Justice, where art thou?
Germar Rudolf sentenced to 30 months prison for scientific research that contradicts a number of official dogmas of Holocaust religion
On 15 March 2007 the Mannheim District Court handed down a 30 months prison sentence to the world’s leading Revisionist and publisher – in stark contrast to the sentence a Mannheim court a month earlier imposed on veteran Revisionist Ernst Zündel who received the maximum of five years. Both men have made it their life’s work to set the record straight about that vile allegation levelled against Germans that during World War two they exterminated six million European Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Zündel has been at it for almost half a century and Rudolf since the late 1980s.
In today’s The Australian newspaper the feature article discusses the Palestinian plight. In ‘Israel’s secret Gaza servants’, Martin Chulov speaks with two of Hamas’ executioners who reveal to him “how they hunted down and killed Palestinians … as a warning to other traitors”. The usual lures ensnared individuals to become traitors to the Palestinian cause: sex and money. In their battle for supremacy over the Palestinians, the Israelis have begun to target individuals with such soft weapons – a far more effective attack on the Palestinians than brute force, which the world, via the Internet, can observe without hindrance.
So, what relevance has the above to Revisionists? It goes to the heart of character and values! I am reminded what Ernst Zündel advised me years ago, that if you are into historical Revisionism, then this is a war, and so it is advisable not to have moral failings, such as sexual, drug or any material addictions. Spending time in jail is to be expected and not to be feared, and a fact that needs to be considered when embarking on this intellectual adventure, as Robert Faurisson termed it. Interestingly, Art Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, first published in 1977 still remains definitive. Although weathering all kinds of personal public attacks in the media Art Butz still retains his professorship at a Chicago university – and no-one to date has refuted his book’s basic premise: that the homicidal gas chambers never existed and that Germans never had an official extermination policy.
Udo Walendy published his Historische Tatsachen until ordered by a court to desist, and after spending some years in prison, which he did on account of his age – he celebrated his 80th birthday this year. Siegfried Verbeke continued to publish and disseminate Revisionist material and is currently locked up in a Belgium prison, i.e. after last year spending some months at Heidelberg prison. Günter Deckert spent close to five years in a German prison because he had invited Fred Leuchter to address his Weinheim group on the 1988 published The Leuchter Report. Deckert, it was alleged, smirked or sneered while translating, thereby disparaging the memory of the dead! Then from prison he wrote a letter to a Mr Mannheim, who was travelling around German schools talking about his escapes from Auschwitz, etc. In his letter Deckert asked Mr Mannheim 12 questions, and Mr Mannheim felt hurt by the letter’s contents and took it to the police. This writing of a letter and asking questions earned Deckert another three months. I took up this matter and sent my views on the Deckert case to a number of German judges and public prosecutors. It was the contents of this letter that earned me a ten-month sentence in Mannheim in 1999, and the Adelaide Institute website’s content was not taken into consideration. Justice Klaus Kern accepted the push-pull argument, i.e. that material via the Internet is NOT pushed into Germany, but rather that an individual must pull it down from the Internet. A subsequent appeal reversed this decision; thereby my case became a precedent-setting case: German law extended around the globe – much like the Israeli Holocaust law that enables the Zionist-racist state to demand extradition to Israel of anyone and anywhere in the world who refuses to believe in the ‘Holocaust’.
The December 2006 Teheran Holocaust Conference that aimed to review the ‘Holocaust’ has been the single most significant event within the last decade, and it followed closely on Germar Rudolf in 2000 beginning his publishing of the Holocaust Handbook series – about 21 published volumes and as many waiting to be published – now waiting for Germar to return to the USA and continue his work there. Anyone who believes in the ‘Holocaust’ now needs to wade through these volumes to be informed of the Revisionist argument.
It was sadly noted that only Michael Collins Piper from the USA made it to the Teheran Holocaust conference, Patrick McNally and Bradley Smith do not live in the USA. American Revisionists such as Michael Hoffmann, Paul Grubach, Michael Santomauro and Mark Weber, to name only a few, would not take the risk of travelling to Teheran for fear of being pursued by their own internal security forces for having travelled to a country that the US president labels ‘Axis of Evil’.
So, what will Germar do once released from prison? Will he continue the Revisionist enterprise and continue where he left off, and seek out Michael Santomauro who has taken over the distribution of his books in the USA, or will Germar continue to pursue his academic career and finally obtain that much-deserved doctorate in science, which the University of Stuttgart withheld from him on account of his having written that definitive Revisionist book: The Rudolf Report?
The human factor and David Irving
Well, the human factor has already kicked in because there are now some individuals within the Revisionist ranks who, for whatever reason, claim they have worked out why there is this discrepancy between the Zündel and Rudolf judgment.
Drawing on the early 20 December 2006 David Irving release, speculation is now rife that Germar Rudolf did a deal with the German prosecutors.
According to Dr Schaller, David Irving did a deal with his Austrian defence counsel in the hope of getting out of jail immediately after facing the judge, a week after his 11 November 2006 arrest. Before appearing in front of the judge and before being charged, Irving through his defence counsel, re-canted, i.e. that limited gassings occurred and that Auschwitz had gas chambers. This prior re-canting backfired and did not impress the judges who stooped so low during sentencing that one of them described Irving as a prostitute who had not seen the error of her ways. That such a statement came from a judge is shameful because it scapegoats without going any deeper into the problem of prostitution. I have noticed that men who have a special hatred for prostitutes are lacking a moral dimension where compassion has a home.
After settling down to prison life, so according to Wolfgang Fröhlich who was also spending his time in the Vienna jail, David Irving certainly saw the error of his ways by jettisoning his young defence counsel and reverting to the wise counsel of Dr Schaller for that appeal hearing on 20 December 2006.
Upon Irving’s release on 20 December 2007, something Dr Schaller predicted at the Teheran conference, one of the judges stated that his early release was justified because Irving had stated he now believes in the Holocaust. Of course, once back home in England, Irving stated that he does not now have to show any more remorse about what he has been doing for decades. For some Revisionists such a jumping about with one’s beliefs is tantamount to selling out…
Neither Ernst Zündel nor Germar Rudolf re-canted, and that is befitting of two Germans whose lives are inextricably linked to the odious and oppressive ‘Holocaust’ story, while for British historian, David Irving, the ‘Holocaust’ remains a symbol of British imperial decline. Since 12 March Irving is in Budapest stirring up the nationalists with his knowledge. After all, Irving’s knowledge as a military historian of World War Two remains unsurpassed and his 30-odd books can be ignored but cannot be dismissed as not having contributed anything to world knowledge.
Interestingly, Georges Theil who almost spent time in a French prison for Revisionist work, feels passionately for the German cause and has stated as much in his book.
Back to Germar Rudolf’s case
Why was defence counsel Sylvia Stolz removed on the final day of the hearing, and replaced by another lawyer from a Munich legal firm? Why was there this sudden closing of the case that had been set down for a number more days?
On 10 March 2007 I phoned Sylvia Stolz to find out what had happened because the unofficial court report on that day wasn’t privy to what had occurred behind the scene, and thus only offered speculations as to what had happened.
Sylvia Stolz informed me that:
1. Germar Rudolf had said everything he wanted to say and that is why he did not make a final submission to the court and remained silent;
2. Rudolf did not recant in any way. Germar stands by the material he presented to court.
3. Stolz’s removal as a defence counsel from the case was a tactical matter because her task in any subsequent hearing was to contextualize the whole proceedings within an historical framework. It would have drawn parallels with Socrates’ demise by drinking a cup of poison and with Giordano Bruno’s burning at the stake. This aspect of the Rudolf trial was dispensed with – and instead the focus returned to Germar Rudolf, the scientist, the husband and father.
It is perhaps as a result of Sylvia Stolz from the very beginning of the proceedings adopting the Horst Mahler strategy that this somewhat light sentence came about. In the Zündel case there was no bargaining left at the very end, only more of the same. It is to be noted that Horst Mahler for his troubles is currently also resting in a prison for a total of nine months.
The fact that Germar has from his prison cell attempted to distance himself from overt political Revisionist figures can be seen as his way of retaining that pure scientific focus.
Yet, I am reminded of the Iranian maxim: everything is politics and everything is religion. The Iranian vision of the world – Weltanschauung – is of course far more all-embracing than our liberal western democratic fractured world where things are divided up and compartmentalised – to the detriment of our holistic appreciation of life itself.
Is it little wonder then that when Western men cry, women generally regard this as a ‘macho’ failing instead of viewing it as a source of strength for compassion and mercy. Islam has enabled men publicly to cry by adopting in its religious ritual observances such a public display of compassion. In the liberal democracies of the western world hat helps individuals to overcome the lack of a wholesome spiritual vacuum is alcohol, psychiatry and consumerism held together by the slave system of predatory capitalism.
Germar – the personal perspective
Germar, 42, he has spent much reflective time on himself, especially within the past 16 months. It is said that most men start to think only in their early 30s – and I think there is some truth in this observation. But whatever happens after Germar’s release from prison, I wish him well in his endeavour to re-establish contact with his family from which he was so brutally and unjustly ripped. Any talk about his person, and what he has done – or did not do – for the Revisionist movement, is of secondary nature, though I hasten to add that on numerous occasions he has exclaimed to me that his first love is and always will be REVISIONISM. Whatever happens when he gets out of prison I sense we have not heard the last of Germar Rudolf, the POWERHOUSE of REVISIONISM.
As some hostile ‘Holocaust’ believers advised Revisionists some time ago: get a life beyond REVISIONISM. To that I responded: any thinking person is a REVISIONIST.
So, let’s not diminish the REVISIONIST enterprise because I recall that someone in Sacramento in 2004 stated REVISIONISM IS DEAD. This was quite an accurate statement about that person’s own mental processes because when we stop being revisionists, then we stop to think, and when we stop to think, then we may as well terminate our life of our own free will. I don’t think the REVISIONISTS I know would even contemplate adopting such nihilistic thought patterns. For that we have too much work awaiting us, and so, quoting Germar, let’s get back to work!
16 March 2007
- IN BRIEF -
Holocaust denier sues for defamation
A Holocaust denier is suing a former French justice minister for defamation. Robert Faurisson appeared in court Monday to file against Robert Badinter for saying in a 2006 television interview that he had Faurisson "convicted for being a forger of history."
Faurisson, 77, who was convicted in 1981 of imprudence, tampering with evidence and intellectual bias for speaking of the "alleged gas chambers and alleged genocide of the Jews," argued that he was not convicted of falsifying history. He is seeking some $20,000 in damages and a statement of Badinter's guilt on the same television program.
Badinter in court spoke of the deportation of his uncle, grandmother and father when he was 15 years old. All three were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. "Denial is one of the worst acts of those falsifying history. All of a sudden it means that there are no dead, no assassinated, that Jews were dead for nothing, just by accident," he said. "Until my last living day, until my last breath, I will continue to fight against you and against the likes of you. You will always remain a forger of history." - http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/100574.html
From: Bocage - email@example.com
Sent: Thursday, 15 March 2007
Subject: Faurisson in court in Paris
I wish to point out that several papers make the following mistake: they say that Faurisson “is suing former French justice minister for defamation”. This is not right. Faurisson does not bother any longer to sue anyone for defamation when they say that he is a “falsifier of history” since every time he did so in the past he lost his case because courts would say: calling Faurisson a “falsifier” is actually defaming him, but the person who defamed him did so “in good faith”!
So, let’s be clear: Faurisson is suing the former French justice minister, Badinter, because Badinter said in a TV program that he had managed to have Faurisson convicted by a court for being a falsifier!!! No court, ever, in 28 years of trials, has ever convicted Faurisson for being a falsifier: they would have loved to do so but they just could not.
Töben case set for September
Nicole Breskin,, AJN, MARCH 8, 2007
The contempt case against Holocaust-denier Dr Fredrick Töben has been set for September in the Federal Court. Justice Michael Moore told the court today (Thursday) that he was “provisionally” scheduling the hearing for September 24-25 to hear the complaint brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) against Dr Töben.
Dr Töben is accused of flouting a 2002 Federal Court Order to remove Holocaust-denial material from his Adelaide Institute website. Last month, the matter was adjourned so Dr Töben could secure legal representation. However, his lawyer, David Perkins, is unavailable until May, as his practising certificate has been suspended until then.
Justice more told the court that June would “likely be too soon” for Perkins to argue Dr Töben’s case, and that he himself had “commitments” through July and August.
Dr Töben told Justice Moore via video-link from Adelaide: “There’s no reason why things won’t be sorted on my side [bu September].”
Outside court, ECAJ immediate past president Jeremy Jones, the complainant in the case, told the AJN he is pleased with the September date. “It’s good to get the ball rolling,” he said.
Justice Moore also set a hearing for May to confirm the “Matter of Direction”.
Take heed REVISIONISTS: The Holocaust Industry’s Strategic Battle Plan revealed
Address by FM Tzipi Livni to the Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism - 11 February 2007
The denial of the Holocaust by Iran is a political tool and a method of propaganda, in its campaign to de-legitimize the State of Israel.
The fact that so many heads of major organizations, leaders of communities, intellectuals and experts in the field are here today, demonstrates the feeling of urgency that we all share. I am sure that we all share a sense of mission - that something must be done immediately.
We all know to well the seriousness of the challenge. This conference is not intended just for an exchange of theoretical opinions. The objective of this conference is to produce new, innovative and practical initiatives for meeting the threats which face us.
I wish to extend a warm welcome to the 160 participants, including 80 participants from abroad, who share this sense of mission and will work together with this objective in mind.
Only this last Friday, Ilan Halimi, was brought to final rest in Jerusalem. Ilan was tortured for more than three weeks, and then brutally murdered, for one reason only - because he was a Jew. His kidnappers believed the stereotypes of Jews, assuming that his family would be able to recruit large sums of money. And if not - who cares - they would kill another Jew.
The case of Ilan Halimi proves that words and anti-Semitic stereotypes do kill. Ilan Halimi’s case demonstrates that anti-Semitism is as alive as ever.
Anti-Semitism has persecuted the Jewish nation throughout its history - since ancient times - and it is also raising its ugly head across the world even in our modern days - even now. The lessons were not learnt. Who would have believed that only sixty years after the Holocaust, after the world swore “never again”, we will still stand and have to address the threat of racism and anti-Semitism.
We fight this war for the existence of the State of Israel and against anti-Semitism, together, on several fronts:
This is a battle to be fought, first and foremost, by the State of Israel, as the Jewish homeland. This is a battle to be fought by the entire Jewish nation. And this should also be the battle fought by the free world, which we must recruit.
You might be surprised how easy it is to recruit international support, if we just show determination. Only this weekend I met with the King of Spain, in a special place - where the Jews have payed a dear price, as Jews. I requested that he issue a declaration marking the convening of the Forum, and I already have this declaration in my hand - it will be read after I conclude my words. Thus, it is not such a difficult mission to recruit the support of international leaders.
Nevertheless, we witness clear manifestations of anti-Semitism, led by some leaders of states. The most obvious is Iran.
The denial of the Holocaust by Iran is a political tool and a method of propaganda, in its campaign to de-legitimize the State of Israel. It is unacceptable that a UN member state denies the facts of the Shoah, calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, pursues weapons of mass destruction - and continues to be accepted as a legitimate member of the family of nations.
Iran is a danger and a threat - an obvious case. The easy case is the most obvious one. But, unfortunately, we must also be aware of the fact that there are additional processes taking place behind the scenes
The modern anti-Semitism is spreading from the fringes to the mainstream, in parallel with the growth of radical Islamic ideology in Europe. It poses a significant threat. We are witnessing new types of cooperation between the racist right, radical left and Jihadist Muslims in this campaign. It appears also in the modern states in different types of formations. We cannot afford to cast a blind eye to this phenomena, which reflects the persistence of the old, classic anti-Semitism - the desecration of synagogues, attacks on Jewish institutions, physical assault of Jews, and publication of hate literature such as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
It is important to note a growing awareness of governments and international organizations to the nature of the threat, and of the need to combat these forms of anti-Semitism and racism. I will mention only a few examples of international engagement and activity: the Berlin and Cordoba OSCE conferences; the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution declaring the International Remembrance Day of the Holocaust; the recent UNGA resolution against the denial of the Holocaust; the rapid expansion of the International Task Force for the Remembrance and Education of the Holocaust.
Yet, it is not enough. In order to advance, it is not enough just to talk, we must take action.
We need to focus on practical and concrete steps to be taken. We must focus on promoting the Global Forum as a permanent and world encompassing mechanism, in order to:
Map out the needs and priorities;
Identify the areas for immediate action, and suggest both short-term and long-term strategies;
Establish concrete and active programs;
Be more effective;
Achieve long lasting results.
I would suggest focusing, amongst others, on the following topics:
Elevating the issue of fighting global anti-Semitism to a central place of priority - in Israeli and international foreign policy.
The launching of a public campaign against Iran - using legal methods, diplomatic channels, public protest and effective PR.
Pushing forward an official indictment against Ahmadinejad for violations of international treaties.
Defining distinctive strategies for classical anti-Semitism and the new modern anti-Semitism.
The building of coalitions with like-minded people, Jews and non-Jews, including NGO's, parliamentarians, friendship leagues, and other value orientated forces of good-will, to combat this threat.
The planning of diplomatic campaigns, against incitement of an anti-Semitic nature, especially in light of the hatred material and propaganda coming out of the Muslim and Arab world.
In summary, friends, we are gathered here today and blessed with tremendous intellectual resources and immense practical experience. We have to be proactive in our approach. We need to work in unity, on all levels, to make a difference.
Lastly - to remember and not forget. To remember the atrocities of the past - and to make sure that such events do not repeat themselves. Enough is enough.
The communiqué by Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the December 2006 Tehran Holocaust Conference:
Antisemitischer Eklat an Polizeischule, 20 March 2007
Angehende Berliner Polizisten lehnten Unterricht über NS-Zeit ab / Dozent ist Holocaust-Überlebender / Polizeipräsident Glietsch kündigt Konsequenzen an
[All Berlin’s police cadets receive detailed compulsory ideological >Holocaust< indoctrination – an exercise in German self-hatred. Now some have had the courage to say that it’s enough because it’s boring them –ed.]
BERLIN. Ein antisemitischer Vorfall an der Berliner Polizeischule in Ruhleben sorgt bis in die Spitzen der Polizeiführung für Unruhe. Eine ganze Klasse angehender Polizisten soll in einer obligatorischen Unterrichtseinheit über die Zeit des nationalsozialistischen Regimes nach Informationen der Berliner Zeitung erklärt haben, sie wolle nicht dauernd an den Holocaust erinnert werden. Zudem sollen Äußerungen gefallen sein, dass Juden reiche Leute seien. Der Vorfall hat sich bereits am 27. Februar zugetragen und ist nur durch Zufall Ende vergangener Woche Polizeipräsident Dieter Glietsch bekannt geworden. Dieser reagierte sofort und wies seine engsten Mitarbeiter an, die Vorwürfe unverzüglich zu prüfen.
Der Polizeipräsident soll vor allem darüber verärgert sein, dass die Informationen ihn deutlich verspätet erreicht haben - und auch nicht direkt aus der Polizeischule kamen, sondern über Umwege von außen. Glietsch sagte gestern der Berliner Zeitung: "Sollte sich herausstellen, dass die Behauptungen stimmen, wird es Konsequenzen geben." Der Polizeipräsident verlangte eine umfassende Aufklärung des Falles. Der Leiter der Schule, der Leiter für politische Bildung und ein Lehrer waren gestern Nachmittag in das Polizeipräsidium bestellt worden. Ergebnisse des Treffens wurden nicht bekannt.
Zeuge der antisemitischen Ausfälle war der Holocaust-Überlebende Isaak Behar, dessen gesamte Familie - Eltern und zwei Schwestern - in Au- schwitz ermordet worden waren und der vor der Klasse einen Vortrag gehalten hatte. Der 83-Jährige spricht seit fast zwanzig Jahren als Zeitzeuge an Schulen, bei der Bundeswehr und in der Berliner Polizeischule. Behar ist für dieses Engagement mit dem Landesverdienstorden Berlin und dem goldenen Ehrenkreuz der Bundeswehr ausgezeichnet worden. Auf Einzelheiten des Vorfalles wollte Behar gegenüber der Berliner Zeitung nicht eingehen. "Ich bin glücklich über die Reaktionen der Schulleitung und der Lehrer und insbesondere über die Reaktion des Polizeipräsidenten", sagte er.
An der Polizeischule gehört die Aufklärung über den Holocaust zum festen Unterrichtsprogramm. Für Polizeianwärter ist es Pflicht, an diesen Veranstaltungen, bei denen Aufsichtspersonen dabei sind, teilzunehmen. Laut Behar hat es auch bei der Bundeswehr hin und wieder antisemitische Vorfälle gegeben. "Doch immer ist die Führung dagegen konsequent vorgegangen", so Behar.
Der Berliner Rabbiner Andreas Nachama sagte gestern, dass sich an der Polizeischule das widerspiegele, was in der ganzen Gesellschaft vorkomme. "Dieser überall auftretende Antisemitismus ist bedrohlich und bedauerlich", so Nachama. Ob die Schüler von der Ausbildung ausgeschlossen werden sollten, müsse die Polizeiführung entscheiden. "Jeder hat ein Recht gehört zu werden, ein Anrecht, belehrt zu werden und ein Anrecht auf Umkehr", so Nachama.
Nach der aktuellen Kriminalitätsstatistik haben die antisemitischen Straftaten in Berlin abgenommen. Die Zahl sank von 326 Taten im Jahr 2005 auf 274 Delikte im vergangenen Jahr. Ermittlungen gegen Polizisten in Berlin wegen des Verdachts von Antisemitismus und Volksverhetzung sind laut Polizei selten. Zuletzt wurde im Mai 2006 ein Polizeiobermeister aus der Direktion 5 wegen des Verdachts der Volksverhetzung vom Dienst suspendiert.
Einen Monat zuvor musste sich ein Kriminaltechniker verantworten. Der inzwischen suspendierte Mann aus dem Landeskriminalamt soll E-Mails mit einem fiktiven ausländerfeindlichen Fragebogen versandt haben. An der Polizeischule waren im Jahr 2000 Auszubildende wegen rassistischer Sprüche in die Schlagzeilen geraten.
David Irving is at it again…back to work – doubts the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz
British historian David Irving spent 13 months in an Austrian prison: 11 November 2005-20 December 2006
Der Artikel wurde erfolgreich verschickt!
Vielen Dank. Ihr Kommentar zu diesem Beitrag wurde veröffentlicht.
Ihr Leserbrief wurde an den Autor versendet.
24. März 2007, 11:50 Uhr
Holocaust-Leugner Irving bezweifelt Gaskammern
Seit Jahrzehnten leugnet er die systematische, millionenfache Ermordung europäischer Juden durch die Deutschen im KZ Auschwitz. Er musste sogar in Gefängnis dafür. Doch obwohl er nur auf Bewährung freigelassen wurde, leugnet David Irving die Shoah erneut.
Leugnet den Mord an Juden in Auschwitz: Holocaust-Leugner David Irving, ist britischer Journalist, Historiker und Buchautor
<![if !vml]><![endif]>Der britische Holocaust-Leugner David Irving hat laut einem italienischen Fernsehbericht die Existenz von Gaskammern im NS-Konzentrationslager Auschwitz erneut in Zweifel gezogen. In einer am späten Freitagabend ausgestrahlten Sendung von Sky TG24 wird Irving bei einem Besuch in Auschwitz gezeigt. Dabei behauptete er, technische Analysen untermauerten seine Aussage, dass dort keine Massenvergasungen von Juden während des Zweiten Weltkriegs stattgefunden hätten.
· "Subkutaner Antisemitismus" bei der Polizei
· Friedmans Bewacher soll Holocaust geleugnet haben
· "Subkutaner Antisemitismus" bei Deutschlands Polizei
· Ermittlungen wegen Antisemitismus an Polizeischule
· Zentralrat alarmiert wegen Polizeischülern
· Michel Friedman empört über Polizei
Ein Sprecher des Ausschwitz-Museums in Oswiecim bei Krakau, Jaroslaw Mensfelt, sagte, er habe davon gehört, dass Irving vor ein oder zwei Wochen das Lager besucht habe. Die Leitung der Gedenkstätte habe ihn jedoch nicht gesehen und betrachte ihn auch als unerwünschte Person.
Wiederholte Leugnung des Holocaust
Bereits in der Vergangenheit bestritt Irving den Einsatz von Giftgas beim staatlich organisierten Massenmord an den europäischen Juden im KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau. Er wird daher als Holocaustleugner bezeichnet. Deutsche und österreichische Behörden haben Irving ein Einreiseverbot erteilt. Am 11. November 2005 wurde er aufgrund eines seit 1989 gegen ihn ausgestellten Haftbefehls in Österreich festgenommen.
Im Februar 2006 wurde Irving dann ebenfalls in Österreich wegen Leugnung des Holocausts zu drei Jahren Gefängnis verurteilt. Er kam aber kurz vor Weihnachten frei und wurde nach Großbritannien abgeschoben. Die Reststrafe wurde zur Bewährung ausgesetzt. In einem Interview des britischen Fernsehsenders Sky sagte Irving unlängst, es bestehe kein Zweifel, dass die deutschen Nationalsozialisten Millionen Juden umgebracht hätten. Dies sei aber nicht in Auschwitz passiert.
George Mason University’s History News Network
Irving at Auschwitz: no gassings here Source: AP - 3-23-07
ROME -- British historian David Irving, who was jailed in Austria for questioning the Holocaust, visited the Auschwitz death camp and renewed his claim that there was no proof it had gas chambers during an Italian TV program aired Friday.
In the Sky TG24 documentary program "Controcorrente" (Countercurrent), Irving is filmed walking down the remains of railroad tracks in the former death camp in southern Poland as he insists that engineering techniques back his claims that mass gassings by the Nazis during World War II didn't occur there...
Earlier this year, Irving told Sky in an interview that there was no doubt the Nazis killed millions of Jews, but said the killings did not take place at Auschwitz.
British Historian Denies WWII Gassings
By Associated Press
March 23, 2007, 10:57 PM EDT
ROME -- British historian David Irving, who was jailed in Austria for questioning the Holocaust, visited the Auschwitz death camp and renewed his claim that there was no proof it had gas chambers during an Italian TV program aired Friday.
In the Sky TG24 documentary program "Controcorrente" (Countercurrent), Irving is filmed walking down the remains of railroad tracks in the former death camp in southern Poland as he insists that engineering techniques back his claims that mass gassings by the Nazis during World War II didn't occur there.
His comments were voiced over in Italian.
In Poland, Jaroslaw Mensfelt, spokesman for the Auschwitz museum, told The Associated Press that they heard that Irving probably was there one or two weeks ago, but they did not see him.
"He is a persona non grata here," Mensfelt said. "It would be best if he never came here. Such people desecrate the place and are not welcome."
Poland prosecutes Holocaust deniers.
Earlier this year, Irving told Sky in an interview that there was no doubt the Nazis killed millions of Jews, but said the killings did not take place at Auschwitz.
Irving was sentenced in February 2006 to three years under a 1992 Austrian law that applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse" the Nazi genocide or other Nazi crimes against humanity in a print publication, broadcast or other media. He was released after Vienna's highest court granted his appeal and converted two-thirds of his three-year sentence into probation.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Professor Daniel McGowan
What Does "Holocaust Denial" Really Mean?
The Holocaust (spelled with a capital H) usually refers to the killing of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II. It is supposed to be the German's "Final Solution" to the Jewish problem. Much of the systematic extermination was to have taken place in concentration camps by shooting, gassing, and burning alive innocent victims of the Third Reich.
Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Robert Faurisson, and others who do not believe this account and who dare to say so in public are reviled as bigots, anti-Semites, racists, and worse. Their alternate historical scenarios are not termed simply revisionist, but are demeaned as Holocaust denial.
Politicians pandering to the Jewish or Christian Zionist vote label Holocaust revisionist papers and conferences "beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptable behavior." Non-Zionist Jews, like Rabbi Dovid Weiss of the Neturei Karta, are denounced as "self-haters" and are shunned and spat upon. Even Professor Norman Finkelstein, whose parents were both Holocaust survivors and who wrote the book, The Holocaust Industry, has been branded a Holocaust denier.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust revisionists, or deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to these three simple contentions:
1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
2. There were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third Reich.
3. There were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the alleged 55 million who died in WWII.
Are these revisionist contentions so odious as to cause those who believe them to be reviled, beaten, and imprisoned? More importantly, is it possible that revisionist contentions are true, or even partially true, and that they are despised because they contradict the story of the Holocaust, a story which has been elevated to the level of a religion in hundreds of films, memorials, museums, and docu-dramas?
Is it sacrilegious to ask, "If Hitler was intent on extermination, how did Elie Wiesel, his father, and two of his sisters survive the worst period of incarceration at Auschwitz?" Wiesel claims that people were thrown alive into burning pits, yet even the Israeli-trained guides at Auschwitz do not make this claim.
Is it really "beyond international discourse" to question the efficacy and the forensic evidence of homicidal gas chambers? If other myths, like making soap from human fat, have been dismissed as Allied war propaganda, why is it "unacceptable behavior" to ask if the gas chamber at Dachau was not reconstructed by the Americans because no other homicidal gas chamber could be found and used as evidence at the Nuremburg trials?
For more than fifty years Jewish scholars have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to document each Jewish victim of the Nazi Holocaust. The Nazis were German, obsessed with record keeping. Yet only 3 million names have been collected and many of them died of natural causes. So why is it so wrong to doubt that fewer than 6 million Jews were murdered in the Second World War?
"Holocaust Denial" might be no more eccentric or no more criminal than claiming the earth is flat, except that the Holocaust itself has been used as the sword and shield in the quest to build a Jewish state between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, where even today over half the population is not Jewish.
The Holocaust narrative makes Jews the ultimate victim no matter how they dispossess or dehumanize or ethnically cleanse the indigenous Palestinian people. The Holocaust narrative allows Yad Vashem, the finest Holocaust museum in the world, to repeat the mantra of "Never Forget" while it sits on Arab lands stolen from Ein Karem and overlooking the unmarked graves of Palestinians massacred by Jewish terrorists at Deir Yassin. The Holocaust story eliminates any comparison of Ketziot or Gaza to the concentration camps they indeed are.
The Holocaust is used to silence critics of Israel in what the Jewish scholar, Marc Ellis, has called the ecumenical deal: you Christians look the other way while we bludgeon the Palestinians and build our Jewish state and we won't remind you that Hitler was a good Catholic long before he was a good Nazi.
The Holocaust narrative of systematic, industrialized extermination has also been an important tool to drive the United States into Iraq and now into Iran. The title of the recent Israeli conference at Yad Vashem made this crystal clear: "Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide."
"Remember the Holocaust" will be the battle cry of the next great clash of good (Judeo/Christian values) and evil (radical Islamic aggression) and those who question it must be demonized if not burned at the stake.
Daniel McGowan, firstname.lastname@example.org Professor EmeritusHobart and William Smith CollegesGeneva, NY 14456Phone 315-781-3418
 The American Heritage(R) New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company,2005.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Holocaust
 Senator Clinton's Remarks to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
Kevin Kallaugher: Taming Leviathan
Mar 15th 2007
The Economist print edition
THIS week saw yet another reminder of the awesome power of “the lobby”. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) brought more than 6,000 activists to Washington for its annual policy conference. And they proceeded to live up to their critics' darkest fears.
They heard from the four most powerful people on Capitol Hill—Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner from the House, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell from the Senate—as well as the vice-president (who called his talk “The United States and Israel: United We Stand”) and sundry other power-brokers. Several first-division presidential candidates held receptions.
The display of muscle was almost equalled by the display of unnerving efficiency. There were booths for “congressional check-in”, booths for “delegate banquet troubleshooting”, and booths full of helpful young people. The only discordant note was sounded by a group of a dozen protesters—Orthodox Jews in beards, side-curls and heavy black coats—holding up signs saying “Stop AIPAC”, “Torah forbids Jews dictating foreign policy”, and “Judaism rejects the state of Israel”.
The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the “soundest” on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.
Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in.
Some of the most determined are Arab-Americans, who have been growing in numbers and influence for years—there are probably about 3.5m of them—and who have been in the eye of a political storm since September 11th 2001. They are a growing political force in northern Ohio and Michigan, and their institutions, such as the Arab American Institute and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have plenty of access to Middle Eastern money.
But so far their performance has been unimpressive. James Zogby has been promising a breakthrough for his Arab American Institute for 20 years. CAIR remains marginal. Arab-Americans are badly split between Christians (63%) and Muslims (24%). They have also been late in taking to politics. Between 1990 and 2004 Arab-Americans donated $788,968 to candidates and parties, compared with $56.8m from pro-Israeli groups.
AIPAC's ace in the hole is the idea that it represents Jewish interests in a country that is generally philo-Semitic. But liberal Jewish groups retort that it represents only a sliver of Jewish opinion. A number of more liberal groups have started to use their political muscle—groups such as the Religious Action Centre of Reform Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum. These groups scored a significant victory over AIPAC by persuading Congress to water down a particularly uncompromising bit of legislation, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act, which would have prevented any American contact with the Palestinian leadership. This accomplishment led to a flurry of speculation that George Soros might try to institutionalise this successful alliance by creating a liberal version of AIPAC.
It has yet to materialise. And it is doubtful whether Mr Soros, a left-wing Democrat who has little sympathy with Israel, would be the best patron for such an organisation. But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.
An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as “acting increasingly on behalf of Israel”. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could “be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state”. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a “sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed”.
The biggest challenge facing AIPAC is how to deal with this changing climate. Its members have been admirably honest about their mission in life. They boast about passing more than a hundred bits of pro-Israel legislation a year. But they are too willing to close down the debate with explosive charges of anti-Israel bias when people ask whether this is a good thing. America needs an open debate about its role in the Middle East—and AIPAC needs to take a positive role in that debate if it is to remain such a mighty force in American politics.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
These are both the best of times and the worst of times for the American-Jewish lobby
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute