On 12
November 1937 at Horsham in Victoria’s Wimmera Region, John Bennett
opened his eyes for the first time to a world on the brink of another
world war. Even the prosperous Wimmera – a kind of mini Australian
breadbasket – saw a few years earlier, when the depression began to
bite, a steady stream of men making their way out of Melbourne and into
the bush in the hope of finding physical work that would feed them and
perhaps help their families that stayed behind in the population centred
scarred by mass unemployment. Armed with shotguns, the local Horsham
constabulary would encourage anyone tramping on foot from Melbourne
along the railway tracks to keep on moving and not to linger about,
certainly not to enter Horsham town for any length of time.
John’s father was the local solicitor, later also to become the mayor of
Horsham, and just as for the small band of professionals in any town, a
secure environment was offered to the Bennett children. There was even
enough money for John to be sent to the renowned private school, Geelong
Grammar, where John’s mind was exposed to all sorts of ideological
matter, especially to the prevailing one – Marxism – that dogma where
love has no home but where deficiency thinking/nihilism inevitably
produces a chaotic and anything-goes envy-driven mindset.
Academically-speaking John did well at the University of Melbourne –
where John Pasquarelli, one of Bennett’s mates, bent on lustful stalking
of females offended Bennett’s delicate mind, a mind that later was to be
characterised by Sir Walter Crocker as a rare form of brilliant
intellectualism. Bennett and Pasquarelli were direct opposites – the
former a hesitant aware young man, the latter an adverturous and
non-discriminatory pursuer of voluptuous fleshly delights.
Fast
forward to a critical year – 1979. As was the custom of the 1960s, the
prevailing academic mindset embraced Marxism as a form of human
salvation. Establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat was its
driving message propagated by the control freaks that populated
academia, a self-appointed elite that shied away from engaging in any
form of physical work, a mindset that shunned any notion of nurturing
the creative impulse where the hand and the mind worked as one. Bennett
had become enslaved to a dogma, and so he wished to liberate those that
could not follow his reason as to why we should not all be enslaved to
Marxism. Fortunately for Bennett, he never did go that one step further,
as was the want of his European counterparts that proclaimed that using
force is in order to liberate the people – much like George W Bush
invading, then destroying Iraq in order to liberate the Iraqi people and
bring freedom and democracy to them.
The
Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, produced a publication called
Your Rights, and to that date Bennett’s only begotten baby of
substance, wherein is propagated the myth of individual freedom, a la
John Locke, et al. The catch-cry my rights was, sadly, never
balanced with my responsibilities, though John would to great
lengths to comfort individuals who had hit the establishment brick wall
by stressing a perspective of necessity was needed in order to balance
perceived wrongs against demanded rights.
The
following material is a brief snapshot of John’s public conscience in
action. It is the LL.B honour’s graduate solicitor and barrister
speaking as a concerned citizen about issues that directly influence our
liberties of the mind, or the same thought stated in the
imperative form as the Germans would put it: Die Gedanken Sind Frei!
John
Bennett’s major encounter with Holocaust believers begins in 1979, then
progresses into the Orwellian year of 1984 with his inserting a
Holocaust section in his publication, Your Rights, and culminates
in 1999 when he organises moral and financial support for Fredrick
Töben, jailed in Mannheim for refusing to believe in the Holocaust.
***
‘NO HOLOCAUST’ THEORY STARTS MAJOR STORM
By John Jost, National Times, 10 February 1979
Major
confusion and outrage has broken out within the Jewish community over a
memo issued by John Bennett, secretary of the Victorian Council for
Civil Liberties, which suggests that Hitler’s ‘Jewish Holocaust’ might
never have occurred.
The
Holocaust memo, which the National Times publishes in full below, was
sent to several Melbourne academics with copies of the book The Hoax of
the Twentieth Century, by US writer A R Butz.
Butz’s
work argues that while the Germans killed many Jews through
maltreatment, there is no hard evidence that they actually indulged in a
deliberate policy of extermination which involved the deaths of up to
six million Jews. The Bennett memo in full:
“Having read most of the books claiming that six million Jews were
deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, mainly in gas chambers,
especially at Auschwitz (e.g. Hilberg: The Destruction of European
Jews; Reitlinger: The Final Solution) I note:
1.
No one has ever been charged with the murder of any of the two million,
four million, six million? People gassed. That is, no one has ever been
charged with actually dropping the Zyklon B.
2.
No photo exists of any bodies in any gas chamber although there is
alleged to have been over ten thousand separate gassings in various
camps.
3.
The ‘gas chambers’ at Auschwitz cannot be inspected since, according to
Reitlinger, who gives the only explanation of their fate, they were
dismantled, transported to another camp, and ‘went into oblivion’.
4.
The main evidence of ‘gassing’ given at Nuremberg are the affidavits of
Höss and Gerstein, which are as unreliable as statements of the Moscow
purge trials in 1936.
5.
The Vatican, the Red Cross, English intelligence, German intelligence
(e.g. Canaris and Oster, who were also English agents) and the German
resistance to Hitler ( a sort of who’s who of German society) did not
know of or did not believe rumours of gassings.
6.
Nobody has tried to rebut the argument of Butz.
7.
There is no reference to the gassings in any of the captured German
documents: the Allies held warehouses of Nazi documents and films but
had to rely on the Höss ‘confession’.
8.
It was claimed in March 1943 that two million Jews had been killed and
another four million would be cited, a curious accurate predictor of the
six million figure used at Nuremberg.
9.
Photos usually used by the Allies to prove gassings are photos of bodies
of people at Dachau or Belsen who had died of typhus or malnutrition.
10.
Zyklon B was used by the German armed forces and in all concentration
camps, as a disinfectant, especially to combat typhus. It was standard
procedure in all camps for new arrivals to bathe and have their clothes
disinfected. Many people died in the camps and were cremated to prevent
epidemics.
11.
The Auschwitz camp was not bombed by the Allies because they did not
believe it was an extermination camp. The Allies had the huge industrial
complex under close surveillance because it was a centre of the most
advanced synthetic rubber process. The US was in need of synthetic
rubber after Pearl Harbour.
12.
It is impossible to estimate the number of Jews who died as a result of
Nazi policies since the World Jewish Congress has refused to hold any
post-war census of Jews. Probably 700,000 to 1.5 million Jews died as a
result of mistreatment, malnutrition, typhus, razing of ghettoes,
reprisals, arbitrary killings and medical ‘experiments’.
13.
People such as Simon Wiesenthal (The Murderers among us) have
tried to track down people responsible for the final solution by
evacuation to the east (e.g. Eichmann) and Nazi doctors (Mengele) but
have not tried to track down members of the SS who actually murdered two
to six million by gassing, especially by Zyklon B at Auschwitz.
It is
probable that estimates of 2.5 million killed in Cambodia (e.g. estimate
by George McGovern), 20 million people killed in the Great Terror in
Russia, 500,000 killed in Uganda, etc. are as unreliable as the ‘six
million’ Jews murdered by the Nazis ‘legend’.
It
took 30 years for ‘the last secret’ - the forced repatriation of over
a million people to Russia – to become generally known. It will probably
take some time for the Butz thesis to be objectively examined.
In the
Middle Ages people who queried the existence of God or that the earth
was flat were persecuted and often killed. People who query the six
million murdered legend will often be accused of being pro-Nazi and
anti-Semitic.
However, even among the main writers on the legend (who are all Jewish)
the six million figure is often disputed. Thus Reitlinger has revived
his estimate of deaths down to four million. He was motivated by a
search for accuracy and not anti-Semitism in revising his figures.
*
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The
Age,
15 March 1979
Questions about the Holocaust numbers. From Mr J Bennett
Mr
Michael Barnard, 3 March, in an article headed ‘Remember the Holocaust?’
refers to a hand-written memo I sent to three friends setting out my
tentative conclusions about the thesis advanced by Professor Butz in his
book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.
This
thesis was that although about one million Jews died as a result of the
Nazi policy of final solution by evacuation to the east, there was no
policy to exterminate Jews and there were no mass gassings. One of the
three memos was leaked without the consent or knowledge of the
recipient, to the National Times.
Mr
Barnard mentions that one issue I raised was the failure to ascertain
the identity of the actual gas murderers, that is, the people who
actually dropped the Zyklon B. That was one of only 13 issues I raised.
I have since done further research and I have raised many other issues
in a draft article setting out my tentative conclusions.
I
intend sending the draft article to the six lecturers in modern European
history who are invited to comment on the Butz book last year. Only one
did so, relying heavily on the questionable ‘confessions’ brought into
being for the Nuremberg trial. Butz regards the trials as a travesty of
justice, organized by the Allies who were responsible for war atrocities
themselves, such as Hiroshima, Dresden, Katyn Forrest, ‘victims of
Yalta’ and the policy of ‘unconditional surrender’. President Kennedy (Profiles
in Courage) commended Robert Taft for his courage in publicly
opposing the trials.
Mr
Barnard referred to a German editor who in 1979 said: “Yes, I knew all
about it”, i.e. the extermination program. However, Hoffmann, German
Resistance to Hitler, indicates that the German resistance, a sort
of ‘who’s who’ of German society, did not know in 1944 of the
extermination policy of the gassings.
Helmut Diewald, a
prominent West German historian, stated this year that ‘central
questions’ in relation to the final solution by evacuation to the east
remain ‘unresolved’. He also points out that the crematoria at Auschwitz
were built because of a massive typhus epidemic at the camp in 1942 in
which 20, 000 people died. Butz argues that most deaths in the camps
were due to malnutrition partly due to the chaos caused by saturation
civilian bombing, and due to typhus which spread because of a failure to
use the disinfectant Zyklon B on a more regular basis.
The reason there
had not been a great outcry against the Butz thesis could be because it
is difficult to refute. Truth is the first casualty in war. Incredible
allegations were made against the Germans in World War One but were
ultimately withdrawn (Ponsonby: Falsehood in Wartime).
Allegations that
about one million people were murdered in Cambodia were often reported
in the media without any supporting evidence but have now been
abandoned.
It is very easy to
spread atrocity stories. The basic requirement in evaluating them is
common sense. I invite anyone wishing to contradict my tentative
conclusion on the Butz thesis to write to me. I also invite anyone to
substantiate the allegations of mass genocide in Cambodia.
John Bennett, 122
Canning Street, Carlton 3053.
***
Bennett replies,
Nation Review
28 June 1979
Last week’s lengthy
letter by Dr W D Rubinstein (“On Bennett and more”) created a great deal
of interest and we received a number of articles and letters in reply.
Mr John Bennett, criticized for believing the Holocaust to be a hoax,
makes the following defence of his position:
Dr W Rubinstein (NR
21 June) distorts and misrepresents the arguments set out by Professor
Butz in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and in an
article by myself about the book.
Thus
Butz does not assert as alleged by Dr Rubinstein that “Hitler’s will” is
a forgery (see Butz p. 183), that “Auschwitz was only a chemical
factory” (Butz Chapter 4), or that “The Nazi leaders were tortured”
(Butz p 189). In fact Butz specifically denies that the Nazi leaders
were tortured, but quotes Judge Van Roden who was appointed by the US
government to investigate allegations of torture, that many less
important defendants were tortured.
Dr Rubinstein also
completely distorts the argument in my article by selective quotations,
and almost completely ignores my conclusions. The issue of the failure
to identify the actual gas murderers which Dr Rubinstein states is my
main argument is only one of many arguments which can be seen from the
following summary of my article.
1.
Although it is asserted that the Germans committed everything to paper
(“there is nothing this adversary did not commit to paper” – Reitlinger)
no German war-time document orders the extermination of Jews (see Kubovy
and Poliakov) or refers to gassings.
2. The Germans did
commit their policy in relation to Jews to paper. It was one of
emigration before the war and evacuation to the east during the war and
was not one of extermination(Wannsee Conference).
3.
The number of people entering the concentration camps and the death rate
in the camps is set out clearly in German documents (Butz, p. 126).
There seems no valid reason to disregard these documents. The death rate
in the camps mainly due to epidemics and malnutrition was comparable to
the death rate in the British concentration camps during the Boer War.
The German documents express concern about the high death rate and refer
to attempts to reduce the rate.
4.
The allegations that there were mass gassings in various camps such as
Auschwitz and Treblinka does not stand up to examination. It is
impossible to gas about three million people without any resistance,
without identifiable gas murderers and without any authentic
eyewitnesses, and to commit the crimes in gas chambers built without
building specifications and which “went into oblivion”, and to dispose
of the bodies in the number of crematoria known to have existed.
Rassinier described the mass gassings as an “historic lie”.
5.
Despite the fact that Jewish work parties were within talking distance
of each batch of victims in each of the alleged 5,000 to 10,000 separate
acts of gassing (Ainsztein, p 791; Hilberg p 626), no warning was giving
to the victims. That is, not one member of the say hundred-strong work
parties gave one word of warning to the next batch of victims.
6.
No attempt has been made by the Nürnberg prosecutors, Israeli
intelligence or Simon Wiesenthal to ascertain the identity of the gas
murderers (i.e. the numerous SS officers who dropped the Zyklon B), and
no gas murderer has ever been identifies (with one possible exception in
the Auschwitz trial).
7.
There are no authentic eye witnesses to any of the thousands of acts of
mass gassings, although if the gassings took place and say 2-3 million
bodies were taken from the chambers, there must have been thousands of
eye witnesses.
8.
Historians cannot agree on elementary details such as the time the gas
took to kill, and whether the bodies were horizontal or vertical after
the gassings (Dawidowicz, p 109, Hilberg, p 627), and whether members of
Jewish work parties wore gas masks.
9.
Despite the huge amount of technical detail about the crematoria (and
indeed almost everything built in Nazi Germany – see any technical book
company) no specifications or technical details exist about the “gas
chambers”.
10.
The allegation that Zyklon B, which was used throughout the German armed
forces and the concentration camp system as a disinfectant, was also
used to kill people, is not credible. It is not credible that people
selected for work had their clothes disinfected by Zyklon B, and those
unsuitable for work were killed by Zyklon B.
11.
No photographs exist of bodies in gas chambers despite the oft repeated
allegation that the Nazis photographed their atrocities. The photographs
of corpses used in books and films to prove a policy of genocide are
photos of victims of typhus and malnutrition especially at Belsen.
12.
Although the Allies were skeptical of the gassings, no attempt was made
by Jewish or other anti-Nazi resistance groups to obtain photos to
establish the gassings. The taking of photos of bodies in the open and
bodies being cremated referred to by Ainsztein (p. 804) merely confirmed
what the Allies already knew, namely that there was a high death rate in
the camps.
13.
Although Auschwitz was under constant aerial surveillance during the
war, many inmates had radio transmitters and many people had access to
the vast industrial complex, the Allies did not raise allegations of
gassings until after the gassings had allegedly ceased.
14.
The crematoria known to have existed at the “extermination camps” were
adequate to deal with the death rate referred to in the German documents
(comparable to the death rate in the Boer War camps) but could not have
disposed of several million allegedly gassed (Butz, p 118).
15.
The allegation that the camps were used as part of a genocide policy is
not credible because there was never any extermination policy or
gassings at Belsen, Dachau, and Buchenwald. If there was a policy of
genocide, Jews in these camps would have been exterminated too.
16.
The German resistance to Hitler (a sort of Who’s Who of German society),
the head of Wehrmacht intelligence (Canaris), the Red Cross and the
Vatican, were all unaware of either an extermination policy or mass
gassings during the war.
17.
Albert Speer and the SS judge, Konrad Morgen, both described as
“reliable witnesses” in Six Million Did Die, a publication of the
South African Jewish Board of Deputies, did not know during the war of
either the policy or the gassings. Speer was in charge of the German War
Economy including obtaining scarce labour and allocating rail traffic
priority. Morgen was in charge of investigating irregularities at
Auschwitz. If there was an extermination policy or gassings, Speer,
Morgen, the German Resistance, the Red Cross and the Vatican, with their
many contacts, would have known.
18.
The post-war “confessions” brought into being for the Nürnberg Trials by
the War Crimes Branch headed by the Zionist David Marcus are unreliable.
Torture and forgery were used extensively (see Butz and Judge van Roden).
The confessions of Höss, Kramer, Gerstein, Wesliceny, Höttl, Stagl are
as unreliable as confessions at the Moscow trials in the 1930s.
19.
The six million murdered legend was first circulated by The New York
Times in 1942 at the instigation of the World Jewish Congress, and
was linked with the call for a Jewish State in Palestine. The Holocaust
legend is still extensively used for propaganda reasons to support the
diplomatic position of Israel. The legend is no more reliable than the
atrocity stories about genocide in Cambodia and Uganda, or the 20
million killed by Stalin legend.
20.
There is no good reason for ignoring the German documents setting out
the death rates in the camps and accepting one of the figures plucked
out of the air by a Holocaust historian. Thus the allegation by
Reitlinger that 800, 000 died at Auschwitz of whom 80 per cent were
Jewish and the allegation of Ainsztein that four million died at
Auschwitz, of whom 40 per cent were Jewish are both inventions.
21.
Since the SS made large amounts of money by hiring out concentration
camp labour to private industry at a time when Germany was critically
short of labour and priority was given to military rail traffic, it is
not credible that 400, 000 Hungarian Jews were taken to Auschwitz in
three months in 1944 and gassed. The impossible rail logistics in such
an operation is discussed by Rassinier. The ignorance of the Budapest
Red Cross and Jewish Senate about the alleged operation is demonstrated
by Butz.
22.
The allegation that Germany gave priority to exterminating Jews over
winning the war is not credible. If such priority existed, the
extermination program would have taken place in Belsen, Dachau and
Buchenwald, it would not have stopped at Auschwitz for six months
because the camp commandant was transferred and it would not have
stopped altogether at Auschwitz four months before the Russians captured
the camp.
23.
If the Allies believed there were mass gassings at Auschwitz, they would
have bombed the rail links to the camp and if the local partisans in the
area knew of the gassings, they would have sabotaged the rail links and
alerted the passengers on the thousands of trains said to have gone to
Auschwitz as to their likely fate.
24.
There are too many accidents, coincidences, missing people and missing
documents for the Holocaust legend to be feasible. Thus aerial
photographs taken of the selection area at Auschwitz by the Allies were
taken by “accident” (Herald, 29 February 1979) and discovered by
accident. Gerstein, on whom the play The Deputy is based, and who
left a document saying 25 million people had been gassed, “disappeared”,
the “eye witness” Nyiszli proved to be untraceable. The key travel
report used to convict the suppliers of Zyklon B was “missing” at the
trial. Wild atrocity stories supported by fake photos, false captions
and concocted documents were used in World War One (Ponsonby:
Falsehood in Wartime). The stories included cutting off the hands
off babies, boiling corpses down to make soap, etc. In the absence of
Nürnberg-style trials following unconditional surrender, the stories
were ultimately withdrawn.
The Nürnberg Trials
with their residual war guilt, together with forced evacuation without
compensation of some 8 million Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia
was in effect “the final solution to the German problem”. The allied
policy of evacuation to the west on racial criteria was comparable in
intent and brutality to the Nazi policy of the Jews of final solution by
evacuation to the East.
The above summary
of my article indicates that I do not rely primarily on the failure to
identify the gas murderers. Dr Rubinstein is correct in saying that
“were the Holocaust be shown to be a hoax the number one weapon in
Israel’s propaganda armoury disappears”. He says that the chances of the
Butz theses being accepted are “nil”, but several prominent historians,
including a professor of history at an Australian university have told
me they believe Butz is largely correct and many non-historians have
expressed the same view to me.
Suppression of the
truth about the Holocaust and about the issues in the Middle East is not
due to any “International Zionist Conspiracy”, but occurs because “the
Jews in the western world are now a socio-economic and political elite”,
(to quote Dr Rubinstein) and are in a position to exert great influence.
Due to this
influence, critical books on the Middle East, such as Publish It Not
– The Middle East Cover-Up, by C Mayhew, and books by M Menuhin, A
Taylor, M Arakie, M Rodinson and A Lilienthal cannot be obtained in
bookshops due to an informal trade boycott, and the case for the
Palestinians has been fairly effectively suppressed.
John Bennett,
Carlton-Victoria.
***
HISTORY: Lawyer’s
bid to clear nazis. By Bob Carr,
The Bulletin,
September 18, 1979
Melbourne lawyer
John Bennett is pushing ahead with a one-man campaign to prove there was
no murder of six million Jews by nazi Germany. Bennett first brought
down a storm of criticism earlier this year when he distributed a memo
to academics promoting the theory, not least because he is secretary of
the long-established Liberal-leaning Victorian Council for Civil
Liberties.
Undisturbed by
outraged criticism from Jewish leaders, Auschwitz survivors and others,
Bennett has broadened his campaign in recent weeks. He has sent 2000
copies of an offset four-page pamphlet to academics, librarians, members
of parliament and media outlets, stating his case. And at a personal
cost of around $500. he is distributing 200 copies of the book that
first won him to the view that nazism was not totally merciless – The
Hoax of the Twentieth Century by A R Butz, an American engineer,
published in 1977 by Historical Review Press, Warwickshire.
In Melbourne the
book is on sale in the musty reaches of the Heritage Bookshop, operated
by the unabashedly racist League of Rights. In fact Bennett may be the
first respectable person to embrace an opinion formerly confined to the
wilder, extremist fringes of politics.
Bennett, 42, is an
honours graduate in law and arts from Melbourne University and the
author of the civil liberties text Your Rights, which has sold
over 120.000 copies. He has been secretary of the Victorian Council for
Civil Liberties since it was founded in 1966 and works with the legal
aid section of the Attorney-General’s Department.
Bennett says: “It’s
a pretty gripping theory, that all the history books are wrong. I think
there’s been a great deal of falsification of history in regard to the
holocaust: most of the lying and falsification took place during the war
and at Nuremberg. The idea of the holocaust is a spill-over from wartime
propaganda.
“It’s not in doubt
that under the nazis there were medical experiments, the razing of
ghettos and reprisals against partisans, although part of this is
comparable to Vietnam. It’s not in dispute that many were sent to
concentration camps and died there from epidemics and malnutrition, as
in British concentration camps during the Boer War.”
Bennett then
arrives at his main contention, a chilling obscenity to Australian
Jewry, half of whom comprise survivors of the holocaust and their
offspring.
He says: “What is
in doubt is whether there was a conscious policy of genocide and mass
gassing. Although it is asserted that the Germans committed everything
to paper, no German document orders the extermination of Jews or refers
to gassings.
“The Germans did
commit their policy in relation to Jews on paper. It was one of
emigration to the east during the war and not one of extermination.
There are no authentic eye witnesses to any of the thousands of acts of
mass gassings, although if the gassings took place and say 2-3 million
bodies were taken from the chambers, there must have been thousands of
eye witnesses.
“No photographs
exist of bodies in gas chambers despite the oft-repeated allegation that
the nazis photographed their atrocities. The photographs of corpses used
in books and films to prove a policy of genocide are photos of victims
of typhus and malnutrition, especially at Belsen.
“The six million
legend was first circulated by The New York Times in 1942 at the
instigation of the World Jewish Congress, and was linked with the call
for a Jewish State in Palestine. The holocaust legend is still
extensively used for propaganda reasons to support the diplomatic
position of Israel. The legend is no more reliable than the atrocity
stories about genocide in Kampuchea and Uganda, or the 20 million killed
by Stalin legend.”
Bennett claims that
for a long time he had been a fanatical supporter of Israel. But he
became a supporter of the Palestinians after looking at their case
during the 3CR debate in Melbourne. It was one more step before he had
discovered “that I’d been conned for 30 years by the holocaust
propaganda.”
But according to Dr
Alan Hughes, Melbourne historian and, incidentally, president of the
Council for Civil Liberties, Bennett has a remarkable opponent – Albert
Speer, Hitler’s Minister for War Production. In a letter to The Age,
Hughes said: “In his memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer states
that the evidence of the Nazi accused was not distorted; that the
tribunal was conducted, in the main, with propriety; and that the Nazi
leaders freely admitted the policy of mass murder of the Jewish people
as manifest fact, while professing ‘shame’.
A quick glance at
Inside the Third Reich confirms Hughes point. Speer quotes a
prison-yard conversation with Goering, before the Nuremberg trials.
Something was said about Jewish survivors in Hungary. Writes Speer:
“Goering remarked coldly: ‘So there are still some there? I thought we
had knocked off all of them. Somebody slipped up again’.”
On page 697 Speer
writes: “Nor, for one who wanted to listen, had Hitler ever concealed
his intention to exterminate the Jewish people. In his speech of January
30, 1939, he openly stated as much.” And on page 766 Speer writes:
“Hitler repeated the announcement of his intentions on January 30, 1942:
‘This war will not end as the Jews imagined, by the extermination of the
European-Aryan peoples, but the outcome of this war will be the
annihilation of Jewry’.”
When the Bennett
controversy blew up earlier this year Dr Frank Knopfelmacher – whose
family died in the holocaust – said: “The Butz thesis is a group-libel
against an easily identifiable and traditionally stigmatized section of
the population…the Butz thesis implies clearly that the Jewish people
are witting and, rarely, unwitting accomplices in a conspiracy, to lie
and to kill, in order to acquire a counterfeit crown of martyrdom to be
used for personal and political gain’”.
Writing in The
Age, Knopfelmacher said: “The technique employed by Mr Bennett is
simple: he is using the methods of philosophical doubt (‘How do we know
that chairs exists?’, etc.) known to all Philosophy I students, to
dispute an empirical proposition namely that six million Jews were done
to death by the German Government throughout Hitler’s Chancellorship of
Germany.”
To Dr Rubinstein, a
social scientist at Deakin University, Bennett is an “autodidact”, that
is, someone who perversely refuses to accept any standard interpretation
of history and who is compelled to invent alternatives.
Does Bennett agree
this is the reason for his obsession – an obsession that has distressed
members of the Jewish community? He says: “As a bored public servant I
just find it intellectually stimulating to look into what is a massive
falsification of history. I am a detached cynic…we’re in very short
supply in this conformist society.”
***
Letters in reply,
The Bulletin
In the soup. A
Temesvary, Tottenham, NSW. Oct. 23, 1979
I refer to your
article “Lawyers bid to clear nazis”.
If a sexual pervert
went to a classy restaurant and urinated in a patron’s soup plate, you
would not publish the picture of the offender in the process concerned.
In turn, I wonder why you publish the imbecilities of Melbourne lawyer
John Bennett, whose inclination is obviously to expose himself in
public, if not in a physical then in a psychological sense.
That Bennett, 42,
is an honours graduate in law and arts from Melbourne University, does
not prove his sanity, and I think that many of our readers would
appreciate it if his case would be relegated to the pages of some
medical journal dealing with behavioural problems under the heading of
‘Exhibitionism’.
***
The Holocaust
‘hoax’
Mark Braham,
Vaucluse, NSW.
October 23, 1979
John Bennett is
showing little gratitude to his mentors, the pro-PLO factions of 3CR,
when he claims the holocaust was a “hoax”. He is in fact undermining a
basic tenet of the 3CR anti-Zionist platform: that the holocaust was
“planned by the Zionists” and carried out as a “Nazi-Zionist” joint
operation.
Has the time not
come when the affiliates of 3CR, on the one hand, and the members of the
Victorian Council for Civil Liberties, on the other, should begin to
show the same kind of concern for civil responsibilities as they do for
civil liberties and take a public stand against dangerously misleading
“theories” which are being propagated by extremist groups? They cannot
be laughed off: Germany was a democracy when Hitler rose to power by
cunningly utilizing age-old and irrational prejudices to lend credence
to canards of this genre.
***
Bennett stands firm
John Bennett,
Carlton, Victoria.
October 23, 1979
The article about
my personal views of the Holocaust was headed by the famous photo of the
ghetto boy with a caption “Terrified Jewish women and children on the
way to the gas chambers”. Like many other types of “evidence” of the
Holocaust, the photo is a fabrication. The people in the photo had been
arrested for theft, and the boy in the photo with his hands up is alive
and well in London.
The article itself
is headed “Lawyer’s bid to clear nazis”. I am not seeking to clear
nazis, but to establish historical truth. George Orwell wrote – “Who
controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls
the past.” In that sense it is already 1984. In fact Orwell believed it
was 1984 in 1948 since ‘1948’ was the title he wanted for his novel.
There has been a
successful attempt to exaggerate German war crimes and minimize allied
war crimes. Allied war crimes such as saturation civilian bombing of
German civilian cities leading to 800,000 deaths (compared with 60,000
from bombing in the UK) has been documented in The Bombing of Germany
by H Rumpf. This war crime is seldom mentioned in the media but it was
the only significant genocide policy in the war, and the number of
deaths caused by allied bombing aimed at civilians exceeded the number
of deaths due mainly to typhus and malnutrition in the German
concentration camps.
The caption to the
ghetto boy photo is only one of many lies associated with the Holocaust.
I have drawn up a list of about 60 such lies, fabrications and
deceptions. Since details in relation to gas chambers are fabrications,
it is not surprising that contradictions abound. “Historians” cannot
decide whether bodies in the gas chambers were horizontal or vertical;
whether work parties wore gas masks or not; whether the Auschwitz
chambers were transported to another camp and “went in oblivion”, were
demolished, or are still there; whether the victims resisted; whether
the victims were aware of their fate; whether Zyklon B or carbon
monoxide was used at Lublin where either less than 100,000 or more than
1,5 million were gassed; whether 250,000 “gassed” at Sobibor were buried
or cremated, etc. etc.
That the whole gas
chamber story is sheer fabrication has been demonstrated by Professor
Butz in his book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and by
Professor Faurisson in the prestigious French newspaper Le Monde.
Another key propaganda item in the Holocaust armory The Diary of Anne
Frank is also a fabrication in the sense that the diary was not
written by “Anne Frank”. This is demonstrated in a forthcoming book by D
Felderer.
Albert Speer stated
after the war that there was an extermination policy. But during the war
when he was in charge of the German war economy, including the
allocation of scarce labour and rail priority, he was not aware of such
a policy or of gassings. Neither were the German resistance to Hitler (a
who’s who in German society), the Vatican, or the Red Cross. If there
were an extermination policy or 800 mass gassings, Speer and the German
resistance would have been aware of it. Although I stated that I was
interested in the Holocaust legend because I found it intellectually
stimulating, my main interest lies in the fact that the Holocaust legend
is a key element in the uncritical support for Israel by the West, which
has alienated 800 million Muslims, has contributed to a six-fold
increase in oil prices and could lead to a world war.
As Dr Rubinstein,
who is referred to in The Bulletin article states, “Were the
Holocaust be shown to be a hoax, the number one weapon in Israel’s
propaganda armoury disappears.” It is because the Holocaust is Israel’s
number one propaganda weapon that it is referred to so often in the
media, and the reason why people who query the Holocaust are subject to
such hysterical attacks.
***
The real story.
George Mendelson, Melbourne, Victoria
Your writer Bob
Carr referred (September 18, P.47) to a book by A R Butz, Associate
Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Northwestern
University (Evanston, Illinois, USA, titled The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century. IN THIS BOOK, Butz makes the claim that nazi Germany did
not have an official and systematic policy of extermination of Jews, and
that it is not true that six million Jews were killed during the period
of Hitler’s rule.
The selective use
of documents, apparently deliberate omissions and misinterpretations of
evidence in Butz’ book have already been noted by historians who have a
detailed knowledge of that period, and who are familiar with the
relevant documentary evidence. In this respect, Butz’ book has been
successful only in the notoriety that it has achieved for its author,
and for those who have used it to support their own prejudices,
obsessions and – perhaps – delusions.
Your readers may be
interested to know that the following publication of Butz’ book, the
History Department at Northwestern University sponsored a series of
lectures under the title “Dimensions of the Holocaust”, designed to
increase awareness of the true nature of the destruction of European
Jewry. These lectures have now been published in book form and provide a
powerful and convincing rebuttal of Butz’ claim.
The foreword of
Dimensions of the Holocaust was written by the chairman of the
History Department, Lacey Baldwin Smith, who stated: “…it is the prime
obligation of the historian to combat indifference and to preserve the
message of history …it is also the task of the scholar to set the record
straight. There are always those who, for reasons of their own, seek to
deny or distort or subvert the evidence, and from the start the
Holocaust has had its apologists, its distorters and its deniers. There
is only one way of answering the prejudice, misrepresentation and
confusion perpetrated by those who traffic in untruth, and that it is to
set good scholarship against bad so that everyone can judge the evidence
for himself”.
***
Even the nazis
admit it
Dr W Rubinstein,
Deakin University, Belmont, Victoria, November 20, 1979
“The debate” on
John Bennett’s attempt to prove that the Holocaust was a hoax should be
buried rather than prolonged, but since he has several times repeated my
phrase about the Holocaust being the “number one weapon in Israel’s
propaganda armoury”, I fell entitled to add something.
There is no
anti-Zionist Jew (or non-Jew for that matter) who believes that the
Holocaust was a hoax. Anti-Zionist Jews like Menuhin and Lillienthal,
whose works he mendaciously claims are somehow ‘banned’ by Zionist
pressure, would regard Mr Bennett’s efforts as just as obscene as would
any supporter of Israel. Mr Bennett knows perfectly well that the most
vocal anti-Zionist radical Jew in Melbourne has devoted a considerable
effort to refuting his ridiculous “proofs” of the non-existence of the
Holocaust point by point. Mr Bennett consistently refuses to weigh the
infinity of evidence that the Holocaust occurred, and he should not be
surprised that he is regarded as a propagandist or an exhibitionist
crank.
It cannot be
emphasized too strongly that the top Nazis all freely admitted that the
Holocaust, the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews (and of non
Jews) was indeed Nazi policy, but that they were “just obeying orders”.
The latest
admission of the reality of the Holocaust comes from Gustav Wagner, the
deputy-commandant of Sobibor death camp in Poland, where 250,000 Jews
and Soviet prisoners-of-war were deliberately murdered in 1942 and 1943.
Wagner, now 68, lives in Brazil. His extradition as a war criminal has
been sought by four countries, but has been blocked by Brazilian courts
because of legal technicalities. Wagner was interviewed by the BBC
television program Panorama in June of this year, and his
interview was widely reported in the British press. Wagner said that he
“did not feel good” when he discovered that his job was to be
“extermination”, but eventually he “did not think” about his job because
it was “not our task to think about it”. Although “innocent human beings
had been destroyed”, after a while he “had no feelings any more” about
the mass killings. Wagner “knew it was wrong to kill Jews, but what
could he do when this was Hitler’s order?” Wagner added, somewhat
surprisingly, that he was not anti-semitic and was “not today an enemy
of the Jews”.
It is literally
unbelievable that a man with Mr Bennett’s views can remain a leading
figure in the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties – which presumably
exists to protect the rights of ethnic minorities – and this must surely
negate whatever credibility that organization enjoys.
***
The men who
whitewash Hitler
Gitta Sereny
writes a definitive article in the New Statesman
2 November
1979
Sereny’s article is
too long to be reprinted here but suffice to state that the article is
prefaced thus: “Academically
unnoticed, the pseudo-intellectual Right is creating an underworld of
contemporary history. Their claim, pressed with fresh masses of
‘evidence’, is denial of the Nazi war against the Jews: we, like others,
receive numerous mock-scholarly letters, akin to that (below) from
Richard Verrall of the National Front. Here Gitta Sereny demolishes the
neo-Nazi apologists, together with the commercial frivolity which
provides their opportunities.”
***
Letter from
Professor Arthur R Butz, Evanston, Illinois, USA
- to Editor, New
Statesman, Great Turnstile, London, England
18 November 1979
Dear Sir:
In general Gitta
Sereny’s few substantive arguments (NS, 2 November) are answered
in my book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Here I wish to
focus on one point that, in view of her remarks, can be profitably
developed: supposed “confessions” of German officials, either at trials
or in imprisonment after trials.
The key point is
that the objective served by such statements should be presumed to be
personal interest rather than historical truth. At a “trial” some
specific thing is to be tried, i.e. the court is supposed to
start by treating that thing as an open question.
The “extermination”
allegation has never been at question in any practical sense in any of
the relevant trials, and in some it has not been open to question in a
formal legal sense. The question was always only personal responsibility
in a context in which the extermination allegation was unquestionable.
Thus the “confessions” of Germans, which in all cases sought to deny or
mitigate personal responsibility, were merely the only defenses they
could present in their circumstances.
This is not exactly
“plea-bargaining”, where there is negotiation between prosecution and
defense, but it is related. All it amounts to is presenting a story that
it was possible for the court to accept. The logical dilemma is
inescapable once the defendant resolves to take the “trial” seriously.
To deny the legend was not the way to stay out of jail.
Moreover it is not
true, as Sereny implicitly asserts, that this logical dilemma no longer
holds when the defendant is serving a life sentence. If he is seeking
pardon or parole, he would not try to overturn what has already been
decided in court; that is not the way pardon or parole works. For
example, at the Frankfurt “Auschwitz Trial” of 1963-1965, so monstrous
were the supposed deeds of Robert Mulka that many thought his sentence
to 14 years at hard labor unduly light. Then, in a denouement that would
amaze all who have not studied this subject closely, Mulka was quietly
released less than four months later. However, if Mulka had claimed in
any plea (as he could have truthfully), either at his trial or
afterwards, that there were no exterminations at Auschwitz and that he
was in a position to know, then he would have served a full life
sentence in the former case and the full 14 years in the latter, if he
had lived that long.
It is not widely
known, but there have been many such instances – the subject is hard to
investigate1. In no instance would it have made any sense, in terms
of immediate self interest to deny the exterminations. That was not the
way to get out of jail.
A related point is
that it can be quite perilous, to put it mildly, for any German
to question the extermination legend. For example Dr Wilhelm Stäglich,
who was stationed near Auschwitz in 1944 in an anti-aircraft unit, has
published such opinions, and has been subjected legally formulated
persecution ever since2.
Even I, an American, have been the victim of the official repression in
Germany3. There is also the considerable
extra-legal repression that e.g. caused Axel Springer, West German
“press czar” and supposedly a powerful man, to withdraw the first
edition of Hellmut Diwald’s Geschichte der Deutsche, as Sereny
mentioned.
We do not need
“confessions” or “trials” to determine that the bombings of Dresden and
Hiroshima, or the reprisals at Lidece following Heydrich’s
assassination, really took place. Now, the extermination legend does not
claim a few instances of homicide, but alleges events continental in
geographical scope, of three years in temporal scope, and of several in
scope of victims. How ludicrous, then, is the position of the bearers of
the legend, who in the last analysis will attempt to “prove” such events
on the basis of “confessions” delivered under the fabric of hysteria,
censorship, intimidation, persecution and blatant illegality that has
been shrouding this subject for 35 years.
I have enclosed
photocopies of the referenced documentation for your examination.
Sincerely, A R
Butz.
1.Los Angeles
Examiner,
2 September 1979, p. E2.
2.Die Zeit,
25 May 1979, p. 5.
3.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 16 June 1979, p.23.
***
Letter from
Professor Robert Faurisson, Vichy, France
Re: “The men who whitewash Hitler”, G. Sereny, New
Statesman, November 2, 1979.
30 November 1979
Noam Chomsky, the
famous professor (of Jewish origin) at the MIT (Cambridge, Mass.), is
aware of the research work I do on what the Revisionist historians call
the “gas chambers and genocide hoax”. He informed me that Gitta Sereny
had mentioned my name in an article in your journal. He told me I had
been referred to “in an extra-ordinarily unfair way”.
I have just read
this article which is an insult to all those who, without political
motivation, devote themselves to the discovery of historical truth
following the routine of historical research. It is especially outraging
to my fellow countryman Paul Rassinier, a former deportee who died in
1967 and sacrificed his life to the service of truth and to the
denunciation of an enormous historical lie.
“There is no proof
whatsoever that Nero set fire to Rome”: The historian who first said
that did not want to “whitewash” Nero; he was only concerned by truth.
In the same way, we do not try to “whitewash” Hitler when we say that
there is not the slightest proof that he ordered or even that there was
an “extermination” of Jews. Persecution existed but not “extermination”,
“genocide” or “holocaust”. G Sereny is unable to offer a single item of
evidence. She mentioned the document NO-765: now, this letter is
not even signed. She mentioned the “Commissar Order”; now, the meaning
of this order is not what she thinks; clearly she has not read the
document she quotes; she ought to have a look at NOKW-I076. She
mentioned the “Aktion Reinhardt”; now, this meant the confiscation of
property of deported Jews and did not imply any mass killing.
She quotes a letter
published in Die Zeit by Professor Broszat; now, I wonder if she
read this letter which is not of 1962 but of 1960 (19 August, p. 16).
This letter quite clearly states that, after all, there was no
mass-killing in “gas chambers” either at Dachau nor even anywhere in the
former Reich. May I remind you that until 1960 we were supposed to have
thousands of proofs, eye-witness evidence and confessions on the alleged
mass killings at Dachau, Ravensbrück, Buchenwald and so on. We have to
admit that the authors of such confessions (Suhren, Schwarzhuber, Dr
Treite, …) had been subjected to “persuasive questioning” on the part of
the French, British and American gaolers. This should give food for
thought as far as confessions are concerned. Rudolf Höss (not to be
confused with Rudolf Hess still imprisoned at Spandau) has been one of
the three successive commandants of Auschwitz. He is the only one to
have left confessions. These confessions are preposterous in the
extreme. Besides the Treblinka and Belzec camps he has invented a third
camp at Wolzek. Now Wolzek is not to be found on the map of Poland. Höss
was then handed over to Polish police by the British. After a comedy of
justice, he was hanged by the Communists. Meanwhile he was allowed to
write a confession in the best tradition of the Moscow trials. To
explain the absurdities of his declarations to the British they allowed
him to recall that he had been tortured by the British Field Security
Police with “riding whip and alcohol”, then how at Minden-on-Weser a
British Major who was a magistrate had also tortured him. And so, on the
5th of April 1946, the British had compelled Höss to sign an
affidavit typed in English (PS–3868). Ten days later, Höss
appeared as witness before the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg and made astonishing revelations on Auschwitz to all the
world. But in fact it was not Höss who was speaking on this particular
day but the shadow of himself just able to answer “Yes” when questioned
by the American Prosecutor who was reading the so-called affidavit
paragraph by paragraph (selected fragments) asking Höss, who according
to many people was in a state “schizophrenic apathy” if he agreed.
About the tortures
systematically inflicted on the German soldiers and officers by the
American one should read Sir Reginald Thomas’ book: Manstein, His
Campaign And His Trial (Collins, 1951). On page 109 I read that the
Simpson Enquiry Commission “reported among other things that of hundred
and thirty-nine cases they had investigated hundred and thirty-seven had
their testicles permanently destroyed by kicks received from the
American War Crimes Investigation Team”.
Tortures are
indispensable and it is sufficient as too many journalists do, to
pretend the accused had made statements they never made. To give an
example, the general public believes that Sergeant Franz Gustav Wagner
has cynically declared in Sao Paulo: “At Sobibor, we used to gas
thousands of people and this did not disturb me in the least: it was my
job.” In fact, a paper like Le Monde, which is sometimes well
informed has revealed that Wagner had declared he had never taken part
in any assassination of Jews or any other inmate but that he was only
doing his job. As you see, some journalist had decided that this job
consisted in killing people.
The journalists who
do not care about truth take their example on the magistrates of every
country (an in particular of Western Germany) who, for 35 years, pretend
to judge “war criminals” (a phrase imagined by the victors and applied
only to the vanquished). The Nürnberg International Tribunal has given
the model of indifference to truth. Here are some extracts of its
statutes: (Article 19) “The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical
rules of evidence (…)”; (Article 21) “The Tribunal shall not require
proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice
thereof (…)”.
The Institute for
Historical Review of Torrance, California, has offered a reward of
$50,000 to anyone who should bring definite proof that Germans have used
“gas chambers” to kill Jews. G Sereny might be interested.
Zyklon B is
cyanhydric acid, still used in France to disinfect ships. It strongly
adheres to surfaces. To enter a place which has been disinfected with
it, one has to wait nearly 24 hours of natural aeration (not
ventilation). Now, here is my question: How could the members of the
“Sonderkommado” enter the lethal “gas chamber” immediately or shortly,
as it is said, after the death of the victims and this while eating or
smoking, that is to say, if I understand right, without even a gas mask?
How could they pull out with their naked hands thousands of cyanided
corpses bathing in an atmosphere full of cyanhydric acid? How could they
cut hair, pull out teeth and so on, when in an American little gas
chamber forty operations are needed (including partial neutralization of
cyanhydric acid by ammonia) before going into the cubicle with gas
masks, rubber gloves and apron carefully to clean the corpse of the dead
man in order that the doctor and his assistants should not be poisoned?
If the German had not cared about the health of the “Sonderkommando”
members these men would have died on the spot and so the “gas chamber”
would have never received new batches of victims.
The aerial
photographies of Auschwitz recently published by the CIA show that
everything is in complete contradiction with what self-styled
eyewitnesses have told us about human crowds waiting before being
murdered and about the heavy smoke perpetually raising from the
crematories.
As to Sobibor and
Treblinka, one should read G Sereny’s book: Into That Darkness,
Andre Deutsch, 1974. In 70 hours of talks with Franz Stangl, G Sereny
has not asked one precise question about the gas chambers (What kind of
gas? What kind of technique? Which kind of process? How many people to
kill? How was it possible to enter the “gas chamber” after the death of
the victims?). There is not even one precision or one proof of the
existence of one single “gas chamber” in Sobibor or Treblinka. G Sereny
does not even give the real plans of the camps!
I am neither a
former nazi or a neo-nazi and I hate fascism and any form of
persecution. Because I have declared that “gas chambers” and “genocide”
are one and the same historical lie, I am covered with abuse, I have
been assaulted, I cannot even give lectures in my university (not on
account of the hostility of my students who all have been quite
correct). I am prosecuted. My life has become most difficult but it has
a purpose and I know I shall go my way. It is my duty.
R Faurisson.
***
John Bennett,
Letter to the Editor, The Age, Melbourne, Australia, 15 April
1980.
Re: War Propaganda.
Dear Sir,
Mr R Manne (9/4)
infers that I believe that all atrocity stories are Hoaxes. This is
incorrect. I believe that all major atrocity stories must have a
substantial element of truth to gain acceptance. Thus there were
appalling conditions and high death rates in the concentration camps run
by the British in the Boer War, the German camps of WW2, and the
detention centers of Pol Pot. But allegations that there was mass
genocide by the British, the Nazis, Pol Pot and Idi Amin will not stand
up to critical examination.
Few people now
believe that Pol Pot killed three million (like most atrocity estimates,
a figure plucked out of the air) of the 7 million people of Cambodia,
although his policies such as evacuation of cities led to many deaths
often from disease and malnutrition. The three million genocide story
has been forgotten in the media because of Australia’s foreign policy
requirements.
Many people
acquainted with the research of Professors H Diwald, R Faurisson, A
Butz, J Martin and H Barnes, do not accept that the Germans had a policy
to exterminate Jews in World War two or that there were gassings in ‘gas
chambers’. Revisionist Historians, however, concede that the German
policy of ‘final solution by evacuation to the east” directly led to the
deaths of many Jews especially from typhus and malnutrition.
Mr Manne makes no
substantive point at all, but relies on words like “comic” and “bizarre”
to denigrate me. He does not even deal with the main point of my letter
about alleged Russian atrocities in Afghanistan.
It is because
atrocity stories are so effective as propaganda weapons that people who
query them are vilified, and subjected to political censorship.
Thus the historians
mentioned above who have queried “the Holocaust”, which is described by
Zionist Jews as Israels’ number one propaganda weapon, have been
attacked in a four-page article in the New Statesman (2/11/79)
and all have denied a right to reply. Similar political censorship
exists in Australia.
Your Rights
controversy: 1984-1992
_________________________________________________________
Handbook ‘anti-Jewish’
The Advertiser, 27 March 1984
A civil rights
handbook distributed throughout Australia was attacked yesterday by an
SA civil liberties organization for having anti-Semitic content. The
president of the SA Council of Civil Liberties, Mr M E Davies, said his
council could “in no way associate ourselves “ with the book Your
Rights 1984 by John Bennett. Bennett is the secretary of the
Victorian Council of Civil Liberties and has been producing the book for
more than 10 years.
“In the past there
have been no complaints about the book,” Mr Davies said. “It has always
contained pertinent and very useful legal and civil rights information.
But now this man has deemed it appropriate to add a chapter containing,
in part, his own anti-Jewish view of the world.”
Bennett said the
chapter, “1984 – Was Orwell Right?” was not out of character with the
rest of the book. “This is a civil liberties book and I feel the chapter
helps show how the present and future are shaped by the deliberate
controlling of the past,” Bennett said.
In the book Bennett
claims 500,000Jews instead of 6 million died in German concentration
camps during World War II. He claims most died from diseases and that
there were no mass gassings or deliberate plans to eliminate Europe’s
Jews.
Mr Davies said
Bennett was “a breakaway” from the Victorian council and did not speak
for the majority of civil liberties organizations in Australia.
Bennett’s use of the Victorian council’s name in no way showed it
supported his views.
Rabbi J Kahn of the
Adelaide Liberal Jewish Community said: “It’s tragic to hear that there
are people in this country who want to incite such hatred.” Rabbi Kahn
said that although it was nonsense to suggest only 500,000 Jews were
killed, it wasn’t a question of how many died, “but that Hitler set out
to exterminate all the Jews of Europe.”
When contacted by
The Advertiser yesterday the Mary Martin, Liberty , City,
Standard, and Angus and Robertson bookshops said they did not carry the
book and did not know of any stores in Adelaide which did.
In Melbourne, a
Federal Court judge was told yesterday that parts of the book were
“racist slander” and were offensive to the Jewish community.
Mr A Goldberg, QC,
was appearing for another Victorian QC, Mr Aaron Ronald Castan, who is
seeking five injunctions preventing distribution of the book. The
hearing was adjourned to today.
***
Evans angry at book
attribution
West Australian,
28 March 1984
Melbourne: The
Attorney-General, Senator Evans, said yesterday that anti-Semitic
comments included in a booklet on civil rights were anathema to him. In
an affidavit read to the Federal Court, Senator Evans said he wished to
dissociate himself from the booklet, Your Rights 1984, written by
John Bennett.
Evans said that a
review of the book by him and reprinted on the back cover had been
written about an earlier edition of the book. “If I had been asked to
endorse or approve the booklet in any way before it was published (which
I was not) I would have refused to do so in any form having regard to
the contents of Chapter 14,” he said.
Offensive
On Monday, Mr
Justice Jenkinson, was told by Mr Alan Goldberg, QC, that a chapter
added to the 1984 edition of the book contained material offensive to
Jews, including comments that the World War holocaust was the “hoax of
the twentieth century.”
Mr Goldberg,
appearing for another Victorian QC, Aaron Ronald Castan, is seeking a
Federal Court injunction against Bennett, Gordon and Gotch Pty Ltd,
McGills Authorised Newsagency Pty Ltd, Collins Booksellers Pty Ltd, and
Technical Book and Magazine Co Pty Ltd, preventing the distribution and
sale of the book.
Castan says that
favourable reviews of the book reprinted on its back cover were written
about earlier editions of Civil Rights [sic].
Mr Goldberg told Mr
Justice Jenkinson on Monday that the case was based on alleged breaches
of Section 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act, alleging deceptive and
misleading conduct.
Bennett told the
court yesterday that the proceedings raise very important issues in
relation to book censorship and freedom of speech. He said that
statements by Mr Goldberg that the granting of injunctions was a matter
of “grave urgency” were untrue as the book had been on sale for five
weeks. “It was said that Chapter 14 does not deal with civil liberties,”
Bennett said.
Actively
“I do not say that
I am the only person who knows anything about civil liberties, but I
have been associated actively with civil liberties for over 20 years.”
The judge adjourned
the hearing till 9.45 am on Friday. He made an order restraining Gordon
and Gotch from distributing, selling or offering the book for sale.
Collins, McGills
and Technical were not served properly with court documents and so did
not appear yesterday.
***
Human Rights
Commission, Canberra City, ACT. 13 April 1984
Dear Mr Bennett
When I acknowledged
receipt of a copy of the special Orwell 1984 edition of Your Rights,
I glanced quickly at it, and noted that it appeared to be an updating of
the previous edition.
However, I now see
that a whole new section has been introduced into the text to the effect
that the Holocaust did not take place. I regard this material as both
inaccurate and offensive. It detracts greatly from the worth of the
publication and is inserted in such a way that the busy reader skimming
over the topics dealt within the book, is readily mislead into assuming
it is a citizen’s guide to the law and nothing more. Indeed, it was on
that assumption that I wrote to you on 7 March.
On more mature
consideration it is my view that it is regrettable that it was seen fit
to publish the book, and I am returning the copy you sent me. I do hope
it will be re-published in a form that adheres to its original purpose
of a citizen’s guide to the law, which as before I would find most
helpful.
Yours sincerely, P
H Bailey, Deputy Chairman.
***
The International
Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
Invites you and
your friends to the home of Mr and Mrs Abe Monester, QC, at 25 Studley
Avenue, Kew, on Sunday 27th May 1984, at 7.45 pm. to hear our
guest speakers – Mr Alan Goldberg QC and Mr Jack Fajgenbaum address us
on the topic – “John Bennett – 3CR Free Speech and the Jewish
Community”. A light supper will be served after the meeting
***
“Racist” book
attacked, by Walt Secord, Australian Jewish News, 27 March 1992
A new South Wales
State Labor parliamentarian has attacked John Bennett’s Your Rights
1991 – a layman’s guide to legal issues which includes passages
questioning the extent of the Holocaust. Australian Labor Party state
member Peter Nagle, representing Auburn, launched an attack on the
Victorian publication in parliament last week after he and a number of
other politicians received copies in the mail.
Describing it as a
“racist piece of literature” he said it is the “greatest piece of racial
discrimination ever perpetrated on the people of NSW”.
Mr Nagle told the
Australian Jewish News that members from both sides of the House
were “appalled” by the book.
“I hope no
government will ever sponsor Mr Bennett and his so-called Australian
Civil Liberties Union,” Mr Nagle told parliament. “It also gives advice
to tax payers and that terrifies be as well.”
He quoted from the
book a passage which questions the Holocaust. As president of the
Australian Civil Liberties Union, Mr Bennett continues to publish Your
Rights each year with updated versions.
The Your Rights
1992 edition has been recently released, but a section on the Holocaust
has been withdrawn and replaced with a passage on immigration and
multiculturalism
***
Jewish huff and
puff and a valiant woman who refuses to bend to Jewish pressure.
1st July 1985
Mrs. Joyce Steele
O.B.E.
Wattle Park, South
Australia
Dear Mrs. Steele,
I am writing to you
in my capacity as Chairman of the Anti-Defamation Committee of the
Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the official roof body of
Australia's Jewish community, about a serious and disturbing matter
which concerns yourself.
The back cover of
the recently published 1985 edition of John Bennett's Your Right 1985
contains an endorsement of this book by yourself, together with a number
of other similar endorsements. I attach a photocopy of this back cover
in case you are unaware of this fact.
Given your
distinguished record of achievement on the South Australian and
Australian political scene, you are probably unaware that by your
endorsement of Bennett's booklet, you appear to lend the weight of you
personal reputation, as well as that of the South Australian Liberal
Party, to the approval of what the entire Australian Jewish community
regards as one of the most vile and offensive pieces of anti-Semitic
racism to be published in Australia in recent years.
Although Mr.
Bennett's book may indeed contain civil liberties information of value,
you may be aware that for some years John Bennett has continuously been
publicizing the outrageous and wholly untrue lie that the Nazi Holocaust
involving six million Jews during the Second World War – the mass murder
of six million Jewish men, women and children by Hitler and the Nazis –
did not occur but was a lie invented after the war by lying Jews for
financial and political ends. Since you have read Mr. Bennett's Your
Rights 1984 you will be aware of the odious lie which he repeats on
pages 77-78 of his book, photocopies of which are attached. In an effort
to whitewash the Nazis, Bennett also states (page 72, also attached)
that ”Hate sessions in the media directed against Hitler and the Nazis
are so pervasive that a visitor from Mars might think WW II is still in
progress." Numerous other statements attacking the Jewish people are
also to be found in this work.
Internationally
such pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic statements have almost entirely been
confined to obviously crank and extremist neo-Nazi groups in Europe and
America while in Australia their main source of propagation, apart from
Mr. Bennett, is The League of Rights, the extreme right-wing body known
for its anti-Asian, anti-Aboriginal and anti-Semitic racist attitudes.
We find it both
surprising and regrettable that a former public official of your
distinction is seen to lend the weight of her reputation to a view which
is an obvious and total distortion of history and an insult to the many
millions of victims of Nazi oppression. Your endorsement of a book
containing Bennett's extremist and racist views will, we believe, come
as a considerable shock to your many admirer, both in South Australia
and elsewhere and will tarnish your high reputation for fairminded
public service. It also gives considerable distress to Australia's
Jewish community, especially to the 10,000 or more Australian Jews who
survived Hitler's concentration camps, while your endorsement may help
to legitimize the use of Bennett's work in schools and universities. We
are also sure that your endorsement would be greeted with both amazement
and consternation by the South Australian Liberal Party and by the South
Australian media, should it become known.
In all the
circumstances it would seem desirable and appropriate that you should
disassociate yourself from Bennett's anti-Semitic. views and I would be
most grateful if you could take some appropriate steps to this end.
Yours faithfully
Alan H Goldberg
Chairman,
Anti-Defamation
Committee E.C.A.J.
_________________________
Mrs Joyce Steele
courteously responded in writing that she had received the letter and
had noted its contents – and called his bluff. Nothing happened to her.
Some time later, solicitor and barrister Alan Goldberg was appointed a
judge to the Federal Court of Australia.
***
Rewriting the
Holocaust
Crusader for
truth or Holocaust denier?
Penelope Debelle follows the career of
Fredrick Töben.
Penelopy
Debelle, The Age, 17 April 1999
“Wish me luck,” Dr
Fredrick Töben posted on his Web site at the end of March as he left
Eastern Europe and entered Germany on a provocative research mission in
the cause of Holocaust revisionism.
A fortnight later,
the German-born Australian school teacher found himself in jail in
Mannheim.
Dr Töben, who runs
the international Holocaust forum, the Adelaide Institute, primarily
through a well-organized Web site, is expected to be in jail for at
least the next three to four months until a hearing is held.
After that, bail is
likely to be set at a level which his Australian lawyer, Mr John
Bennett, from the Australian Civil Liberties Union, expects to be as
high as $100,000 and is unlikely to be met. A court case will then be
fought accusing Dr Töben of defaming the dead, a charge introduced in
Germany specifically to curb Holocaust denial. According to Mr Bennett
who will go to Germany for Dr Töben's hearing, the charge carries a
possible jail sentence of five years.
Dr Töben says he is
not a Holocaust denier. “No-one denies that this terrible thing
happened,” Dr Töben told me in 1996 interview. “We are looking at the
allegations that Germans systematically killed people, specifically
Jews, in homicidal gas chambers.”
His Adelaide
Institute colleague, David Brockschmidt, who knew Oskar Schindler and
says his father organized the work permits for 1,200 Jews to travel from
Poland to Schindler’s Czech factory says Dr Töben is a courageous man, a
free and independent thinker and truth-seeker. None of us are neo-Nazis
or any nonsense which the other side – especially organized Jewry – is
trying to throw on us,” Brockschmidt days. “One of our major jobs is to
divide the historical fact from the hysterical fact of war propaganda.
If you have a few loonies of the neo-Nazi Right who hop on the bandwagon
and use that, that’s too bad and we cannot stop that, but more than 90
per cent of us, I can tell you, are serious people.”
Brockschmidt met
Töben in Adelaide at a viewing of the Steven Spielberg movie
Schindler’s List. The film, he said was Hollywood Zionist propaganda
soap opera. I couldn’t believe what this Hollywood man Steven Spielberg
made out of it,” Brockschmidt says. “It’s a sad thing that these people
have to forget history all the time to get what they want.”
Brockschmidt
introduced himself to Töben and was immediately impressed with the
institute and his work. It is neither racist nor anti-Semitic,” he says,
“but scientific research. “History and the Holocaust has nothing to do
with race,” he says. “It’s history, facts and figures – nothing more.”
Jeremy Jones, the
Sydney-based director of community affairs for the Australia, Israel and
Jewish Affairs Council, says his office received distressed calls from
Holocaust survivors and their children after Töben's Web site – which
can be found using the word Auschwitz in a search engine – began in
early 1996.
As well as being
investigated by the Human Rights Commission after complaints by the
Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, it is the continuing subject of
direct complaint by Mr Jones’ council under the Federal Racial Hatred
Act.
“Fredrick Töben is
one of a number of Australians who has sought to offend, insult,
intimidate or bring into contempt Jewish Australians through the vehicle
of Holocaust denial.”
Mr Jones said,
“Neither he nor his colleagues deserve anything but the contempt of all
thinking Australians.”
Mr Töben, 55, is a
driven man. Born in Jade, northern Germany in 1944, he emigrated to
Australia when he was 10 to live with his family at Edenhope, western
Victoria. He has Bachelor of Arts degrees from Melbourne and Wellington
universities, and a Ph D in English and Philosophy from Melbourne [- sic
=University of Stuttgart].
He went on to teach
at Goroke Consolidated School near Edenhope, but in 1985 [-sic = 1984]
fell foul of the Victorian Education Department and was sacked,
allegedly for incompetence and disobedience. Töben, who after that drove
a school bus to earn money, took the Education Department to court,
claiming wrongful dismissal. His claim was upheld and he was awarded a
small sum but was not re-employed, although he tutored in sociology for
a time at Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education, now a Deakin
University campus. He wrote a book about the sacking called Bloodied
but Unbowed [- sic =The Boston-Curry Party].
After moving to
South Australia, Dr Töben has worked sporadically as a temporary relief
teacher but his employment record shows only one day of relief teaching
last year and none in 1999.
Over the past five
years the Adelaide Institute and its pursuit of a Holocaust without the
Auschwitz gas chambers and with far fewer casualties has become his
passion. This journey, he says, is the final intellectual challenge of
the twentieth century. “We are worried about the fact that to date it
has been impossible to reconstruct a homicidal gas chamber,” Töben
writes of the institute’s forensically-based mission to prove, or
disprove the Holocaust. “Even the Holocaust Museum in Washington
informed us that it could not bring one across from Europe because there
are none available. This is like a space museum without a rocket or the
Vatican without a crucifix.”
Brockschmidt is
expecting a media backlash against the Adelaide Institute but overall,
with Töben in jail, business could not be better. “We are extremely
happy about it because the feedback coming from all over the world is
fantastic,” he said. “And they are creating a martyr.”
Historical note:
The Nazi Holocaust
of Jewish people in World War II is one of the most thoroughly
researched subjects of modern history. Scholars agree the total number
killed is between 5.8 million and 6.6 million and that nearly a third of
those were murdered in death camps, many by the use of poison gas or
diesel exhaust.
*
Thoughts of
Fredrick Töben
1. The Holocaust:
Those
who level the homicidal gassing allegations at the Germans owe it to the
world to come up with irrefutable evidence that this happened.
2. At Auschwitz:
Swimming
pool for inmates’ use. Auschwitz also had a brothel, theatre, post
office – even an orchestra. A stupid story is told by some “survivors”
how the orchestra would play as the people were whipped into the gas
chambers!
3. We question:
The
allegation that Germans planned, constructed, and used huge chemical
slaughterhouses, mainly at Auschwitz, wherein they exterminated European
Jewry. Source: Adelaide Institute.
*
German bid to
muzzle Internet, by Penelopy Debell
Germany will use
its prosecution of the Adelaide-based Holocaust revisionist, Dr Fredrick
Töben, to try to erect national boundaries over the Internet. Dr Töben,
arrested in Mannheim, Germany, last week for publicly disputing the mass
murder of Jews, is being charged over material posted on his Adelaide
Institute Web site. The Australian online liberty group said because the
material was downloaded in Germany it was being treated as a German
publication for which Dr Töben was liable under laws prohibiting
Holocaust denial. The charges were separate from those arising from Dr
Töben's conversation with a government prosecutor, Mr Hans Klein, and
which led to his arrest.
West Australian
lawyer, Mr Kimberley Heitman, chairman of Electronic Frontiers
Australia, said the German Government was in effect deciding it intended
to legislate for the entire world. But Mr Heitman said its attempt to
enforce this in an international medium forum were likely to be futile.
“As a result we should simply acknowledge that the global Internet is
the sort of resource where the opinion of one Government doesn’t mean
much,” Mr Heitman said.
Germany has made
three similar attempts to bring the Internet to heel, without much
success. The American Internet service provider Compuserve voluntarily
censures pornographic material from its service feeds in a clumsy
attempt to meet Germany’s concerns but Mr Heitman said the material
simply turned up on other providers.
___________________________
Mauerproben aus Auschwitz - Germar
Rudolf vor Gericht
Von unserem Redaktionsmitglied Alexander Müller
Mannheimer Morgen 3 November 2006
Mannheim: Er bittet auf seiner Homepage seine Anhänger
darum, ihm CDs von Celine Dion, Enya und Lionel Ritchie ins Gefängnis zu
schicken. Sein mindestens diskussionswürdiger Musikgeschmack ist aber
nicht der Grund, warum sich der Limburger Chemiker Germar Rudolf ab 14.
November vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht verantworten muss. Die Anklage
wirft dem 41-Jährigen vor, über eine Internet-Seite und durch verschiedene
Publikationen den Völkermord der Nazis an den Juden systematisch geleugnet
und außerdem durch "antisemitische Hetze zum Hass gegen die jüdische
Bevölkerung aufgestachelt" zu haben. Auch Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel,
gegen den derzeit ebenfalls wegen Volksverhetzung in Mannheim verhandelt
wird, hat sich in seinen rechtsextremistischen Hetzschriften auf den
Angeklagten bezogen, aber wohl nicht direkt mit ihm zusammengearbeitet. "Während
Zündel ein glühender Anhänger des Nationalsozialismus und bei ihm der
Antisemitismus leichter ablesbar ist, nimmt Rudolf für sich in Anspruch,
wissenschaftlich nach der Wahrheit zu suchen", sagt Staatsanwalt Andreas
Grossmann.
Rudolf hatte als Mitarbeiter am Stuttgarter Max-Planck-Institut
im früheren Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau Mauerproben entnommen.
Im so genannten Rudolf-Gutachten behauptete er daraufhin, in den
Gesteinsresten nur kleine Rückstände des Vernichtungsgases Zyklon B
gefunden zu haben. Seine heftig attackierte Schlussfolgerung: Dort könne
kein Massenmord an Menschen stattgefunden haben. Für ein "naturwissenschaftlich
aufgemachtes Scheingutachten" hält die Staatsanwaltschaft diese
Untersuchung, die Rudolf nicht nur die Kündigung beim Max-Planck-Institut
einbrachte, sondern 1995 auch eine 14-monatige Haftstrafe wegen
Volksverhetzung. Der Chemiker, zeitweise auch Mitglied bei den
Republikanern, flüchtete ins Ausland, bevor er 2005 aus den USA in die
Bundesrepublik abgeschoben wurde. Die Ermittlungen des früheren Mannheimer
Staatsanwalts Hans-Heiko Klein sorgten genau wie bei Zündel dafür, dass in
der Kurpfalz verhandelt wird.
Vertreten wird Rudolf vor Gericht von drei Bekannten aus
dem Zündel-Prozess: der wegen Sabotage des Verfahrens ausgeschlossenen
Sylvia Stolz, dem Hamburger Neonazi-Anwalt Jürgen Rieger und Ludwig Bock.
Angesetzt sind sieben Verhandlungstage bis Ende Januar, was nach den
Erfahrungen mit obigem Verteidiger-Trio im Zündel-Prozess aber nicht
ausreichen dürfte. Der Angeklagte hat bereits angekündigt, sich zum
Auftakt ausführlich äußern zu wollen.
Das Landgericht lehnte es indes ab, parallel zu Rudolf auch
das Verfahren gegen den belgischen Neonazi Siegfried Verbeke zu eröffnen.
Gegen diese Entscheidung hat die Staatsanwaltschaft Rechtsmittel eingelegt.
Brief translation:
Germar Rudolf’s trial begins at Mannheim on 14 November 2006. His defence
counsel consist of Sylvia Stolz, Jürgen Rieger and Ludwig Bock.Germar has
indicated he will not be silent during the proceedings and will offer a
detailed account of his work to the court.The Landgericht
rejected commencing parallel proceedings against Siegfried Verbeke, who
currently is free in Belgium. The public prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann, is
appealing against this court decision.
Germar Rudolf – the powerhouse ofREVISIONISM
currently a POW in his native Germany currently occupied by those who
propagate the Holocaust lies.
___________________________
French woman among
winners of Iran Holocaust cartoon contest
By Shirli Sitbon, 02 November 2006
PARIS/TEHRAN (EJP/AFP)--- French cartoonist Chard arrived second in the
controversial competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, the official site
of the contest announced on Wednesday.
Chard, whose real name is Françoise Pichard, collaborates in two French
extreme-right newspapers, Rivarol (since 1967) and Present (since 1982)
and criticises Muslims as well as Jews and most political leaders who do
not share her racist views. She also illustrates children’s books.
Contacted
by journalists from the Nouvel Observateur magazine, Chard said she didn’t
send any drawing to the Iranian competition since she didn’t even have the
application address and that someone else may have sent it in.
Iranian Culture Minister Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi announced on
Wednesday the names of the contest winners but added that the French
cartoonist’s name wouldn’t be released in order to protect her from
possible prosecution in her homeland. He referred to the French law
prohibiting Shoah (Holocaust) denial.
The pair will share a prize of 8,000 dollars. France is home to the
world’s second largest Jewish community outside Israel, as well as
Europe’s largest Muslim population.
The first prize of 12,000 dollars went to Moroccan Abdullah Derkawi who
drew a crane bearing the Star of David at work on a section of Israel’s
West Bank separation barrier that he depicted bearing a photograph of the
gateway to the Auschwitz death camp.
"The Holocaust is a myth and this issue has finally made waves thanks to
the action of President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad in daring to express himself
on the subject and break the Holocaust taboo," Saffar-Harandi said as he
announced the prize winners.
None of the foreign winners were present at the award ceremony. Massoud
Shojai, one of the organizers of the contest first announced in February,
blamed "political pressure" for their absence.
Iran announced the competition following the re-publication in a number of
mainly European newspapers of Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
Ahmadinejad has sparked a chorus of international criticism with a series
of statements calling into question the massacre of millions of Jewish
civilians by Nazi Germany during World War II.
During a visit to the United States in September, his reformist
predecessor Mohammad Khatami insisted Ahmadinejad did not mean to question
the Holocaust itself but its use to defend the creation of a Jewish state
on Palestinian land.
"I believe the Holocaust is the crime of Nazism," Khatami told Time
magazine.
"But it is possible that the Holocaust, which is an absolute fact, a
historical fact, would be misused. The Holocaust should not be, in any
way, an excuse for the suppression of Palestinian rights," the former
president told the New York-based news weekly.
"I personally believe that he (Ahmadinejad) really didn’t deny the
existence of the Holocaust," he added.
Er bittet auf seiner Homepage seine
Anhänger darum, ihm CDs von Celine Dion, Enya und Lionel Ritchie ins Gefängnis
zu schicken. Sein mindestens diskussionswürdiger Musikgeschmack ist aber nicht
der Grund, warum sich der Limburger Chemiker Germar Rudolf ab 14. November vor
dem Mannheimer Landgericht verantworten muss. Die Anklage wirft dem 41-Jährigen
vor, über eine Internet-Seite und durch verschiedene Publikationen den
Völkermord der Nazis an den Juden systematisch geleugnet und außerdem durch
"antisemitische Hetze zum Hass gegen die jüdische Bevölkerung
aufgestachelt" zu haben. Auch Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel, gegen den
derzeit ebenfalls wegen Volksverhetzung in Mannheim verhandelt wird, hat sich
in seinen rechtsextremistischen Hetzschriften auf den Angeklagten bezogen, aber
wohl nicht direkt mit ihm zusammengearbeitet. "Während Zündel ein
glühender Anhänger des Nationalsozialismus und bei ihm der Antisemitismus
leichter ablesbar ist, nimmt Rudolf für sich in Anspruch, wissenschaftlich nach
der Wahrheit zu suchen", sagt Staatsanwalt Andreas Grossmann.
Rudolf hatte
als Mitarbeiter am Stuttgarter Max-Planck-Institut im früheren
Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau Mauerproben entnommen. Im so genannten
Rudolf-Gutachten behauptete er daraufhin, in den Gesteinsresten nur kleine
Rückstände des Vernichtungsgases Zyklon B gefunden zu haben. Seine heftig
attackierte Schlussfolgerung: Dort könne kein Massenmord an Menschen
stattgefunden haben. Für ein "naturwissenschaftlich aufgemachtes
Scheingutachten" hält die Staatsanwaltschaft diese Untersuchung, die
Rudolf nicht nur die Kündigung beim Max-Planck-Institut einbrachte, sondern
1995 auch eine 14-monatige Haftstrafe wegen Volksverhetzung. Der Chemiker,
zeitweise auch Mitglied bei den Republikanern, flüchtete ins Ausland, bevor er
2005 aus den USA in die Bundesrepublik abgeschoben wurde. Die Ermittlungen des
früheren Mannheimer Staatsanwalts Hans-Heiko Klein sorgten genau wie bei Zündel
dafür, dass in der Kurpfalz verhandelt wird.
Vertreten wird
Rudolf vor Gericht von drei Bekannten aus dem Zündel-Prozess: der wegen
Sabotage des Verfahrens ausgeschlossenen Sylvia Stolz, dem Hamburger
Neonazi-Anwalt Jürgen Rieger und Ludwig Bock. Angesetzt sind sieben
Verhandlungstage bis Ende Januar, was nach den Erfahrungen mit obigem
Verteidiger-Trio im Zündel-Prozess aber nicht ausreichen dürfte. Der Angeklagte
hat bereits angekündigt, sich zum Auftakt ausführlich äußern zu wollen.
Das Landgericht lehnte es indes ab,
parallel zu Rudolf auch das Verfahren gegen den belgischen Neonazi Siegfried
Verbeke zu eröffnen. Gegen diese Entscheidung hat die Staatsanwaltschaft
Rechtsmittel eingelegt.
Germar Rudolf’s trial begins at Mannheim on 14
November 2006.
His defence counsel consist of Sylvia Stolz, Jürgen Rieger and Ludwig Bock.
Germar Rudolf – the powerhouse of
REVISIONISM currently a POW in his native Germany currently occupied by those who propagate the Holocaust lies.
Germar has indicated he will not be
silent during the proceedings and will offer a detailed account of his work to
the court.
The Landgericht rejected commencing
parallel proceedings against Siegfried Verbeke, who currently is free in Belgium. The public prosecutor, Andreas
Grossmann, is appealing against this court decision.
French woman among winners of Iran Holocaust
cartoon contest
By Shirli Sitbon, 02 November 2006
PARIS/TEHRAN
(EJP/AFP)--- French cartoonist Chard arrived second in the controversial
competition for cartoons on the Holocaust, the official site of the
contest announced on Wednesday.
Chard, whose real name
is Françoise Pichard, collaborates in two French extreme-right newspapers,
Rivarol (since 1967) and Present (since 1982) and criticises Muslims as well as
Jews and most political leaders who do not share her racist views.
She also illustrates
children’s books.
Contacted by
journalists from the Nouvel Observateur magazine, Chard said she didn’t send
any drawing to the Iranian competition since she didn’t even have the
application address and that someone else may have sent it in.
Iranian Culture
Minister Mohammad Hossein Saffar-Harandi announced on Wednesday the names of
the contest winners but added that the French cartoonist’s name wouldn’t be
released in order to protect her from possible prosecution in her homeland.
He referred to the French law prohibiting Shoah (Holocaust) denial.
The pair will share a
prize of 8,000 dollars. France is home to the world’s
second largest Jewish community outside Israel, as well as Europe’s largest Muslim population.
The first prize of
12,000 dollars went to Moroccan Abdullah Derkawi who drew a crane bearing the
Star of David at work on a section of Israel’s West Bank separation barrier
that he depicted bearing a photograph of the gateway to the Auschwitz death camp.
"The Holocaust is
a myth and this issue has finally made waves thanks to the action of President
(Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad in daring to express himself on the subject and break the
Holocaust taboo," Saffar-Harandi said as he announced the prize winners.
None of the foreign
winners were present at the award ceremony. Massoud Shojai, one of
the organizers of the contest first announced in February, blamed
"political pressure" for their absence.
Iran announced the competition
following the re-publication in a number of mainly European newspapers of
Danish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
Ahmadinejad has sparked a
chorus of international criticism with a series of statements calling into
question the massacre of millions of Jewish civilians by Nazi Germany during
World War II.
During a visit to the United States in September, his reformist
predecessor Mohammad Khatami insisted Ahmadinejad did not mean to question the
Holocaust itself but its use to defend the creation of a Jewish state on
Palestinian land.
"I believe the
Holocaust is the crime of Nazism," Khatami told Time magazine.
"But it is possible
that the Holocaust, which is an absolute fact, a historical fact, would be
misused. The Holocaust should not be, in any way, an excuse for the suppression
of Palestinian rights," the former president told the New York-based news
weekly.
"I personally believe
that he (Ahmadinejad) really didn’t deny the existence of the Holocaust,"
he added.
On 15 November, 2006
- the day on which Fredrick Töben leaves Australia for Iran - Horst Mahler
will arrive at 14:00 hours at the Berlin prison to begin his nine months
sentence. Typical of a malicious and perverse judiciary the sentence
begins before Christmas – still an emotional festive season for most
Germans –
in order to inflict a maximum pain on a dissenting mind.
You can
write to:
