In Honour of Adelaide Historian Mr Christopher Steele
Happy 70th Birthday
In 1983 Christopher Steele presented at the Constitutional Museum, Adelaide, Australia, a display about the contentious historical topic: Auschwitz and the gassing allegations.
Having received from Mr Werner Fischer a copy of Professor Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Mr Steele, via twelve display panels, meticulously developed the argument that the gassing allegation is an unproven matter, if not technically impossible.
Outside the museum a small group of protesters attempted to pressure the curator to close down Mr Steele’s exhibition. Among the protesters was British comedian, Spike Milligan who happened to be in Adelaide at that time. These individuals considered the act of exhibiting material that did not support the official version of events as an act of >antisemitism<, and >racism<.
Both Mr Steel and the museum’s curator stood firm for the duration of the exhibition, which illustrated an important point in the quest for historical accuracy, rather than wishful thinking. It is important that men and women of moral and intellectual integrity refuse to bend to Jewish pressure and both Mr Steele and the curator stood firm. This affirms Fredrick Töben’s maxim: >>Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure<<.
David Brockschmidt comments on:
Hitchens, Bonnhöfer and the Holy Spirit
The >Hitch<, as Christopher Hitchens is known in the media world, has hopped on to Dawkins’ bandwagon who wrote the book: The God Delusion. Hitchens has written his own godless version titled: God Is Not Great, which deals with the history of religion in theory and practice.
The problem with Hitchens is that he has undone himself here. He simply has not enough knowledge of religion, and he has no spirituality at all.
For him, the spirit comes out of the bottle, and I assume it is half a gallon of 4-Roses Bourbon Whiskey, daily, I suppose. This puts the late Russian President >Boozer< Boris Yeltsin to shame.
But let’s not talk about Hitchens’ battle with the daemon in his bottle, but about the recent comments he made regarding the German Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonnhöfer.
Bonnhöfer was executed at the end of World War Two in a concentration camp in Germany.
Hitchens informs his readers that Bonnhöfer was executed because of his Christian beliefs and of his outspoken opposition against Hitler and his government.
This is not true!
Dietrich Bonnhöfer was executed like the chief of German military intelligence, Admiral Canaris, because they both plotted to overthrow and kill Hitler, and both worked as undercover agents for the British MI-6 and the American OSS, the forerunner of the CIA.
Bonnhöfer’s betrayal did not shorten World War Two but cost the lives of many German soldiers, civilians, POWs, and concentration camp inmates.
Any government, regardless of Axis or Allies, would have had Bonnhöfer and Canaris executed during or after World War Two for spying and collaborating with the enemy.
High treason is a law enforced worldwide. The German resistance against Hitler, and the National Socialist government, found out too late that the British and Americans had betrayed them.
Winston Churchill compared the plotters against Hitler as >Nazis, dogs and traitors<.
After the failed 20 July 1944 military coup against Hitler, the BBC London, immediately afterwards broadcast all the names of the plotters involved.
The Gestapo recorded the BBC broadcast and had more than 2000 people incarcerated or executed.
As early as 1935 Churchill wanted the destruction of Germany. At the beginning of World War Two, in 1939, he said: >>I don’t make war against Hitler but against Germany.<<
[See: Helmut Schröcke: Kriegsursachen Kriegsschuld,NordfriesischeVerlagsanstalt Husum, 1997; ISBN 3-932296-01-X]
Having Hitler’s opposition executed was in Churchill’s and Roosevelt’s interest, and had the assassination attempt on Hitler been successful, then the Allies would not have been interested in negotiating a peace treaty with the resistance in order to shorten the war.
This argument of shortening a war effort was always used by the Allies, for example, to justify the destruction of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
The late member of the West German parliament – BRD – Eugen Gerstenmeier, who was a member of the resistance, made it clear in a speech to parliament during the 1960s how disappointed the German resistance groups were by this Churchill and Roosevelt betrayal.
>>The Allies were not the people we thought they were<<.
Old story: >>The enemy always loves the betrayal but hates the traitor<<.
So, Hitchey, next time you attempt to write about history, do your homework first. Stop drinking, start thinking!
David Brockschmidt reflects on:
True Lies – Jehuda Nir and Gottfried Wagner
When Nobel Peace Prize winner for Literature, Eli Wiesel, wrote his famous book: Night, his Rabbi asked him:
Rabbi: >Eli, what are you writing there?<
Wiesel: >A book, Rabbi, about my life.<
Rabbi: >Interesting, but is it true?<
Wiesel: >Rebbe, sometimes truth are lies and lies are true.<
So, here we have the mindset and the title of a famous Hollywood film: True Lies.
Let’s meet the minds of Jehuda Nir and Gottfried Wagner. Nir wrote the book The Lost Childhood in which he defamed my family, the Brockschmidts, by denying that the life of his mother, sister and himself were saved by us during World War Two. My parents, Herta and Heinrich Brockschmidt, hid the Nirs, or the Grünfeld family, as they were then known, in our apartment during the war in Warsaw, Poland, and on our farm at Hertzberg, near Berlin, until the end of the war. My parents were subsequently honoured by the West German and Israeli governments as >Righteous Gentiles< for saving Jewish lives during the war.
I know Jehuda Nir and his wife and two children from my time spent in Israel, and I met him again together with my wife in New York where he lives and practises as a psychologist. We remained friends until he wrote his book, A Lost Childhood, Berkley Books, 1989 – ISBN 0-425-15547-1.
Already the quote at the beginning of the book makes my blood run cold:
Let me say before I go any further that I forgive nobody.
I wish them all an atrocious life and then the fires and ice of hell
And in the execrable generations to come…
Samuel Beckett, Malone Dies.
I don’t want to go back into the details regarding the defamation of my family in Nir’s book, which one can find on the website – http://www.Geocities.com/unlikelychildhood - but I would briefly like to comment on one chapter in the book regarding the imprisonment of his father and his father’s brother.
He writes at:
Page 23: >>This was probably the last week of my father’s life. The German army was pre-occupied, probably overwhelmed by the ease of its victories on the front, and was not interfering with the attacks of the Ukrainian police on the Jews.
Page 24: >>I spotted a column of men, six abreast, marching out of the police yard surrounded by Ukrainians with submachine guns. My father was next to his brother in the row before last. I would never see my father again.
Page 26: >>Even after the war in 1945 when we found out that he had definitely been killed on the day of his arrest in July 1941 we continued to search for him through the Red Cross.<<
The above quotations illustrate quite clearly that his father and his uncle were not killed by Germans but by Ukrainian police.
So much for what Jehuda Nir states in his own book.
Let us now look at the same story where composer Richard Wagner’s great-grandson, Gottfried Helferich Wagner, writes both in the English and German versions of his book: The Twilight of the Wagners - Wer nicht mit dem Wolf heult.
(Winifried Wagner, Gottfried’s grandmother, called Hitler >Wolf<.)
In both the German and English version of his book Wagner says that when he met Dr Jehuda Nir at a scientific Holocaust conference at Ryder College in New Jersey, Nir told him that he, his sister and mother survived six years of World War Two. Nir said he was happy to meet Gottfried Wagner there because:
>>It gave me another insight of the Germans, the murderer of my father when I was eleven years old<<.
So, who is lying and denying here, Wagner or Nir? In his own book Nir informs us that the Ukrainian police killed his father and his uncle, and in Wagner’s book Nir is quoted as saying the Germans killed his father and uncle. After all, did Nir not inform us that the Germans were too busy fighting the Russians and left the Jews alone?
Hitler, Quisling, European Union and the European Central Bank
Guess who invented the EU and its central bank? It was Major Vidkun Quisling, CBE. The CBE Quisling received from the British government for his service as British chargé d’affaires in Moscow from 1927 to 1929 at a time when the UK had broken off relations with the USSR and when Quisling resided temporarily in the British Embassy in Moscow.
How often does Hitler still have to be defeated in order to cover up our own war crimes caused by our debt and usury monetary system, which created circumstances for worldwide dictators and dictatorships to arise.
For how long can the parasitic tribes of the City of London and its deformed miscarriage, Wall Street, still hold the world in financial bondage?
Do we need a new Bretton-Wood monetary system based on usury, speculation, insider trading, and other known criminal activities committed by these seducers and destroyers of humanity?
So, what is the answer here? Is it the highly successful barter system invented by US citizen, Hjalmar Horace Greenley Schacht, finance minister of Hitler’s Third Reich? This system was practised during the 1930 and 1940s, which left the usurers and speculators high and dry.
Or is it Major Douglas’ system of Social Credit? Remember, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia was based on social credit until the Bank of England destroyed it in 1929?
The Bruce-Page Ministry, 9 February to 22 October 1929, surrendered the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to international finance, via The Bank of England.
Or is there a further alternative that would offer us a still better solution to the problem of solving how best to regulate trading in order not to fall victim of, for example, George Sorros’ hedge funds, which broke the Bank of England, and caused havoc and hardship in the South East Asian >tiger< economies – with the exception of Malaysia, where Dr Mahathir Mohammad resisted and pegged the Malaysian currency to the US dollar.
The IMF and World Bank informed Mahathir in no uncertain terms that within six months his country would be bankrupt. What Mahathir was doing had been tried in Germany and parts of Europe during 1933-45. Within two years the Malaysian share market increased by 125 per cent and Malaysia’s foreign debt decreased by nearly 80 per cent.
It is a mystery to me why other countries have not picked up this successful financial model.
It must be recalled that two years after this, the IMF and the World Bank went to Kuala-Lumpur to congratulate Dr Mahathir for his wise decision to resist George Sorros’ plunder.
So, what is this Hitler paranoia based on, by continually telling the world what kind of a monster he was?
Blaming him for all the crimes before he came to power, while he was in power, and after his demise, for all the crimes committed?
If a system like ours has to turn its own creations, like Adolf Hitler, into the devil incarnate for the last seventy-odd years, then it is time we have a good hard look at our own human rights record, our own war crimes, crimes against humanity, and our genocides.
Wall Street and the City of London are notorious bad parents. First they create one Rosemary’s Baby after another, nourishing it with their poisoned mother’s milk, then using their offspring so long as they function for the purpose of profit.
Should they become unprofitable, they get aborted by the means of war and destruction, which will again be a profitable venture for these criminals.
If merchant bankers and currency speculators in >Gotham City< get annual salaries of up to one thousand million Australian dollars per year, and Christmas gratuities of one hundred and twenty million dollars, then this is not money they deserve but a crime against humanity. Remember what French philosopher Voltaire said: >>Behind every big fortune you will find a big crime<<.
Now let’s re-visit Adolf Hitler. I am always suspicious when I am informed by court historians that Adolf Hitler was the devil incarnate, a monster, who is to be blamed for every and any evil under the sun in the past, present and future.
What Hitler and his government did wrong, the crimes committed by it, we know anyway. But we also know he is blamed for crimes he and his government has not committed – the list is endless: one Katyn after another!
Let’s ask the taboo question here: What did Adolf Hitler and his government do right?
1. Did he create an employment system similar to Roosevelt’s >New Deal<, which was called in Germany the >New Plan< in order to get seven million unemployed people back to work?
Answer: He did!
2. Did he stop the currency speculators and usurers by creating an international barter system so countries cannot be destroyed by the Sorros >civil society - orange revolution<?
Answer: He did!
3. Did he stop German companies taking their profits out of the country but still transferred the profits of foreign companies in Germany overseas until 1941?
Answer: He did!
4. Did he revolutionise and simplify the social security system in Germany, which is still law today?
Answer: He did!
5. Did he make Germany the leading country in science and technology, which was the envy of the world?
Answer: He did!
6. Did he make more than 40 peace offers before and during World War Two to the Allies, which were all rejected?
Answer: He did?
7. Did he conduct a pre-emptive strike against Stalin on 21 June 1941 in order to stop Stalin – who was about to steamroll all of Europe on 6 July 1941 – in order to turn all of Europe into a huge Soviet gulag?
Answer: He did!
8. Was not this man in his brown shirt and his government praised and admired by many world leaders, from Moscow to London to Washington, including Stalin and Churchill?
Answer: He was!
9. Were Adolf Hitler and Vidkun Quisling the theoretical founders of the European Union?
Answer: They were!
Sources for the above, please refer to: Martin Allen: The Hitler-Hess Deception; The Spectator, 5 May 2007: >Guess who invented the EU, it was Quisling<; Antony G Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler; Joachim Hoffmann: Stalin’s War of Extermination; Viktor Suvorov: Icebreaker: Who started the Second World War?, and M Day; Werner Maser: Der Wortbruch.
Remember, nobody wins in wars, except Wall Street. Look at Iraq today. If you kill one person, you will be charged with murder if you get caught.
If you kill millions of people in war, you will be a conqueror of nations, monuments will be erected everywhere to celebrate your victories – provided you win the war.
If you lose the war, you get the blame for your own crimes committed under your own rule, and to top it off you will also be blamed and held responsible for the killings the victor has committed.
Greetings from Katyn, Hiroshima and Dresden!
The victor will also rob you of your own humanity, identity and turn you into a monster, the devil incarnate. What a pathetic way of writing and lecturing on history: >We, the good, you the bad and the ugly<.
I rest my case.
Guess who invented the EU? It was Quisling
John Laughland reveals that before his notorious act of collaboration with the Nazis, the Norwegian politician was lobbying for a European Confederation.
The Spectator 5 May 2007 – www.spectator.co.uk
Ten years ago I wrote a book the first chapter of which examined Nazi and fascist arguments in favour of a united Europe. I used this Nazi pro-Europeanism scurrilously to discredit the claim made by today’s pro-Europeans that the European idea was born out of reaction against Hitler, and to show that hostility to national sovereignty has an anti-democratic pedigree.
Most of the quotations dated from 1941, European propaganda having been emphasised when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. By 1942, a conference was organized in Berlin by leading Nazi party officials and industrialists entitled >European Economic Community<.
Of course, the Nazis did not invent the idea of a united Europe. That dream has been around since the collapse of the Roman Empire, gaining new attractiveness after the Reformation and after the first world war.
But Nazi pro-Europeanism was very detailed, concentrating on many of the technical aspects which we associate with the EU today, especially the Europeanisation of industry and agriculture.
However, in the course of writing A History of Political Trials from Charles I to Saddam Hussein, I have discovered that another European statesman had conceived ideas of European unity even before they became popular in Berlin in 1941. On 11 October 1939, Germany’s Polish campaign having come to an end, a Norwegian politician sent a telegram to the British prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, in which he made a last-minute plea for peace between Britain and Germany.
The only way to achieve this, he said, was:
>to fuse British, French and German interests into a European Confederation on the initiative of Great Britain, in order to create a community of interests and co-operation, beneficent to all parties. Under these circumstances … I deferentially appeal to your immense authority and responsibility to suggest that the British government—in accordance with the method of federalisation in America, South Africa and Australia—invite every European State to choose ten representatives to a congress charged with the task of preparing a constitution for an empire of European nations, to be submitted to a plebiscite in each country for acceptance or rejection.<
The author of this imaginative idea was a then relatively obscure former Norwegian minister of defence, Major Vidkun Quisling, CBE. Quisling had been decorated for his service as British chargé d’affaires in Moscow from 1927 to 1929, at a time when the United Kingdom had broken off relations with the USSR and when Quisling resided temporarily in the British embassy on the banks of the Moscow river.
As a friend of Britain and Germany alike, Quisling paid fulsome tribute to Chamberlain’s >peace for our time< speech of 30 September 1938, the one he delivered on his return from Munich, and promptly sat down to write a detailed draft for an armistice between the two countries.
Quisling was catapulted into notoriety six months laster when he installed himself as leader of Norway following the German invasion of that country on 9 April 1940.
As a result of certain unfortunate misunderstandings, the German Chancellor had been obliged to send troops into Norway pre-emptively to prevent the British from violating her neutrality by mining her ports.
Quisling was the first collaborationist leader in Western Europe, and his surname passed into the language as a byword for all that is most contemptible about treachery. The Times coined the term within days of Quisling’s assumption of power:
>To writers, the word quisling is a gift from the gods. If they had been ordered to invent a new word for traitors they could hardly have hit upon a more brilliant combination of letters.<
Quisling got no reply from the British for his imaginative proposals about European confederation. Perhaps Chamberlain thought that the idea would never work, much as Sir Anthony Eden was to shun the Messina conference of 1956 which led to the creation of the EEC.
The only thanks he got was to be stripped of his CBE after noisy protests in the House of Commons.
But he continued to believe, like modern pro-Europeans, that a united Europe was the antidote to war.
He even fantasised that >in the politics of ideas, I considered Hitler my subordinate and my tool<.
After the war was over, on 21 June 1945, in a statement prepared in prison for the court which was to execute him, Quisling recalled his pro-European initiative with pride.
>I referred,< he wrote, >to the joint declaration, which had been notified at Munich between Great Britain and Germany as a basis for world peace and appealed to him [Chamberlain] in the most earnest manner to summon a European Congress that could come to an arrangement.<
In a further statement on 7 August 1945, Quisling again evoked his federalist ideas, mentioning his 1930 essay >Russia and Us< in which he had called for a Nordic Union to include Scandinavia, Britain, Holland, Germany and eventually the British dominions and even North America.
This last idea has recently resurfaced among some British and American Eurosceptics, notably in the Heritage Foundation in Washington, who regard such grouping as a realistic alternative to today’s EU.
Quisling died before his idea could come to fruition. Being on the losing side of history, his career did not culminate in him becoming a European commissioner or the chairman of a UN committee.
Instead he fell under a hail of bullets on 24 October 1945 in the same Akershus Fortress in which he had sat as Minister-President of Norway.
But the idea to which Quisling gave his name—that it is better to collaborate than to sit carping on the sideline—has had a better fate.
Not only does it carry the day among British pro-Europeans now, it was also widely held during the second world war itself, even among Quisling’s personal enemies: the president of the supreme court which sent Quisling to his death was his old rival in collaboration, Paal Berg, who immediately after the German invasion proposed that the supreme court appoint a collaborationist council to govern the country under German occupation, and who was a member of it when it took over from Quisling on 15 April 1940.
(The Council was a short-lived affair and Quisling was back in the driving seat by September.)
On the other hand, the idea that parliamentary powers should be handed over to executive bodies like the EU Council of Ministers was popular with Quisling’s enemies. The Nygaardsvold government was able to return from exile in London to execute him (on the basis of retroactive legislation to reintroduce the death penalty) only because, on 9 April 1940, the Norwegian parliament had voted to transfer all its powers to the government.
This was, of course, precisely what the French parliament was to do on 10 July 1940 when it voted to hand full powers to the then prime minister, Marshall Pétain.
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute