Newsletter No 252 July 2005

                                                                                                                              ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                      July 2005
                                                                                           No 252

How well is revisionism doing today in its effort on behalf of historical truth? Set forth below is an answer from Serge Thion, a European revisionist who is in as good a position as anyone in the world to answer that question. His is an extraordinarily helpful statement for me, and I suspect for many others living in the United States, for the following reason: After reading Serge Thion's account, below, I am astounded to see that, for reasons I can't even guess at, I have remained abysmally uninformed about what has been going on in Europe. Serge has presented me with an overview which, in spite of all the internet reading I do, I have received from no one else. If it is there and I have missed it, shame on me; If it's not there, shame on whoever failed to spread the word. After all, even though the United States may, in some sense, be sidelined, still it is important enough that we should know what's going on. After I post this, I hope I get mail from many sources chastizing me for not reading this or that. I would prefer to have a good a*s-chewing than to feel that I have been neglected.

I feel it is not inappropriate for me to say at this point that the time has come when all right-thinking people of the world should undertake the absolutely essential task of liberating Germany, its people and its WW II leadership from the suffocating burden of blame, condemnation and demonization heaped upon it by internationalist Jewish organizations and their allies in pursuit of world domination. The imperial interests that won WW II exercised the victor's right to blame Germany for starting WW II. That is one of the deeds for which, it is said, Germany deserved to be crushed. However, thanks to the research of Victor Suvorov and other revisionists, we now know that WW II was made inevitable by Stalin's massive military preparation for invasion and conquest of Europe. Suvorov's disclosures make it clear that Germany attacked The Soviet Union to forestall the Soviet invasion of Europe Stalin had prepared for. There seems to be no doubt that if Germany had not struck when it did, the massive Soviet force would have over-run, conquered and occupied all of Europe in a matter of months. So, if Suvorov is right, far from starting WW II, Germany, acted alone to save Europe from the nightmare of becoming one more Soviet Republic.

Germany saved the western half of Europe from Soviet Communism, a creation of Jews. Jews are those who have engineered the brutal oppression and punishment of Germany and Germans for the past sixty years. Jews are the designers of the "Holocaust" shake-down. Jews expect to continue the punishment and extortion of Germans forever.

I'm not talking about all Jews, of course - only certain organized, connected, funded, and politically wired Jews and their retainers who secretly support them - Jews who support Zionism and Israel, for example. How many Jews would that be? I'll probably never know.

Considering that Germany saved Europe from communism, I should think right-thinking people of Europe, including those of us now living in other lands, might see that we have a debt of honor to Germany and to the German people to come to their aid.

There are not many places on the surface of this planet where a group of scholars coming from various countries can speak freely about Zionism. Durban, four years ago, had been such a place but the meeting was not a scholarly one. Some of our revisionist friends tried to organize in Beirut, some years ago, a conference on "Revisionism and Zionism", but at the request of the Israeli state, the US put pressure on the Lebanese government and threatened to kill a fifteen-million dollars loan. The conference did not take place. So, we appreciate the opportunity to meet and talk together, and we express our gratitude to the organizers.

The Holocaust revisionist movement is certainly well-known by all of you. But we have been particularly unsuccessful in raising an interest for it in the territories covered by the former Soviet Union. In many conversations with people there, we always get more or less the same response: «The Jews are lying? No big news. We've known it all along». We believe this is not the adequate answer. There is more to it.

The Holocaust revisionist study of the events of WWII started soon after the Nuremberg International Military Trial which ended in 1946. The transcripts were published very soon after the trial, though not in Russian as it was supposed to be. Several observers, of various political persuasions, started to read closely the transcripts and the documents, forty-two volumes as a whole, with a critical mind. They found a lot of discrepancies and impossibilities. All along, for instance, the Katyn massacre was consistently attributed to the Germans. Testimonies were vague, or contradictory, and often difficult to believe. These observers started to write and their works were labelled «revisionist». Of course, criticizing the official line on the «victory» of the Allies was politically forbidden. These authors, the most prominent of them being the Frenchman Paul Rassinier, met, all of them, long prosecutions, heavy fines, all of them, long prosecutions, heavy fines, interdiction of books and political defamation. The story would be too long to be told here.

At the beginning, the Nuremberg explanation of Nazism and WWII was a compromise between the USA, the UK and the USSR. Each partner had introduced its own dose of war propaganda. The Soviets had established an enormous propaganda system, which was run mostly by Soviet Jews, like Il'ia Ehrenburg and Vasilij Grossman and others. The British had their own special unit designed to invent war stories depicting the Germans as ghoulish barbarians. Compared to these giants, Nazi propaganda was simplistic and inefficient.

At Nuremberg, confronted with the war stories concocted by the Allied propaganda offices, the Nazi officials looked bewildered, shaken into disbelief. But, having no access to the mass of German documents used by the Allied prosecutors, very often German Jews emigrated in the US, the Naszi officials, or most of them, gave up any resistance, did not contest the so-called documents put to them, the pictures and the movies. They kept silent and were silently disposed of.

So, for the next fifteen years after the War, the Revisionist fight was directed against the Allied official version of what happened during the War. Then a new factor intervened. The Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gourion was rather skeptical about the possibilities of survival of the Jewish State, established in lucky circumstances in 1948. But would the luck remain as the odds were piling up? Ben Gourion ordered Eichmann to be abducted from Argentina and brought into Israel for a big show-trial, a kind of re-enactment of Nuremberg but at the exclusive service of the Zionist ideology. The same carefully selected documents and the same vague testimonies were produced in court, in front of the world press. The ultimate weapon of the survival of Israel was forged there, in 1961: the guilt attributed to all non-Jewish people, non-Jewish States and organizations. All of them had to pay reparation and retribution, for ever, till the end of ages.

As a result, the revisionist fight was submitted to a change in nature : its foremost adversary became the Zionist establishment and its manifold network of organizations. Moreover, the Zionists had no alternative: they expected nothing from the benevolence of Western opinion and they had lost the support of the Eastern block. They were bound to acquire some kind of world dominance just to warrant the existence of the Zionist statelet, rejected by everyone in the Middle East. Armed with the weapon of the guilt complex, they started to overcome all resistance and impose silence on their critics. They had a very large measure of influence on the press; they slowly conquered positions of control in the Western political systems, particularly inside the US power structure.

The Holocaust revisionists, a mere handful of individuals, never formed a group or an organization. They never had any power, nor any money, nor connections, but they succeeded by the sheer weight of their labours to make serious inroads and to penetrate the Zionist defense system, creating a havoc in the public opinion. Demonstrating that the so-called Holocaust was rather a "holy cost" threatened the political basis on which Zionism was operating. In Europe, lobbies succeeded in obtaining new laws severely curtailing the freedom of the press.

The two main weapons used by the Zionists were demonization by the media, and long, exhausting trials. The free expression of Revisionsm has been saved purely by chance, thanks to the development of the Internet. As early as 1995 - ten years ago -a revisionist website was established in the US, the CODOH by Bradley Smith. In 1996, the Zundelsite was created at the same time as AAARGH, the mostly French-speaking website. Others followed. This was a fantastic development. So far, revisionist literature was difficult to find, published by small groups in faraway countries, often as a side-activity. For the first time, the basic texts and demonstrations written by revisionist researchers could be seen and read by millions of readers world-wide.

The Zionist started to howl. Their only response was to label all revisionist efforts as antisemitic, extreme-right and whitewashing Hitler. This propaganda barrage has been particularly inefficient.

A new war has started. Worming their way into the political system of national states, Zionist organizations tried to obtain laws protecting the sacrosanct identity of the so-called Holocaust. In 2000, the Israeli government sent a high-powered mission to all western governments to request from them new measures in order to annihilate Revisionism, described by the Israelis as the worst threat to their existence. As a result, a large government conference was held in Stockholm, where all major European governments, East and West, committed themselves to repress revisionism and promote the so-called Jewish Holocaust as the supreme god of modern times.

There was something funny and even ridiculous to think that all the most powerful people of our times were assembled to denounce in lyrical terms the painstaking labours of a handful of people coming from various countries and stemming from various political viewpoints. We, the handful, conscious of having done our homework, waited for the repressive wave to come. It came.

In the US, in Germany, in Switzerland, in Sweden, in France, large police operations were mounted to disrupt the circulation of Revisionist ideas. Many people were thrown in jail, sometimes for years. Trials, persecutions followed unabated. People were thrown out of their jobs.

In the meantime, thanks to the efforts of a tiny number of people, Revisionism was introduced in the Middle East. It ran like a prairie fire. The former communist philosopher, once a friend of Stalin, Roger Garaudy, now converted to Islam, was heavily fined in Paris for a book containing Revisionist arguments. This book was immediately translated into Arabic and published in many places. It opened the door to the understanding of revisionist arguments. Most media now in the Muslim world carry a Revisionist point of view. This, we can easily check with the translations provided by the Israeli military office called "Memri". This explains why the mood in Israel is so gloomy.

But, as far as the countries which were once part of the Soviet Union, the situation could be described as one of benign passivity. Local Zionist organizations in Russia, in Ukraine, in Rumania, have obtained new laws punishing "incitement to racial hatred," a code-name for everything that displeases the Israeli embassy or the local Jewish organizations, heavily funded by US Jewish organizations. And of course, they would like us to believe that Revisionism - a critical view of some historical events - has anything to do with race.

Some important texts exist. They have been printed and are visible on the Internet, in the languages of the former Soviet Union.

This brief account is certainly not sufficient to provide a complete understanding of our elaborate work.
Kiev, June 3rd, 2005

Subject: Hoaxoco$t: spiritual mystery? cash cow? racist lie? terrorists' prize alibi?

Whatever the Holocaust might be, it is certainly not a mere historical event that can be discussed, researched, and revised. Some holyhoaxers claim that its "uniquely unique uniqueness" is a transrational mystery and refuse to even debate their dogmatic and racist beliefs.

Mrs. Hoaxoco$ter herself, Debbie Lipshits, will not discuss the substantive issues but will only commit the "ad hominem" fallacy of attacking those who do not fully accept her dogmatic beliefs. A flyer announcing her appearance at a Jewish Center in Australia states, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory: As a matter of principle, Deborah Lipstadt has refused to debate the claims of Holocaust deniers. She has, however, agreed to analyse and illustrate who Holocaust deniers are and what they want to do. In this session, our scholar-in-residence describes their misinformation and false claims. She exposes that those who make such claims are not just innocent cranks. They threaten to dramatically change the way truth and meaning are transmitted."

Another holocaustomaniac, Professor F. Littell, has said: "You can't discuss the truth of the holocaust. That is a distortion of the concept of free speech. The United States should emulate Germany, which outlaws such exercises."

This is exactly the type of pseudo-thinking that goes on in a religious yeshiva where a "sacred text" can be commented on, but must not be questioned. For example, no yeshivist could dismiss the Passover fable as total horse manure even though the idea that any decent G-d would kill "every firstborn son in Egypt" [Ex. 11:5] is...well...total horse manure. Another equally unbelievable belief is the Torah nonsense about G-d stopping the sun so Joshua could kill more Gentiles [Joshua 10:13].

The Holocaust may have become the central voodoo dogma of modern zio-Judaism and a contemporary mystery religion in itself, but the political doctrine of separation of religion and state makes it irrelevant to the non-zio-Judaist. And just as Jews mock and ridicule Christian beliefs, its time to return the mockery and ridicule and end the idiotic one-way inter-faith dialogue in which people humbly suck up the hoaxoco$t fable.

If the Holocaust is beyond rational historical analysis [as holyhoaxers Lipshitz and Littell claim], it has no place in a modern, secular education curriculum. And insofar as it is a religious mystery peculiar to one vested interest group, it has no right to government tax support and special legislation criminalizing scepticism and criticism of it. That is the job of a religious inquisition and not a modern state.

Certainly the hoaxoco$t is a fantastic cash cow for a handful of Jewish misleaders who have embezzled billions out of the Gentile economy and ensured that virtually nothing went to the actual victims. It is hard to decide who were the bigger suckers: the Gentiles who paid out or the Solomon Sixpackers who got zilch.

But most importantly, the whole "Gentiles-murdered-6,000,000" fable is a dirty racist lie and a blood libel against all Gentiles. A fantastic fund-raising slogan, to be sure! But a pack of hate-mongering lies, nonetheless! It is time to burst the psychotic bubble of hoaxoco$t hatred and deceit. It is time to realize that holocaustomaniacs are not interested in any serious historical analysis, but are pseudo-religious fundamentalist bigots and snake oil peddlers who have a billion-dollar industry to protect.

As a German/centric person I read with great interest your article regarding the relationship between the ''Judenstaat'' and the US and would like to point out a few things, if you permit.

First, this disaster has been long in coming. It started when President Wilson sold out the US to British/jewish interests in 1916, without as much as whimper from the American public.

On the contrary, in Texas and elsewhere there were numerous incidences of American ''patriots'' storming the farms of Americans of German ethnicity, driving the terrified people from their homesteads, plundering them and setting them on fire.

These were, WITHOUT exception the most prosperous, best run farms in the country, run by peaceful German settlers who had never touched a hair on a fellow citizens head. There were public lynchings of German Shepherd dogs (!) to the howling applause of American ''patriots''. This at a time, when the only thing the Germans had done was to improve America immeasurably, contributing so massively to the development of this country that it defies description.

The meat packing industry, the dairy industry, the brewery industry, the machine tool industry, large parts of the automotiver industry (Chrysler Corp., Studebaker, Duesenberg, Cord), not to forget Boeing aircraft are (were) ALL of purely German origin.

During the civil war, it was the German immigrant community, many of them not yet able to speak the language since they had just arrived, who volunteered TO THE LAST MAN for military service in the Union Army.

This they did despite their community (again, incredibly productive and fruitful) in Texas being attacked by Rebel troops, who massacred many, including women and children. They DID NOT waver.

Your slimey and corrupt President Wilson made a 14 point peace proposal in 1918, which the UNDEFEATED German Imperial Army agreed to. Germany was cruelly betrayed by the US once she had disarmed voluntarily.

Unarmed German silors, AFTER the war, were machinegunned by brave British war heroes ad nauseum, ALL at the behest of Der Ewige Jude, who had done nothing for the US, except to undermine her morals, to plunder her treasury and to be conspicuous by their absence in the Civil war as well as in WW1.

It was General U. S. Grant who recognized Der Ewige Jude as early as 1864 when he banned them from his jurisdiction due to the fact that they plundered the defenseless southern states (it was THEY who were the carpetbaggers) only to be overruled by already juden/corrupted Washington DC.

And again it was YOUR president, this time Roosevelt, who as early as 1933 plotted war against Germany in concert with his degenerated British and French friends, despite Hitler's disarmements and peace proposals which were utterly stupendous and which should have earned Hitler the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was YOUR air force (of which I believe you were an active member) which incinerated German women and children by the hundreds of thousands in an orgy of hatred which is inconceivable to the human mind, all at the behest of Der ewige Jude.

You destroyed not only countles human lives, but cultural assets the likes of which NO other country has posessed and YOU continued to murder us Germans after the war by neglect, by starvation rations, by plain murder, as evidenced at Nuernberg, Dachau and God/Knows how many other military ''trials'', ALL proceedings which made a mockery of anything even remotely related to justice.

And to this day we await an apology, no reparations, no grovelling, no ever lasting biblical hate, only an apology and recognition of the horrendous wrongs the English speaking world has done us, at the behest of Der Ewige Jude.

O ya, it would be nice if you would leave us alone. Just go away with your kike friends.

Murder someone else for a change, because what the US and Der Ewige Jude are doing right now, is child's play in comparison with what you are guilty of vis a vis Germany. Your complaints ring hollow, they are insincere, they are meanigless, they are too late.

You and your kike friends will without a doubt go down in history as the most evil, slimey collection of countries that has ever festered on the body earth.

Sir: I take issue with Geoffrey Bewley over the slanderous letter, “Was Rommel a War Criminal?” (July-August 2004).

Rommel was a hero to both the Afrika Korps and the Allies 8^th Army troops alike. Newley’s intemperate bitchy remarks about this great general do him no credit at all. He admits that Rommel’s name was not linked to any of the German army’s major atrocities. Then he makes the snide remark that “people to commit atrocities against were in short supply” in North Africa. What a mean-spirited, baseless, gratuitous insinuation!

Bewley’s argument that Rommel is a war criminal is based on the general’s single act of shooting a fanatical hate-filled French colonel who refused three times to surrender and enter nan Axis vehicle when commanded to do so. Yet Bewley defeats his argument by saying he believes that when “a chap’s being taken prisoner, and he won’t behave as a prisoner, then shooting is a legal option”. So what is his point? Why was it a “war crime”? Then he goes on to make the fatuous observation that it would look a bit better if the soldier being taken prisoner had a gun in his hand. It is obvious that Bewley was never at the shooting end of any war or he would know that if the enemy soldier is armed with a gun in his hand he is in battle mode, and shooting is the only option.

Quoting Orgill he says the shooting was a “ruthless, brutal act”. Of course it was. War is a ruthless, brutal act, Mr Bewley. If you want to win, you can’t afford to be too dainty or pussyfoot around. One is often forced to make quick and brutal decisions in any war. Here is an example:

It’s the last few days of the Alamein battle. The German army is cornered and desperate. It’s night and three British tanks are herding about 100 to 200 Afrika Korps prisoners back from the front line as we advance. One tank stops while I tie one of my badly wounded crewmen onto the back of the tank. The Germans take the opportunity to make a break for it.

The question, Mr Bewley, is this: As a tank commander in this situation what would you do? You’ve got three seconds.

Sir: Some caveats need to be expressed about Michael Brander’s article “Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the West” (March 2005).

In the first place, Solzhenitsyn’s prime and profound importance as a European writer of the first stature arises not from his essays and occasional speeches but from the series of great novels in which he presents an analysis of a diversity of human characters comparable with that of Shakespeare.

As with the English playwright, so with the Russian storyteller, we should be very wary of any attempts to harness such wisdom, magnanimity, insight and compassion to particular ideologies, be they religious or political.

And that, I fear, is what Brander is doing. A close examination shows that most of the authorities he quotes approvingly are Catholics. It is from that perspective that his defence of Solzhenitsyn is made. “The traditionalist view can be summed up as seeking a society which reflects the Christian religion in its social forms, economics and politics.”

For Brander, Christianity is a religion that seeks to “lead and influence” the world, a faith which was the foundation of “the thousand year civilization preceding our era”, the “Christendom of the Middle Ages”.

Brander states that Solzhenitsyn “makes it clear from the start that there can be no return to a past era”, but the tendency of his own analysis is thoroughly backward-looking.

Three things are fatally omitted. The first is any consideration of the horrendous record of persecution and cultural vandalism of Christianity from the third century onwards, including the burning of the great library of Alexandria, the Albigensian Crusades, the later phases of the Inquisition and the great witch hunts.

The second is the vast amount of scholarship now available on Christian origins, ancient Egyptian culture and the other great sacred traditions of the world. All of this makes plain that any thought of return to an ecclesiastically-based civilisation founded upon an exclusivist theology is a non-starter.

The third is the fact that in their great literary works neither Tolkien nor Solzhenitsyn made any attempt to frame their message in an out-of-date Christian world. They wisely followed their artistic intuition in that regard.

It is good that Brander emphasizes Solzhenitsyn’s call for a return to spirituality; but it is regrettable that he has shown no sense of the profound revisioning of its tradition which Christianity is now called upon to make. Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ, just released in Australia, is a relevant text with which to begin.

"Pharaohs may never have found the glorious afterlife they were expecting, but one thing about ancient Egypt is eternal -- the popularity of King Tut."

The Pharaohs have indeed found the glorious afterlife they were expecting. After his death by 3300 Years this article talking about king Tutankhamen is the best proof that he is alive again.

Sehr verehrte, liebe Netzpostempfänger, der 70-Jährige Oberstleutnant a.D. Walter Held teilt soeben telefonisch mit, daß er heute, am 16. Juni 2005, wegen Verharmlosung des Holocaust zu 7 500 Euro Geldstrafe, plus Gerichts- und Anwaltskosten verurteilt wurde.

Wenn Oberstleutnant a.D. Walter Held nicht zahlt, scheuen sich die Machthaber der OMF/BRD nicht, ihn 150 Tage in den Kerker zu sperren. Grund der Verurteilung: W. Held hat die Opferzahlen des Holocaust angezweifelt wie inzwischen so viele in unserem Restdeutschland. Oberstleutnant a.D. Walter Held wird in REVISION gehen! Seine Kameraden haben ihm Unterstützung bei der Geldbeschaffung zugesagt.

Wer immer noch nicht die Abkürzung O M F kennt: Es ist die Formulierung des langjährigen SPD-Parlamentariers Prof. Carlo Schmidt vor dem Parlamentarischem Rat 1948, wo ersagte: die Bundesrepublik ist die Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft!

"Washington is the torture and political murder capital of the world." (1979) "This [9/11] is certainly a turning point: for the first time in history the victims are returning the blow to the motherland." "What's happening [in Afghanistan in late 2001] is some sort of silent genocide...we [the U.S.] are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people."

This equation between America and Nazi Germany and the concomitant depiction of America as the center of the world's evil will no doubt remind many readers of Ward Churchill, the Colorado professor whose allusion to the 3000 people massacred in the World Trade Center on 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" deserving their fate landed him in a great deal of trouble. In fact, however, these (equally obscene) remarks were made by Noam Chomsky, who will be honored on April 20 as an University of Washington Danz Lecturer. (The Jessie and John Danz bequest to UW was intended to fund a series of lectures on "the impact of science and philosophy on man's perception of a rational universe." But the lectureship--following the usual academic pattern--has frequently been hijacked by tenured left-wing guerrillas to serve their political purposes, which rarely conduce to "a rational universe.")

Chomsky is, of course, something more than a Ward Churchill with a brain, indeed a very formidable brain that revolutionized the field of linguistics (albeit with a kind of "creationism" that makes many uneasy). His great distinction as a political polemicist has been to demonstrate the truth of the French saying that “les extremes se touchent” (extremes meet). He is among the few writers trumpeted by the leftist

Nation magazine and the neo-Nazi Journal of Historical Review, by Alexander Cockburn and David Duke (who praised Chomsky in 1998 for "daring to expose the truth about Zionism and Jewish supremacism"), by anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers like Robert Faurisson and David Irving and by leftwing anti-Semitism-deniers, who habitually label the murder of Jews in Buenos Aires, the burning of synagogues in France, the Arab lynchings and suicide bombings of Intifada II, and the boycott of Israeli scholars and researchers "criticism of Israeli policy." Indeed, Chomsky has himself produced the classic utterance of anti-Semitism-denial: "Anti-Semitism," he declared in 2002, "is no longer a problem, fortunately. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98 percent control. That's why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue." As this charming remark indicates, the line between anti-Semitism-denial and anti-Semitism (the thing itself) is a fine one.

It used to be said that Chomsky, in simultaneously appealing to the crackpot right and the crackpot left, was like "a bigamist who must constantly strain to keep one of his families secret from the other." This referred mainly to Chomsky's eager collaboration with La Vieille Taupe (The Old Mole), a French neo-Nazi organization that seeks to vindicate the original Nazis by denying that they murdered the Jews of Europe. When Chomsky's fellow leftist Pierre Vidal-Naquet learned, in 1979, that Chomsky was writing a preface to the aforementioned Faurisson's book of Holocaust-denial, he warned Chomsky that Faurisson was a long-time, well-known neo-Nazi anti-Semite. Undaunted, Chomsky proceeded with his preface and even affixed to Faurisson the inane label: "a sort of apolitical liberal." When taken to task for his sycophantic allusion to Faurisson's "findings," Chomsky had the gall to claim that Frenchmen with imperfect English failed to understand that "findings" means "conclusions" and not "discoveries." Vidal-Naquet then "concluded" that Chomsky's zeal on behalf of this previously secret family would not cool until the French republic passed a law requiring that Faurisson's squalid tract be read in public schools and sold at the entrances to synagogues.

But the concealment is no longer necessary because Chomsky's two families have now become one. The current resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe is largely the work not just of Muslim fundamentalists but of liberals, leftists, strugglers against "racism"--and haters of America. Virtually no Parisian demonstration against America is without placards reading "Mort aux Juifs" (death to the Jews). Chomsky's two pet hatreds-- America and Israel--have become linked in Europe (where his popularity is greatest) and in those scattered American outposts of European sentiment and ideology: our universities.

Edward Alexander is a professor emeritus of English at the University of Wisconsin.

Fredrick Töben comments: I am not really amazed anymore that a former professor of English talks about Chomsky-Faurisson, et al, rather than probing into the veracity of the statements made by the Revisionists.

By using cliche thinking - 'hate'etc. I wonder if the 'crackpot' isn't really Edward Alexander because his mind seems to have slipped into neutral, thereby offering us nothing of substance but rather a feeble emotional gush of his own impotence.

BERLIN - A document found in a Moscow archive suggests the Soviet leadership may have rejected a Nazi German proposal to deport Jews from German-occupied territories to the Soviet Union in 1940.

A Russian historian working in Germany has published an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper describing a letter that raised the possibility of Germany resettling Jews in Ukraine and Siberia.

The historian, Pavel Polian, said he had obtained the letter, which was written by Yevgeny Chekmenyov, a Soviet official in charge of resettlement. It was addressed to then-Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and was dated February 9, 1940.

The letter, a portion of which was published in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper yesterday, discusses a German proposal made to the Moscow government to move more than 2 million Jews from Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union.

But Polian said he believes it was written by Adolf Eichmann and Alois Brunner, who were in charge of Nazi Germany's Jewish emigration centers in Berlin and Vienna.

Germany and the Soviet Union had a nonaggression pact at the time. But the Soviet leadership apparently rejected almost immediately the idea of accepting more than 2 million Jews from German-occupied countries, according to Polian.

"We cannot take these Jews. We have an awful lot of our own already," Chekmenyov wrote in the letter to Molotov. He closed his letter by saying, "I would appreciate your guidance."

The possible deportation of Jews to the Soviet Union was one option mulled by the German government, which was seeking to find a territorial solution to what the Nazis referred to as the "Jewish question."

During the late 1930s and early 1940s, Nazi officials had also proposed other ways of evicting Jews from Europe, such as deporting them en masse to the island of Madagascar.

When Germans began bringing other Germans to trial for Nazi atrocities, prosecutors found themselves struggling through a thicket of ambiguities, some created by the laws they had to use and some by the equivocal emotions of the German public. Exhibit A in this process remains the trial of 24 Auschwitz guards, held in Frankfurt from 1963 to 1965. Aside from jailing some murderers, this proceeding was intended to educate the German public on how the Holocaust happened and how Germany might understand its recent past.

Fritz Bauer, attorney general of the State of Hesse, wanted to expose the “Auschwitz complex,” including all those who routinely supported the killing. As he said, “There were hundreds of thousands … who carried

out the Final Solution not only because they had orders, but because it was their worldview as well, which they willingly admitted.”

The trial was a pivotal event in German history but until this week no one has described it in detail. Rebecca Wittmann, a young historian at the University of Toronto, fills the gap with a clear, thorough and highly intelligent book, Beyond Justice: The Auschwitz Trial (Harvard University Press).

As she makes clear, the prosecution had to work within the German legal code written in the 19th century, which meant that guards could be charged with murder only as individuals, if they murdered on their own initiative. Hard as it may be to imagine, these Nazis were convicted for not following orders.

As Wittmann says, this context made killing millions of Jews in the gas chambers a lesser crime than the murder of one person committed without proper direction from superiors. A guard who supervised gassings but never acted brutally toward a particular prisoner was convicted only of aiding and abetting murder. An SS lieutenant, Karl Hocker, supervised the killing of at least 3,000 people. The court emphasized that he was following orders that were certainly immoral and should not have been obeyed. But he had never before broken the law and after the war had gone back to a productive middle-class life. He got seven years.

Because those who broke the Nazi rules were treated more harshly, the effect was to give implied validity to Nazi rule. Former SS judges, who had investigated Auschwitz when word of infractions got back to headquarters, testified at Frankfurt. They helped condemn Wilhelm Boger, who invented “the Boger swing,” a trestle structure supporting an iron bar from which prisoners, hands and feet tied, hung upside down as they were beaten to death. Being directly responsible for at least 114 murders, he was sentenced to life plus five years

In the newspapers the convicted murderers seemed not men but monsters, maniacs somehow let loose in the concentration camps. Reading about them created a sense of distance between the public and the crimes. As Martin Walser wrote in a newspaper article, the more horrible the news from the trial, “the more pronounced our distance from Auschwitz becomes. We have nothing to do with these events, with these atrocities.” He argued that this helped the citizens feel comfortable: “They got some satisfaction out of condemning the crimes of the SS guards while distancing themselves and considering the subject closed.”

If Wittmann’s story has a hero he’s Bauer (1903-1968), a lawyer who was briefly interned by the Nazis, escaped from Germany to Scandinavia in 1936 and returned in 1949 to help rebuild the justice system. From his perspective, the Auschwitz trial failed. It supported the “wishful fantasy that there were only a few people with responsibility … and the rest were merely terrorized, violated hangers-on, compelled to do things completely contrary to their true nature.”

The trial’s outcome implied that Germany had not been obsessed by Nazism; it was more like a country occupied by the enemy. “But this,” he said, “had nothing to do with historical reality. There were virulent nationalists, imperialists, anti-Semites and Jew-haters. Without them, Hitler was unthinkable.”

The Fritz Bauer Institute, a Frankfurt centre for Holocaust studies, was established in his memory in 1995. (Ironically, it occupies space in what was once the IG Farben corporation, which was implicated in Nazi crimes; now owned by the State of Hesse, the building is part of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University.)

The Bauer Institute’s statement of purpose currently says: “Remembering the Holocaust and confronting National Socialist crimes has been and is today perhaps more than ever before a problem for German society. Consciousness of the widespread involvement in crimes continues to be suppressed …”

Even for one of Europe's quirkier capitals, it was a bizarre spectacle – a far-right politician who has questioned the existence of Nazi gas chambers noshing on salmon pate at a bar mitzva and tapping his foot to wildly pulsating hassidic music.

"The rabbi is a good friend of mine," John Gudenus said of his host. "Why, we've even had him over to the house!"

They make strange bedfellows from opposite fringes – ultra-rightists and ultra-Orthodox Jews, joined in an alliance for diverging ends. Brooklyn-born Moishe Arye Friedman says he's chief rabbi for hundreds of anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews in Vienna. He wants formal state recognition of his religious community, and thinks the rightists can help. Gudenus and his cohorts say they have no hidden agenda in supporting Friedman's cause – but they may have something to gain from it.

"For people like this, being seen with an Orthodox Jew is an attempt to gain some legitimacy," says Wolfgang Neugebauer, the recently retired head of the publicly funded office that tracks neo-Nazi trends in Austria. "They try to create an 'alibi Jew' to escape accusations of anti-Semitism."

Their Freedom Party, which shocked Europe in 1999 by winning enough election votes to merit a place in the government, is on the ropes after its less extreme wing bolted to form its own party this year.

Even as official Austria struggles to come to grips with the country's part in the Holocaust during the time it was annexed to Hitler's Third Reich, the hard-liners continue to provoke uproar by sounding like apologists for the Nazis.

Just last month, Gudenus declared anew that whether the gas chambers existed should be "seriously debated." Last week he amended that view to "there were gas chambers, though not in the Third Reich but in Poland." He neglected to mention Mauthausen, 240 kilometers west of Vienna, whose gas chamber killed thousands.

Gudenus is under intense political pressure to give up his seat in Austria's upper legislative chamber.

Meanwhile, Ewald Stadler, former top aide to Joerg Haider (who led the Freedom Party to its 1999 triumph), also continues to stir the pot. He has equated Nazi rule of Austria to the post-World War II occupation by the Allies.

Stadler, who sports a dueling scar on his cheek and revels in the nickname "Doberman," was also at the bar mitzva, beaming as he was dragged into a line of dancing rabbis.

What the rightists and the rabbi share is a campaign against the "Israelite Religious Community," the body formally recognized by the government as representing all Jews in the city, and therefore the channel through which the government doles out support to Jewish schools, synagogues and other establishments.

The set-up, a relic from Austria's imperial past, was ruled unconstitutional in 1982. But the government has yet to rule on Friedman's bid to have his group recognized as a Jewish community independent of and fully equal to the 7,000-member Israelite Religious Community.

While the rightists sometimes cross swords with the group over such issues as compensation for Holocaust victims, Friedman's feud with the recognized Jewish community has grown so bitter that the latter has unsuccessfully sought to have him declared mentally incompetent.

So the rabbi has turned to Stadler, who is one of the country's three "People's Attorneys," or ombudsmen. Stadler says he could not hesitate, and besides, he says he and Friedman see eye-to-eye on important things.

"He has no Nazis in the family and I have no Nazis in my family!" says Stadler, with a grin.

The diminutive Friedman also courts controversy by uttering views that are repudiated by most Jews and in some cases embraced by far-rightists.

Friedman denies Israel's right to exist, saying it is up to God to lead Jews out of the Diaspora. He says Zionist Jews share the blame for the Holocaust, which he sees as punishment for straying from God's path.

Jewish anti-Zionism, on both religious or political grounds, is as old as Zionism itself. But it tends to be a minority view. Friedman is shunned by representatives of the Israelite Religious Community, who accuse him of being on the rightists' payroll – something he does not deny .

"He's a one-man show," says the community's secretary general, Avshalom Hodik. "And Stadler is an extremist. We have extremists attracting each other."

Nazi dolls giving more chills than thrills – Great Kills woman insists her creations are done for history, not to glorify Hitler and his henchmen

Deborah Mohr of Great Kills isn't your typical toymaker. Detailed Nazi action figures are her specialty, and her controversial dolls, which she sells via the Internet, have included 12-inch likenesses of Adolf Hitler and some of his notorious henchmen."This is not to harm people," Ms. Mohr says. "The idea is for history not to repeat itself."

Ms. Mohr, owner of In the Past Toys, is a history buff, constantly visiting museums and battlefields, and meticulously researching the contemptible characters she depicts. To her, making these figures is simply a way of recording history, and is not meant to glorify or endorse the atrocities committed by the flesh-and-blood villains.

A Manhattan store, Search and Destroy, recently came under fire for selling Ms. Mohr's Nazi dolls and other Third Reich memorabilia.

Though she makes Hitler dolls, Ms. Mohr stresses, "I'm from New York. You can't be from New York and be anti-Semitic."

She notes that she is a devout Catholic, attending St. Clare's R.C. Church, Great Kills, every Sunday.

In the toy business for 12 years, Ms. Mohr was tapped by collectibles dealers to make action figures that were "other than good," she says. Many buyers wanted to expand their World War II collections beyond the Allied figures already available, to include Nazi soldiers and officials.

Ms. Mohr long ago sold out of her limited runs of Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. Supplies are limited of her popular dolls of Fidel Castro and Manfred von Richthofen, also known as the Red Baron. She also makes figures of World War II Japanese seamen, as well as furniture and uniforms for the lifelike dolls.

"It's all history for me, it's not about making money," Ms. Mohr says. "This is America; people can say what they want."

In The Past Toys distributes to stores throughout the country. Ms. Mohr also sells wholesale through eBay and the Web sites www.inthepasttoys.com and www.blitzkriegtoyz.com to stores all over Europe and Asia. The dolls fetch $25 to $200 wholesale --more in retail stores. No stores on the Island sell her creations.

Ms. Mohr's figures have been used by a teacher to instruct his students, and even by a Barbie enthusiast to squire Barbie to a local doll ball.

in Europe and other parts of the world, this just feeds into that mentality," says Ruth Lasser, director of communications for the Staten Island Jewish Community Center.

Rabbi Shimon Lawrence says that, although Ms. Mohr is within her rights, "the association is just unbearable to many people."

"This shows a profound lack of sensitivity and understanding," says Lawrence, the rabbi of Congregation Beth Yehuda, Meiers Corners.

Aldo Furetti, Castleton Corners, a World War II veteran who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, said the Nazi Third Reich should not be dignified with action figures.

"As far as I'm concerned, those days are over. ... Nazism is a bad thing, we've proven that," he says.

Ms. Mohr agrees, and it's the Nazis' evil ideals that fascinate and worry her. She says that, when she meets with collectors, they discuss "how Hitler could do such a thing."

Pope Halts Beatification of French Priest: Vatican to Probe Anti-Semitic Texts.

Pope Benedict XVI has temporarily blocked the beatification of a French priest and appointed a commission to investigate the priest's anti-Semitic writings, drawing praise from Jewish leaders who called it a sign of the new pope's sensitivity to other religions.

Last December, Pope John Paul II announced plans to beatify Leon Dehon on April 24. The ceremony would have been a major step toward sainthood for Dehon, who lived from 1843 to 1925 and founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart, a religious order that today has nearly 2,400 members around the world. In February, however, a French historian drew attention to seven controversial texts by Dehon. According to extracts published in the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, Dehon wrote that Jews were "thirsty for Gold" and that "lust for money is a racial instinct in them"; he called the Talmud "a manual for the bandit, the corrupter, the social destroyer"; and he recommended several measures later adopted by the Nazis, including that Jews wear special markings, live in ghettos and be excluded from land ownership, judgeships and teaching positions. It is not known if John Paul, who was gravely ill in the final weeks of his life, was reconsidering his decision. But after his death on April 2, the beatification ceremony was automatically postponed pending the election of a new pope.

Once Benedict was named on April 19, he faced the dilemma of whether to carry out his predecessor's decision or heed the growing protests. France's government warned that it would not send a representative to the beatification, and the French bishops' conference urged the Vatican to act with caution, according to French newspaper reports.

Benedict's decision to put off a beatification after it had been formally approved by the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints was "extremely unusual," said Kenneth L. Woodward, author of the book "Making Saints."

"I don't recall any last-minute hitch like this in modern times," he said. "Remember, to get this far, they have declared him heroically virtuous and they've had a miracle of intercession attributed to him, so all the necessary blocks are in place."

Catholic News Service, which first reported Benedict's decision this week, said the pope had asked for a thorough reexamination of Dehon's writings by four cardinals: Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Georges Cottier, the papal theologian; Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture; and Roger Etchegaray, who is French. Their first meeting is scheduled for June 24.

Mary Gorski, spokeswoman for the U.S. province of the Priests of the Sacred Heart, headquartered in Hales Corners, Wis., said the religious order was "cooperating with the commission" and would have no comment on its founder's writings. The order's general superior, or head, the Rev. Jose Ornelas Carvalho, who is based in Rome and is now visiting the United States, declined an interview request. There was no immediate comment from the Vatican.

On June 9, Benedict held his first meeting with Jewish leaders since his election and assured them in a two-hour audience at the Vatican that he would fight anti-Semitism and continue John Paul's efforts to improve Catholic-Jewish relations. Two American participants said yesterday that the issue of Dehon's beatification did not come up at the meeting.

Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, director of interfaith affairs for the Anti-Defamation League, called the pope's decision "a wonderful piece of news" that was "highly consistent with the Cardinal Ratzinger we knew and the Pope Benedict we're getting to know." Joseph Ratzinger was Benedict's name until his election as pope.Rabbi Joel Meyers, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, an association of Conservative rabbis, said it was "an early test of Benedict's sensitivity" to other faiths. "I want to give the Vatican credit for taking the time to look into something again," he said. In recent years, Jewish groups have questioned the church's beatification of Pius XII, the pope during World War II, and Anne Catherine Emmerich, a nun whose mystical visions provided material for Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ," and its canonization of the nun Edith Stein, a convert from Judaism.

The possibility of making Dehon a saint has been under consideration by the church for decades. The process began formally in 1939. The church declared his virtues in 1983, and John Paul gave him the title "venerable" in 1997 after the church ruled that an electrician in Brazil had been miraculously cured of an illness in 1954 after prayers were directed to him.

La Croix, the French newspaper, said Dehon's anti-Semitic writings had "slipped through the cracks" of the Vatican's previous investigation. Catholic News Service said supporters of his beatification argue that "anti-Semitism was widespread in Europe at the time of the writings in the late 19th century and maintain that the priest's comments were mild in comparison with many other Catholic leaders."

Comment: Paul Fromm: Well, I guess we see who rules the Vatican. Now, the Pope has to check with the Jews before he can declare a man a saint.

Fredrick Töben: The fear held by some Catholics has come to pass - and so it is time for serious Catholics to bite the bullet!

From: Longo Edoardo longo.e@libero.it

To: Adelaide Institute

Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:51 PM

Subject: translation

THE “PREVENTIVE” WAR OF THE FORENSIC DOME TO THE LAWYER EDOARDO LONGO

The attached articles are very important: they prove that years ago it was made known that I was preparing an explosive book against the terroristic manoeuvres of the Law Society towards the lawyers politically not sided with the lobbies which were behind such structures. The articles speak of this book, seized and subsequently realised -“Anonymous Extortions”.

The Council of the Lawyers then raised to me a cruel “preventive judicial war” in order to destroy me and to prevent me from publishing the book. This preventive war would have been impossible without the shady collaboration of the Public Prosecutor Facchin, an intimate friend of the “patron” of the Law Society with which he shared some offices in the old DC - an Italian political party. The book will be however published in a short time with some delays, owing to this “preventive war”. Meanwhile I put on the web some of his burning articles-files.