On the Eve of the 60th Anniversary of the

Dresden Holocaust 13 February 2005

The Dresden Holocaust in view of  a Book Review


Fredrick Töben Reviews


Robert A Kahn: Holocaust Denial and the Law [A Comparative Study], 2004, Palgrave Macmillan (St Martin’s Press), New York. ISBN 1-4039-6476-9.


Preamble and Overview


Sacramento’s Walter Mueller, the dynamo behind the daily Revisionist email Patriot Letter, headed his 10 January 2005 missive ‘State of Revisionism in the US’, then regretted how Revisionism seems to be grinding to a halt because of ‘cowardice’. He notes that Revisionists such as Hans Schmidt and Dr Robert Countess have exited the battle field on account of ill health while Russ Granata has passed away, and Mark Weber’s output at the IHR has ceased with the exception of having on 4 February 2005 brought about 25 persons to an Ernst Zündel protest rally outside the Canadian Consulate in Los Angeles. Zündel’s wife, Ingrid Rimland attended the protest meeting – but she, too, has after almost a decade given up on writing her somewhat famous daily Zgrams, perhaps justified because of the ever increasing legal cost burden facing her while husband, Ernst Zündel, languishes in prison.


Germar Rudolf, one of the most productive Revisionists is facing total uncertainty as he becomes a father and awaits the results of an appeal application for refugee status. Should Rudolf fail, then he will immediately – Schnell! Schnell! – be deported in chains to Germany where he faces many years of imprisonment. Others, such a Paul Grubach and Michael Hoffmann, III, have remained small-scale independent researchers, the latter’s Weltanschauung embracing a religious battlefield that makes him an expert on Talmud.


Walter Mueller concludes that his monthly Community News and Willis Carto’s The Barnes Review


 “are the only ones left with a consistent print-run …I understand that the social aspect has to be considered, however, this state of Revisionism can only be explained with one word - cowardice. It is sad, but the truth is, those who write anonymously or speak anonymously, are no help. In fact, they are a burden and a security risk. If we do use their writings, then the Jews accuse us of lying since we are not allowed to give the source. So, we might as well not use their material…‘Risk free’ is the motto of the undercover revisionist in America. I think that we have reached the stage where the Jews have almost won … they have almost silenced Revisionist activities in the country that was built on liberty and freedom.”


Mueller also mentions the new Noontide Press website, a business affiliate of the IHR


Interestingly, the US giant of Revisionism, Professor Arthur Butz, does not rate a mention in Mueller’s quick survey. This is somewhat justified because Dr Butz is not an activist. All the same, there are still surprisingly many devoted individuals behind the scene who enable the visible Revisionist warrior to fight the good fight, to stand at the battlefront and to face the firing line – now more increasingly through the Internet. It is therefore a waste of time for Revisionists to faction-fight on grounds that some Revisionist is afflicted with hubris, or some other such personal failing – so long as the Revisionist produces the goods and continues to challenge the ‘ Holocaust’  believers’ version of historical facts.


Last year when Germar Rudolf re-published Arthur Butz’s classic of 1976, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, the issue raised above clarified itself in Butz’s own introductory words. He states that the book he began to work on over 30 years ago is still relevant to this day – and that the ‘Holocaust’ believers have significantly reacted to his theses, something that is evident in the way they have behaved themselves in formulating and structuring their world-wide attacks against the Revisionists’ historical findings, in particular on the Auschwitz homicidal gassing allegations.


So it surprises somewhat that Robert Kahn, whose book is the subject of this review, fails to mention Butz or his The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, but elaborates on Bradley Smith’s CODOH activities on the various university campuses, which Mueller does not mention because this activity has now ceased. But then Kahn also does not mention Germar Rudolf and his The Rudolf Report, and nor does he mention Judge Wilhelm Stäglich’s Der Auschwitz Mythos, and the fact that in 1983 Stäglich had his doctorate revoked from Göttingen University wherefrom he had obtained it during the 1950s.


The fact that these three giants of Revisionism, Butz, Stäglich and Rudolf, are not mentioned in this book cannot be an accident or oversight. The final draft of the book was closed in 2002, and even non-revisionist David Irving’s 2000 London case against Professor Deborah Lipstadt is mentioned in the book’s final two pages. Also mentioned in the text, at page 74, is Hans-Heiko Klein the Mannheim public prosecutor of Günter Deckert and me, but his name does not appear in the index.


The 2001 New Zealand Dr Joel Hayward thesis case is not mentioned either, but had Kahn done so, then he would have had to tie the Hayward case in with a mention of the Stäglich case in Germany that served to send a very clear message: Hands off the ‘Holocaust’.


The case in South Africa involving community broadcasting station Radio 786 and South African Jewry is likewise not mentioned, perhaps because it still is a live issue on account of South African Jewry pressing for an appeal against a decision that went against them. To date South Africa, as a first-nation country in matters ‘Holocaust’, stands alone as the only country where such things can be disputed.


The Australian scene appears to be uninteresting for Dr Kahn because neither Mrs Olga Scully’s case nor my case before the Federal Court of Australia receives a mention. Both our battles before the courts would have completed the book’s legal history of how debate is suppressed by legal means. It would then have to be mentioned what a hopeless endeavour it was for us as lay persons to do battle against professional legal counsel – all because we could not find any legal persons willing to help us at this factual and critical level of the trial. Mrs Scully valiantly defended herself while I resisted defending myself on grounds that it was a test case involving the Internet. The other reason lay in the fact that Common Law generally cannot permit an unrepresented defendant to win, as became glaringly clear when David Irving conducted his own case in London.


The Australian legal solution to suppressing Revisionist debate is still regarded as a civil matter and results in the handing down of court gag orders, a breach of which will then attract criminal sanction in the form of contempt of court charges – thereby side-stepping the material facts that gave rise to the legal action in the first place.


Also, I would have thought that if Australia is not important for Kahn’s world survey of ‘Holocaust’ denial and the law, then at least my German case should have been mentioned because it involves the Internet, and it already has spawned two Ph D theses. The novel idea that German law extends beyond Germany’s physical borders and reaches to Australia is established insofar that on 12 December 2000 the German Constitutional Court ruled it could, but then it suspended the lower court’s findings and ordered a re-trial. This was tentatively abandoned on 8 November 2004 because I did not turn up on account of being subject to a German order banning me from entering Europe.


So, why are there these glaring omissions? Let’s look at the book in a little detail.




The dust jacket follows the typical black-white dour style that books on this topic have adopted with a representation of the usual striped prison pyjamas sporting a number 38641. One may assume that this numbering is quite a normal procedure in any place that deals with prisoners or detained persons, the 41 indicating perhaps the year of entering the camp.


Pages i-xi include title page, publication data, contents and preface. Interestingly, in the Preface it appears that Dr Kahn did not speak with any Revisionist, something that marks one of his blind spots. Revisionists are known not to have a fear of making contact with anyone, from the so-called left to the so-called right. Unfortunately the ‘Holoaust’ believers have a habit of excluding Revisionists from any public debate, usually justified by some dubious emotional and irrational claim that the Revisionist’s presence, alone, is too upsetting to ‘Holocaust’ survivors and their offspring. So much for freedom and democracy when ‘Holocaust’ believers go public to tell their tale of woe.


This theme of implied suppression of debate is, of course, what this book is all about. It is, in effect, a handbook on how to suppress public debate on the ‘Holocaust’.


The Contents page informs how the 207-page book divides into three parts: THE DILEMMA OF PROOF, THE DILEMMA OF TRIAL UNCERTAINTY, and THE DILEMMA OF TOLERATION. This is followed at pages 161-189 with NOTES that lists 620 references. The BIBLIOGRAPHY at pages 191-98 lists 175 sources, excluding those mentioned above. Why? Is this a case of being ignorant of the facts or lying through omission of the facts?


The INDEX at pages 199-207, likewise, does not mention Butz, Stäglich or Rudolf.





Dr Kahn’s Introduction reveals the mind-set and premise on which his whole argument rests, and the problems that arise in order legally to enshrine this Weltanschauung in the Statute Books of Canada, France, Germany and the United States.


“The book focuses on the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, a time when legal systems and societies were adjusting to the emergence of Holocaust deniers on the social and political landscape. The countries were chosen because they have each experienced a major scandal relating to the conflict between law and respect for the Holocaust.” (p 2)


The temptation for me is to re-think what I wrote about Kahn not mentioning Butz,  Stäglich or Rudolf because here we have a partial explanation why the 1993 Rudolf Report is not mentioned. But it doesn’t quite make sense because the 1993 Hayward thesis erupted in 2000 at the time of the Irving trial, and Kahn does mention the latter’s London legal case against professor Lipstadt. Perhaps Kahn mentioned this matter because it is considered a victory for Holocaust’ believers and a defeat for Revisionists.


But this kind of reasoning does not follow because Kahn extensively reports on the Ernst Zündel case in Canada – and Zündel had a vital victory over the ‘Holocaust’ believers. This, by the way, makes Zündel’s current predicament a pure act of ‘Holocaust’ believers’ revenge far divorced from any sense of legality. It could be said that the Zündel case illustrates the use of naked, uninhibited political and financial power.


And Kahn does not object to admitting that the ‘Holocaust’ needs to be protected both legally and politically, thereby admitting that truth as a defence in any legal battle becomes irrelevant.


In any case, finding out the truth of a matter is not the object of Common Law but rather ensuring that procedural fairness is given to the accused. The rules of hearsay usually determines who can present the soundest and most truthful argument to a judge. Unfortunately this is not guaranteed anymore since the common law countries have adopted the various forms of human rights legislation where a mere hurt feeling or suspicion of committing a hurt is enough to guarantee a conviction.


We have arrived at the Soviet Union show trials mentality, and also the witch trial mentality that devastated the legal systems of Europe and America in the past. Hence no legal system protects the Revisionists from vicious legal prosecution.


In the European Inquisitorial legal system – civil law – the judge participates in the act of finding the truth. But because judges are subjected to political-ideological pressures, as the Deckert case reveals so well, this looking for truth has been subverted by that all-embracing legal principle: “Offenkundigkeit” – taking judicial notice of an event, such as the ‘Holocaust’, and thereby eliminating the need to test the claims made by the Revisionists.


Kahn clearly elucidates what a tight rope judges have to walk when the Jewish-generated public outrage takes hold and influences so-called independent judicial decisions. Kahn does not point out what an interference such public outrage is in the due process of the law because he shares the view that Revisionists must be silenced.


In France, as Professor Robert Faurisson knows so well, there is a special law that guns down Revisionists with the argument that they must not contest anything that emerged from the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Special laws are generated to silence those who refuse to believe in the ‘Holocaust’ story – the Gayssot Law. Instead of questioning the validity of such arbitrary legal constructs – law formulation on the run, as I would call it –  Kahn supports such oppressive measures. As Kahn notes at page 108, Faurisson will not be silenced, and in September 1990 gave an interview to Le Choc du Mois:


“One will not make me say that two and two are five, that the earth is flat and that the Nuremberg Tribunal is infallible. I have excellent reasons for not believing in the policy of extermination of the Jews or in the magical gas chambers … I do not seek to evade the new law, I face it in the front … I wish that 100% of the French would recognize that the myth of the gas chambers is a fairy-tale, ratified in 1945-46 by the victors of Nuremberg and made official by the current government of the French republic, with the approval of the court historians.”


Although not mentioned by Kahn, no doubt because of his 1996 cut-off point for his research, Horst Mahler’s 2004/5 Berlin court case assumes monumental proportions.

Mahler brought along new evidence that the ‘common knowledge’ aspect of the numbers killed at Auschwitz was revised downwards by Fritjof Meyer, the latter also distinctly stating that Auschwitz and Auschwitz-Birkenau were not the death centres, but that two (fictitious) farm houses served as the infamous homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Meyer has not been prosecuted for his statements, something that is quite significant. Unfortunately, Judge Peter Faust simply rejected Mahler’s fresh/new evidence, and sentenced Mahler to a nine months non-suspended prison sentence. Judge Faust’s decision is being appealed, and one may hope that Mahler’s presentation will bear fruit. He offered the court a most detailed Weltanschauung-world view representing those that Mahler labelled in the quip: Deutsche die noch Deutsch sein wollen – Germans who still want to be Germans. 


The fact that so-called democratic and freedom-loving Switzerland is not mentioned here is not understandable either as it should have rated a mention because it uses so-called racist laws to stifle 'Holocaust' debates. Jürgen Graf and René-Louis Berclaz have felt the full force of this law, the former escaping to Russia and the latter currently languishing in a Swiss prison. A century ago it was different then because composer Richard Wagner fled from Germany to find political freedom in Switzerland.




A Challenge to America's James Randi Education Foundation - jref@randi.org


Also, that long-time Revisionist from Flanders, Siegfried Verbeke is not mentioned. Only recently he succeeded in resisting a German arrest warrant that demanded Belgium extradite him to Germany on the usual charges. A Belgium court refused on grounds that extraditions cannot occur between European Union member states if the country from which extradition is sought has the same law under which the extradition is requested. Belgium has the same Holocaust laws but it does not apply them as viciously as does Germany.


I now wonder whether the following had anything to do with the sudden Verbeke arrest because only a few weeks before, on 25 October 2004,  he had filled in and sent an Application for Status of Claimant to the James Randi Educational Foundation, 201 SE 12th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815, USA. Perhaps Siegfried had forgotten that America's skeptics, nay the western world's skeptics are believers in the 'Holocaust' story, in particular in the mass gassing claims.


Statement of the paranormal ability. Limits of the proposed demonstration.

Hundreds  of thousands (even millions) of Jewish people are killed in the Auschwitz gas chambers by hydrogen cyanide (HNC) in the form of Zyklon B. The effect of HNC is based on the fact that it paralyzes the respiration of every individual cell in the body. Oxygen can no longer be transported from the blood through the cell walls into the cells. As the vital cell functions are thereby starved of oxygen, the human being suffocates.

This proceeding has been depicted by thousands of eye-witnesses and by the confessions of the German perpetrators.

Among them: the testimonies of camp commandant Rudolf Höss, Dr Charles Sigismund Bendel, Henryk Tauber, Michael Kupa, Pery Broad, the Frane-Grksch Report, the Vrba-Wetzler-Report, the testimonies of Rudolf Vrba, Jerzy Tabeau, Claude-Vaillant-Courtier, Alter Feinsilber, Szlama Dragon, Dov Paisikovic, Filip Müller, Michael Majlech (alias Milton Buki), Miklos Nyisli, Olga Lengyel, and many others.

All these testimonies conform that the death came in between 2 and max. 15 minutes of exposure to Zyklon B.


Moreover, in many trials these gassings have been proven.


During the I G Farben Trial Dr Herbert Rauscher, Zyklon B expert of the Company Degesch (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbehämpfung, which provided Zyklon B to many customers in Germany and Europe) was shown a can of Zyklon B, and testified under oath.


After been submitted a can of Zyklon B he was asked by judge Telford Taylor how much Zyklon B was needed to kill the people in the gas chamber. He answered: "If you open this 500 gr box, it will easily kill all the people in this courtroom in 2 minutes".


The applicant is ready to be exposed to Zyklon B at least 15 minutes in the same architectural and atmospheric conditions as witnessed by perpetrators and victims. Because the gas chamber of Auschwitz I is still intact and shown to hundreds of thousands of tourists as the original gas chamber, it would be obvious to do the test there.


If this would be impossible, the applicant is ready to undergo the test in a building similar to the original 1941-1944 Auschwitz gas chambers and in the same atmospheric and other conditions.


The test will be in favour of the applicant, if he is still alive after 15 minutes. Moreover, the applicant will stay in the test-room as long as possible and under medical assistance.


The applicant    Siegfried Verbeke


Siegfried Verbeke informs me that James Randi refused to accept his application. More on this at a later date. Now back to Dr Kahn's work and a final word from me.






Kahn’s analysis is a reasonable presentation of what happened in the Deckert case in Germany, to Faurisson in France, to Zündel in Canada, to the IHR-Mermelstein and the Bradley Smith CODOH  matter in the USA. But it is all rather wearying because it is so transparent that he is himself an upholder of the ‘Holocaust’ story-ideology-myth-lie that anyone interested in following it up in any more detail, may do so. I am out of it.



I have said enough about this matter, and bearing in mind my Australian Court Gag Order that prevents me from questioning the fundamentals of the ‘Holocaust’ believers’ claims, let me exit this book review and get into the basics and fundamentals that operate at this moment –  and conclude by giving you Walter Mueller’s vigorous and racy commentary about the Dresden Holocaust, which he penned on Saturday, 12 February, a few hours before the Germans will awake to the 60th Dresden Holocaust Memorial Day on Sunday, 13th February 2005..



From: "Walter Mueller" thetruthisback@yahoo.com


It is 2:00 am, February 13th, in Germany. I am pretty sure by the time we all go to bed, the Young Sachsen and the NPD will be busy to prepare for the Memorial March.


Sometimes you think that you've said everything about an issue, however, you feel like there is still more to say. Remembering Dresden and the bombing holocaust is one of these issues. My close friends know that my family on my mother's side originated in Dresden but more about that later. Every year, I write a memorial piece and remind people to remember. For the last three years I've bought the Dresden Memorial Cards, and this year also bumper stickers, all to support the Young Sachsens, who organize every year the Dresden vigil. In the past, I felt I had done a good enough job. However, this year, it feels like it is different. The recent election of 12 delegates from the NPD to the Saxony State House brought out the worst in the political establishment in Germany.


The humiliating and outrageous comments by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder make this year’s Dresden Memorial the most controversial of them all: The rat that roared on behalf of the Jewish community. He threatens to fight any "Gleichsetzung" - which means "making equal" - equating the Dresden Holocaust with the "Jewish Holocaust." The justification why the German people have no right to remember their dead is sickening. Schröder frantically promises to eliminate the NPD, and his behavior reminds me of the propaganda that was made about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein being a dictator.


All of the 141 cities that were bombed to smithereens and where hundreds of thousands of people were killed, mostly women, children and elderly, are still crying to the heavens.


Discussions about the numbers are okay when we are talking about murdering Germans. Whenever we question the numbers of the "Jewish holocaust" we are automatically evil, insulting the memory of the dead and of those who suffered.


Did I miss something here? Doesn't the same go the other way around? It is way beyond outrageous what is still being done to the victims of Allied war crimes.


Dresden in particular was a catastrophe. People seem to forget that the flaming inferno not only took the lives of so many, but also the history and remembrance of the family tree. No documents, no pictures, and not even a grave remains of all the loved ones that were lost during that bombing holocaust.


Tonight at 11pm, we will talk with our sister, who lives not too far from Dresden, and travels there every year to imagine the house, the street, and the school our mother went to.


The discussion will center around the Dresden Memorial Day, since our mother was born there in 1923. Married at 16, to a German Oberst Leutnant in 1939. My mom's family was a usual large, German family of 12 children, all involved in music, theatre, and art; my mom's family was truly Dresdners.


I wasn't there, because I wasn't born. But as children, we listened to many of her stories of her fleeing Dresden. I do not like to talk about this as openly as I do today. Only close friends know about this. I have a problem writing up emotional stories like this.


By the time my mom, who was pregnant in 1945, left Dresden, not much was left of the city and her family. Out of 12 children, only Franz, Egon, Hilda, Willi and Herbert made it out, along with my mom.


I won't bother you with the long journey until their arrival in Linz, Austria, where they were arrested, because of my mom's first marriage. Her husband had died on the Russian front towards the end of the war.


These times were chaotic. Survival was the only thing that was important. Medical attention was non-existing and being pregnant as a German woman did not generate any sympathy from the Allies. In early 1946, my mom and my newborn half-sister Ingrid, were released, after a thorough investigation.


They moved to Vienna, where my mom met my dad. During the escape of Dresden, my mom contracted a lung disease, and without any medical help, it progressed and progressed, until it was too late to cure. She died when she was 47.


Her brothers and the sister who survived went on to live a pretty acceptable life. Uncle Herbert became a "Kammersänger" at the State Opera in Heidelberg. Willi became a contractor, Franz a farmer. Hilda married a farmer in Tyrol, and Egon became a mason.


But whenever they got together on holidays, it was an incredible picture to see them, trying to remember the rest of the family, which they had lost in Dresden. The worst is that there was nothing but the memories left. Most of them have vanished without a trace – no paperwork, no photos, not even a grave. And as long as I can remember, that was the burden that the family of my mom had to deal with.


Now imagine this is only one of the millions of stories of loved ones who don't even have a grave to go to. Today, they have to listen to their Bundes Chancellor humiliating and degrading speeches.


Questioning the Jewish holocaust is a crime in Germany. Mourning the victims of the Allied atrocities will soon be too!




And for our German readers from Germany's Junge Freiheit -Young Freedom memorial articles:


Das Inferno Alliierte Bombenangriffe löschten vor sechzig Jahren die Kulturstadt Dresden aus Doris Neujahr


Das gibt es in keiner anderen Demokratie der Welt: dass Funktionseliten aus Politik, Medien und Kirchen zum geschichtspolitischen Bürgerkrieg gegen das eigene Volk, seine Geschichte und sein kollektives Gedächtnis blasen. Ihre Übermacht scheint überwältigend zu sein - doch worauf gründet sie sich eigentlich?


Zuerst einmal: ,Funktionseliten" sind keine auserlesenen Besten, sondern bloß diejenigen, die sich zur Schmutzarbeit herandrängen, sei es, weil sie es nicht besser wissen, sei es, weil sie damit Karriere und Geld machen, oder beides.


Zweitens: Das ,Dritte Reich", Krieg und Vertreibung hören gerade auf, ,rezente", das heißt selbsterlebte Vergangenheit zu sein, die die Angehörigen der Nation miteinander teilen. Sie werden, was ganz natürlich  ist, vom kommunikativen in das kulturelle Gedächtnis transformiert, und zwar in Form von Ritualen, Erinnerungsfiguren, Symbolen, Denkmälern.


Es ist, drittens, normal, wenn es bei diesem Abstraktionsprozeß auch zu Verkürzungen, Umdeutungen, Simplifikationen kommt. Doch es ist absolut  ungewöhnlich, wenn die Verbindung zwischen kommunikativem und kulturellem Gedächtnis durch eine ideologische Trennwand gekappt wird. Und es ist pathologisch, wenn der Nation von den Funktionseliten das Haupt der Medusa als - angebliches - nationalgeschichtliches Spiegelbild vorgehalten wird.


Die Deutschen sollen als ,Tätervolk" festgeschrieben werden, das ist das Ziel. Im Kanonisierungsverfahren wird viel begriffliches und theoretisches Brimborium verwendet, doch die Grundstruktur ist simpel: Das  Negative, das von Deutschland ausgegangen ist, wird auf seine mentalen Tiefenschichten, Traditionen, Sonderwege und Eigenarten zurückgeführt, es kann gar nicht identitätsstiftend und einmalig genug gewesen sein. Quasi im keimfreien Laboratorium haben die Deutschen alle Schlechtigkeiten der Welt ausgeheckt, die anderen aber waren Weiße Ritter. Geht es dagegen  um deutsche Opfergänge, um Bombenkrieg, Vertreibung,  Massenvergewaltigung usw., dann waren das bloß - verständliche - Reflexe auf deutsche Ursachen. Dann wird in primitiver, ahistorischer Weise europäisiert,  kontextualisiert, vernetzwerkt, bis von der erfahrenen Geschichte nichts mehr übrigbleibt. Schon gibt es Stimmen, die die Vertreibung der Deutschen als Teil europäischer ,Migrationsbewegungen" entsorgen wollen.


An Dresden entzündet sich alljährlich der Konflikt zwischen den Überresten des kommunikativen und dem oktroyiertem kulturellen Gedächtnis. Denn Dresden war die schönste Metropole Deutschlands und eine der  schönsten Europas. Der Schmerz über ihre Zerstörung kurz vor Kriegsende sitzt besonders tief, weil mit ihr die Absicht der Alliierten, die kulturelle, geistige, auch die biologische Substanz Deutschlands dauerhaft zu beschädigen, unwiderleglich wurde.


Dresden ist aber auch ein deutsch-deutscher Konfliktfall. In der DDR war der, anglo-amerikanische Terrorangriff" die gängige Bezeichnung für das Bombardement am 13./14. Februar 1945, was von BRD-Ideologen als Zeichen antiwestlicher SED-Indoktrination gedeutet wird. Wie dumm sie sind,  das genaue Gegenteil ist richtig! Die DDR-Bevölkerung war sensibel, schließlich immun gegenüber den Versuchen der SED, sich durch antiwestliche Propaganda eine politisch-historische Legitimation zu verschaffen. 1989/90 zeigte sich, daß es in der DDR ein rührend naives, viel zu positives Bild vom Westen gab, das die USA und Großbritannien als  Führungsmächte der ,Freien Welt" einschloß. Der Begriff, anglo-amerikanischer Terrorangriff" setzte sich nicht wegen, sondern trotz der SED-Propaganda  durch, und zwar, weil er subjektive Erfahrungen und den objektiven Sachverhalt traf.


Die ,Tätervolk"-Ideologie, die das Herzstück des neuen deutschen Geschichtsbildes abgeben soll, widerspricht nicht nur den privat tradierten Erzählungen und Erinnerungen, sie ist auch wissenschaftlich ein Witz.  Sie berücksichtigt die Geschichte nur selektiv. Diese selbst für Laien bemerkbare methodische Schwäche lässt ihre Verfechter besonders aggressiv agieren. Die ,Tätervolk"-Ideologen räumen ein, daß es ihnen gar nicht um Faktizität und wissenschaftliche Präzision geht, sondern um ,moralische Entscheidungsfragen" und ,politisch konditionierte `Verantwortung'", wie ein Geschichtsprofessor namens Achatz von Müller gerade in der Zeit tönte. Es soll also ein ahistorischer Dezisionismus durchgepeitscht werden. Dazu bringen die Funktionseliten den von ihnen okkupierten Staat als Leviathan in Stellung, der die Freiheitsrechte der Bürger erwürgt. Psychologische Kriegführung gegen das eigene Volk wird Zur ,Aufklärung" erhoben, und falls diese Medizin nicht hilft, werden Polizei und Justiz gegen ,Relativierer" und ,Verharmloser" in Marsch gesetzt.


Sogar der Pfarrer der Dresdner Frauenkirche, Stephan Fritz, hat deutlich gemacht, daß er statt nach Wahrheit, Seelenheil, Gedenken oder anderen hehren Dingen nach kultureller Hegemonie strebt und nach der Macht, die sie verspricht: ,Es geht um die Deutungshoheit. Dresden war keine unschuldige Stadt, sondern eine Nazi-Stadt wie alle anderen." Man achte  auf die manipulative semantische Verschiebung: Die Tatsache, daß es hier Nazis gab, wird bei Fritz zum Haupt-, ja zum Alleinmerkmal Dresdens, ,wie aller anderen" deutschen Städte. Daraus, so insinuiert er, ergibt sich eine Kollektivschuld, vor der die Frage nach der Berechtigung der Bomben-Barbarei zu verstummen habe! In der Rede dieses Pfarrers Grausam  mischt sich die technokratische Killer-Logik von Bomber-Harris mit dem Deutschenhaß des Lord Vansittart. Eine evangelische Kirche, die kein  anderes Evangelium mehr kennt als das von der deutschen Kollektivschuld, die Steine verteilt statt Brot, die hat es verdient, daß sie mangels Gläubiger und Steuerzahler zugrunde geht.


Der Philosoph Karl Jaspers hat viel schärfer, tiefer, unerbittlicher über die deutsche Schuld nachgedacht als alle, die sich heute in der Bewältigungsindustrie prostituieren. Jaspers aber war ein liebendes  Vernunftswesen und blickte über die Froschperspektiven persönlichen Vorteils und generativer Affekte hinaus. Auf die selbstgestellte Frage: ,Sollen wir anerkennen, daß wir allein schuldig sind?", antwortete er: ,Nein,  sofern wir als Ganzes, als Volk schlechthin gemacht werden - zu dem schuldigen Volk an sich. Gegen diese Weltmeinung können wir hinweisen auf Tatsachen."


Worauf werden die bundesdeutschen Funktionseliten hinweisen können, wenn ihnen eines Tages die Stunde der Wahrheit schlägt? Schon heute möchte man um keinen Preis der Welt in ihrer Haut stecken.



Ein Volk von Tätern

von Peter Freitag


Kaum ein Tag vergeht, an welchem nicht jene aufgeregte Empörung über die Angriffe einiger NPD-Funktionäre auf die offizielle deutsche Gedenkkultur und Geschichtspolitik durch die Gazetten oder den Äther geistert: Von Verunglimpfung der Opfer, von Relativierung, gar von Volksverhetzung ist allenthalben die Rede. Daß genau dies von Linksextremer Seite in ungleich schärferer Form unternommen wird, scheint dabei geflissentlich  übersehen zu werden. Unter Parolen wie ,Do it again, Bomber Harris", ,No tears for Krauts" Oder ,Frauenkirche abreißen" werden am Wochenende  ,Antideutsche" und Antifaschisten einträchtig in Dresden unter den Augen zahlreicher ehrlich Trauernder und persönlich Betroffener durch die Stadt defilieren (siehe Bericht Seite 6). Der national streng gegliederte Manichäismus wird fröhliche Urständ feiern, denn - so die Losung: ,Deutsche Täter sind keine Opfer!"


Transparente verherrlichen die Bomber und ihre todbringende Last, die Mobilisierungsplakate ziert ein Stadtplan Dresdens im Fadenkreuz: Ohne die geringste Regung von Scham bekunden die Veranstalter ihr Ziel, die Zerstörung und Vernichtung der Stadt und ihrer Bewohner anläßlich des 60. Jahrestages lautstark zu feiern! Und kein etablierter Politiker, kein  Kirchenvertreter oder gewichtiger Intellektueller weit und breit, der mit dem Verweis auf Artikel 1 Grundgesetz oder das Strafgesetzbuch lautstark fordert, diese Verhöhnung zu unterbinden. Es lebe die  Zwei-Opferklassen-Gesellschaft!



Antje Hermenau hat gut lachen ,Kampf gegen Rechts": Nach den Wahlerfolgen von NPD und DVU haben sich die finanziellen Aussichten verbessert

Holger Wartz


Antje Hermenau, Grünen-Fraktionschefin im Sächsischen Landtag, strahlt, obwohl sie stets eindringlich mahnt. Seit den heftig diskutierten Reden und Formulierungen (,Bombenholocaust") der NPD-Landtagsabgeordneten  Holger Apfel und Jürgen Gansel genießt Hermenau öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit. Sie spricht über Geld, über viel Geld, ohne Beträge genau zu beziffern – es soll ,gegen Rechts" eingesetzt werden.

Noch im November letzten Jahres zitierte das Neue Deutschland (ND) die Grünen-Politikerin mit der Aussage, die Folgen des unerwartet guten Abschneidens der NPD bei der sächsischen Landtagswahl seien für die

Anti-Rechts-Projekte, ironischerweise" auch positiv. ,Die finanziellen Aussichten der Initiativen haben sich erheblich verbessert", so das ND. ,Gesichert" sei vor allem die Bisherige, Hauptgeldquelle" der Projekte: das von der Bundesregierung initiierte Programm Civitas (JF berichtete mehrmals). Der Fördertopf, der ursprünglich im Jahr 2004 auf fünf Millionen Euro abgespeckt werden sollte, bleibe weiterhin mit neun Millionen gefüllt, so Hermenau im ND. Darauf hätten sich Haushaltspolitiker in Berlin, unter dem Eindruck der Wahlergebnisse in Sachsen und Brandenburg"  geeinigt.


Aber auch in Sachsen selbst setzt nun ein warmer Geldregen ein. Bislang verweigerten sich die CDU-geführten Regierungen in Dresden den Alimentierungswünschen der nicht selten linksradikalen Vereine, die vorgeben, ,zivilgesellschaftlich" wirken zu wollen. Zwei Millionen Euro immerhin will das Land künftig für den, Kampf gegen Rechts" locker machen. Diese sollen vor allem für, demokratische Bildungsarbeit" ausgegeben werden, so der sächsische SPD-Landtagsabgeordnete Martin Dulig, laut ND ein  ,Mitbegründer eines Anti-Rechts-Netzwerkes". Hermenau fühlte sich als Lobbyistin der linken, öffentlich finanzierten Initiativen bis Mitte vergangenen Jahres fast schon auf verlorenem  Posten. Denn langsam wurden die staatlichen Gelder, wie meist bereits im Jahr 2000 festgelegt, zurückgefahren. ,Ich habe selbst als zuständige  Haushälterin im Bundestag fünf Jahre lang die Civitas-Programme gestützt und stabilisiert, weil sie immer wieder - auch durch die SPD - zum Abschuß freigegeben waren", äußert sie in einem kürzlich geführten Interview mit der­ Netzzeitung.


Hermenau hat indes große Pläne. Sie setzt auf regionale Maßnahmen gegen Rechtsextremismus. ,Es geht darum, in jedem Dorf, in jeder Kleinstadt, überall dort, wo die NPD auftritt, damit anzufangen sie zu bekämpfen." Man müsse der NPD die Vermeintliche ,Meinungshoheit wieder wegnehmen",  so Hermenau weiter. Dazu sollten vor allem die kommunalen Funktionsträger ,ertüchtigt werden", meint sie. Man müsse in Schulungen aufzeigen, welche Möglichkeiten und Rechte es gebe, vom Hausverbot bis hin zum Mittel der rhetorischen Auseinandersetzung. Die Landesregierung solle für diesen Zweck ,alle Kommunalpolitiker" schulen.


Dabei unterschlägt die Grünen-Politikerin allerdings entscheidende Fakten, die eng in den öffentlich geführten und finanzierten ,Kampf gegen Rechts" verwoben sind. So gibt es eine teils enge Vernetzung der geförderten Initiativen mit linksextremistischen Gruppen und der autonomen Antifa - auch in Sachsen. Als besonders unterstützungswürdige Netzwerkstelle nennt das Bundesprogramm Civitas beispielsweise den Verein zur Förderung alternativer Jugendarbeit e. V., ansässig im sächsischen Riesa.


In dessen Selbstdarstellung bedankt sich der Verein für die Förderung durch Civitas sowie durch das Bundesfamilienministerium, Veranstaltungsreihen wie die ,Antirassistischen Wochen" finden teils mit Unterstützung und Förderung der Grünen-nahen Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung statt.


Weit weniger staatstragend liest sich dagegen die Liste der Partner. So taucht in einer langen Liste neben Schulen, Jugendhäusern und Stadtverwaltungen auch die Gruppe ,Left Action" (Linke Aktion) aus Leipzig auf - die sich selbst als ,linksradikal" bezeichnet. Auf deren Internetseite wurde dazu aufgerufen, ,deutsche Zustände" anzugreifen, und unter dem Motto ,No tears for Krauts" kündigt man an, auch dieses Jahr die Opfer der alliierten Bomberangriff auf Dresden von 1945 verhöhnen zu wollen.


Ein weiterer ,Partner" der Riesaer Civitas-Netzwerkstelle ist das Dresdner Antifa-Magazin Venceremos. Dort versucht man nicht einmal mehr,  ,zivilgesellschaftlich" zu wirken. Offen rühmen sich Dresdner Autonome dort, den im Zuge der Hohmann-Affäre entlassenen Elitegeneral Reinhard Günzel im Dezember 2004 angegriffen zu haben. Dort wurde Günzel, der  eigentlich bei einer Studentenverbindung einen Vortrag halten wollte, am linken Auge verletzt. Bei Venceremos ließt sich das im bewährt zynischen Antifa-Stil so: ,Günzel versuchte, gemeinsam mit fünf Burschenschaftern, sich an der Blockade vorbeizuschmuggeln. Dies gelang ihm und seinen  Mitstreitern nicht ganz ohne Blessuren."


Aber auch die Zeitung der ehemaligen SED-Jugendorganisation FDJ, Junge Welt, wird als empfehlenswerter Partner angeführt. Diese wird, dies  bestätigte die Bundesregierung auf eine kleine Anfrage des CDU-Bundestagsabgeordneten Georg Schirmbeck, als ,organisationsunabhängige linksextremistische/linksextremistisch beeinflußte Publikation" eingestuft.


Es ist allerdings eher unwahrscheinlich, daß solche Fakten in der nächsten Zeit auf den Tisch kommen. Die Anti-Rechts-Projekte bewegen sich wieder im kritikfreien Raum. Wer dennoch genauer nachfragt, wie es die CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion im vergangenen Jahr einige Male projektbezogen getan hatte, wird als Helfershelfer von Rechtsradikalen diffamiert.


Hermenau weiß so, daß die Geldquelle ,öffentliche Hand" für zahlreiche zwielichtige Projekte, die im linkspolitischen Vorfeld tätig sind, wieder sprudelt. Längst hat Hermenau auch ein weiteres Register des, Kampfes gegen Rechts" gezogen, nämlich den Angriff auf die politische Mitte.


So wirft man seitens der Grünen der CDU Sachsens mittlerweile vor, das ,Problem Rechtsextremismus" zu verharmlosen. Der Grund: Die Sachsen-Union hat (noch) Vorbehalte gegenüber einer Anti-NPD-Einheitsfront, zu der die PDS gehören soll. Der gemeinsame Weg der Demokraten gegen die NPD dürfe nicht an der Kritik der Union an der PDS scheitern, war von den sächsischen Grünen zu vernehmen - ein Standpunkt, der aber vor allem zahlreichen Bürgerrechtlern nicht schmecken dürfte, die im ehemaligen SED-Staat unter Drangsalierungen leiden mußten. Hermenau kennt diese  Probleme nicht - denn sie war selbst bis 1989 Mitglied der sozialistischen Blockorganisationen FDJ und FDGB.



An Afterword


Comment from an Old World War II US Soldier - Joe –


The indiscriminate bombing of German cities during World War II was an unparalleled barbarism instituted by the savage P.M. Churchill and loony Air Marshall Bomber Harris a Rhodesian Hebrew. Nothing in history can compare to the 17 million Germans that died by fire and shredding of bodies as well as rape by the Mongols from Siberian. Any German that tries to compare Coventry an aircraft engine manufacturing center to Dresden is a bit balmy.


As to who started World War II it was clearly England and France. These two countries did not really give a tinkers damn about Poland which was later demonstrated when they ignored the Soviet incursion in 1939, and after World War II accepting the Russian Lublin Commitee and ignored the Polish Government in exile in London and those Poles that fought for the British.


 In 1939 Germany could not possibly stand by and see their blood brothers murdered in the Bromberg and Posen massacres as well as many other former German cities handed over to Poland after World War I, 59,000 souls died in these chauvinistic outrages and no nation said one word because the world hated the Germans.


The proposals made by Chancellor Hitler to P.M. Josef Beck of Poland were not unreasonable. The Germans requested the return of the Free City of Danzig and a ten mile wide corridor linking Germany to East Prussia. That was it. The English and French thought they still controlled Germany as they did after World War I and brazenly interfered in a matter in Germany's back yard.


Czechoslovakia had never been an independent state and Poland had not been a state in over 200 years. Old daffy Woodrow Wilson helped create the problem by proposing Czech independence incorporating 3.5 million Germans and calling it the Switzerland of central Europe. After Marshall Pilsudsky drove the Russians back in 1921 gangs of Poles intimidated the Germans in Schlesia and other German provinces and after W.W. 2 this half baked state drove 13 million Germans from their ancient homes in cities from Stettin to Breslau and no one said a word.


What the hell has happened to the brains of today's Germans. The simpletons even try to celebrate the supposed liberation of their cities during World War II because the Saxonians want to believe they were on the winning side. They did not win World War II except through their labor to resurrect their industry and they have the Russians to thank for that because if the western allies had not feared the Russians they were quite willing to implement the Morganthau Plan and starve 40 million Germans to death.


The  German soldiers and sailors and civilians that made the ultimate sacrifice was enormous and no living German should act like a crawling dog to ingratiate themselves and betray all those that were injured and died in that forced war. I fought for nine months in that cruel conflict and have many times regretted bringing an early end to the lives of my kinsmen because we were in a combat situation, but by the same token I did my best to save the lives of German soldiers and am pleased to say I was successful. However, I am also sure many were starved to death in P.O.W. camps. Victory has many fathers, defeat none. It is time that Germans stop groveling and begin true nation building.

Joe - vze327fu@verizon.net




How Australia’s Public Broadcaster treated the Dresden Holocaust

From: Adelaide Institute

Robertson: "... Did the German people bring this catastrophe upon themselves by supporting an evil neo-pagan cult?"

Oesterreicher: "... Germans did, which let's face it, the holocaust was something infinitely worse, it really was an attempt to wipe out a whole people, and who started this war? It wasn't Britain, it was Hitler invading one country after another to conquer Europe..."

Dr Claus Nordbruch: The twin pillars on which the current German political order rests: 1. Germany started the war, 2. Germany exterminated European Jewry. Both propositions are not contestable and are protected by law in Germany. Why?



ABC Online

ABC Online

Correspondents Report - Remembering the Dresden bombing: 60th anniversary


Presenter: Hamish Robertson

Correspondents Report - Sunday, 13 February , 2005 

Reporter: Philip Williams

HAMISH ROBERTSON: Exactly 60-years ago one of the world's most exquisite cities, a jewel of art and architecture that had come to symbolise the cultural and intellectual achievements of European civilisation, was destroyed in just two successive days of bombing by British, Canadian and American aircraft.

Whether it was morally right to reduce Dresden to rubble, leaving tens of thousands of its residents as charred corpses, is still debated today.

It's a question that exposes some uncomfortable issues.

Is it even appropriate to regret the loss of so many fine buildings and priceless artefacts in the face of such immeasurable human suffering? And why focus so much attention on Dresden, when other German cities suffered equal destruction and loss of life?

Did the German people bring this catastrophe upon themselves by supporting an evil neo-pagan cult, or were they also the victims of the Nazis, who never won a majority of votes in the last free elections before civil liberties were abolished in 1933, and who manipulated their way into power, effectively staging a legal coup?

So should Britain and its allies officially express regret or is there, as some maintain, nothing to apologise for?

Well, currently in Dresden to take part in the commemoration of the anniversary is Canon Paul Oesterreicher, who's devoted his life to the cause of reconciliation.

He spoke to our Europe Correspondent Phil Williams.

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: I'm here in a dual capacity, both as representative of the city and the church in Coventry, which is a twin city of Dresden, but I'm also a trustee of the Dresden Trust, which is a group of British citizens who got together in order to make a contribution to the rebuilding of Dresden's Protestant cathedral, the Frauenkirche.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Why is that the name Dresden brings up so much emotion when a number of cities were bombed on all sides? What's special about Dresden?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: It's not an easy question to answer because I've often asked myself that question. I think the main thing is Dresden was a world centre of culture, music and art, to a degree that probably no other German city is. So people thought it was a kind of vandalism to destroy this jewel of architecture and of art and of culture.
As you say, Hamburg, for instance, was just as badly destroyed, and probably just as many people were killed. But, for some strange reason, some places take on iconic symbolism. How these symbolic things happen, it's a bit of a mystery, but I think it's the international significance of Dresden, and the fact that it was destroyed when the war was almost over, that it was packed with refugees, and that most intelligent people could see no military reason for destroying it.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Was there any justification that you can think of?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: None whatever. I don't think morally, or in terms of military strategy, there was any excuse for what was done to Dresden. We have to face it. Total war creates a mood of total revenge, and that's what it was.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Does it call now, 60 years later, for a heartfelt apology from the governments involved?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: Apology is something that certainly the British find very difficult, but there are different ways of apologising.

And if you consciously say, "We want to make a contribution to the rebuilding of your city, we know we are to blame for its destruction, we know this was great tragedy in the midst of war."

When the Royal Family itself as well as very simple people, poor people often, families of those who bombed the place, make a financial contribution to its rebuilding, it's a practical way of saying we're sorry even if the government doesn't make formal declarations.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: There was of course a visit recently by the Queen, there was some hope, locally, that she might say at least some comment of regret. That didn't happen. Was that an opportunity missed?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: I think it was and I was involved behind the scenes. The reason is, the British establishment were dead scared of Britain's gutter press, that there would be headlines, "Queen Licks The Arse Of The Huns."

PHILIP WILLIAMS: What of the German people, the people of Dresden, there seems and extraordinary lack of bitterness?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: Germans who have some kind of historical memory, knowing what Germans did, which let's face it, the holocaust was something infinitely worse, it really was an attempt to wipe out a whole people, and who started this war? It wasn't Britain, it was Hitler invading one country after another to conquer Europe.

When you put that into the balance, then it's not surprising that intelligent Germans say we brought this on ourselves.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: When you look at how the deaths of soldiers, for example, in Iraq are covered in the press, huge amounts of publicity over a handful of people killed, can we really relate to the tens of thousands that were killed in one night, now, when we're horrified by the deaths of a couple of individuals.

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: Well, some people might say we've become a little more sensitive; that the war in Iraq, which I personally, and most British people find wrong, and in fact immoral, but nevertheless no one, now, no government would dare to say, "We're going to kill as many Iraqis as possible."

At least, there is some kind of attempt to say we have to limit the damage to other people. It's a small advance, but the kind of attitude of killing as many people as possible that was part of the psychology of the Second World War, I think, and I hope that that has gone. I'm not trying to belittle the tragedy of Iraq, but it is different.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Do you think that the people of Dresden will get to the point where they no longer feel the need to commemorate what happened?

PAUL OESTEIRREICHER: I hope so, and I hope that they will recognise they're not a special case and I'm going to say that publicly in a speech I'm going to make here.

There were many, many Dresdens and this one has become symbolically important, but I hope the people of Dresden will sometimes think of what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and what happened in Fallujah only a few weeks ago.

That's perhaps more important.


HAMISH ROBERTSON: Canon Paul Oesterreicher was speaking to our Europe Correspondent Philip Williams, in Dresden.





Dresden als Symbol der Freiheit - der Sieg über den Holocaust.


Am 13. Februar 1945 war der Anfang vom Ende des Zionismus; denn von Dresden wird der Impuls zur Überwindung des Imperialismus ausgehen, der sich am  8. Mai 2005 in Berlin zwar noch nicht vollendet, aber fortsetzen wird.


Die 53 Staaten - die seinerzeit im Zweiten Weltkrieg gegen Deutschland in den Krieg gekauft worden waren, werden nun selbst die Opfer eines "Holocaust" von denen Hitler in 'Mein Kampf' schrieb: "Die Juden unterwandern die Staaten - die ihnen Aufenthalt gewähren - und übernehmen den Staat dann mittels ihrer Verbindungen zu den jüdischen Verwaltern des Welt-Kapitals in New York. Die hieven die Juden mit Geld in hohe Positionen. . .


Die Beweise hierfür liegen vor, denn die Judenpresse in Deutschland, wie Welt, Spiegel, Focus, Faz, ect., vermeiden diese Berichte. Es schadet ihren Sippen in Israel. Ich schildere Ihnen eine ausländische Presse Meldung: 


Der Pfarrersohn Rudolf Hess war wie kaum ein anderer Deutscher davon überzeugt, daß Deutschland eine Chance hat, diese Gefahr für den Weltfrieden abzuwenden -  dies war aber für den Endsieg der "Zionisten" über Deutschland nicht erwünscht.


Ich hoffe, daß Horst Mahler die NPD, die DVU und die REPs in der neuen Deutschen Partei zusammenführt, damit das Vermächtnis von Dresden einen Sinn ergibt!


Bernhard Heldt

Allgemeinde also Sonntagszeitung






Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:00:37 +0100


"Heinz Gerhard Dr.Vogelsang" <arzt11@web.de

Heute vor sechzig Jahren, am 13.02.1945, begannen die alliierten Luftangriffe auf Dresden. Die Zahl der Ermordeten betrug mindestens 35.000 – überwiegend Unschuldige, die den II. Weltkrieg nicht gewollt hatten. Die NATO nennt solche Opfer heute Kollateralschäden.

Die Völkergemeinschaft muß die Kräfte im Hintergrund vor Gericht bringen, denn es hat sich nichts geändert an der Feststellung von Henry Ford I  in seinem Buch „Mein Leben und Werk“  zum I. Weltkrieg: „Eine objektive Untersuchung dieses Krieges, seiner Vorbereitungen und Folgen, ergibt den zweifelsfreien Beweis, daß es auf der Welt eine gewaltige Gruppe von Machthabern gibt, die es vorziehen, im Dunklen zu bleiben, die weder Ämter noch äußere Machtinsignien anstreben und auch keiner bestimmten Nation angehören. Sie bedienen sich vielmehr der Regierungen, Industrieverbände und aller Hilfsmittel der Volkspsychologie, um die Welt in Panik zu versetzen und so ihre Macht zu steigern... Wir dürfen ja nicht vergessen, daß der Krieg ein künstlich fabriziertes Übel ist, das sich folglich auch nach einer ganz bestimmten Technik herstellen läßt. Hunderte von amerikanischen Vermögen datieren aus dem amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg und tausende Vermögen aus dem ersten Weltkrieg. Niemand kann leugnen, daß Kriege ein gutes Geschäft sind für diejenigen, die diese Art Geld lieben.“

Diese mit der aktuellen Politik verbundene historische Aufarbeitung führt u.a. zu Rudolf Heß (*26.04.1894,+17.08.1987), Hitlers Privatsekretär. Allein die Wahrheit über ihn wird  mehr gegen den Rechtsradikalismus bewirken als jedes Verbot oder eine Einschränkung der Demonstrationsfreiheit.


Warum wurde Heß von 1946 bis zu seinem Tod 1987 als einziger Häftling im Gefängnis Berlin-Spandau hermetisch von der Öffentlichkeit abgeschlossen ? Warum verhängte England gegen den Schriftsteller und Historiker Rolf Hochhuth, der über Heß andere Tatsachen herausfand als in den von den Alliierten zensierten Geschichtsbüchern nach 1945 stehen, einen Haftbefehl, sobald er britischen Boden betreten würde ? Heß  überbrachte 1941 ein mit allen Vollmachten, auch Hitlers, versehenes Friedensangebot an Churchill, der es ablehnte. Das von der Internationalen Hochfinanz festgelegte Leichensoll von 50 Millionen war noch bei weitem nicht erfüllt.


Wie hoch ist das Leichensoll für den von den USA auf der NATO-Konferenz 2002 ausgerufenen III. Weltkrieg, ausdrücklich einen Angriffskrieg gegen etwa sechzig Länder rund um den Globus, darunter China und Brasilien? Auch das Bilderberger-Mitglied Frau Engelen-Käfer wird das nicht wissen, denn die dies mitentscheidende Sitzung fand exklusiv unter den US-Bilderbergern statt.


Abgesehen vom Gebot der Klugheit musste Bundeskanzler Schröder die deutsche Teilnahme an der Angriffsphase des US-Überfalls auf Afghanistan und den Irak ablehnen, weil Art. 26 des Deutschen Grundgesetzes und § 80 StGB den Angriffskrieg mit der Strafbewehrung des lebenslangen Gefängnisses verbieten.


Deswegen fordert Angela Merkel/CDU die Aufhebung der parlamentarischen Kontrolle der Bundeswehreinsätze und sieht die EU-Verfassung eine Kriegsdiktatur für ganz Europa vor: ein demokratisch nicht legitimiertes Trirektoire von Engländern, Franzosen und Deutschen soll Krieg erklären und hierzu die Verfassungen der Teilnehmerstaaten – also das, was von ihnen innerhalb der auf dem Zentralbegriff des Humankapitals ohne Menschenrechte aufgebauten EU-Verfassung übriggeblieben ist – aufheben können.


Der Massenmord von Dresden soll sich also global wiederholen. Es ist kaum damit zu rechnen, dass sich China und die neunundfünfzig weiteren Ländern, die auf der US-Speisekarte stehen, abschlachten lassen, ohne dass Länder wie Deutschland Aggressionsziele werden. Dann hätten die USA erreicht, was sie wollen: die Bundeswehr würde den Verteidigungsfall erkennen und sich wehren. Der III. Weltkrieg wäre in Gang gebracht, totaler und radikaler, als Hitler ihn sich vorstellen konnte.

Dieses Bevölkerungsreduktionsprogramm mit der u.a. von der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft gemachten Vorgabe von global nur noch einer Milliarde Menschen ist unnötig, denn grosse Braintrusts wie  F.A.O. und Weltbank weisen in ihren Positiv-Szenarien nach, daß bereits heute fünfzig Milliarden Menschen zugleich in Würde und Wohlstand auf der Erde leben können, Tendenz steigend wegen ständig wachsender Produktivität. Einzige Voraussetzung: Einsatzreife Technologien müssen aus der Schublade geholt werden.


Aber das wird von Hochfinanz bisher verhindert.


Dr.med.Heinz Gerhard Vogelsang, Internist u. Arzt f. Naturheilverfahren. Homöopathie. Leydelstr. 35, D-47802 Krefeld. Tf. = Fax  02151/563294. Bus 52 u. 60 ab Krefeld Hbf. bis Haltestelle Leydelstraße. http://www.homoeopathie-krefeld.de/ , email: arzt11@web.de  -  ALLE KASSEN - Schwerpunkt: Krankheiten, die durch anderweitige Therapie nicht hinreichend gebessert werden. Die von ÄrztInnen angewandte Homöopathie wird von den privaten  wie  auch gesetzlichen Krankenkassen bezahlt.

Mitglied von

INTERDIS (Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung kritischer Zukunftsplanung), Präsident:  Hans Kaegelmann, Internist, Schriftsteller und Philosoph, Pf.1168, D - 51556 Windeck/Sieg. Internet: http://www.interdis-wis.de/ - Christel.lenz@t-online.de -  Ehrenmitglied der deutschen Sektion Medizin ist Herr Prof. Dr. med. Rudolf GROSS, em. Ordinarius f. Innere Medizin der Universität Köln.




Think of the torture suffered by Germans during and after World War II


Nine gets Habib's interview
By Annie Lawson

The Age
February 8, 2005

Channel Seven took the high moral ground in the bidding war for the story of freed terrorist suspect Mamdouh Habib, handing Channel Nine's 60 Minutes an exclusive interview with the former Guantanamo Bay inmate by refusing to bring out its chequebook.

Mr Habib's lawyer, Stephen Hopper, has been inundated with interview requests by the media such as Nine, Seven and the ABC but apparently received only a "couple of informal offers" from media outlets willing to pay his client.

Concerns the media would do a "hatchet job" on his client influenced their decision.

"We've had multiple offers for interviews and we've just looked at who reaches the largest audience and who can give us a fair go in what Mamdouh has to say," he said. "The decision comes down to 60 Minutes."

He declined to elaborate on the terms of the agreement and whether any money had changed hands.

Peter Meakin, director of news and current affairs, said Seven was keen to interview Mr Habib but refused to pay on moral grounds. "If you're paying for details of acts of torture then you are undermining the allegations," he said. "The more horrific the details, the more the interview is worth. That was our judgment."

Nine was initially reluctant to confirm reports it had paid Mr Habib for his story but yesterday acknowledged that a deal had been secured.

"If Nine didn't pay for the deal that would be an event in itself'," said Mr Meakin, former veteran director of news and current affairs at Nine.

David Hurley, Nine's director of corporate affairs, refused to specify the amount Mr Habib received. "In the scheme of things, it's not a massive amount or anything over what we have previously paid."

The executive producer of 60 Minutes, John Westacott, will comment on the story's progress later this week. Nine finalised negotiations with Mr Habib and his lawyer late last week.

Mr Habib is expected to spend the week filming with 60 Minutes reporter Tara Brown and the story will go to air on Sunday.

He was "anxious to have his say and tell his story", Mr Hurley said.

Mr Habib's fall into the clutches of chequebook journalism comes amid suggestions by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock the Government might launch civil action over any proceeds he received for selling his story to the media.



The Program was screened on 13 February 2005

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute