevin Käther’s Questions That Caused Berlin

Kevin Käther’s Questions That Caused Berlin
District Court to Drop His Case

Written by Kevin Käther
Translated by J M Damon
The original German is posted at

{Germanophiles everywhere are following the self-accusation trials of young dissidents such as Kevin Käther and Dirk Zimmermann with great interest, and we are encouraged by the growth of dissident sentiment in the judiciary of the “Federal Republic.”
As dissident attorney Sylvia Stolz remarked at her own sentencing: “NICHT ALLE RICHTER SIND SCHURKEN!” (Not all judges are scoundrels).}

Kevin Käther’s most recent self-accusation trial began before Berlin District Court on 25 October 2010.
The background to his trials is posted on website along with his original trial reports.

Kevin had originally mailed CDs of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust to the Berlin Attorney General, Lea Rosh, Professor Wolfgang Benz and Professor Ernst Nolte.
Under the provisions of Section 130 of the German Penal Code he then filed charges against himself, accusing himself of VOLKSVERHETZUNG (Incitement of the Masses) in order to compel a WAHRHEITSERHEBUNG (judicial truth ascertainment) of the official “Holocaust” narrative.
For this crime he was initially sentenced to eight months imprisonment without parole.
However, the Berlin Superior Court set aside this sentence, ruling that mailing CDs did not comprise incitement of the masses and was not a punishable offense.
His case was scheduled for retrial on 25 October 2010.
This time, the persons to whom the CDs had been addressed were called as witnesses.

Kevin, who has doubts about the veracity of the official “Holocaust” narrative, welcomed an opportunity to be educated by the facts and the arguments of such an officially acknowledged “Holocaust” expert as Prof. Wolfgang Benz, who was summoned as a witness.
He welcomed the opportunity to be convinced that six million Jews had really been gassed under Hitler and that he, Kevin Käther, was in fact suffering under misapprehensions.
And he hoped for enlightenment from Professor Ernst Nolte as well.

The Court should have shown a lively interest in allowing the accused to be enlightened by these famous professors.
The defendant, a so-called “Holocaust Denier” was standing before the Court eager to be instructed.
He was prepared to abandon his heresies if presented with sufficient evidence of the veracity of “Holocaust.”
Alas – his redemption was not to be!
Performing an abrupt about-face, the Court would not allow questioning of these knowledgeable witnesses by a defendant who was thirsting for knowledge and enlightenment.
After just two questions directed at Prof. Ernst Nolte, the Court terminated Kevin’s questioning of witnesses.

On 1 November 2010, before Kevin could ask Prof. Wolfgang Benz a single question, the Court discontinued his trial.
In preparation for his trial Kevin had submitted the following questions for the witnesses in the form of an evidentiary motion which the Court apparently considered dangerous.
By discontinuing the trial, the Court was able to delete Kevin’s questions.
They were not entered into the trial record as an evidentiary motion.
Thus the Inquisitorial Court of the so-called Federal Republic of Germany preferred to discontinue a “Holocaust” trial rather than expose its experts to the questions of a heretical Revisionist intent on enlightening himself!

Can anyone with any vestiges of a conscience believe anything this government says?
”Holocaust” experts such as Professor Benz, on whom the System so confidently relies as long as Revisionists are not allowed to put them through the wringer, have to be protected from the questions of an eager-to-learn defendant.
Such is the unmistakable reality in our Federal Republic of Germany.

Questions For Witnesses Ernst Nolte and Wolfgang Benz
from Käther’s Evidentiary Motion

From the above mentioned contents we must determine whether the present book sent through the mails, Germar Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST, meets the criteria for “Denying ‘Holocaust’” or whether we are dealing with a scientific work that is based on empirical facts, and whose sending through the mails therefore cannot be proscribed.
In addition, questioning of the witnesses will reveal uncertainty regarding the ruling by the BUNDESGERICHTSHOF (Federal Supreme Court) on OFFENKUNDIGKEIT (“Manifest Obviousness”) and necessitate additional evidentiary motions regarding the “Holocaust” complex.
In order to ascertain and debate these circumstances, all the witnesses must be asked the following questions:

1. Have you read the book that I sent to you, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST, by the diploma chemist Germar Rudolf?

2. Did you read this book?
-Yes or no?

3. Did you disseminate this book?
-Yes or no?

4. Did you make this book available to a third person?
-Yes or no?

5. Did you find any errors or mistakes in the book LECTURES ON THE -HOLOCAUST?
-Yes or no?


6. (Question for Witness Nolte).
Is the following quotation taken from your book “STREITPUNKTE” applicable?
[FOOTNOTE 1: ERNST Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main – Berlin, 1993, p. 308]
“The widely held opinion that all doubt about the prevailing conceptions of ‘Holocaust’ with its six million Jewish victims is evidence of an inherently evil attitude and contempt for all mankind, and that it must be suppressed whenever possible, is completely unacceptable to science.
This is because of the fundamental and overriding significance of the maxim ‘DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM EST’ (Everything must be questioned) for the verification of truth.
We must reject the proscription of doubts about ‘Holocaust’ because such proscription is an attack on the very principle of freedom of scientific investigation.”

7. (Question for Witness Nolte.)
Do you perceive an assault on freedom of scientific investigation in the conviction of Germar Rudolf by Mannheim District Court?

8. (Question for Witness Nolte.)
Is the following quotation, which is taken from your book STREITPUNKTE, relevant to the issue of freedom of scientific investigation?
[FOOTNOTE 2: Nolte, ibid., p. 9]
“Although I felt more challenged by ‘Revisionism’ than did other contemporary German historians, I was soon convinced that this school was being treated unscientifically in mainstream literature.
It was treated solely with rejection, with suspicion of the motives of the authors, and by completely ignoring them.”

9. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In addition, you write the following in your work “STREITPUNKTE:”
“...Questions about the reliability of eyewitnesses, authenticity of documents, the scientific possibility or impossibility of certain processes and events, the credibility of statistics and the emphasis placed on certain circumstances are not only permissible, they are scientifically indispensable.
Every attempt to banish certain arguments and evidence by ignoring or proscribing them must be considered illegitimate.”

- Prof. Nolte, in regard to this quotation, may we conclude that considerations and investigations by Revisionists should be considered legitimate and desirable?

10. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In 1999, you published the work FEINDLICHE NÄHE in association with the leftist French philosopher Francois Furet.
Here is a quotation that you yourself wrote.
[FOOTNOTE 3: François Furet - Ernst Nolte. "Feindliche Nähe”. Kommunismus und Faschismus im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein Briefwechsel. München (Herbig), 1998, pp. 74-79]

“If radical Revisionism were correct in its contention that a ‘Holocaust,’ in the sense of extensive and systematic extermination measures originating in the highest levels of government never existed, I would have to make the following confession: National Socialism was not a ‘VERZERRTE KOPIE DES BOLSCHEWISMUS’ (deformed copy of Bolshevism).
Rather, National Socialism was occupied exclusively with the survival struggle of a Germany that had been internationally forced onto the defensive.
No author willingly admits that his work is lying in ruins, and so I have a vital interest in demonstrating that Revisionism is incorrect -at least in its radical version.”

Prof. Nolte, more than 12 years have now passed since the publication of FEINDLICHE NÄHE.
In the course of ongoing Revisionist findings, have you already had to admit or concede incorrectness in any of your earlier historical publications?
If so, which ones?

11. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In your work DER KAUSALE NEXUS., you cover the “confession” of Rudolf Höß, Commandant of Auschwitz Camp, as well as the Gerstein documents and eyewitness testimony, and you write the following.
“The confessions of the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, which undeniably contributed greatly to the collapse of the defense of alleged war criminals in the Nuremberg trials, were obtained by the use of torture.
Under the rules of Western jurisprudence, they would have been inadmissible in a court of law.
The so-called Gerstein Documents are so filled with contradictions, and include so many scientific impossibilities, that they must be dismissed as worthless.
The greater part by far of witness testimony rests on hearsay and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The reports of the few eyewitnesses contradict one another, which creates doubt concerning their credibility...
In contrast to the investigations of the Katyn massacre following the Wehrmacht’s discovery of mass graves in 1943, no international commissions of experts were allowed to scientifically investigate the allegations of homicidal gassings in German concentrations following World War II.
The responsibility for this lack of investigation rests with the Soviet and Polish Communists...
The widespread publications of photographs of crematoria as well as canisters with the label ‘Cyclon B Poison Gas’ have no evidentiary significance, since crematoria were necessitated by the recurrent epidemics and Cyclon B was the standard pesticide used to control typhus-bearing lice everywhere that large numbers of people lived under poor sanitary conditions...
For these reasons, it is vitally necessary to question postwar rulings that mass exterminations in homicidal gas chambers were “proven” by countless statements and unsubstantiated “facts” of which there are no doubts whatsoever.
Such questioning must be allowed, or else scientific truth in this area of history is ruled out – it is simply not a possibility.”

Professor Nolte, did I state the passage correctly?
If so, what information and insight can we now consider obvious and allowable in court?

12. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In your book DER KAUSALE NEXUS (FOOTNOTE 5: E. Nolte, ibid., p. 122) you write the following:
“At issue is the allegation that, on the basis of scientific evidence and matters of fact, there either were no mass killings by gassings or else they did not occur to the extent alleged.
Here I am referring to chemical investigations, including an expert report [the Rudolf Report] comparing residues of cyanide in delousing chambers at Auschwitz with residues in areas designated in construction plans as crematoria morgues.
[The Rudolf Expert Report was commissioned by a German court during the trial of Gen. Remer in 1992 and carried out by Diploma Chemist Germar Rudolf of Max Planck Institute, who was subsequently sentenced to thirty months imprisonment.]
These investigations were carried out by Leuchter, Rudolf and Lüftl. They also include extremely detailed studies by Carlo Mattogno that include burn-hours, coke consumption and similar matters.
It is impossible to objectively argue against the recurrent thesis that what is scientifically or technically impossible could not have taken place, notwithstanding hundreds of confessions and eyewitness accounts asserted the contrary.
Such a thesis cannot be scientifically argued, on principle.
Objectively and scientifically speaking, the admission is unavoidable that humanities scholars and ideologists should have no voice in such an argument [that pertains to the realm of the natural sciences].”

Prof. Nolte, please explain to us whether Rudolf erred and, in case his work contains mistakes, tell us what they are.
In 1993, 300 professors of anorganic chemistry were unable to find a single mistake in Rudolf’s Expert Report, and Swiss expert witness Prof. Henri Ramuz attested to its correctness before Court Chatel-St. Denis on 18 May 1997.

13. (Question for Witness Nolte).
Shortly before his death in June 2006, the “Holocaust” specialist Raul Hilberg, who is frequently quoted by official historians, felt obliged to admit that a great deal of research is still required in “Holocaust” historiography.
Hilberg [author of the extensive three-volume DESTRUCTION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY] admitted, “We understand perhaps twenty percent of the Holocaust (DER STANDARD, Vienna, 10 June 2006, p. 42).
Jürgen Heynsel of the Warsaw Jewish Historical Institute endorsed this assessment: “The decisive stage of writing the history of the Holocaust is still before us.” (“Kein Schindler” in NEUES DEUTSCHLAND, 13 October 2009.)

Prof. Nolte - in view of Hilberg’s and Heynsel’s elucidations, do you consider the “Holocaust” to be a “manifestly obvious” fact that has no need of supporting evidence and further research?

14. (It is not stated for whom this question was intended; apparently it was intended for Prof. Wolfgang Benz.)
The Federal Republic of Germany has decreed that HOLOCAUST-OFFENKUNDIGKEIT (the Manifest Obviousness of “Holocaust”) is unquestionable and the BUNDESGERICHTSHOF (Federal Supreme Court) has decreed that it is unchallengeable.
Since the Deckert trial, “...genocide committed against the Jews, primarily in gas chambers of concentration camps is a manifestly obvious historical fact.”
(Court Verdict 1 StR 179/94)
Why then was Daniel Goldhagen’s book HITLER’S WILLING EXECUTIONERS not placed on the index of proscribed books and why was he not charged with a crime, since he writes in his book that gassing was a “minor event” in the murder of Jews?

15. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Are you aware that both Rita Süßmuth (former president of the BUNDESTAG) and Fritjof Meyer (former editor of SPIEGEL magazine) reduced the number of Jewish victims gassed at Auschwitz to 356,000 and relocated the “murder weapons” or places of mass murder (the alleged “gas chambers” of official historiography) to two farm houses that stood outside Auschwitz Camp and no longer exist?

16. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
The office of the District Attorney of Stuttgart accepted these revisions as authentic and declined to prosecute author Fritjof Meyer, chief editor of SPIEGEL magazine, and former President of the BUNDESTAG Rita Süßmuth, publisher of the article "DIE ZAHL DER OPFER VON AUSCHWITZ - NEUE ERKENNTNISSE DURCH NEUE ARCHIVFUNDE" (in the periodical OSTEUROPA, 5, 2002, pp. 631-.)
The District Attorney declined to prosecute Meyer and Süßmuth for violating Section 130 of the Penal Code - the corresponding Order to Stop Proceedings) was released on 28 May 2003 in Document 4 Js 75185/02.
In your opinion, is the principle of Manifest Obviousness still operative?

17. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
How can the obvious fact be explained that obviously the official number of “Holocaust” victims is continuing to melt like snow in the sun of springtime?
Can acceptance of the evidence submitted by Fritjof Meyer be ascribed to the fact that the last camp commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, signed this confession with its fantastical numbers under torture - in the hope and expectation that the exaggerations would be recognized and attention directed to the circumstances under which the incriminating testimony was obtained?

18. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
The world-renowned Jewish “Holocaust” researcher and author Gitta Sereny stated in the London Times on 29 August 2001:
“Why in the world have these people made Auschwitz into a holy cow?
Auschwitz was a terrible place, but it was not an extermination camp!”
As a distinguished historian, can you explain why I, an independent researcher, should not believe the distinguished “Holocaust” historian Gitta Sereny, especially considering that according to official historiography, Auschwitz was supposed to be the center of “Jewish Extermination?”

19. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
In conjunction with the article by Fritjof Meyer and Rita Süßmuth as well as the statements of Hilberg, Sereney and Heynsel, do you consider an examination and revision of the official account of Auschwitz necessary?

20. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
What is your opinion of the findings of official historiography that after 1960, Dachau could no longer be considered the center of alleged National Socialist “exterminations”?
Also, what brought about the sudden recent findings that no homicidal gassings took place there at all?

21. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
On which facts and documents are the new findings based, that no one was gassed at Dachau, even though the Allied “factfinders” at Nuremberg alleged the exact opposite?

22. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Why is it not explained in detail which “facts” were originally used to allege mass exterminations at Dachau, and what evidence was later used to prove that the opposite was true?

23. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
As an acknowledged expert, you can surely inform me as to which of the two following National Socialist verdicts in our so-called “nation of laws” is true and which false, as well as why it is true or false:
a) “Concentration Camp Maidanek contained no gas chamber” (Verdict of Berlin District Court (8.5.1950, PKs 3/50) and
b) “Mass gassings took place in Maidanek.”
(Verdict of Düsseldorf District Court, 30.6.1981, XVII-1/75 S).
In order to come right to the point, let me point out that both verdicts refer to the same period of time.
I sincerely request elucidation in this matter.

24. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
In addition, you can surely also instruct me in my quest for real truth as to which truth is correct: the truth proclaimed in the Nuremberg Tribunal or the truth proclaimed in Düsseldorf District Court.
Nuremberg Tribunal Document 3311-PS “proved” that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed with steam at Treblinka, but decades later Düsseldorf District Court (K I Is 2/64) proclaimed that these victims were not steamed but rather gassed.
I sincerely request elucidation in this matter.

25. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Why does the so-called “Federal Republic” enact legal ordinances to protect narratives and allegations that even the government itself cannot coherently explain?
For lack of space, I have listed only a few isolated examples of these contradictions.
Why does the “Federal Republic” not allow free and independent historical research into the historical subject of “Holocaust?”
Why are historians who arrive at differing conclusions regarding “Holocaust” slandered, demonized and incarcerated, even though their findings have never been disproven in court?

Kevin Käther


The translator is a Germanophile who makes German articles about Germany’s historical plight accessible to those who do not read German.

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

The Soldiers Truce:

The Soldiers Truce:

A Hidden History From The First World War



German and British soldiers fraternize – Christmas 1914

[Thanks to Dennis Serdel, Vietnam 1967-68 (one tour) Light Infantry, Americal Div. 11th Brigade, purple heart, Veterans For Peace 50 Michigan, Vietnam Veterans Against The War, United Auto Workers GM Retiree, in Perry, Michigan]

To many, the end of the war and the failure of the peace would validate the Christmas cease-fire as the only meaningful episode in the apocalypse.

It belied the bellicose slogans and suggested that the men fighting and often dying were, as usual, proxies for governments and issues that had little to do with their everyday lives. A candle lit in the darkness of Flanders, the truce flickered briefly and survives only in memoirs, letters, song, drama and story.

December 1, 2005 by John V. Denson, 2005 [Excerpts]

The Christmas Truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western Front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the Great War leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public.

Stanley Weintraub has broken through this barrier of silence and written a moving account of this significant event by compiling letters sent home from the front, as well as diaries of the soldiers involved. His book is entitled Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce. The book contains many pictures of the actual events showing the opposing forces mixing and celebrating together that first Christmas of the war.

This remarkable story begins to unfold, according to Weintraub, on the morning of December 19, 1914:

Lieutenant Geoffrey Heinekey, new to the 2ND Queen’s Westminster Rifles, wrote to his mother, ‘A most extraordinary thing happened. . . Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men . . . . It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours. (p. 5)

Weintraub reports that the French and Belgians reacted differently to the war and with more emotion than the British in the beginning. The war was occurring on their land and The French had lived in an atmosphere of revanche since 1870, when Alsace and Lorraine were seized by the Prussians in a war declared by the French. (p. 4).

The British and German soldiers, however, saw little meaning in the war as to them, and, after all, the British King and the German Kaiser were both grandsons of Queen Victoria. Why should the Germans and British be at war, or hating each other, because a royal couple from Austria were killed by an assassin while they were visiting in Serbia?

However, since August when the war started, hundreds of thousands of soldiers had been killed, wounded or missing by December 1914 (p. xvi).

It is estimated that over eighty thousand young Germans had gone to England before the war to be employed in such jobs as waiters, cooks, and cab drivers and many spoke English very well. It appears that the Germans were the instigators of this move towards a truce.

So much interchange had occurred across the lines by the time that Christmas Eve approached that Brigadier General G.T. Forrestier-Walker issued a directive forbidding fraternization:

For it discourages initiative in commanders, and destroys offensive spirit in all ranks . . . Friendly intercourse with the enemy, unofficial armistices and exchange of tobacco and other comforts, however tempting and occasionally amusing they may be, are absolutely prohibited. (p. 6–7).

Later strict orders were issued that any fraternization would result in a court-martial.

Most of the seasoned German soldiers had been sent to the Russian front while the youthful and somewhat untrained Germans, who were recruited first, or quickly volunteered, were sent to the Western Front at the beginning of the war. Likewise, in England young men rushed to join in the war for the personal glory they thought they might achieve and many were afraid the war might end before they could get to the front. They had no idea this war would become one of attrition and conscription or that it would set the trend for the whole 20TH century, the bloodiest in history which became known as the War and Welfare Century.

As night fell on Christmas Eve the British soldiers noticed the Germans putting up small Christmas trees along with candles at the top of their trenches and many began to shout in English We no shoot if you no shoot.(p. 25).

The firing stopped along the many miles of the trenches and the British began to notice that the Germans were coming out of the trenches toward the British who responded by coming out to meet them.

They mixed and mingled in No Man’s Land and soon began to exchange chocolates for cigars and various newspaper accounts of the war which contained the propaganda from their respective homelands.

Many of the officers on each side attempted to prevent the event from occurring but the soldiers ignored the risk of a court-martial or of being shot.

Some of the meetings reported in diaries were between Anglo-Saxons and German Saxons and the Germans joked that they should join together and fight the Prussians.

The massive amount of fraternization, or maybe just the Christmas spirit, deterred the officers from taking action and many of them began to go out into No Man’s Land and exchange Christmas greetings with their opposing officers.

Each side helped bury their dead and remove the wounded so that by Christmas morning there was a large open area about as wide as the size of two football fields separating the opposing trenches.

The soldiers emerged again on Christmas morning and began singing Christmas carols, especially Silent Night. They recited the 23RD Psalm together and played soccer and football. Again, Christmas gifts were exchanged and meals were prepared openly and attended by the opposing forces.

Weintraub quotes one soldier’s observation of the event: Never . . . was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war. (p. 33).

The first official British history of the war came out in 1926 which indicated that the Christmas Truce was a very insignificant matter with only a few people involved. However, Weintraub states:

During a House of Commons debate on March 31, 1930, Sir H. Kinglsey Wood, a Cabinet Minister during the next war, and a Major ‘In the front trenches’ at Christmas 1914, recalled that he ‘took part in what was well known at the time as a truce. We went over in front of the trenches and shook hands with many of our German enemies. A great number of people (now) think we did something that was degrading.’

Refusing to presume that, he went on, ‘The fact is that we did it, and I then came to the conclusion that I have held very firmly ever since, that if we had been left to ourselves there would never have been another shot fired. For a fortnight the truce went on. We were on the most friendly terms, and it was only the fact that we were being controlled by others that made it necessary for us to start trying to shoot one another again.’

He blamed the resumption of the war on ‘the grip of the political system which was bad, and I and others who were there at the time determined there and then never to rest . . . Until we had seen whether we could change it.’ But they could not. (p. 169–70)

Two soldiers, one British and one German, both experienced the horrors of the trench warfare in the Great War and both wrote moving accounts which challenged the idea of the glory of a sacrifice of the individual to the nation in an unnecessary or unjust war.

The British soldier, Wilfred Owen, wrote a famous poem before he was killed in the trenches seven days before the Armistice was signed on November 11, 1918.

He tells of the horror of the gas warfare which killed many in the trenches and ends with the following lines:

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues – My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

(The Latin phrase is translated roughly as It is sweet and honorable to die for one’s country, a line from the Roman poet Horace used to produce patriotic zeal for ancient Roman wars.)

The German soldier was Erich M. Remarque who wrote one of the best anti-war novels of all time, entitled All Quiet On The Western Front, which was later made into an American movie that won the Academy Awards in 1929 as the Best Movie of the year.

He also attacked the idea of the nobility of dying for your country in a war and he describes the suffering in the trenches:

We see men living with their skulls blown open; We see soldiers run with their two feet cut off; They stagger on their splintered stumps into the next shell-hole; A lance corporal crawls a mile and half on his hands dragging his smashed knee after him; Another goes to the dressing station and over his clasped hands bulge his intestines; We see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces; We find one man who has held the artery of his arm in his teeth for two hours in order not to bleed to death.

I would imagine that the Christmas Truce probably inspired the English novelist and poet, Thomas Hardy, to write a poem about World War I entitled The Man He Killed, which reads as follows:

Had he and I but met

By some old ancient inn,

We should have sat us down to wet

Right many a nipperkin!

But ranged as infantry,

And staring face to face,

I shot at him as he at me,

And killed him in his place.

I shot him dead because – Because he was my foe,

Just so: my foe of course he was;

That’s clear enough; although

He thought he’d ‘list, perhaps,

Off-hand like – just as I – Was out of work – had sold his traps – No other reason why.

Yes, quaint and curious war is!

You shoot a fellow down

You’d treat if met where any bar is,

Or help to half-a-crown.

Many leaders of the British Empire saw the new nationalistic Germany (since 1870–71) as a threat to their world trade, especially with Germany’s new navy.

The idea that economics played a major role in bringing on the war was confirmed by President Woodrow Wilson after the war in a speech wherein he gave his assessment of the real cause of the war. He was campaigning in St. Louis, Missouri in September of 1919 trying to get the U.S. Senate to approve the Versailles Treaty and he stated:

Why, my fellow-citizens, is there (anyone) here who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?. . . This war, in its inception, was a commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.

Weintraub alludes to a play by William Douglas Home entitled A Christmas Truce wherein he has characters representing British and German soldiers who just finished a soccer game in No Man’s Land on Christmas day and engaged in a conversation which very well could represent the feelings of the soldiers on that day.

The German lieutenant concedes the impossibility of the war ending as the soccer game had just done, with no bad consequences – Because the Kaiser and the generals and the politicians in my country order us that we fight.

So do ours, agrees Andrew Wilson (the British soldier)

Then what can we do?

The answer’s ‘nothing.’ But if we do nothing . . . . like we’re dong now, and go on doing it, there’ll be nothing they can do but send us home.

Or shoot us. (p. 110)

The Great War killed over ten million soldiers and Weintraub states, Following the final Armistice came an imposed peace in 1919 that created new instabilities ensuring another war, (p. 174). This next war killed more than fifty million people, over half of which were civilians. Weintruab writes:

To many, the end of the war and the failure of the peace would validate the Christmas cease-fire as the only meaningful episode in the apocalypse.

It belied the bellicose slogans and suggested that the men fighting and often dying were, as usual, proxies for governments and issues that had little to do with their everyday lives. A candle lit in the darkness of Flanders, the truce flickered briefly and survives only in memoirs, letters, song, drama and story. (p. xvi).

He concludes his remarkable book with the following:

A celebration of the human spirit, the Christmas Truce remains a moving manifestation of the absurdities of war. A very minor Scottish poet of Great War vintage, Frederick Niven, may have got it right in his ‘A Carol from Flanders,’ which closed,

O ye who read this truthful rime

From Flanders, kneel and say:

God speed the time when every day

Shall be as Christmas Day. (p. 175)


British And German Soldiers Arm-In-Arm



The Illustrated London News of January 9, 1915 [Thanks to June VI, who sent this in.]




The spirit of Christmas made itself felt in at least one section of the trenches at the front, where British and German soldiers fraternised, and for a brief while, during an informal and spontaneous truce, there was peace on earth and goodwill towards men among those who a few hours before had been seeking each other’s blood, and where bound to do so again after the truce was over.

The part of the British lines where these incongruous scenes occurred, was, it is said, at a point where the enemy’s trenches, only about eighty yards away, were occupied by a Saxon regiment. Further along the line, where Prussian troops were said to be stationed, there was a certain amount of fighting.

It was apparently towards the British left that the friendly truce was observed, while officers and men from both sides left their trenches and met in No Man’s Land between, where, as a rule, no man dares to show so much as the top of his head.

British and Germans met and shook hands, exchanged cigars and cigarettes, newspapers and addresses, and wished each other the compliments of the season, conversing as far as possible with the aid, as interpreter, of a German soldier who had lived in America.

A group of British and German soldiers, arm-in-arm, some of whom had exchanged head-gear, were photographed by a German officer.

The figure on the extreme left in our drawing, for instance, is a German soldier in a British service-cap, while the fourth figure from the left is a British soldier in his goat-skin coat wearing a Pickelhaube, or German helmet.

Some of the British, it is said visited the German trenches and an Anglo-German football match was even played. The dead who lay in front of the trenches were buried, and a party of German brought back the body of a British officer.- [Drawing Copyrighted in United States and Canada.]

Saturday, 18 December 2010

Jews play the victim to fool the gullible goyim

Date: December 17, 2010 12:45:54 PM EST

Whenever the Jews are caught with their pants down on the facts, they resort to certain standard responses. Thus, whenever confronted with the Jewish involvement in Communism or the slave trade, they will assert that the facts are taken out of context, that only a small minority of Jews are involved in such activities, that the facts may be true of one specific instance but not all instances, that the behavior was the product of unique historical circumstances or of oppression, etc. In short, every possible excuse is trotted out of the closet. But never, ever, do Jews concede: “Yes, it’s true. We did it.” Jews have refined these techniques to a fine art. Jews who were Communists were non-Jewish Jews who repudiated their Jewishness; Zionists who invaded Palestine were somehow the victims of the Arabs they were dispossessing; Jews in Russia sex slaving women were victims of Czarist oppression; Jewish tax collectors gouging on commission were merely doing the king’s bidding, not robbing the citizen’s blind, on and on it goes.

The one constant in all the bullshit is that Jews are always innocent. Always – that is axiomatic. To reach any other conclusion is anti-Semitism. What anti-Semitism means is: Jews are always innocent regardless of the facts. Facts cannot be used to convict Jews of any collective offense. This is true because Jews say so. If you think otherwise you are an irrational bigot no matter what the evidence shows. Anti-Semitism is innocence by proclamation. Innocence by proclamation cannot be enforced by evidence; it can only be enforced by fear. The implied threat behind innocence by proclamation is: If you do not buy it, your career will be destroyed. You will become an unemployable social outcast. And that is why people tremble before the accusation of anti-Semitism. It is a threat – and one that will be enforced.

Monday, 6 December 2010

WikiLeaks II - A Government Caught Up in Mendacity and Lies By Paul Craig Roberts

WikiLeaks II - A Government Caught Up in Mendacity and Lies

By Paul Craig Roberts

The reaction to WikiLeaks and its founder, Julian Assange tells us all we need to know about the total corruption of our "modern" world, which in fact is a throwback to the Dark Ages.

Some member of the United States government released to WikiLeaks the documents that are now controversial. The documents are controversial, because they are official US documents and show all too clearly that the US government is a duplicitous entity whose raison d'être is to control every other government.

The media, not merely in the US but also throughout the English speaking world and Europe, has shown its hostility to WikiLeaks. The reason is obvious. WikiLeaks reveals truth, while the media covers up for the US government and its puppet states.

Why would anyone with a lick of sense read the media when they can read original material from WikiLeaks? The average American reporter and editor must be very angry that his/her own cowardice is so clearly exposed by Julian Assange. The American media is a whore, whereas the courageous blood of warriors runs through WikiLeaks’ veins.

Just as American politicians want Bradley Manning executed because he revealed crimes of the US government, they want Julian Assange executed. In the past few days the more notorious of the dumbshits that sit in the US Congress have denounced Assange as a "traitor to America." What total ignorance. Assange is an Australian, not an American citizen. To be a traitor to America, one has to be of the nationality. An Australian cannot be a traitor to America any more than an American can be a traitor to Australia. But don’t expect the morons who represent the lobbyists to know this much.

Mike Huckabee, the redneck Baptist preacher who was governor of Arkansas and, to America's already overwhelming shame, was third runner up to the Republican presidential nomination, has called for Assange’s execution. So here we have a "man of God" calling for the US government to murder an Australian citizen. And Americans wonder why the rest of the world hates their guts.

The material leaked from the US government to WikiLeaks shows that the US government is an extremely disreputable gang of gangsters. The US government was able to get British prime minister Brown to "fix" the official Chilcot Investigation into how former prime minister Tony Blair manipulated and lied the British government into

being mercenaries for the US invasion of Iraq. One of the "diplomatic" cables released has UK Defense Ministry official Jon Day promising the United States government that prime minister Brown’s government has "put measures in place to protect your interests."

Other cables show the US government threatening Spanish prime minister Zapatero, ordering him to stop his criticisms of the Iraq war or else. I mean, really, how dare these foreign governments to think that they are sovereign.

Not only foreign governments are under the US thumb. So is Joe Lieberman from Connecticut, who is Israel’s most influential senator in the US Senate, delivered sufficiently credible threats to Amazon to cause the company to oust WikiLeaks content from their hosting service.

So there you have it. On the one hand the US government and the prostitute American media declare that there is nothing new in the hundreds of thousands of documents, yet on the other hand both pull out all stops to shut down WikiLeaks and its founder. Obviously, despite the US government’s denials, the documents are extremely damaging. The documents show that the US government is not what it pretends to be.

Assange is in hiding. He fears CIA and Mossad assassination, and to add to his troubles the government of Sweden has changed its mind, perhaps as a result of American persuasion and money, about sex charges that the Swedish government had previously dismissed for lack of credibility. If reports are correct, two women, who possibly could be CIA or Mossad assets, have brought sex charges against Assange. One claims that she was having consensual sexual intercourse with him, but that he didn’t stop when she asked him to when the condom broke.

Think about this for a minute. Other than male porn stars who are bored with it all, how many men can stop at the point of orgasm or when approaching orgasm? How does anyone know where Assange was in the process of the sex act?

Would a real government that had any integrity and commitment to truth try to blacken the name of the prime truth teller of our time on the basis of such flimsy charges?

Obviously, Sweden has become another two-bit punk puppet government of the US.

The US government has got away with telling lies for so long that it no longer hesitates to lie in the most blatant way. WikiLeaks released a US classified document signed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that explicitly orders US diplomats to spy on UN Security council officials and on the Secretary General of the United Nations. The cable is now in the public record. No one challenges its authenticity. Yet, today the Obama regime, precisely White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, declared that Hillary had never ordered or even asked US officials to spy on UN officials.

As asked: Who do you believe, the printed word with Hillary’s signature or the White House?

Anyone who believes the US government about anything is the epitome of gullibility.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the

Sunday, 5 December 2010

If J P Morgan goes down it might with a bit of luck bring down the Zionist Ponzi Scheme called the US Economy.

If J P Morgan goes down not to mention their 'Arthur Anderson' crooked accounting firm Price Waterhouse Cooper. it might with a bit of luck bring down the Zionist Ponzi Scheme called the US Economy.

Max Keiser's Plan To Destroy JP Morgan Goes Mainstream, After The Guardian Posts His "Silver Squeeze" Thoughts

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/02/2010

As Zero Hedge readers know, the reason why the US mint sold a record amount of silver American Eagle coins in November is unlikely a coincidence, and very possibly an indication that the recently disclosed plan as espoused by the MKs (Mike Krieger and Max Keiser) to destroy JP Morgan is working: to wit, if every person buys an ounce of silver, JP Morgan and its massive synthetic silver short position, will have no choice by the cover, face unprecedented margin calls, and possible lead to an end for the New York Fed's favorite bank. Today, Keiser goes mainstream, detailing his thoughts in The Guardian, which courtesy of its massive circulation is sure to reach far more readers to whom this idea is new. To keep a track of how well this plan is working, we suggest readers check in with the US mint, which frequently updates the amount of silver American Eagles sold on its website (link). The full Guardian article is below.

Want JP Morgan to crash? Buy silver, published in The Guardian

The campaign to buy silver and force JP Morgan into bankruptcy could work, because of the liabilities accrued by its short-selling

For decades, the world's banking system has been on a fiat currency standard that has led to banks that are "too big to fail". They have overreached their remit of providing loans and have leeched into the political system, using our money to change the political agenda in ways that boost bank management's compensation over the interests of their depositors.

Over the past 11 years, the Gata (Gold Anti-Trust Action) committee has worked to reveal the silver/gold price suppression scheme; thanks to whistleblower Andrew Maguire in London, an investigation has been opened. As part of the ongoing exposé, it has now become clear that JP Morgan is sitting on what is estimated to be 3.3bn ounce "short" position in silver (which they have sold short, meaning they don't own it to begin with) in an attempt to keep the price artificially low in order to keep the relative appeal of the dollar and other fiat currencies high. The potential liability for JP Morgan has been an open secret for a few years.

On my show, Keiser Report, I recently invited Michael Krieger, a regular contributor of Zero Hedge (the WikiLeaks of finance). We posited that if 5% of the world's population each bought a one-ounce coin of silver, JP Morgan would be forced to cover their shorts – an estimated $1.5tn liability – against their market capital of $150bn, and the company would therefore go bankrupt. A few days later, I suggested on the Alex Jones show that he launch a "Google bomb" with the key phrase "crash jp morgan buy silver".

Within a couple of hours, it went viral and hundreds of videos have been made to support the campaign.

Right now, silver eagle sales for the month of November hit an all-time record high and the availability of silver on a wholesale level is drying up. The most important indicator is the price itself – holding just under a 30-year high. With each uptick JP Morgan gets closer to going bust or requiring a bailout.

Here's how the campaign works: wealth tied to a fiat currency is easily overwhelmed by wealth tied to silver and gold. And the world is waking up to the fact that they have the ability, without government assistance or other interference, to create a new precious metals-based backed currency system by simply converting their fiat paper into real money.

This campaign has 100% chance of working; it falls into the category of a self-fulfilling prophecy. As more individuals buy silver and gold, all attempts to replenish the system with more paper money will only cause the purchasing power of the silver and gold to increase – thus prompting more people to buy more. Any attempts to bail out JP Morgan would have the same effect. If the US Fed was to flood the system with bailout money for JP Morgan to cover their silver short position (as they did after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management), more inflation will ensue and the price of silver and gold will rise more, triggering more purchases. A virtuous circle is born.

If anyone is interested in helping to crash JP Morgan, buy silver. In the end, it's about transferring wealth back to the people from where it came

Monday, 29 November 2010

Holocaust Industry Looses another round

Written By Kevin Käther
Translated by J M Damon

The original is posted at

The German “Holocaust” Inquisition has dropped my trial in order to avoid my questioning the official “Holocaust” expert Prof. Wolfgang Benz!

For seven years now I have been occupied almost exclusively with the so-called “Holocaust” and the findings of Revisionism.
At first I was highly skeptical of the Revisionist movement and so I examined it very closely.
(In the view of my government, this close examination turned out to be my “fatal error!”)
It was not long before I realized that guilt neurosis has been induced in the German nation by the “Holocaust” narrative.
I learned that this neurosis, like the entire “Holocaust Industry” that Prof. Norman Finkelstein so accurately describes (both his parents were interned at Auschwitz during the Second World War) has little to do with historical truth and forensic facts.
This insight led me to take a strong interest in “Holocaust” Trials such as those of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.
I soon realized that these legalistic proceedings had little to do with truth and legal guidelines but a great deal to do with the predetermined politically correct outcome that characterizes show trials.

All these trials have one thing in common, namely that the courts disallow all the defendants’ evidentiary motions pertaining to “Holocaust.”
Following the lead of prosecutors in the infamous Nuremberg show trials, collaborationist German courts decree that the factuality of “Holocaust” is “manifestly obvious.”
Consequently, forensic evidence that would prove that crimes were committed as alleged is not required of the prosecution; and evidence proving such crimes were not committed is not allowed for the defense.
[In real courts of law, prosecutors have to prove that alleged crimes were actually committed.]
The “Holocaust” Inquisition has grown so brazen that Sylvia Stolz, the defense attorney for Ernst Zündel, was charged by the District Attorney of Mannheim, Andreas Großman, with “Incitement of the Masses” because she insisted on fulfilling her duty as defense attorney.
She defied the German court by submitting motions to introduce forensic evidence that would have proven the innocence of her client, and for this she was sentenced by the phony Mannheim “judges” to three years in prison.
Three years for a German attorney with no prior convictions - for submitting evidentiary motions on behalf of a client who had been hauled before a German court for the crime of questioning the absurd official version of “Holocaust?”
What a crime!
That was just too much for me.

In November 2007 I decided to join Horst Mahler, Dirk Zimmermann and Reinhold Leidenfrost in officially filing charges against ourselves in the attempt to protest present injustice and compel justice from the German courts.
I mailed letters containing CDs of Germar Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST to the following four persons: the District Attorney; Lea Rosh, (the driving force behind construction of the massive “Holocaust” memorial in Berlin); Prof. Wolfgang Benz, instructor emeritus at the Technical University in Berlin and head of the Center for Investigation of Antisemitism; and historian Prof. Ernst Nolte, whose theses launched the great HISTORIKERSTREIT (Historians’ Debate) in 1986.

As I reported in my article in the National Journal issue of 14 September 2010, my additional appeal trials took place on 25 October and 1 November 2010.
The second round of my appeal trial came about because the KAMMERGERICHT (Superior Court) of Berlin overturned the first appeal verdict in my self-accusation trial and referred it back to District Court for retrial.
The Superior Court instructed the District Court to call as witnesses all three recipients of Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST.

In its decision to void my verdict, the Superior Court argued as follows:
“Merely passing on to one or a few individuals does not meet the definition of ‘dissemination’ unless it is determined that these persons in turn passed on the proscribed materials to others...
The contested verdict does not establish such distribution.
Mass distribution is not present here because only three copies of the proscribed literature for three specific recipients are at issue.
Thus the “critical degree” of required number of recipients is clearly not present...”

My new trial began on 25 October with my attorney, Wolfram Nahrath, reading my opening statement.
He stated in my name that I had sent Rudolf’s book to the three recipients knowing that the recipients would not publicly display the book.
He also stated that, after sending the proscribed book, I had filed a complaint against myself in order to compel an official resolution of the matter in court.
I gave no answers to the Court concerning other questions, since this explanation represented my opening statement.

Following this statement I had my attorney read a motion calling on the Court to set aside the trial proceedings and submit the trial records to the BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (“Constitutional” Court) under provisions of Article 100 of Basic Law so that that court could determine whether or in how far Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Penal Code (Punishment for Disputing “Holocaust”) is compatible with Basic Law.
The motion was made with reference to the ruling of the First Senate of the “Constitutional” Court dated 4 November 2009, concerning Section 130 of Penal Code (1 BvR2150-08).
I reported on the findings of the First Senate in my article of 14 September 2010. [FOOTNOTE 1:]

The Court shelved decision on this motion even though the motion concerned a key point in this trial and should have been decided immediately.

Immediately after submission of this motion, the Court called the head of the FÖRDERKREIS DENKMAL FÜR DIE ERMORDETEN JUDEN EUROPAS E.V. (Society to Create A Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe) Lea Rosh (aka Edith Renate Ursula Rosh) as witness. [FOOTNOTE 2:]

It should be noted that the witness Rosh did not want to appear or make a statement in court.

When summoned to appear, she wrote the following to Berlin District Court:
Dear Mr. Nowak,
I just now learned from the Internet who Kevin Käther is.
I had never heard or read of him before.
Now I learn from the Internet that he allegedly sent me a book.
I never received such a book, therefore I have never read it and can add nothing to clarification of this matter.
Under these circumstances please inquire as to whether I am required to comply with this summons.
Yours truly, Lea Rosh
She was of course lying before the Court when she said she had not received Rudolf’s book – I had sent it to her by registered mail and I have her receipt.
She was clearly afraid of being questioned.
Even under oath, she still maintained that she had not received the book.

Not until the presiding judge pointed out to her that court documents showed she had received the CD and given it along with a note to Berlin Police did she recollect having received it.
Needless to say, she was not punished on account of her false statement, although for anyone else this would have entailed legal consequences.
Frau Rosh denied having disseminated Germar Rudolf’s work and I dispensed with further questions, since on basis of what had transpired, it was clear that I could not expect truthful or objective statements from her, and the Court would not punish her false statements.

After that, Professor Ernst Nolte appeared as witness.
Following the usual questions concerning personal information, the Court asked Prof. Nolte whether he had received Rudolf’s CD along with my note.
He replied in the affirmative, adding that he lacks computer skills and thus had been unable to read the CD at first.
He said it had not seemed important, since he was already familiar with Rudolf’s work GRUNDLAGEN ZUR ZEITGESCHICHTE and had assumed that the book I sent contained roughly the same contents.
After the summons to appear as witness, however, he had printed out the book and read some of it.

Asked whether he had disseminated the proscribed book he added that, in view of its contents, he had most certainly not passed it on.
Prof. Nolte had mostly positive things to say about Germar.
In the context of his works, he characterized Germar not as a negativist but rather a scientist and revisionist, someone who does not strictly deny “Holocaust” but rather examines it from the standpoint of the natural sciences.
Prof. Nolte added that he had never been able to seriously discuss the subject of “Holocaust” with his German colleagues.
He said that the only scientists with whom he had been able to candidly and objectively exchange opinions were foreign historians.

The judge allowed me to ask him only two questions, and so I
I asked the following:
1) “Is the following quotation from your book STREITPUNKTE applicable here?”
“The widely held opinion that any doubt about prevailing concepts of ‘Holocaust’ with its six million victims is indicative of maliciousness and a contempt for mankind and must therefore be vigorously repressed, is simply unacceptable within the scientiic community.
This is because of the fundamental scientific maxim ‘DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM EST’ (Everything must be doubted.)
This opinion in support of suppression should be opposed as an attack on scientific freedom.”
[FOOTNOTE 3: Ernst Nolte, STREITPUNKTE, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main Berlin 1993, S. 308.
Prof. Nolte then characterized Germar Rudolf as a serious scientist, stated to the Court that criminal enforcement of official historiography is an attack on scientific freedom, and answered my question as follows: “Yes, that is a quotation of mine.”

2) I then asked him the following question:
“Do you consider the conviction of Germar Rudolf by Mannheim District Court to be an attack on scientific freedom?”
Prof. Nolte’s response: “Yes, I see the conviction of Germar Rudolf as an attack on scientific freedom.”

After this I was allowed to ask Prof. Nolte no further questions and I was warned that I could ask only questions having to do with mailing Germar’s book.
I pointed out that this was an unreasonable limitation since I had been accused of “Denying Holocaust” and so had a right to defend myself by questioning a renowned historian as witness before the Court.

The Court insisted on limiting my right to question Prof. Nolte and he was then released from testifying under oath.
(I have learned that the National Journal intends to publish the additional questions that I was not allowed to ask Prof. Nolte.)
The presiding judge then read excerpts from my police record as well as previous verdicts, then adjourned the trial with the announcement that Prof. Benz would appear at the next session.
He had been unable to attend this day because of illness.

On the next trial day I had intended to submit my questions as evidentiary motions following testimony from Prof. Benz.
At that time, however, the “Holocaust” Court capitulated, to our great surprise.
When the trial resumed we were informed that the Court had decided that “uncertainties” existed and called the trial off.
The district attorney concurred in this recommendation.
Furthermore Witness Benz had not appeared, which led us to conclude that the dismissal had been decided several days before.
We argued against dismissal of the case, since we wanted an acquittal.

Prof. Wolfgang Benz “chickened out!”
He submitted apologies and the Court dropped the case, obviously in order to protect the “Establishment’s” prime “Holocaust” expert from being questioned by Kevin Käther!

Why caused this change of heart on the part of the “Holocaust” Inquisition, in my fourth trial?
The reason is quite clear, actually.
They felt they had to avoid my submitting evidentiary motions and asking their “Holocaust” expert embarassing questions about his “research.”
The crux of the matter was that they had to avoid acquittal at all costs, because acquittal would have had the result that Germar Rudolf’s book LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST could be legally mailed to scientists throughout Germany.
Given the discontent within the “System,” acquittal might have started a chain reaction.
[As Sylvia Stolz remarked during her trial, “Nicht all Richter sind Schurken!” (Not all judges are scoundrels.)]
Furthermore we have to consider that Horst Mahler and Dirk Zimmermann were sentenced to prison on the same charges - Munich District Court sentenced Horst to six years, and Heilbronn Court recently sentenced Dirk Zimmermann to nine months without probation.
The “Holo Inquisition” was clearly aware that they had little to gain and much to lose by continuing my trial; and so, instead of establishing the facts and allowing justice to prevail, they called off the trial.
Needless to say, I am not going to allow this dismissal to stand uncontested.
I will file a Sonderbeschwerde (special complaint) against the decision, since I am insisting on acquittal.

We should take note that, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz, the SÜHNEAKROBAT (penance acrobat) and former president of Federal Republic Horst Koehler announced before the Israeli Parliament:
“Responsibility for Shoal is part of the German identity.”
[FOOTNOTE 4: Speech in Israeli Parliament, according to ARD TAGESSCHAU, 2 Feb 2005, 8 pm.]
On the same occasion, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder was hawking the same message: “The memory of Shoa is belongs to our national identity.” [FOOTNOTE 5: WELT AM SONNTAG, 30 Jan 2005, p. 2.]
If “Shoa Business” (Abba Iban’s timeless expression) is to be part of our national identity, we have a right to know the basis of our identity, its intrinsic authenticity.

In conclusion I would like to express my sincere thanks to all who have supported me over the years, stood by my side or simply expressed moral support.
I hope that we can continue to work together, because I will not rest until we have all achieved our common goal, which is freedom and human rights for all nations.
I send regards to friend and foe alike and I end with a quotation from our last great German statesman:
(Obstacles are not placed in our path so that we can capitulate to them, but so that we can overcome them.)
[FOOTNOTE6: Adolf Hitler, MEIN KAMPF", Chapter 2, “Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna,” p. 19

Kevin Käther
Berlin, 9th November 2010


The translator is a Germanophilic Germanist who makes German articles about the German plight accessible to those who do not read German.

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Black Invention Myths

Black Invention Myths

Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.

Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.

Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth. Thus I decided to put some records straight. Although this page does not cover every dubious invention claim floating around out there, it should at least serve as a warning never to take any such claim for granted.

Each item below is listed with its supposed black originator beneath it along with the year it was supposedly invented, followed by something about the real origin of the invention or at least an earlier instance of it.

* Bibliography
* Email

Traffic Signal
Invented by Garrett A. Morgan in 1923? No!

The first known traffic signal appeared in London in 1868 near the Houses of Parliament. Designed by JP Knight, it featured two semaphore arms and two gas lamps. The earliest electric traffic lights include Lester Wire's two-color version set up in Salt Lake City circa 1912, James Hoge's system (US patent #1,251,666) installed in Cleveland by the American Traffic Signal Company in 1914, and William Potts' 4-way red-yellow-green lights introduced in Detroit beginning in 1920. New York City traffic towers began flashing three-color signals also in 1920.

Garrett Morgan's cross-shaped, crank-operated semaphore was not among the first half-hundred patented traffic signals, nor was it "automatic" as is sometimes claimed, nor did it play any part in the evolution of the modern traffic light. For details see Inventing History: Garrett Morgan and the Traffic Signal.
Gas Mask
Garrett Morgan in 1914? No!

The invention of the gas mask predates Morgan's breathing device by several decades. Early versions were constructed by the Scottish chemist John Stenhouse in 1854 and the physicist John Tyndall in the 1870s, among many other inventors prior to World War I. See The Invention of the Gas Mask.
Peanut Butter
George Washington Carver (who began his peanut research in 1903)? No!

Peanuts, which are native to the New World tropics, were mashed into paste by Aztecs hundreds of years ago. Evidence of modern peanut butter comes from US patent #306727 issued to Marcellus Gilmore Edson of Montreal, Quebec in 1884, for a process of milling roasted peanuts between heated surfaces until the peanuts reached "a fluid or semi-fluid state." As the product cooled, it set into what Edson described as "a consistency like that of butter, lard, or ointment." In 1890, George A. Bayle Jr., owner of a food business in St. Louis, manufactured peanut butter and sold it out of barrels. J.H. Kellogg, of cereal fame, secured US patent #580787 in 1897 for his "Process of Preparing Nutmeal," which produced a "pasty adhesive substance" that Kellogg called "nut-butter."
George Washington Carver
"Discovered" hundreds of new and important uses for the peanut? Fathered the peanut industry? Revolutionized southern US agriculture? No!

Research by Barry Mackintosh, who served as bureau historian for the National Park Service (which manages the G.W. Carver National Monument), demonstrated the following:

* Most of Carver's peanut and sweet potato creations were either unoriginal, impractical, or of uncertain effectiveness. No product born in his laboratory was widely adopted.
* The boom years for Southern peanut production came prior to, and not as a result of, Carver's promotion of the crop.
* Carver's work to improve regional farming practices was not of pioneering scientific importance and had little demonstrable impact.

To see how Carver gained "a popular reputation far transcending the significance of his accomplishments," read Mackintosh's excellent article George Washington Carver: The Making of a Myth.
Automatic Lubricator, "Real McCoy"
Elijah McCoy revolutionized industry in 1872 by inventing the first device to automatically oil machinery? No! The phrase "Real McCoy" arose to distinguish Elijah's inventions from cheap imitations? No!

The oil cup, which automatically delivers a steady trickle of lubricant to machine parts while the machine is running, predates McCoy's career; a description of one appears in the May 6, 1848 issue of Scientific American. The automatic "displacement lubricator" for steam engines was developed in 1860 by John Ramsbottom of England, and notably improved in 1862 by James Roscoe of the same country. The "hydrostatic" lubricator originated no later than 1871.

Variants of the phrase Real McCoy appear in Scottish literature dating back to at least 1856 — well before Elijah McCoy could have been involved.

Detailed evidence: The not-so-real McCoy
Also see The Fake McCoy and Did Somebody Say McTrash?
Blood Bank
Dr. Charles Drew in 1940? No!

During World War I, Dr. Oswald H. Robertson of the US army preserved blood in a citrate-glucose solution and stored it in cooled containers for later transfusion. This was the first use of "banked" blood. By the mid-1930s the Russians had set up a national network of facilities for the collection, typing, and storage of blood. Bernard Fantus, influenced by the Russian program, established the first hospital blood bank in the United States at Chicago's Cook County Hospital in 1937. It was Fantus who coined the term "blood bank." See highlights of transfusion history from the American Association of Blood Banks.
Blood Plasma
Did Charles Drew "discover" (in about 1940) that plasma could be separated and stored apart from the rest of the blood, thereby revolutionizing transfusion medicine? No!

The possibility of using blood plasma for transfusion purposes was known at least since 1918, when English physician Gordon R. Ward suggested it in a medical journal. In the mid-1930s, John Elliott advanced the idea, emphasizing plasma's advantages in shelf life and donor-recipient compatibility, and in 1939 he and two colleagues reported having used stored plasma in 191 transfusions. (See historical notes on plasma use.) Charles Drew was not responsible for any breakthrough scientific or medical discovery; his main career achievement lay in supervising or co-supervising major programs for the collection and shipment of blood and plasma.

More: Charles Drew Mythology
Washington DC city plan
Benjamin Banneker? No!

Pierre-Charles L'Enfant created the layout of Washington DC. Banneker assisted Andrew Ellicott in the survey of the federal territory, but played no direct role in the actual planning of the city. The story of Banneker reconstructing the city design from memory after L'Enfant ran away with the plans (with the implication that the project would have failed if not for Banneker) has been debunked by historians.
Filament for Light Bulb
Lewis Latimer invented the carbon filament in 1881 or 1882? No!

English chemist/physicist Joseph Swan experimented with a carbon-filament incandescent light all the way back in 1860, and by 1878 had developed a better design which he patented in Britain. On the other side of the Atlantic, Thomas Edison developed a successful carbon-filament bulb, receiving a patent for it (#223898) in January 1880, before Lewis Latimer did any work in electric lighting. From 1880 onward, countless patents were issued for innovations in filament design and manufacture (Edison had over 50 of them). Neither of Latimer's two filament-related patents in 1881 and 1882 were among the most important innovations, nor did they make the light bulb last longer, nor is there reason to believe they were adopted outside Hiram Maxim's company where Latimer worked at the time. (He was not hired by Edison's company until 1884, primarily as a draftsman and an expert witness in patent litigations).

Latimer also did not come up with the first screw socket for the light bulb or the first book on electric lighting.
Heart Surgery (first successful)
Dr. Daniel Hale Williams in 1893? No!

Dr. Williams repaired a wound not in the heart muscle itself, but in the sac surrounding it, the pericardium. This operation was not the first of its type: Henry Dalton of St. Louis performed a nearly identical operation two years earlier, with the patient fully recovering. Decades before that, the Spaniard Francisco Romero carried out the first successful pericardial surgery of any type, incising the pericardium to drain fluid compressing the heart.

Surgery on the actual human heart muscle, and not just the pericardium, was first successfully accomplished by Ludwig Rehn of Germany when he repaired a wounded right ventricle in 1896. More than 50 years later came surgery on the open heart, pioneered by John Lewis, C. Walton Lillehei (often called the "father of open heart surgery") and John Gibbon (who invented the heart-lung machine).

What medical historians say...
"Third Rail"
Granville Woods in 1901? No!

Werner von Siemens pioneered the use of an electrified third rail as a means for powering railway vehicles when he demonstrated an experimental electric train at the 1879 Berlin Industrial Exhibition. In the US, English-born Leo Daft used a third-rail system to electrify the Baltimore & Hampden lines in 1885. The first electrically powered subway trains, which debuted in London in the autumn of 1890, likewise drew power from a third rail. Details...
Railway Telegraph
Granville Woods prevented railway accidents and saved countless lives by inventing the train telegraph (patented in 1887), which allowed communication to and from moving trains? No!

The earliest patents for train telegraphs go back to at least 1873. Lucius Phelps was the first inventor in the field to attract widespread notice, and the telegrams he exchanged on the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad in January 1885 were hailed in the Feb. 21, 1885 issue of Scientific American as "perhaps the first ever sent to and from a moving train." Phelps remained at the forefront in developing the technology and by the end of 1887 already held 14 US patents on his system. He joined a team led by Thomas Edison, who had been working on his "grasshopper telegraph" for trains, and together they constructed on the Lehigh Valley Railroad one of the only induction telegraph systems ever put to commercial use. Although this telegraph was a technical success, it fulfilled no public need, and the market for on-board train telegraphy never took off. There is no evidence that any commercial railway telegraph based on Granville Woods's patents was ever built. About the patent interference case
Refrigerated Truck
Frederick Jones (with Joseph Numero) in 1938? No! Did Jones change America's eating habits by making possible the long-distance shipment of perishable foods? No!

Refrigerated ships and railcars had been moving perishables across oceans and continents even before Jones was born (see refrigerated transport timeline). Trucks with mechanically refrigerated cargo spaces appeared on the roads at least as early as the late 1920s (see the proof). Further development of truck refrigeration was more a process of gradual evolution than radical change.
Air Brake / Automatic Air Brake
Granville Woods in 1904? No!

In 1869, a 22-year-old George Westinghouse received US patent #88929 for a brake device operated by compressed air, and in the same year organized the Westinghouse Air Brake Company. Many of the 361 patents he accumulated during his career were for air brake variations and improvements, including his first "automatic" version in 1872 (US #124404).
Air Conditioner
Frederick Jones in 1949? No!

Dr. Willis Carrier built the first machine to control both the temperature and humidity of indoor air. He received the first of many patents in 1906 (US patent #808897, for the "Apparatus for Treating Air"). In 1911 he published the formulae that became the scientific basis for air conditioning design, and four years later formed the Carrier Engineering Corporation to develop and manufacture AC systems.
J.F. Pickering in 1900? No!

French engineer Henri Giffard successfully flew a powered navigable airship in 1852. The La France airship built by Charles Renard and Arthur Krebs in 1884 featured an electric motor and improved steering capabilities. In 1900 Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin's first rigid-framed dirigible took to the air. Of the hundreds of inventors granted patents for early airship designs and modifications, few succeeded in building or flying their craft. There doesn't appear to be any record of a "Pickering Airship" ever getting off the ground.

US Aviation Patent Database, 1799-1909
Automatic Railroad Car Coupler
Andrew Beard invented the "Jenny [sic] coupler" in 1897? No!

The Janney coupler is named for US Civil War veteran Eli H. Janney, who in 1873 invented a device (US patent #138405) which automatically linked together two railroad cars upon their being brought into contact. Also known as the "knuckle coupler," Janney's invention superseded the dangerous link-and-pin coupler and became the basis for standard coupler design through the remainder of the millennium. Andrew Beard's modified knuckle coupler was just one of approximately eight thousand coupler variations patented by 1900. See a history of the automatic coupler and also The Janney Coupler.
Automatic Transmission/Gearshift
Richard Spikes in 1932? No!

The first automatic-transmission automobile to enter the market was designed by the Sturtevant brothers of Massachusetts in 1904. US Patent #766551 was the first of several patents on their gearshift mechanism. Automatic transmission technology continued to develop, spawning hundreds of patents and numerous experimental units; but because of cost, reliability issues and an initial lack of demand, several decades passed before vehicles with automatic transmission became common on the roads.
Bicycle Frame
Isaac R. Johnson in 1899? No!

Comte Mede de Sivrac and Karl von Sauerbronn built primitive versions of the bicycle in 1791 and 1816 respectively. The frame of John Starley's 1885 "safety bicycle" resembled that of a modern bicycle.
Cellular Phone
Henry T. Sampson in 1971? No!

On July 6, 1971, Sampson and co-inventor George Miley received a patent on a "gamma electric cell" that converted a gamma ray input into an electrical output (Among the first to do that was Bernhard Gross, US patent #3122640, 1964). What, you ask, does gamma radiation have to do with cellular communications technology? The answer: nothing. Some multiculturalist pseudo-historian must have seen the words "electric" and "cell" and thought "cell phone."

The father of the cell phone is Martin Cooper who first demonstrated the technology in 1973.
Clock or Watch (First in America)
Benjamin Banneker built the first American timepiece in 1753? No!

Abel Cottey, a Quaker clockmaker from Philadelphia, built a clock that is dated 1709 (source: Six Quaker Clockmakers, by Edward C. Chandlee; Philadelphia, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1943). Banneker biographer Silvio Bedini further refutes the myth:

Several watch and clockmakers were already established in the colony [Maryland] prior to the time that Banneker made the clock. In Annapolis alone there were at least four such craftsmen prior to 1750. Among these may be mentioned John Batterson, a watchmaker who moved to Annapolis in 1723; James Newberry, a watch and clockmaker who advertised in the Maryland Gazette on July 20, 1748; John Powell, a watch and clockmaker believed to have been indentured and to have been working in 1745; and Powell's master, William Roberts.

Silvio Bedini, The Life of Benjamin Banneker (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1999)

Clothes Dryer
George T. Sampson in 1892? No!

The "clothes-drier" described in Sampson's patent was actually a rack for holding clothes near a stove, and was intended as an "improvement" on similar contraptions:

My invention relates to improvements in clothes-driers.... The object of my invention is to suspend clothing in close relation to a stove by means of frames so constructed that they can be readily placed in proper position and put aside when not required for use.

US patent #476416, 1892

Nineteen years earlier, there were already over 300 US patents for such "clothes-driers" (Subject-Matter Index of Patents...1790 to 1873).

A Frenchman named Pochon in 1799 built the first known tumble dryer — a crank-driven, rotating metal drum pierced with ventilation holes and held over heat. Electric tumble dryers appeared in the first half of the 20th century.
Lloyd P. Ray in 1897? No!

While the ultimate origin of the dustpan is lost in the mists (dusts?) of time, at least we know that US patent #20811 for "Dust-pan" was granted to T.E. McNeill in 1858. That was the first of about 164 US dustpan patents predating Lloyd Ray's. See the dustpan patent list.
Egg Beater
Willie Johnson in 1884? No!

The hand-cranked egg beater with two intermeshed, counter-rotating whisks was invented by Turner Williams of Providence, Rhode Island in 1870 (US Patent #103811). It was an improvement on earlier rotary egg beaters that had only one whisk.
Electric Trolley
Did Granville Woods invent the electric trolley car, the overhead wire that powers it, or the "troller" wheel that makes contact with the trolley wire, in 1888? No!

Dr. Werner von Siemens demonstrated his electric trolleybus, the Elektromote, near Berlin on April 29, 1882. The vehicle's two electric motors collected power through contact wheels rolling atop a pair of overhead wires. The earliest patentee of an electric trolley in the United States appears to be Eugene Cowles (#252193 in 1881), followed by Dr. Joseph R. Finney (#268476 in 1882) who operated an experimental trolley car near Pittsburgh, PA in the summer of 1882. In early 1885, John C. Henry established in Kansas City, MO, the first overhead-wire electric transit system to enter regular service in the United States. Belgian-born Charles van Depoele, who earned 240+ patents in electric railway technology and other fields, set up trolley lines in several North American cities by 1887. In February 1888, a trolley system designed by Frank Sprague began operating in Richmond, Virginia. Sprague's system became the lasting prototype for electric street railways in the US.
Alexander Miles in 1887? No!
Was Miles the first to patent a self-closing shaft door? No!

Steam-powered hoisting devices were used in England by 1800. Elisha Graves Otis' 1853 "safety elevator" prevented the car from falling if the cable broke, and thus paved the way for the first commercial passenger elevator, installed in New York City's Haughwout Department Store in 1857. The first electric elevator appeared in Mannheim, Germany in 1880, built by the German firm of Siemens and Halske. A self-closing shaft door was invented by J.W. Meaker in 1874 ("Improvement in Self-closing Hatchways," US Patent No. 147,853). See Elevator Timeline
Fastest Computer/Computation
Was Philip Emeagwali responsible for the world's fastest computer or computation in 1989? Did he win the "Nobel Prize of computing"? Is he a "father of the Internet"? No!

The fastest performance of a computer application in 1989 was 6 billion floating point operations per second (6 Gflops), achieved by a team from Mobil and Thinking Machines Corp. on a 64,000-processor "Connection Machine" invented by Danny Hillis. That was almost double the 3.1 Gflops of Emeagwali's computation. Computing's Nobel Prize equivalent is the Turing Award, which Emeagwali has never won. More...
Fire Escape
Joseph Winters in 1878? No!

Winters' "fire escape" was a wagon-mounted ladder. The first such contraption patented in the US was the work of William P. Withey, 1840 (US patent #1599). The fire escape with a "lazy-tongs" type ladder, more similar to Winters' patent, was pioneered by Hüttman and Kornelio in 1849 (US patent #6155). One of the first fire escapes of any type was invented in 18th-century England:

In 1784, Daniel Maseres, of England, invented a machine called a fire escape, which, being fastened to the window, would enable anyone to descend to the street without injury.

Benjamin Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art, 1888

By 1888 the US had granted 1,099 patents on fire escapes of "many forms, and of every possible material" (Butterworth).
Fire Extinguisher
Thomas J. Martin in 1872? No!

In 1813, British army captain George Manby created the first known portable fire extinguisher: a two-foot-tall copper cylinder that held 3 gallons of water and used compressed air as a propellant. One of the earliest extinguishers to use a chemical extinguishing agent, and not just water, was invented in 1849 by the Englishman William Henry Phillips, who patented his "fire annihilator" in England and the United States (US patent #7,269).
Food Additives, Meat Curing
Lloyd Hall "is responsible for the meat curing products, seasonings, emulsions, bakery products, antioxidants, protein hydrolysates, and many other products that keep our food fresh and flavorable"? No! Hall "revolutionized the meatpacking industry"? No!

Hall introduced no major class of additive, certainly not meat curing salts (which are ancient), protein hydrolysates (popularized by Julius Maggi as flavor enhancers in 1886), emulsifiers and antioxidants (lecithin, for example, was used in both roles before Lloyd Hall had any patents in food processing). The so-called revolutionary meat curing product marketed by Hall's employer was invented primarily by Karl Max Seifert ; the number of Seifert's patent was printed right on the containers. Hall's main contribution to this product was to reduce its tendency to cake during storage. Details: Lloyd Hall myth.
Fountain Pen
W.B. Purvis in 1890? No!

The first reference to what seems to be a fountain pen appears in an Arabic text from 969 AD; details of the instrument are not known. A French "Bion" pen, dated 1702, represents the oldest fountain pen that still survives. Later models included John Scheffer's 1819 pen, possibly the first to be mass-produced; John Jacob Parker's "self-filling" pen of 1832; and the famous Lewis Waterman pen of 1884 (US Patents #293545, #307735). Early History of the Fountain Pen
Golf Tee
Dr. George Grant in 1899? No!

A small rubber platform invented by Scotsmen William Bloxsom and Arthur Douglas was the world's first patented golf tee (British patent #12941 of 1889). The first known tee to penetrate the ground, in contrast to earlier tees that sat on the surface, was the peg-like "Perfectum" patented in 1892 by Percy Ellis of England. American dentist William Lowell introduced the most common form of tee used today, the simple wooden peg with a flared top. Details...
Lyda Newman in 1898? No!

An early US patent for a recognizably modern hairbrush went to Hugh Rock in 1854 (US Design Patent no. D645), though surely there were hairbrushes long before there was a US Patent Office.

The claim that Lyda Newman's brush was the first with "synthetic bristles" is false: her patent mentions nothing about synthetic bristles and is concerned only with a new way of making the handle detachable from the head. Besides, a hairbrush that included "elastic wire teeth" in combination with natural bristles had already been patented by Samuel Firey in 1870 (US, #106680). Nylon bristles weren't possible until the invention of nylon in 1935.
Halogen Lamp
Frederick Mosby? No

The original patent for the tungsten halogen lamp (US #2,883,571; April 21, 1959) is recorded to Elmer G. Fridrich and Emmett H. Wiley of General Electric. The two had built a working prototype as early as 1953. Fred Mosby was part of the GE team charged with developing the prototype lamp into a marketable product, but was not responsible for the original halogen lamp or the concept behind it.
Hand Stamp
William Purvis in 1883? No!

The earliest known postal handstamp was brought into use by Henry Bishop, Postmaster General of Great Britain, in the year 1661. The stamp imprinted the mail with a bisected circle containing the month and the date. See "Bishop marks"
Heating Furnace
Alice Parker in 1919? No!

In the hypocaust heating systems built by the ancient Romans, hot air from a furnace circulated under the floor and up through channels inside the walls, thereby distributing heat evenly around the building. One of the most famous heating systems in recent centuries was the iron furnace stove known as the "Franklin stove," named after its purported originator Benjamin Franklin around 1745 AD. The US had issued over 4000 patents for heating stoves and furnaces by 1888 (Benjamin Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art, 1888).
Oscar E. Brown in 1892? No!

Some sources on the web, if not ignorant enough to say Brown invented the first horseshoe ever, will at least try to credit him for the first double or compound horseshoe made of two layers: one permanently secured to the hoof, and one auxiliary layer that can be removed and replaced when it wears out. However, in the US there were already 39 earlier patents for horseshoes using that same concept. The first of these was issued to J.B. Kendall of Boston in 1861, patent #33709.
Ice Cream
Augustus Jackson in 1832? No!

Flavored ices resembling sherbet were known in China in ancient times. In Europe, sherbet-like concoctions evolved into ice cream by the 16th century, and around 1670 or so, the Café Procope in Paris offered creamy frozen dairy desserts to the public. The first written record of ice cream in the New World comes from a letter dated 1700, attesting that Maryland Governor William Bladen served the treat to his guests. In 1777, the New York Gazette advertised the sale of ice cream by confectioner Philip Lenzi. History of Ice Cream
Ironing Board
Sarah Boone in 1892? No!

Of the several hundred US patents on ironing boards granted prior to Sarah Boone's, the first three went to William Vandenburg in 1858 (patents #19390, #19883, #20231). The first American female patentee of an ironing board is probably Sarah Mort of Dayton, Ohio, who received patent #57170 in 1866. In 1869, Henry Soggs of Columbus, Pennsylvania earned US patent #90966 for an ironing board resembling the modern type, with folding legs, adjustable height, and a cover. Another nice example of a modern-looking board was designed by J.H. Mallory in 1871, patent #120296. Details...
Laser Cataract Surgery
Patricia Bath "transformed eye surgery" by inventing the first laser device to treat cataracts in 1986? No!

Use of lasers to treat cataracts in the eye began to develop in the mid 1970s. M.M. Krasnov of Russia reported the first such procedure in 1975. One of the earliest US patents for laser cataract removal (#3,982,541) was issued to Francis L'Esperance in 1976. In later years, a number of experimenters worked independently on laser devices for removing cataracts, including Daniel Eichenbaum, whose work became the basis of the Paradigm Photon™ device; and Jack Dodick, whose Dodick Laser PhotoLysis System eventually became the first laser unit to win FDA approval for cataract removal in the United States. Still, the majority of cataract surgeries continue to be performed using ultrasound devices, not lasers. Details...
Lawn Mower
John Burr in 1899? No!

English engineer Edwin Budding invented the first reel-type lawn mower (with blades arranged in a cylindrical pattern) and had it patented in England in 1830. In 1868 the United States issued patent #73807 to Amariah M. Hills of Connecticut, who went on to establish the Archimedean Lawn Mower Co. in 1871. By 1888, the US Patent Office had granted 138 patents for lawn mowers (Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art). Doubtlessly there were even more by the time Burr got his patent in 1899.

Some website authors want Burr to have invented the first "rotary blade" mower, with a centrally mounted spinning blade. But his patent #624749 shows yet another twist on the old reel mower, differing in only a few details with Budding's original.
Lawn Sprinkler
J. H. Smith in 1897? Elijah McCoy? No!

The first US patent with the title "lawn sprinkler" was issued to J. Lessler of Buffalo, New York in 1871 (#121949). Early examples of water-propelled, rotating lawn sprinklers were patented by J. Oswald in 1890 (#425340) and J. S. Woolsey in 1891 (#457099) among a gazillion others.

Smith's patent shows just another rotating sprinkler, and McCoy's 1899 patent was for a turtle-shaped sprinkler.
Mailbox (letter drop box)
P. Downing invented the street letter drop box in 1891? No!
George Becket invented the private mailbox in 1892? No!

The US Postal Service says that "Street boxes for mail collection began to appear in large [US] cities by 1858." They appeared in Europe even earlier, according to historian Laurin Zilliacus:

Mail boxes as we understand them first appeared on the streets of Belgian towns in 1848. In Paris they came two years later, while the English received their 'pillar boxes' in 1855.

Laurin Zilliacus, Mail for the World, p. 178 (New York, J. Day Co., 1953)

From the same book (p.178), "Private mail boxes were invented in the United States in about 1860."

Eventually, letter drop boxes came equipped with inner lids to prevent miscreants from rummaging through the mail pile. The first of many US patents for such a purpose was granted in 1860 to John North of Middletown, Connecticut (US Pat. #27466).
Thomas W. Stewart in 1893? No!

Mops go back a long, long way before 1893. Just how long, is hard to determine. Restricting our view to the modern era, we find that the United States issued its first mop patent (#241) in 1837 to Jacob Howe, called "Construction of Mop-Heads and the Mode of Securing them upon Handles." One of the first patented mops with a built-in wringer was the one H. & J. Morton invented in 1859 (US #24049).

The mop specified in Stewart's patent #499402 has a lever-operated clamp for "holding the mop rags"; the lever is not a wringing mechanism as erroneously reported on certain websites. Other inventors had already patented mops with lever-operated clamps, one of the first being Greenleaf Stackpole in 1869 (US Pat. #89803).
Paper Punch (hand-held)
Charles Brooks in 1893? No!
Was it the first with a hinged receptacle to catch the clippings? No!

The first numbered US patent for a hand-held hole punch was #636, issued to Solyman Merrick in 1838. Robert James Kellett earned the first two US patents for a chad-catching hole punch, in 1867 (patent #65090) and 1868 (#79232).
Pencil Sharpener
John Lee Love in 1897? No!

Bernard Lassimone of Limoges, France invented one of the earliest sharpeners, receiving French patent number 2444 in 1828. An apparent ancestor of the 20th-century hand-cranked sharpener was patented by G. F. Ballou in 1896 (US #556709) and marketed by the A.B. Dick Company as the "Planetary Pencil Pointer." As the user held the pencil stationary and turned the crank, twin milling cutters revolved around the tip of the pencil and shaved it into a point.

Love's patent #594114 shows a variation on a different kind of sharpener, in which one would crank the pencil itself around in a stirring motion. An earlier device of a similar type was devised in 1888 by G.H. Courson (patent #388533), and sold under the name "President Pencil Sharpener."

Here are several other examples of 19th century sharpeners:
Early Mechanical Pencil Sharpeners
Mechanical Pencil Sharpener Gallery ~ 1884-1899
Permanent Wave Machine (for perming hair)
Marjorie Joyner in 1928? No!

That would be German hairdresser Karl Ludwig Nessler (aka Charles Nestlé) no later than 1906.
Postmarking and Canceling Machine
William Barry in 1897? No!

Try Pearson Hill of England, in 1857. Hill's machine marked the postage stamp with vertical lines and postmark date. By 1892, US post offices were using several brands of machines, including one that could cancel, postmark, count and stack more than 20,000 pieces of mail per hour (Marshall Cushing, Story of Our Post Office, Boston: A. M. Thayer & co., 1892, pp.189-191).
Printing Press
W.A. Lavalette invented "the advanced printing press" in 1878? No!

Movable-type printing first appeared in East Asia. In Europe, around 1455, Johann Gutenberg adapted the screw press used in other trades such as winemaking and combined it with type-metal alloy characters and oil-based printing ink. Major advances after Gutenberg include the cylinder printing press (c. 1811) by Frederick Koenig and Andreas Bauer, the rotary press (1846) by Richard M. Hoe, and the web press (1865) by William Bullock. Major advances do not include Lavalette's patent, which was only one of 3,268 printing patents granted in the US by the year 1888 (Butterworth, Growth of Industrial Art). Improvements After Gutenberg
Propeller for Ship
George Tolivar or Benjamin Montgomery? No!

John Stevens constructed a boat with twin steam-powered propellers in 1804 in the first known application of a screw propeller for marine propulsion. Other important pioneers in the early 1800s included Sir Francis Pettit Smith of England, and Swedish-born ship designer John Ericsson (US patent #588) who later designed the USS Monitor.
Thomas Elkins in 1879? John Stanard in 1891? No!

Oliver Evans proposed a mechanical refrigerator based on a vapor-compression cycle in 1805 and Jacob Perkins had a working machine built in 1834. Dr. John Gorrie created an air-cycle refrigeration system in about 1844, which he installed in a Florida hospital. In the 1850s Alexander Twining in the USA and James Harrison in Australia used mechanical refrigeration to produce ice on a commercial scale. Around the same time, the Carré brothers of France led the development of absorption refrigeration systems. A more detailed timeline

Stanard's patent describes not a refrigeration machine, but an old-fashioned icebox — an insulated cabinet into which ice is placed to cool the interior. As such, it was a "refrigerator" only in the old sense of the term, which included non-mechanical coolers. Elkins created a similarly low-tech cooler, acknowledging in his patent #221222 that "I am aware that chilling substances inclosed within a porous box or jar by wetting its outer surface is an old and well-known process."
Rotary Engine
Andrew Beard in 1892? No!

The Subject Matter Index of Patents Issued from the United States Patent Office from 1790 to 1873 Inclusive lists 394 "Rotary Engine" patents from 1810-1873. The Wankel engine, a rotary combustion engine with a four-stroke cycle, dates from 1954. History of the Rotary Engine from 1588 Onward
Screw Socket for Light Bulb
Lewis Latimer? No!

The earliest evidence for a light bulb screw base design is a drawing in a Thomas Edison notebook dated Sept. 11, 1880. It is not the work of Latimer, though:

Edison's long-time associates, Edward H. Johnson and John Ott, were principally responsible for designing fixtures in the fall of 1880. Their work resulted in the screw socket and base very much like those widely used today.

R. Friedel and P. Israel, Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention, (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1986).

The 1880 sketch of the screw socket is reproduced in the book cited above.
Smallpox Vaccine
Onesimus the slave in 1721? No! Onesimus knew of variolation, an early inoculation technique practiced in several areas of the world before the discovery of vaccination.

English physician Edward Jenner developed the smallpox vaccine in 1796 after finding that the relatively innocuous cowpox virus built immunity against the deadly smallpox. This discovery led to the eventual eradication of endemic smallpox throughout the world. Vaccination differs from the primitive inoculation method known as variolation, which involved the deliberate planting of live smallpox into a healthy person in hopes of inducing a mild form of the disease that would provide immunity from further infection. Variolation not only was risky to the patient but, more importantly, failed to prevent smallpox from spreading. Known in Asia by 1000 AD, the practice reached the West via more than one channel.
Smokestack for Locomotives
L. Bell in 1871? No!

Even the first steam locomotives, such as the one built by Richard Trevithick in 1804, were equipped with smokestacks. Later smokestacks featured wire netting to prevent hazardous sparks from escaping. Page 115 of John H. White Jr.'s American Locomotives: An Engineering History, 1830-1880 (1997 edition) displays a composite picture showing 57 different types of spark-arresting smokestacks devised before 1860.
Steam Boiler Furnace
Granville Woods in 1884? No!

The steam engine boiler is of course as old as the steam engine itself. The Subject Matter Index of Patents Issued from the United States Patent Office from 1790 to 1873 Inclusive lists several hundred variations and improvements to the steam boiler, including the revolutionary water-tube boiler patented in 1867 by American inventors George Herman Babcock and Stephen Wilcox.
Street Sweeper
Charles Brooks in 1896? No!

Brooks' patent was for a modified version of a common type of street sweeper cart that had long been known, with a rotary brush that swept refuse onto an elevator belt and into a trash bin. In the United States, street sweepers started being patented in the 1840s, and by 1900 the Patent Office had issued about 300 patents for such machines. Details...
Supercharger for Automobiles
Joseph Gammel/Gamell in 1976? No!

In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler received a German patent for supercharging an internal combustion engine. Louis Renault patented a centrifugal supercharger in France in 1902. An early supercharged racecar was built by Lee Chadwick of Pottstown, Pennsylvania in 1908 and reportedly reached a speed of 100 miles per hour. History of Supercharging
T. Elkins in 1897? No!

The Minoans of Crete are said to have invented a flush toilet thousands of years ago; however, there is probably no direct ancestral relationship between it and the modern one that evolved primarily in England starting in the late 16th century, when Sir John Harrington devised a flushing device for his godmother Queen Elizabeth. In 1775 Alexander Cummings patented a toilet in which some water remained after each flush, thereby suppressing odors from below. The "water closet" continued to evolve, and in 1885, Thomas Twyford provided us with a single-piece ceramic toilet similar to the one we know today. Who Invented the Toilet?
Toilet for Railroad Cars
Lewis Latimer in 1874? No!

William E. Marsh Jr. of New Jersey took out US patent #95597 for "Improvement in Water-closets for Railroad Cars" five years prior to Latimer's 1874 patent with the same title. Marsh's patent specification suggests that railroad-car water closets, i.e., toilets, were already in use:

In the closets or privies of railroad cars, the cold and wind, especially while the train is in motion, are very disagreeable... My invention is to remove these objectionable features....

W. Marsh, US patent #95597, 1869

M.A. Cherry in 1886? No!

In Germany in the year 1680 or thereabouts, paraplegic watchmaker Stephan Farffler built his own tricycle at 22 years of age. He designed it to be pedaled with the hands, for obvious reasons. History of the tricycle
Turn Signals
Richard Spikes in 1913? No! Did the 1913 Pierce Arrow feature Spikes' turn signals? No!

Electric turn signal lights were devised as early as 1907 (U.S. Patent 912,831), but were not widely offered by major automobile manufacturers until the late 1930s, when GM developed its own version and made it standard on Buicks. The Pierce Arrow Museum in Buffalo, NY denies that directional signals were offered on 1913 Pierce Arrows.
L.S. Burridge & N.R. Marshman in 1885? No!

Henry Mill, an English engineer, was the first person to patent the basic idea of the typewriter in 1714. The first working typewriter known to have actually been built was the work of Pellegrino Turri of Italy in 1808. The familiar QWERTY keyboard, developed by C. L. Sholes and C. Glidden, reached the market in 1874. In 1878 change-case keys were added that enabled the typing of both capital and small letters. Typewriter History