ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                      November 2005
                                                                                           No 265
 

Day ONE of the Zündel Trial

Mannheim, 8 November 2005
 

From: Tony O'Neill
Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 The Zündel Trial witnessed

Hello All

I went to Mannheim to witness the first day of the Zündel trial on Tuesday 8th of November. The proceedings were fascinating and worrying at the same time. What I witnessed that day was extraordinary and I am sure if such events happened in an Irish court, the papers would be full of it.

I do not speak very much German and so, much of what happened was translated to me by German people I met in the courthouse before the trial began. To begin with, the court was full of supporters. Unable to gain entry, other supporters waited outside. There were two television reporting teams outside the court - one from RTL, and the other I did not get to find out who they were working for. Everyone was passed though metal detection equipment and also frisked by the security people. There were eight security persons in the court during the proceedings. Five judges comprised the 'judging team'. This, I am told by German friends, is the norm in such cases.

In the first session of the morning, it seems one of Zündel's lawyers was dismissed by the judge for some reason that remains a mystery to me. Though perhaps others you will be in contact with will know the reasons. In any event, in response to this the Zündel team essentially charged the judge saying that he must decide if he is fit to hear the trial as he seemed to express a bias against the defendant! After a brief recess, the judge finally decided to hold over a decision on this matter until next Tuesday the 15th of November. It is bizarre to me to see a judge having the right to decide whether he has a bias or not, but that is the situation.

Incidentally, whilst the members of Zündel's team were making their submissions, the judge looked as though he was asleep. His head was down and his eyes were closed. I know this sounds funny, but I am not joking. It is the absolute truth. The judge was either actually asleep or was making a very overt demonstration of his indifference to the submissions - this was the worrying part of the proceedings. At one point one of Ernst's supporters made a sudden loud noise as though to 'rouse' the judge. Rouse he did and fixed us all with a stare that would not be out of place in a Dracula film. It is a stare I will long remember. His eyes had the look of a psychopath - black, very close together and only separated by a long, thin nose.

During one of the recesses, a supporter asked the prosecuting lawyer, "how can you sleep at night?". They were the very words used. They were spoken softly and without menace. At this, the supporter was immediately arrested! How Orwellian is that? We did not find out if anything was going to come of it however.

As promised, I took some photographs. Unfortunately, I am no photographer and I do not know if you will be able to use the images as they are not of very high quality. One image shows the entrance to the court along with people waiting to enter and the other shows some supporters in conversation with a young lady who is one of Zündel's lawyers. This young woman is apparently an assistant to Mr. Horst Mahler. She was very impressive as a defending lawyer and, in spite of her youth, demonstrates a level of maturity not usual in people of her age. We were not allowed to photograph inside the court itself.

The photos are zipped up into a zip file but even so the file is 640Kb in size. Unless you are on broadband, this will tie up your computer for some time downloading. If you want me to send them anyway, please let me know.

Ernst himself looked in very good health. He seemed very 'alive'. He was alert and very aware of us, his supporters, whom he spent much time looking towards as though to remember each of our faces. His eyes went from one of us to the next. He was not very far away from any of us and so could see us all in detail. It was quite a thrill for me personally to be in the presence of man of such high principle and bravery. During one of the recesses of the proceedings I was standing up at the back of the court and as Ernst was looking my way, I raised my hands in a salute of solidarity. He smiled broadly at me and he did not look away for a long time. He is a special person without a doubt.

I hope this is of some use to you Fredrick. I will be sending this to Mrs. Zündel also as I promised to let her know what I witnessed.
Very Best Wishes, Tony O'Neill, Kells, Ireland

Account of the First Hearing – Regional Court Mannheim, 08.11.05
By Markus Haverkamp - mjhaverkamp@yahoo.co.uk

Dear all - the attachment contains a brief account of the first day in the hearings against Ernst Zündel in Mannheim, Germany. Please forward! Best wishes, Markus Haverkamp

On Tuesday morning roughly 80 supporters of Ernst Zündel and 35 representatives of the media met at the Regional Court Mannheim, a court notorious for its zeal and fervour in persecuting Revisionists. The atmosphere was extraordinarily pleasant, the supporters having come from as far as Canada, the UK, France and Switzerland.

Following the usual security procedures by the police, who were very friendly indeed, the hearing began shortly after 09.00 when the judge, Dr. Meinerzhagen, his two colleagues and two jurors entered the courtroom. Ernst Zündel, wearing a blazer and tie, made a healthy and confident impression; he was represented by Miss Sylvia Stolz, whom Ernst Zündel had appointed as his mandatory lawyer, as well as Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Herbert Schaller (Austria) as his lawyers of choice. Miss Stolz’ assistant was Horst Mahler. Ernst Zündel was thus represented by possibly the most experienced and highly qualified team of lawyers for dealing with Holocaust persecution and nationalism.

The judge opened the hearing by taking down Ernst Zündel’s name, date of birth, profession and address.

Having done so, Dr. Meinerzhagen proceeded to attack the defence team, by first reading out aloud Horst Mahler’s prohibition to practice his profession that had been passed by the Local Court Tiergarten, and extensively quoting Herr Mahler’s remarks on Revisionism, the Jewish Question and the status of the German Reich. He then demanded that Herr Mahler be relieved of his appointment as Miss Stolz’ assistant.

Sylvia Stolz pointed out that owing to the fact that Horst Mahler was not acting as a lawyer but merely as her assistant there were no grounds for dismissing Herr Mahler. The judge retorted that it would seem that Mahler’s influence on the defence is considerable, to which Sylvia Stolz replied that it is alone her business which writings she makes use of in her defence and that this is her responsibility.

Upon this, the judge threatened to have Herr Mahler removed by force and put into custody for a day. The public shook their heads with disbelief at hearing this.

At this point, Jürgen Rieger pointed out that such attacks against the defence had not even taken place in the Gulag.

As Sylvia Stolz continued to be persistent in having Mahler as her assistant, the judge ordered the police to remove Mahler from the courtroom, at which point (the guards were already standing behind Horst Mahler) Miss Stolz stated that as it was her decision, not the court’s, and that seeing as they were being coerced by force, she would herewith relieve Mahler from his duty as assistant. Mahler then took a seat in the public area. All this caused an uproar from the public provoking the judge to threaten to lock the public out.

Dr Meinerzhagen, however, was merely warming up.

The judge then read out the court decision from 07.11.05 where it was decided that the petition of the defence to have Zündel released from custody for the time being until the Federal Constitutional Court decides whether §130 Penal Code (Holocaust muzzle) is congruent with §5 Basic Law (freedom of opinion and speech) was refused.

The judge then made it clear that all “incitement to hatred” by the defence would be vigorously suppressed and then stated that the defence was using terms and stating matters which where endangering the defence of being itself accused of violating §130 Penal Code. He here said that he would not listen to “pseudo-scientific views since the Holocaust is a historically ascertained fact” (this caused the public to roar with laughter).

Dr Meinerzhagen continued by saying that he was not sure that Sylvia Stolz is suited to being Ernst Zündel’s mandatory lawyer as she was likely to make herself guilty of the violation of §130; furthermore, since Ernst Zündel was thus likely to lose his mandatory lawyer, which would slow the proceedings down, the status of Miss Stolz as his mandatory lawyer is to be revoked.

After Zündel made it clear that he wishes to be represented by Miss Stolz, the court took a break to deliberate on this issue.

After its deliberation, the court revoked Miss Stolz’ appointment as Ernst Zündel’s mandatory lawyer. Dr Meinerzhagen then proceeded to say that Jürgen Rieger was not suited as the mandatory lawyer of the accused either, because it is known that Herr Rieger is of Revisionist opinion and it is to be feared that he would not be properly objective in the matter. The judge here cited examples from Jürgen Rieger’s past – facts which he obtained by breaking the data protection laws as Rieger then pointed out.

Moving on to Dr. Schaller, the judge stated that he too was not suited to be Zündel’s mandatory lawyer either, since owing to his old age it could not be guaranteed that Dr. Schaller would be up to the job.

In his ensuing, powerful and brilliantly delivered statement, Jürgen Rieger drew the judge’s attention to the fact that Konrad Adenauer had been well into his 70s when first elected as chancellor of Germany, this as well as many other statements again causing the public to voice their approval, giggle and laugh.

The purpose of the Judge was all to obvious: by eliminating Ernst Zündel’s brilliant defence team he would be able to appoint a mandatory defence lawyer of his own choosing, one who would not make any petitions or place motions to hear evidence, but who would act in accordance with Dr. Meinerzhagen’s designs. The defence, however, refused to be intimidated by these actions.

After having eliminated the possibility of Zündel having a mandatory lawyer of his preference, the judge asked how the matter was to be continued, to which the accused stated that he would dismiss his third lawyer of choice (Bock, not present at the hearing) and would take Sylvia Stolz, Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Schaller as lawyers of choice. (Note: In hearings before a regional court, German law requires that the accused have a mandatory lawyer; the accused may also have up to three lawyers of choice).

Rieger then pointed that such a decision ought to be left to the bar, and Miss Stolz added that since the court desires to have a mandatory lawyer who has Ernst Zündel’s trust, the court ought to act accordingly, unless, of course, the court has other things in mind. At this juncture, the hearing was interrupted for 90 minutes to allow for lunch.

During the lunch break, the defence lawyers as well as the public prosecutor gave interviews to the media. During an interview with the latter, one of Zündel’s supporters, Dirk Heuer, asked the public prosecutor in front of the cameras: “How can you sleep at night?” The police led him away on the spot.

After lunch, having again been through the security screening (the police officials becoming increasingly amicable), we returned to the courtroom.

Jürgen Rieger then proceeded to read out a petition that the court is prejudice. The eloquence and emotional power of Rieger’s statements can only be hinted at.

After Rieger finished, Sylvia Stolz made a statement, saying that the defence was being publicly threatened not to state anything forbidden by the court, and that this is an outrage and that such thoughts could only be the fruit of a sick mind.

Miss Stolz then petitioned to exclude the public from further hearings on the grounds that the defence was being threatened by the court of being persecuted for violation of §130 Penal Code. (Note: This paragraph only comes into effect when the “crime” is perpetrated in public; by excluding the public, the defence would be able to voice “forbidden thoughts” without being liable for persecution). Sylvia Stolz continued by saying that should the court wish to have a public trial, the defence team would be in grave danger of persecution.

The court then decided to go into recession until Tuesday 15.11.05, 10.00.

On leaving the courtroom, the sympathy of the police who had been present throughout the hearing was extraordinary – expressions of support, pats on the back, etc.

All in all, the day was a huge success. Dr. Meinerzhagen clearly showed his prejudice and his will to destroy Ernst Zündel’s defence as well as his will not to accept any evidence the defence lawyers might present in order to defend the accused. Furthermore, the judge clearly broke the most basic of judicial norms by publicly threatening the defence before they had even started defending the accused, as well as by forcing Horst Mahler to leave the floor and revoking Sylvia Stolz’ appointment as mandatory defence lawyer.

It was blatantly obvious that this was to be a show trial. The defence team put up a brilliant fight; Jürgen Rieger with his powerful, witty comments and Sylvia Stolz with her quite, calm and perfectly determined bearing. The two final petitions by the defence team were excellent strategic moves:

a) the court will have to deal with the petition that it is prejudiced, i.e. it will have to analyse its actions and account for them, this being something the court dreads, and

b) by petitioning to exclude the public, Miss Stolz gave the court a choice: to either exclude the public, in which case the court will be confronted with the evidence from Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust and Horst Mahler’s “Motion to Hear Evidence on the Jewish Question”, which would be devastating for the court, as well as creating waves both in the judicial world as well as in public (why the secret trial?), or, to include the public in which case the defence team would be tried itself for presenting its evidence nonetheless, causing both the public and the judicial world to ponder what is going on.

Either way, the way things look it seems highly unlikely, that the court can reach a decision that truly benefits its plans to lock Ernst Zündel up.

The show trial continues on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 at the Regional Court Mannheim, 10.00.




SHOW TRIAL OF ZÜNDEL BEGINS TODAY
Michael A. Hoffman II, November 8, 2005

Like a figure in a Kafka novel, Ernst Zundel is the man who is perpetually on trial (since 1983, when his right to send mail in Canada was voided), by a Euro-Canadian-American System that is the enforcement arm of the religion of Judaism. The latest manifestation, on the eve of the anniversaries of the Fall of the Belrin Wall in 1989 and Kristallnacht in 1938, is a blasphemy trial in Mannheim, Germany, a nation now controlled by the Zionists, for the "crime" of blaspheming the "Shoah" (holohoax).

Today in Europe and Canada one may say any derogatory thing one desires about Jesus. His Resurrection and virgin birth may be denied, scorned and scientifically doubted. But skepticism or satire toward homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz is a criminal offense. It is not difficult to see what the last, truly believed religion in the West is these days. It is Judaism. Auschwitz has replaced Calvary as the central ontological event of western history and this would not have been possible without the assistance of the Protestant television "evangelists" and the post-Vatican II popes of Rome.

The Zionist media cannot tell the truth about the latest show trial of Zundel. The medieval rabbinic nature of the prosecution would be too patent. If they report it at all they will do so in terms of race hate:"Zundel is a racist who hates the Chosen People and hence invents lies about Auschwitz." Of course, the fact that countless Judaics, such as the influential Harvard academic Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, and Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel (soon to be honored by the Dalai Lama of Tibet), hate Germans and write lies about them, is not an issue. No one may interdict Judaic lies about Germans on the basis that they foment hate for Germany. Such a privilege is the sole province of Judaism.

It is a crime in Germany to write these words and I am told that there is an arrest warrant --based on my earlier books and columns--awaiting this writer should I ever set foot on the soil of my ancestors. Kafka himself could not do justice to this surrealism. --Michael A. Hoffman II

Press Release:

Zündel goes on Trial (excerpt) Sixth Criminal Court
In case against Ernst Z [Zündel] born April 1939.
Defense counsel: Jürgen Rieger, Hamburg lawyer Sylvia Stolz.

Trial opening: Tuesday November 8, 2005, 9 a.m. Continuations on 9th, 15th, 16th and 24th November, 9 a.m. each day.

THE accused is charged, together with his wife Dr Ingrid R [Rimland] who is being prosecuted [verfolgt: persecuted] separately with having as the most active, i.e. the leading, so-called "revisionist" from Toronto, Canada and Pigeon Forge, USA, spread Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda most recently in February 2003, via the Internet Homepage [sic] Zündelsite for which he is responsible and in written publications, in particular in the Germanic Circulars written and mailed by him, worldwide, and in Germany too.

He is alleged to have intended to relieve National Socialism of the stigma of the murder of the Jews, in his messages and writings, in pseudo-scientific manner, frequently also via hyperlinks in the Internet, as well as denying the fate of the extermination of the Jews that was planned by the National Socialist potentates and to have argued to this end that the mass destruction in Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc., is an invention of the Jews and serves to oppress and blackmail the German People.

Over about twenty pages of the indictment are reproduced individual passages from the "Zündelsite" from 2003, from the accused's manuscript, "His Struggle for Germany," published in 1999, and from the "Germania Circulars" from 2000 to 2003, which among others read as follows:

º "Nobody denies the existence of the concentration camps. They were detention centers with not nearly as many inmates as is generally claimed. They were not extermination camps. ... It is a sad truth that tens of thousands of people of various nationalities died in the German camps, primarily through diseases. ..."

º "The so-called four million [killed in Auschwitz], revised to 1.5 millions, have shriveled to 74,000 proven deaths... Something over 30,000 Jews died at Auschwitz... primarily through illnesses and overcrowding."

º "Or is it not more a matter of continuing to hold the Germans enslaved in ceaseless mental, political and economic and financial bondage? To soften them up for ever newer, scarcely concealed blackmail attempts, that have already extracted over 100 billion marks for the Holocaust lobbyists and the members of their race. ... The abuse of Germany and the Germans must cease."

º "One vital point which most people don't know that that the idea, the concept and even the planning for the Nuremberg Trials have come from purely Jewish brains."... ALTOGETHER the public prosecutor charges the accused in legal terms with violations of Sections §§ 130, 185, 189 of the German Penal Code. Pursuant to these, those who inter alia incite hatred against sections of the public in a manner conducive to causing a breach of the peace, will be punished, as will those who attack the human worthiness of sections of the public, insofar as he insults them, brings them into contempt with malice aforethought, or defames them. Further violations of the penal code are the public approval, denial, or minimizing of any action committed under the National Socialist regime, insofar as this is conducive to causing a breach of the peace. The accused was expelled from Canada (right) in February 2005 as persona non grata, and has been held since March 1, 1945 [eight months: 33 weeks] in investigative custody. The accused is stated to have denied responsibility for the quotations contained in the indictment, in the course of the investigative proceedings and elsewhere. The defense raises doubts as to the constitutionality of § 130 of the German Penal Code.

The investigations of the Mannheim Public Prosecutor began around 1996.The responsibility of the Mannheim public prosecutor arises from the fact that the "Zundelsite" website can also be downloaded from the Internet in Mannheim; from which fact the applicability of the Mannheim District Court is also derived.
 

From: sturhahn@vip.net

Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 2:48 PM
Subject: Zündel

I think Ernst Zündel has good reasons for believing that the holocaust never happened.

 

If I would be working in a crematorium in which I would have only a bit more than a half a minute to bring a corps from the morgue in the basement, to the incinerators upstairs, using an elevator just big enough for one coffin, I would not believe it either.

 

How do I know, that the victims came in coffins? If some one orders a mechanism for inserting coffins in to an oven, I must presume that the victims came in coffins.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/ftp.py?camps/auschwitz//images
 

Where do I come up with this number? Well if the ovens could incinerate about 2500 in a 24-hour day and a day only has 1440 minutes, so it would give me only about .576 minutes per coffin. Talk about sweating.

I would also have trouble believing, if some one orders a gas tight door for a mortuary, Leichen keller, or works on the gas tight doors. The presence of a gas tight door does not mean a gassing of people takes place. Since air is a gas, a gas tight door for a mortuary, is simply an airtight door, to keep the stink out of the rest of the building.

I would also not believe it, If in a selection process, so called victims come in two rows, because they left the train on both sides of the train, and leave in one row, I wonder what kind of a selection process this is. In the selection process is only one officer, armed with a pistol present and no other military personal anywhere in sight.

I would have serious doubts, if some victims supposedly being gassed in a shower, while others, about 200, come out of a shower with their heads shaven because of lice, (being disinfected) and having a good time, as one can tell from their faces.

I would disbelieve the stories, if in the camp of Esterwegen only 1134 people were buried during a 12-year period. If the camp house 20000 inmates 1134 would have died in 12 years of natural causes. I got this information while visiting Camp Esterwegen.

I always wondered where Germany housed all those refugees from the east front, which numbered in the millions. Most, if to all of them, where infected with lice, because the where on the road for weeks, without taking a bath. In every camp that they came to a disinfecting was done, as to prevent Fleckfieber. My father told me how he was ones disinfected for lice, when he came back in 1948 from Siberia.
I always wondered, if all those 12 million people that died in Germany form the effects of war, where only Germans and no other race, or if the victims of the holocaust where included in this figure.

I must admit I find something wrong with most of the images on the Internet. I find it most astounding, the almost complete absents of any military in the camps. If the inmates would have wanted to revolt, it would have been a cakewalk, but they behaved like sheep.
I worked with a guy from Greece, who told me, that he knows someone who was in Dachau as prisoner of war, who had said, that only people where incinerated that came on coffins in groups of around ten to twenty.

Knowing all this, would not any one have some serious reservations?
Otto Sturhahn

 

Gedanken zum Zündel Prozess

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

Die Umgangsformen im Zündel-Prozess, über die uns die Deutschen Medien unterrichten, machen mich einfach nur traurig. Es erinnert mich alles an den Namen "Freisler" und seinen Volksgerichtshof. Dass jetzt Menschen wie Horst Mahler entsprechend der Umgangsform des von ihm so hoch gelobten Adolf Hitlers behandelt werden, mag auf dem ersten Blick konsequent-gerecht erscheinen in einem paradoxalen Reflex. Aber gerade NS Protagonisten wie Zündel und Mahler müssten eigentlich die ganze Gnade der anderen Gerichtlichkeit erhalten und nicht anders herum bestätigt bekommen, dass Wir formal-juristisch immer noch in den Realisations-Strukturen des Dritten Reiches verharren. Verteidiger werden bedroht, ausgetauscht, und das Alles nur, um eine öffentliche Wahrheitsfindung zu verhindern oder zu blockieren.

Ist nicht aufgrund der Erfahrungen des Dritten Reiches gerade zu der moralische Impuls "Wahrheit nichts als die Wahrheit" auf die erste Seite schlechthin zu setzen? Da Wahrheitsfindung aber immer an den individuellen Menschen verknüpft ist, besteht der Irrtum als Möglichkeit zurecht und damit eben die Notwendigkeit, sich auszutauschen , von einander zu lernen, Wahrheits-Erfahrungs-Aspekte zu vergleichen in einer staatlichen Gestalt, wo niemand aufgrund seines Wahrheitsbildes sanktioniert werden darf.

Es ist in die Freiheit jedes Einzelnen gelegt, wie korrekturfähig er Sein will, wie beweglich er seine Gedanken halten will. Dass Horst Mahler als Paradebeispiel diesem Aspekt nicht entspricht, indem er seine Wahrheiten über alle anderen Wahrheiten stellt, kann aber niemals dazu führen, ihm das Wort zu verbieten, sondern nur dafür zu sorgen, dass er nicht selber den Fehler machen darf, den die Deutsche Gerichtsbarkeit derzeit mit ihm macht.

Wenn ein Gericht darüber entscheidet, was wahr ist und was nicht und dabei ein Dogma der "Offenkundigkeit" strafrechtlich zugrunde legt, ist dem Irrtum die führende Rolle angewiesen, und zwar in dem Stadium des "Nicht-Korrigiert-Werden-Dürfens". Hier ist die Wurzel für eine Geistige Versklavung ganzer Generationen von Menschen.

Wie fühlen sich Richter und Staatsanwälte einer Demokratie dabei? Sie müssten doch an sich selbst verzweifeln, weil sie im Namen eines formal-juristischen Rechtsanspruchs, jeder Zeit dieses Recht vergewaltigen und aufheben können. Was sie dabei eigentlich aufheben, ist die menschliche Individualität, die menschliche Freiheit des Geisteslebens., einen Holocaust ganz anderer Dimension, da Ich nämlich nicht nur individuell als Organträger Mensch bin, sondern zu aller erst als Gedankenträger.

Die Deutschen Gerichte tragen dazu bei, dass man als Deutscher geistig Heimatlos wird in einem Land, dass ich auf Schiller beruft, und gleichzeitig dessen Freiheitsappell aufs niederträchtigste vergewaltigt. Ich stehe den Denkkonsequenzen der Herren Zündel und Mahler sehr fern, aber noch ferner stehe ich dem Umgang, den man diesen Herren seitens Deutscher Gerichtsbarkeit angedeihen lässt.

Die erste Grundregel eines fruchtbaren zwischenmenschlichen Zusammenlebens ist die Gedankenfreiheit des Anderen, Wenn ich dem Anderen seine Gedanken verbieten kann, dann sorge ich dafür, dass unter anderer Konstellation auch mir meine Gedanken verboten werden können. Das bedeutet daher schon logisch, dass das Gedankenverbot eines Anderen primär mein eigenes Gedankenverbot beinhaltet. In klarster Hinsicht weist es darauf hin, dass es um das Ziel eines Gedanken-Totalitarismus geht, einem Ziel, auf das wir uns mit einer gnadenlosen Geschwindigkeit in den westlichen Demokratien hinbewegen.

Die umfassende und kompromisslose Darstellung der Wahrheit über die Geschichte des Dritten Reiches wird seit Jahrzehnten verschwiegen, um nichtdeutsche Kriegs-Mitverantwortliche nicht zu belasten und ausschließlich die Deutschen bußfertig zu halten.

Die Sieger, ob Sowjets oder Westalliierte, benötigten für ihre unaussprechlichen Taten am deutschen Volk eine Rechtfertigung ( 15 Millionen ermordet, 16 Millionen aus der Heimat vertrieben, die deutschen Städte mit samt Frauen und Kindern vernichtet, Millionen wehrloser Soldaten ermordet usw.). Die Lösung für sie war, ihre abscheuliche Kriegsgräuelpropaganda gegen das deutsche Volk als geschichtliche Tatsachen nach dem 2. Weltkrieg festzuschreiben und die besiegte deutsche Reichsregierung in Nürnberg zu hängen.

Alle waren und sind sich einig, die "Demokraten" des Westens in trautem Gleichklang mit den bolschewistischen Mördern der Ex Sowjetunion. Und das unterworfene Deutschland schützt seither die "Geschichts-Mythen" der Alliierten mit dem Strafgesetz - die BRD wurde auf diesen Mythen errichtet:

"Trotzdem haben die europäischen Nationen - in demokratischer Freiheit im Westen, unter kommunistischer Vorherrschaft im Osten - nach 1945 sehr schnell zu einer bemerkenswerten inneren Stabilität gefunden. Grundlage war dafür, so lautet die These der Ausstellung [Mythen der Nationen. 1945 - Arena der Erinnerungen], die von heute an im Deutschen Historischen Museum in Berlin zu sehen ist, waren Geschichtskonstruktionen, also große, durch die neuen Massenmedien verbreitete Geschichtserzählungen, die sich in einheitsstiftenden Mythen verdichteten." (Die Welt, 2.10.2004, S. 27)

Jörg Friedrich nennt diese Methode der Geschichtskonstruktionen "des Friedens und der Versöhnung willen". Offenbar hängt der Frieden davon ab, dass die Geschichtsmanipulationen fort-bestehen. Hat man Befürchtungen, dass, wenn die Deutschen die umfangreiche Wahrheit verbreiten würden, die sogenannte Versöhnung dahin wäre?. Friedrich im Umkehrschluss: "des Friedens und der Versöhnung willen wurde die wahre Geschichte verschwiegen".

Das "Untergangserlebnis von Millionen von Deutschen" durch die Alliierten Kriegstaten wurde über Jahrzehnte hinweg zensiert. Die deutschen Opfer wurden mit Gefängnis bedroht, sobald sie über ihr Schicksal öffentlich sprachen - Holocaust-Verharmlosung nennt sich das und ist in einem irrational-totalitären Strafgesetzparagraphen fixiert § 130. Friedrich drückt das so aus: "Aus wohl erwogenen Gründen sind diese Erfahrungen vieler Deutscher versiegelt gewesen ... Lässt sich das zensieren?" Friedrich meint: "Diese Zeiten sind doch vorbei."

Täuschen wir uns da nicht!? . Nach wie vor stehen auf das Aussprechen des persönlichen Zugangs zur historischen Wahrheit in der BRD hohe Gefängnisstrafen wie uns jetzt der Fall Zündel vor Augen führt. Als freie Menschen müssen wir die Wahrheitszugänge eines Zündel ertragen können, wenn wir uns nicht selbst essentiell & existenziell selber infrage stellen wollen.

Lesen Sie im folgenden das Interview mit Jörg Friedrich und bilden Sie sich Ihre eigenen Gedanken dazu.
mit freundlichen Grüßen

Wolfgang Schumacher - mailto:elfriedes@t-online.de

 

"At Auschwitz, he found that 44 parallel tracks converged on the camp.

The comparable figure for New York's Penn Station was 21 tracks."

Rail car recalls painful history - Ceremony to mark role in Holocaust

By Ron Grossman, rgrossman@tribune.com

 Tribune staff reporter, November 9, 2005

Though he's not the type to let his emotions show, Sam Harris has a tough time when stuck at a railroad crossing behind a slowly moving train. When a cattle car or a boxcar rumbles past, the tears flow uncontrollably. Yet he is going out of his way for a rendezvous with the kind of freight car into which he and myriad others were loaded during the darkest days of World War II. He was 8 1/2 years old then. The adults crammed in around him were crying and screaming. "The train went slow; when it stopped we could hear children playing, dogs barking," said Harris, 70. "I wished I was a dog, just to be out of there."

On Wednesday, Harris will be at Block 37 in the Loop for a reception, if that is the appropriate term. Our social vocabulary fails when the guest of honor is an aged German railroad car. The occasion is the 67th anniversary of Kristallnacht--"the night of broken glass"--anti-Semitic riots in Nazi Germany that marked the beginning of the end for European Jewry.

Mayor Richard M. Daley is scheduled to attend the commemoration. So, too, is Mayor George Van Dusen of Skokie, where many survivors of Hitler's death camps found refuge after the war. Now, their numbers dwindling, they worry that their story will be lost when they, too, are gone.

Richard Hirschhaut, project director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center, recalled that when a new home for the Skokie museum was being planned, local survivors wanted one thing to be included in the exhibits. They wanted future generations to see a railroad car of the type that ran from all over Nazi-occupied Europe to the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other death camps.

Fritzie Fritzshall, a survivor of Auschwitz, recalled that a train ride in a car like the one on view Wednesday was a moment of truth. Even before coming to power in 1933, the German dictator made no secret of his loathing of the Jews, whom he preached were the cause of the country's woes. But the details of his evil plans long were masked, even from the victims.

When ordered to bring a few possessions to a railroad station, Jews in countries overrun by Nazi armies were told that they were being "relocated." Sometimes a cruel explanation was appended: Their new homes would be better than the ones they were being forced out of. But it was hard to hang on to the minimal comfort of that story when a train of cattle cars, not passenger cars, appeared down the tracks.
"When you heard the lock slamming shut," Fritzshall said, "you realized you weren't going to the promised land."

From the Nazis' standpoint, railroads were a critical ingredient of the "Final Solution," noted Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar and consultant to the Skokie museum. First, there was the psychological issue of taking human lives on a massive scale, for which the killers had to be specially prepared, no matter how intense their exposure to Nazi propaganda.

"When you put people in cattle cars," Berenbaum said, "you're presuming they're animals."

Railroad tracks and boxcars also provided a solution to a logistical problem confronting Hitler's henchmen, Berenbaum continued. When Nazi armies invaded Poland in 1939 and the Soviet Union two years later, killing squads accompanied the front-line troops. Whole villages of Jews were wiped out, often on the spot where their ancestors had lived for centuries. The killing was done with bullets and mobile gas chambers, but the task was enormous, given the vast area that came under Hitler's domination.

"The solution was to bring the victims to the gas chambers, not vice-versa," Berenbaum explained. "The Holocaust was industrialized."
When he first started studying the Holocaust, one sight made clear to Berenbaum the central role of the railroads. At Auschwitz, he found that 44 parallel tracks converged on the camp. The comparable figure for New York's Penn Station was 21 tracks.

The story of how people were transported to their deaths along those lines was long obscure, noted Raul Hilberg, whose research inaugurated a modern era in Holocaust studies. Years of searching through European archives enabled him to piece together the story. The details were hauntingly mundane.

"The German railroads charged the Gestapo the same rate for Jews that other travelers paid," said Hilberg, author of "The Destruction of the European Jews." "If 400 or more people were being transported, the Nazis were given a reduced excursion rate."

Because there was a war on, those transports--"special trains," in the Nazis' jargon--had a low priority. They had to pull over onto siding tracks to let troop trains and munitions pass. They were assigned the weakest locomotives, and their journeys were interrupted on weekends, when crews had time off. Accordingly, a relatively short distance could take many days to cover--agonizing days when people locked inside the cars had neither food nor water. Many didn't even make it to the death camps.

"It seemed like a lifetime," said Fritzshall, who was taken from Czechoslovakia to Auschwitz in nearby southern Poland. "My grandfather died on the train."

A boxcar similar to the one in which she experienced that horror was built around 1913. One of the few remaining from the Holocaust Era, it wound up on an industrial siding in Germany's Ruhr Valley. Recently, it was donated to the Skokie museum, shipped to Chicago by ship and truck, and will be installed in the museum's new quarters, which are scheduled to open in 2008.

Berenbaum, the museum's consultant, is about to begin tracing the car's whereabouts during World War II. He thinks the chances are that surviving railroad records will verify that the car was used in the "special trains" of the Holocaust transports.

Fritzshall is convinced its presence in the Skokie museum will help inoculate school children against the virus spread by a new form of anti-Semitism: the theory advanced by Neo-Nazis and others that the Holocaust didn't occur.

"I can't remember what I had for lunch yesterday," Fritzshall said. "But I can still smell and feel what I smelled and felt in a railroad car, so long ago."
© 2005, Chicago Tribune

 

 

 

"Lessons from the Holocaust"
They had a public presentation on the "Holocaust" in Scottsdale, AZ this afternoon.
From: jack.martin1@juno.com, 9 November 2005 10:56 AM

Waltraud and I just returned from a "Cross Cultural Communications Series" presentation in Scottsdale at:

Community Design Studio
7506 E. Indian School Road
Scottsdale, AZ

The presentation was "Lessons from the Holocaust," featuring a talk by 77 year old "Holocaust" survivor Helen Handler.

They will be having a repeat next week on Nov. 15 (6:00 p.m.) at: Pinnacle Training Room, 7575 E. Main St. I don't know if we will go to that one. They might not let us in - or maybe even call the local gendarmes.

I think you would have enjoyed it. There were about a hundred people there - presumably mostly Jews, a couple of war veterans, and a bunch of older people - probably retirees - looking for some diversion. We probably gave them plenty of that.

"Überlebende" Handler droned on for a little over an hour about her purported experiences - in a rather subdued and hard to follow monotone.

Did not have very much to say concerning details other than to remark in passing concerning the smell and flames from the burning bodies at Auschwitz. She did fleetingly mention the "gas chambers" but did not indicate that she had actually seen such.

At the end of her talk when the moderator called for questions or comments Waltraud arose and addressed "survivor" Handler thus:
"I understand that the German Government is paying reparation money to over 4 million Jewish survivors... are YOU collecting such payment."

She allowed that she was. The audience was for the most part not favorably disposed to our comments and one or two indicated objection to bringing the money issue up when the recipients had endured such suffering. I then got up and pointed out that IT WAS NOT A MATTER OF MONEY at all... that SO MANY COULD NOT NOW BE RECEIVING THIS MONEY IF SIX MILLION HAD BEEN KILLED SIXTY YEARS AGO and that, furthermore, there was no physical or documentary evidence that "gas chambers" had existed in any of the German concentration camps - not at Auschwitz or Dachau or at Sobibor, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen or any other...

I would add that both of us spoke up with sufficient volume to be distinctly heard by all present.

A few piped up with their disapproval asking such irrelevant questions as: "Were you there?"; "Were you in any of those camps?"; etc. One complained about the bombing of London.

I replied that London had not been bombed until after Berlin had been bombed seven times by the RAF.

There was much other wailing and gnashing of teeth - more murmuring about the bad taste of mentioning the reparations money.

I again asserted that it was not the money that was important but the number of people receiving it. I pointed out again that if six million had been killed more than sixty years ago... no way could more than four million be receiving money as "survivors."

"DO THE MATH!", I said

As you may imagine, our participation was not well received but many of those present got to hear something that they likely had not ever heard before.

One of the kosher krowd pushed Waltraud as she was walking out the door, but beat a hasty retreat when I told him to get his hands off my wife before I knocked his block off.

All in all, it was kind of a fun event. It most certainly did not go according to their plans for it. A good time was had - but not by all!

It was especially satisfying to do this on the occasion of the first day of Ernst Zündel's mock trial in Mannheim today. We did not have the opportunity to mention that in all the tumult, or the matter of Germar Rudolf in Chicago.

Best regards,
Jack & Trudi Martin
 

 

 

 

Trial against Nazi inciter Ernst Zündel begins with éclat - Judge throws out rabble lawyers