Monday, 23 May


Horst Mahler's fight against judicial notice of the 'Holocaust' up and running





Im Rahmen des Feldzuges gegen die


Offenkundigkeit des „Holocausts“




On 23 May 2005 retired head physician, Dr Rigolf Hennig was fined for denying the 'Holocaust', and his appeal will be heard on this day before the 12. Kleinen Strafkammer, Landgerichts Verden, Johanniswall 6, 27283 Verden, Aller.


Dr Henning will attempt to challenge the current legal view of the 'Holocaust' by referring to Germar Rudolf's 2005 published German edition of  Vorlesungen über den Holocaust – strittige Fragen im Kreuzverhör.


Contact Horst Mahler





From: Euro Oelschadenservice
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Osbeck

Ich hab Susanne Kastner eine Volksverräterin genannt, dafür 3 Monate.
Ich hab Ihr angeblich eine Mail mit Hackenkreuz geschickt, mit 5 Anhängen, dafür 7 Monate.
Festgestellt wurde, das ich diese Mail erhalten habe.
Bewiesen konnte nicht werden, das ich das weitergeleitet haben könnte.
Wird aber vermutet und deshalb die Verurteilung.
Das ich die 6 Millionen leugne wird nicht verfolgt, weil ich den holuchaust insgesammt nicht leugne und mich bei der Zahl 6 Millionen auf neuen Zahlen für Auschwitz berufe.
Es ist zur Bewährung ausgesetzt







From: x-915552
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005
Subject: Re: Are we still at war? A good summary of the German problem



Peace in International Law

According to Oppenheimer "international Law" peace can be achieved in the following ways:

- the belligerents can abstain from further warfare and get into a peace

- the belligerents can establish an agreement which say there is peace between the belligerents

- one of the belligerents can conquer the other part to sign an agreement of cessation of war,

as was done between Sweden and Poland in 1718, France and Spain in 1720, Russia and

Prussia in 1801, France and Mexico 1867.

None of the above goes for BRD. There is nothing BRD can do to enforce USA, Britain, Soviet to sign a peace agreement with BRD and BRD can not sign any agreement regarding peace because BRD was not any of the belligerents in WWII.

What ever Soviet did vis-à-vis DDR has no interest, DDR was not a part in WWII and could consequently not sign anything on behalf of The Third Reich.

Before a peace agreement can be signed Germany MUST have a government that is descendant of the Third Reich. How to get such a Germany is a BIG problem to day.

If the Allies give up the occupation of Germany they MUST allow the German people to elect a government based on the laws and political parties of May 7 1945. Dönitz did not succeed the Third Reich, but Adolf Hitler as the supreme ruler of The Third Reich.

Even though USA and the other Allies have not signed over the power to any German government Germany is not in a vacuum - it is still occupied. The reason why the Allies can not sign a peace agreement is there is nobody they can sign that agreement with - there is NO Third Reich.

The Germans MUST themselves start the reestablishing of The Third Reich based on the laws of May 6, 1945.

Is it not this what Horst Mahler says?

The Allies might choose to say 1 above is the peace Germany get, but before that can happen the Allies must withdraw all their troops from German soil. If they do not - then Germany is occupied.

If the Allies choose the first solution, this can lead to a lot of problems the day Germans awake and ask what happened? Germans can then in the future always demand a remaking of what happened. War can be started to gain back Germany’s self rule. I do not think the Oberjuden will allow that - so they will NOT allow the Allies to:

- withdraw their troops from Germany - not even BRD

- to sign any agreement with Germany - not even BRD

Why? Because the Oberjuden will want to control - if anything is signed with BRD - what will happen in the future. A free Germany might end up as a National socialist country, which is not what the Oberjuden want.

Heil og sael




“… the compulsory Labour Service is intended primarily to prevent the hundreds of thousands of our young working men from helplessly drifting into ruin on our streets. But further, it is intended, through a general education into labour, to serve as a bridge between opposing classes.

Anyone who travels on our highways in the summer meets an army of unemployed young persons always on the move, folk who journey aimlessly from place to place, and one can observe how physically and at the same time mentally and morally they are sinking lower and lower.

It is precisely these young people whom we wish to safeguard from complete ruin, and as a National Socialist I also see in the compulsory Labour Service a means of producing respect for labour. Our young people will learn that labour enables man.” – Adolf Hitler in an Interview with Louis P Lochner, Berlin correspondent, AAP, 23 February 1933.


“’Socialists’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, if efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false.” – Adolf Hitler, as reported in Sunday Express, 28 December 1938


Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute