mardi 20 juillet 2010

Autour de l'un des meilleurs historiens de la période de la Seconde Guerre mondiale: David Irving

En ce qui concerne l'économie du IIIe Reich, le livre Who Financed Hitler de James Pool a démoli le mythe voulant qu'Hitler ait été porté au pouvoir par l'élite financière juive internationale. Dans 'La révolution économique', Francis Delaisi a expliqué comment Schacht a été intelligemment utilisé par les nazis pour réaliser leur révolution économique sans précédent.

Ceux qui comprennent l'anglais doivent absolument découvrir David Irving. Écoutez quelques-unes de ses meilleures conférences.



David Irving on the Search for Truth in History - 1993

Winston Churchill and his Secret Communications with Roosevelt


Les 4 points que David Irving se dit prêt à défendre devant un tribunal:
 

1- La juiverie a payé Churchill
2- La juiverie a poussé la Grande-Bretagne à déclarer la guerre à l'Allemagne nazie
3- La juiverie a dominé les grands régimes communistes
4- La juiverie exerce un contrôle immense sur le monde entier







VIDEO David Irving: Smear Campaigns to Stifle Truth in History
An angry David Irving recalls incident after incident where the Holocaust lobby -- i.e., "The Traditional Enemy" -- tried to discredit his hitherto brilliant career as a skilled biographer of important historical figures of World War Two.

VIDEO - David Irving Examines the Holocaust Several months after the Zundel trial in 1988 and the publishing of the "Leuchter Report," David Irving spoke on his involvement in the trial as an expert witness, and his changed perception of what took place at Auschwitz.

VIDEO - David Irving The Zionist Influence Over Winston Churchill

VIDEO - David Irving-The 1956 Hungarian Uprising Was Against the Jews, then the Communists

VIDEO - Allied warmongering - pt1 - pt2

VIDEO - David Irving: Anti-German Propaganda Since WW2

VIDEO - David Irving The Holocaust lie

VIDEO - David Irving Churchill's War

VIDEO - Irving's Holocaust

VIDEO - Samisdat (Zundel) David Irving saga

VIDEO - David Irving - Real History - pt1 wartime England Dresden Hitler - pt2 Hitler's staff as sources - pt3 evesdropping - pt4 secrecy over Enigma code-breaking - pt5 Hitler and Waffen SS - pt6 hitler shielded - pt7 killings in 4 camps - pt8 Hiroshima to keep USSR out

VIDEO - David Irving - What about Secret or Closed Archives?

VIDEO - David Irving - Germans built the wrong airforce?

VIDEO - David Irving - Did Hitler Aim for World War?

VIDEO - David Irving - Dunkirk. Did Hitler Permit the British to escape?

VIDEO - David Irving and the Holocaust

VIDEO - David Irving - Exposing the falsifiers of History...Once again!!!

VIDEO - David Irving arrest in Austria

VIDEO - David Irving - Was Hiroshima justified?

VIDEO - David Irving Interview - An Independent Mind (2008) pt1 -- pt2

VIDEO - Free Speech - David Irving Speaks Out pt1 -- pt2

VIDEO - TV2 Tabloid Interview with historian David Irving 2009 05 26 Pt 1 -- pt2



Incidents: tournée de conférences, fin 2009
Hackers Post Private E-Mails of Accused Holocaust Denier
Anti-Antifa/USA: Antifa's NJ/NYC Attacks on David Irving
David Irving to Speak in New York, Secretly
Recherchés: Hacktivistes et vandales de la conférence d'Irving
Polish secret service monitoring David Irving's Treblinka tour this month
David Irving Angers Poles With Death Camp Tour
Call for ban on David Irving’s history tour; Angelina Jolie’s Dad vs. Time magazine
Holocaust denier David Irving to begin leading tours of Auschwitz next week
David Irving should be banned from Poland, say anti-racists
'David Irving a vicious liar' Polish Jewish leaders express disgust over British Holocaust denier's visit, urge legal action
Jews upset by Irving's Poland trip
Auschwitz museum bans tour organized by historian David Irving (22-09-2010)
New Holocaust Tour Will Set Record Straight - Irving
Auschwitz museum won't allow David Irving to give a tour at former concentration camp
Jewish leaders express disgust over David Irving's visit to Poland Irving has begun an 8-day study tour of wartime sites in Poland with a group of followers; they will not visit Auschwitz after he was denied entrance.



Sur ce blog:

Les responsables de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale

Revenge of the Neanderthals

L'anthrax commandé par Churchill pour exterminer les Allemands, financé par Sam Bronfman

La libération de Dresde

Les vengeurs

Buchanan: "Hitler voulait-il la guerre"

La Judée déclare la guerre à l'Allemagne

Pourim: notre ennemi traditionnel a gagné la Seconde Guerre mondiale

La loi Gayssot est injuste et criminelle

L'escroquerie de l'Holocauste









De nombreuses familles ont caché des juifs pour leur faire éviter les camps de travail et de déportations. Cela est incontestable. Mais c'était pas des "camps d'extermination", c'étaient des camps de déportation vers l'Est et des camps de travail. (Il n'est pas rare d'entendre des Juifs qui disent avoir passé par plus de neuf "camps de la mort"! Mais quelle sorte de "camp de la mort" étaient-ce donc? Les camps sont devenus des camps "de la mort" par la force des choses: les Alliés qui ont imposé un blocus sur l'Allemagne, empêchant ainsi le ravitaillement et favorisant la diffusions des épidémies (fièvre typhoïde,etc.); ainsi les maladies épidémiques ont fait de ces camps des camps de la mort. Mais qui était responsable de ce blocus et de ces frappes les infrastructures allemandes?

http://www.anti-communist.net/images3/judea_declares_war_02.jpg

Dès l'élection d'Hitler en mars 1933, les organisations juives internationales ont commencé à mobiliser l'opinion internationale contre l'Allemagne et décrétant un boycott généralisé et carrément "la guerre" - comme ils le font actuellement contre l'Iran! En effet aucun groupe à l'heure actuelle ne milite plus fortement pour une guerre en Iran que les organisations sionistes, juives ou non-juives! Cela n'est pas antisémite, c'est tout simplement la vérité. Ou bien serait-ce la vérité qui est antisémite?

La "libération" par les communistes fut un massacre. Pour couvrir leur responsabilité dans ces massacres, les communistes ont fabriqué un tas de mensonges et de vidéos de propagande complètement scénarisés afin de jeter le blâme entièrement sur les Allemands.

Qui d'entre nous sait que les "Kapos", qui dirigeaient les camps de concentration, étaient recrutés parmi les prisonniers juifs les plus barbares et violents des camps de concentration? Petit détail pour le moins dérangeant n'est-ce pas?

Rappelons que les déportations des juifs n'ont commencé qu'en 1942, soit bien longtemps après le début de la guerre. Dans cette guerre qui avait été imposée à l'Allemagne, les juifs et les communistes étaient de facto du côté de l'ennemi, à moins qu'ils aient choisi de rallier le camp des Allemands, en ce cas ils étaient accueillis à bras ouverts. Ils étaient de facto combattants ennemis, ce qui n'est pas bien différent des camps de Japonais aux USA ou des camps pour les Allemands, les fascistes (incluant de nombreux Italiens) et les communistes au Canada. Alors que la Croix Rouge a sévèrement critiqué les conditions des camps de Japonais aux USA, elle a félicité l'Allemagne pour son traitement exemplaire des prisonniers de guerre et de droit commun dans les camps.

(Rappelons au passage que le concept et la pratique du "camp de concentration", bien qu'il soit désormais intimement associé aux "nazis", a en fait été inventé par la Grande-Bretagne, qui fut la première à l'utiliser de manière systématique. Même chose pour l'eugénisme.)

Aussi, comment expliquer qu'à la fin de la guerre, se trouvaient encore plus de 6000 juifs à Berlin? N'étaient-ils pas censés être voués à l'extermination? Il y a quelque chose qui cloche ici... Au sujet de cette liquidation des juifs et du Plan Orient destiné à expulser les juifs au milieu des banquises de l'extrême-est russe, voir le blog d'Alain Guionnet, de la revue Revision.
Les Alliés ont bombardé des cibles civiles allemandes entières, c'étaient de vrais crimes de guerre. La ville de Dresde (cible civile), par exemple, un joyau de la culture européenne, fut complètement rasée, réduite en cendre, sous les ordres du boucher Churchill, au service de la haute finance Rothschild. Il était financé par un puissant groupe de financiers juifs, "The Focus" qui l'a fait déclarer la guerre à l'Allemagne pour stopper la révolution nationaliste et économique en Europe. Grosso modo ce groupe a servi à faire pression sur Churchill pour que la Grande-Bretagne mène la campagne pour la guerre et stoppe la révolution économique et nationaliste européenne (le "nazisme" et le fascisme). Ted O'Keefe rapporte les propos de David Irving, dans Irving on Churchill:
The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen -- principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs ... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds -- about $2 million in Canadian terms -- was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was -- the tune that Churchill had to play was -- fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.
For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word "other governments" advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill's dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.
When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That's where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his files. Again, you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.
Ted O'Keefe rapporte aussi les révélations de Irving concernant le saubvetage financier de Churchill par un juif Autrichien: "Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving's words, emerged "out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution." When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill's debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt."




PDF - The Forced War, Dr. David Hoggan's monumental examination of the origins of the Second World War.



L'Allemagne n'a jamais appelé à la destruction de cibles civiles. Mais Churchill l'a fait, il a appelé à détruire des cibles civiles, des villes allemandes entières. Et il a même admis que c'était pas l'Allemagne qui a déclenché la guerre, que c'est plutôt les Alliés qui ont déclaré la guerre à l'Allemagne parce qu'elle était rendue trop puissante économiquement! Oui vous avez bien lu et je peux le prouver:

Churchill, tueur à gage des Rothschild:

Y en a-t-il qui croient encore que nous étions du côté des "bons" contre les "méchants" dans cette Seconde guerre? il faudrait être bien dupe pour continuer à le croire. Churchill a avoué avoir déclenché la guerre: "Nous sommes entrés en guerre de notre propre chef, sans avoir été directement attaqués." ("We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.") (Guild Hall Speech, juillet 1943) Il a aussi admis que les bombardements de cibles civiles allemandes n'étaient pas une thérapie anti-fasciste mais qu'il s'agissait de protéger les acquis de la haute finance! "Cette guerre n'était pas seulement pour éliminer le fascisme en Allemagne, mais plutôt de s'approprier les marchés allemands." ("The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets.") (mars 1946) "Le crime impardonnable de l'Allemagne avant la seconde guerre mondiale a été d'avoir tenté d'extirper sa puissance économique du système d'échange mondial, ce qui enlèverait à la finance mondiale l'opportunité de faire des profits" ("Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.") (communication à Lord Robert Boothby, in "Sidney Rogerson, Propaganda in the Next War", préface à la seconde édition, 2001.) Il a même admis qu'il s'agissait de détruire la nation allemande! "Vous devez comprendre que cette guerre n'est pas contre Hitler ou le National Socialisme, mais contre la force du peuple allemand, qu'il faut écraser une fois pour toutes, sans égard au fait qu'il soit entre les mains d'Hitler ou d'un prêtre jésuite" ("You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest") (lu dans Emrys Hughes, "Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace", p. 145; propos rapporté par Adrian Preissinger, "Von Sachsenhausen bis Buchenwald", p. 23). "L'Allemagne est trop forte. Nous devons la détruire ("Germany is too strong. We must destroy her") (novembre 1936). Le 11 mai 1940, les bombardiers de la Royal Air Force (R.A.F.) sont les premiers à raser des cibles civiles, dans ce cas-ci contre l'Allemagne: "Churchill a ordonné une série de raids nocturnes sur Berlin dans le but précis d'éviter les attaques allemandes dans l'espace aérien londonien. Après que Berlin ait été attaqué six fois, l'aviation allemande a reçu l'ordre d'attaquer Londres, et, comme Churchill l'avait anticipé, la pression sur les frappes aériennes a été allégée. Alors ont commencé les blitz d'attaques" ("Churchill ordered a series of night raids on Berlin for the specific purpose of diverting German attacks from the airfields of London. After Berlin was attacked six times, the German air force was ordered to attack London, and, as Churchill anticipated, the pressure on the airfields was relieved. Thus began the blitz") (Benjamin Colby, "Twas a Famous Victory", p.173). Le 8 juillet 1940, il affirmait que ce dont l'Allemagne a besoin, c'est: une attaque asolument dévastatrice et exterminatrice sur le territoire allemand par de très gros bombardiers: "une attaque absolument dévastatrice, exterminatrice par de très lourds bombardiers sur le territoire allemand..." ("an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers on the Nazi homeland...") (cité par Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Spectator, 29 septembre 1979). "Je ne veux pas entendre de suggestions sur comment détruire l'économie et la machinerie de guerre; ce que je veux ce sont des suggestions sur comment nous pouvoir griller les réfugiés allemands en fuite de Breslau." ("I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war; what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.") (Cité dans Juan Maler, "Die Unvollendete", p. 27)


"Et l'objet de la haine était bien les Allemands en tant que peuple, non pas « les nazis », comme on aime souvent à le faire croire aujourd'hui. « Les Anglais ne combattent pas Hitler », avait remarqué l'ambassadeur américain, Joe Kennedy, « mais le peuple allemand » (p.189)." David Irving et Churchill [PDF]

D'après le célèbre aviateur et patriote américain Charles Lindbergh, de l'America First Committee, ce sont "les Britanniques, les Juifs et l'administration Roosevelt" qui ensemble ont poussé de force les USA à se battre dans cette guerre injuste! (discours du 11 septembre 1941 à Des Moines, v.f. ici, à propos de Pearl Harbor - discours qui s'appliquerait aussi bien parfaitement au 11 septembre et aux guerres qui en ont découlé) Le grand visionnaire Charles Lindbergh était pro-nazi et un grand allié de Henry Ford, qu'hitler admirait tant. Le mouvement contre la guerre, non-interventionniste, était fortement ancré dans ces groupes patriotes tels que l'America First Committe, dont Lindbergh était l'une des têtes pensantes et militantes.

Rudolf Hoëss (ne pas confondre avec Rudolf Hess l'ambassadeur de paix de Hitler) a "avoué" avoir planifié l'Holocauste à force d'être torturé. (Ses testicules avaient éclaté à force de recevoir des coups de pieds.) Que vaut le témoignage d'un homme soumis à la torture, je vous le demande?

Et l'on ne parle jamais de l'enfer des goulags, des chambres à gaz communistes et de l'Holocauste communiste du peuple russe, complètement ignorés et éclipsés par la mythique Shoah? Pourtant c'est 66 millions de Russes qui y ont péri! Et on sait que les hauts rangs des leaders bolchéviques étaient plein de juifs, souvent étrangers, parlant presque tous le yiddish, et qu'ils étaient déterminés à exterminer les chrétiens russes, jusqu'au plus petit paysan, considérés comme "capitalistes" parce que propriétaires de leur terre?

À Yalta et Potsdam, Churchill et Truman ont approuvé le plan de Staline de déporter des millions de civils Allemands dans les territoires qui leur étaient dévolus. Somme toute, Hitler n'a pas été bien pire que Churchill, Roosevelt, Staline ou Mao! Et s'il y a des coupables d'un "Holocauste", ce sont les États-Unis (Roosevelt) et la Grande-Bretagne (Churchill) qui l'ont perpétré contre l'Allemagne, alors qu'aucune cible civile n'avait été ainsi bombardée par les Allemands, et contre le Japon en atomisant Hiroshima et Nagasaki!

Quant à la Bombe A, ce sont clairement les USA, pays le plus fort des "Alliés", qui l'a utilisée. Hitler est cité pour avoir dit que la bombe atomique détruirait toute vie sur son passage et que c'est pourquoi l'Allemagne ne devait jamais l'obtenir. Ce sont les Américains qui l'ont utilisée cette bombe. Bernard Baruch, un juif sioniste très influent, est celui qui a convaincu le président d'autoriser le projet Manhattan pour créer la bombe atomique. Oppenheimer, physicien juif éminent, est celui qui a dirigé l'équipe de scientifiques et mathématiciens juifs du Manhattan Project. (Voici la liste des participants scientifiques au projet : Manhattan_Project_people parmi eux, on retient entre autres :Richard_Feynman, Stanislaw_Ulam, Szilard, Edward_Teller, John_von_Neumann, David_Bohm Tous juifs....) Harold Hodge qui fut le plus grand expert gourou de la fluoration durant la guerre froide, nous assurant que la fluoration était sécuritaire à 1ppm, a aussi dirigé le groupe de toxicologistes du Projet Manhattan, qui injectait du plutonium et du fluorure d'uranium et qui ont pu observer les effets dévastateurs du fluorure sur la santé (tout ceci a été amplement documenté par le journaliste récipiendaire d'un Pulitzer, Chistopher Bryson). Et ce fut le fameux juif expert de la manipulation de l'inconscient des foules Edward Bernays (neveu de Freud) qui fut le premier expert propagandiste engagé pour la propagande sur la fluoration (il fut aussi engagé pour concevoir la propagande culpabilisatrice sur l'holocauste ; alors que Hitchcock filmait les scènes de "prisonniers juifs" en utilisant de vrais prisonnier allemands et que Billy Wilders filmait "Buchenwald" pour la campagne de propagande des renseignements militaires américains!). C'était pas des "nazis" qui étaient derrière ça.

Certains disent que les nazis ont fluoré l'eau des camps de travail, mais selon Paul Connett, responsable du réseau étatsunien Fluoride Action Network, cette affirmation n'est pas documentée, et serait fondée sur rien de plus que des rumeurs...

Les nazis n'ont jamais fluoré l'eau, c'est un mensonge des messieurs Bronner (neveu juif d'Einstein) et Perkins. C'est les USA qui ont inventé cette pratique. Peut-on trouver un meilleur exemple d'inversion accusatoire juive que d'accuser les nazis d'avoir conçu le programme de fluoration de l'eau? (Mis à part les chambres à gaz judéo-communistes et l'Holocauste judéo-communiste du peuple russe, complètement ignorés et éclipsés par le grand mensonge de la Shoah?)

Accuser les pires ennemis de la juiverie trotsko-capitaliste internationale que furent Hitler et Staline d'être responsables du Projet Manhattan (programme évidemment judéo-américain et non stalinien ou hitlérien!), belle démonstration de Choutzpah (effronterie juive)!

Et ne parlons même pas des calomnies du Dr Charles Perkins: lui n'avait pas besoin d'être juif pour mettre sur le dos des nazis l'invention de la fluoration et les premières recherches sur celle-ci. Je vous épargne ses délires sur IG Farben qui, selon lui (et selon l'auteur de "Fluor: une erreur majeure. Comment faire autrement?", Bernard Montain), a produit le supposé gaz des chambres à gaz...

Au départ, le terme Holocauste servait à désigner ce qui est arrivé aux Européens à cause des deux guerres mondiales. Par la force des lobby juifs internationaux, le terme en est venu à être associé seulement aux victimes juives. Ce qui est proprement scandaleux. Il faut savoir qu'en fait le mot "holocauste" est un concept juif issu de l'ancien testament et qu'il désigne les sacrifices que le peuple élu fait à son dieu Yahvé. Yahvé aime l'odeur des holocaustes. Un exemple d'holocauste dans notre temps serait l'utilisation de phosphore blanc sur des populations civiles à Gaza comme au début 2009, par exemple. Ou bien les bombes à fragmentations toujours enterrées au Liban. Ou bien la guerre en Irak, qui a fait des millions de morts, et cela pour protéger les intérêts stratégiques d'Israel (exposés dans le Project for the New American Century, et dans Clean Break, les écrits des néoconservateurs -- anciens trotskistes anti-soviet métamorphosés en "conservateurs", sous la gouverne d'une poignée d'intellectuels juifs sionistes bellicistes et anti-musulmans.)

Signalons aussi au passage que le complot des Valkyries, ces monarchistes qui tentèrent d'assassiner Adolf Hitler (avec le colonel Von Stauffenberg en tête), étaient eux aussi antisémites, en dépit de leur différend avec les nazis!

Lecture recommandée, plus que tout autre: L'Holocauste au scanner, par Jurgen Graf (pdf)

Voir le documentaire: The Persecution of Revisionists: The Holocaust Unveiled dans lequel on découvre le mode de vie plutôt confortable des camps.

Peut-on expliquer ce qui justifie d'envoyer des historiens et de simples citoyens en prison par centaines en Europe sous le seul prétexte d'avoir remis en cause la version officielle, la version "cachère" de la Shoah?

Voici quelques individus qui sont allés en prison juste pour ça: Ernst Zundel, Jurgen Graf, Horst Mahler, Frederick Toben, Sylvia Stoltz, Germar Rudolf, l'évêque Richard Williamson, etc., etc. Sans compter tous ceux qu'on ne connaît pas parce que personne n'en parle. Où est Amnistie internationale à ce sujet? Ces gens sont-ils dangereux à ce point qu'il faut les enfermer? Je rappelle qu'ils n'ont pas commis d'actes répréhensibles, mis à part de poser des questions et d'affirmer que l'histoire officielle de l'holocauste est un mensonge. Est-ce un crime? Vraiment?

Peut-on expliquer les photos truquées de l'holocauste? Les fabrications et les mensonges de Simon Wiesenthal, le fameux chasseur de nazis?

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/AuschwSmoke.jpg
Simon Wiesenthal a truquée cette photo en y ajoutant de la fumée. Pourquoi tous ces mensonges?


Et les mensonges d'un nombre sans cesse croissants de "survivants" de la Shoah qui sont révélés chaque année? Faut-il ignorer cela?


Peut-on aussi nous expliquer aussi la raison pour laquelle pas la moindre preuve de l'utilisation de chambres à gaz homicides n'a été officiellement présentée?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NeBAJB0buNg/SZnY027F4xI/AAAAAAAAAN8/A7xNHVf-rLw/s400/ausch.jpg

Tout cela sent la magouille et le RACKET pur et simple. Comme le dénonce l'auteur Norman Finkelstein dans son livre L'industrie de l'Holocauste (pdf). (En passant, les parents de Finkelstein sont morts à Auschwitz, paraît-il!)


Quelqu'un qui refuserait d'examiner cette problématique objectivement ne ferait que démontrer qu'il n'a pas soif de vérité mais préfère la croyance aveugle et émotive. Ce dont nous avons besoin (plus spécialement en ces temps de mensonge omniprésent), c'est de vérité, pas de croyances, aussi belles et nobles soient-elles.

"La vérité vous rendra libres" (Jean 8, 32)

Complément à cet article: Notes (pdf)





Traitement des prisonniers dans les camps: Yankees vs Nat.-Socialiste

Les nazis ont été félicités par la Croix Rouge pour leur traitement des prisonniers de guerre et des travailleurs des camps de déportation/travail. À l'inverse, les USA ont été sévèrement critiqués pour leur traitement des Japonais dans les camps de concentration mal chauffés, dans de mauvaises conditions sanitaires, où les Japonais mouraient par milliers. Même le Canada avait des camps de concentration où ils ont emprisonnés des Canadiens d'origine allemande et des ressortissants Allemands, des Japonais (idem), etc., soupçonnés d'être du côté de l'ennemi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

La vérité sur les camps de travail/déportation de prisonniers civils d'un pays ennemi (Rappelons que les organisations juives et communistes avaient déclaré la guerre à l'Allemagne quelques temps après l'élection d'Hitler, en 1933.)

Rapport en trois volumes du Comité International de la Croix Rouge sur ses activités pendant la Deuxième Guerre Mondiale, Genève, 1948. Ce compte rendu complet provenant d'une source entièrement neutre comprend et étend les constatations de deux ouvrages précédents: Documents sur l'activité du CICR en faveur des civils détenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939-1945 (Genève, 1946) et Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the CICR during the Second World War (Genève, 1947). Le groupe d'auteurs, dirigé par Frédéric Siordet, explique au début du Rapport qu'il s'est inspiré d'une stricte neutralité politique, dans la tradition de la Croix Rouge, et c'est en cela que réside sa grande valeur.

Le CICR réussit à faire appliquer la convention militaire de Genève de 1929 pour pouvoir visiter les détenus civils des camps allemands d'Europe Centrale et d'Europe Occidentale. Par contre, il lui fut impossible d'aller faire une enquête en Union Soviétique puisque ce pays n'avait pas ratifié la Convention. Les millions de prisonniers civils et militaires de l'Union Soviétique dont les conditions de vie étaient, comme chacun sait, de loin les plus pénibles de toutes, étaient complètement coupés de tout contact ou contrôle international.

Le Rapport de la Croix Rouge est précieux parce qu'il fait d'abord la lumière sur les circonstances légitimes de la détention des Juifs dans des camps de concentration, c'est-à-dire comme citoyens d'un pays ennemi. En décrivant les deux catégories de civils internés, le Rapport qualifie le deuxième type de "civils déportés pour des raisons administratives (en allemand: Schutzhäftlinge = en détention préventive) qui avaient été arrêtés pour des motifs politiques ou raciaux parce que leur présence était considérée comme un danger en puissance pour l'Etat ou pour les troupes d'occupation" (Vol.III, p.73). Le Rapport poursuit: "Ces personnes étaient assimilées aux personnes arrêtées ou emprisonnées en vertu du droit commun pour des raisons de sécurité" (p.74). Le Rapport reconnaît que les Allemands furent d'abord peu disposés à permettre à la Croix Rouge d'aller surveiller des personnes détenues pour la sécurité de l'Etat, mais qu'à partir du 2· semestre de 1942, le CICR obtint des concessions importantes de l'Allemagne. On l'autorisa à distribuer des colis de vivres dans les grands camps de concentration à partir du mois d'août 1942, et à partir de février 1943, cette concession fut étendue à tous les autres camps et à toutes les autres prisons" (Vol.III, p.78). Le CICR établit bientôt le contact avec les commandants des camps et entama un programme d'envoi de vivres qui fonctionna jusqu'aux derniers mois de la guerre en 1945 ainsi qu'en témoignent des lettres de remerciement envoyées par milliers par des Juifs détenus dans les camps.

Le Rapport signale que "9.000 colis étaient emballés chaque jour. A partir de l'automne de 1943 jusqu'à mai 1945, 1.112.000 colis environ, représentant un poids total de 4.500 tonnes, furent envoyés aux camps de concentration" (Vol.III, p.80). En plus des colis de vivres, on expédia des colis de vêtements et de produits pharmaceutiques. "Des colis furent envoyés à Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Labdsberg-am-Lech, Floha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, à des camps situes près de Vienne et dans le centre et le sud de l'Allemagne. Ils furent destinés surtout à des Juifs belges, hollandais, français. grecs, italiens, norvégiens, polonais et apatrides" (Vol.III, p.83). Au cours des années de guerre, "le Comité put faire transporter et distribuer des marchandises valant plus de 20 millions de francs suisses collectés par des organisations juives de bienfaisance dans le monde entier, spécialement par le comité de New York American Joint Distribution Committee" (Vol. I, p.644). Jusqu'à l'entrée en guerre des Etats-Unis, ce comité de New York fut autorisé par les Allemands à avoir ses bureaux à Berlin. Le CICR se plaint de ce que son action de grande envergure d'aide aux détenus juifs fut entravée non pas par les Allemands, mais par le blocus étroit de l'Europe par les Alliés. La Croix Rouge acheta la majeure partie des vivres en Roumanie, en Hongrie et en Slovaquie. Le CICR a des éloges particuliers pour les conditions de vie libérales qui régnaient à Theresienstadt jusqu'aux dernières visites des délégués du Comité en avril 1945. Ce camp, "où vivaient environ 40.000 Juifs déportés de divers pays, était un ghetto relativement privilégié" (Vol.III, p.75). Suivant le Rapport, "les délégués purent visiter le camp de Theresienstadt (Terezin) ou vivaient exclusivement des Juifs et ou régnaient des conditions spéciales. D'après les renseignements recueillis par le Comité, ce camp avait été créé à titre expérimental par certains dirigeants du Reich qui voulaient donner aux Juifs la possibilité de vivre en commun dans une ville administrée par eux-mêmes et possédant une autonomie presque complète... deux délégués purent visiter le camp le 6 avril 1945. Ils confirmèrent l'impression favorable de leur première visite" (Vol.I, p.642).

Le CICR loue aussi le régime d'Ion Antonescu de la Roumanie fasciste où le Comité put apporter une aide spéciale à 183.000 Juifs roumaine jusqu'à l'occupation du pays par les troupes soviétiques... qui signifia la fin de cette action humanitaire, et le CICR se plaint amèrement de n'avoir jamais réussi à envoyer quoi que ce soit en Union Soviétique" (Vol.I, p.62). Ce fut le cas aussi pour plusieurs camps de concentration allemands après leur "libération" par l'Armée Rouge. Le CICR reçut une correspondance volumineuse d'Auschwitz, jusqu'au moment de l'occupation soviétique. Une partie des détenus fut évacuée vers l'Ouest, mais les efforts de la Croix Rouge pour envoyer des colis aux détenus restés à Auschwitz occupé par l'Armée Rouge furent vains. Cependant, des colis de vivres furent encore envoyés à des anciens détenus d'Auschwitz transférés à l'Ouest dans des camps tels que Buchenwald et Oranienburg.

Un des aspects les plus importants du Rapport de la Croix Rouge est qu'il fait la lumière sur la véritable cause des nombreux décès dans les camps vers la fin de la guerre: "Dans les conditions chaotiques de l'Allemagne après l'invasion, pendant les derniers mois de la guerre, plus aucun ravitaillement n'arrivait dans les camps de concentration et il y eut de plus en plus de détenus qui moururent d'épuisement. Alarmé par cette situation, le gouvernement allemand lui-même en informa finalement le CICR le 1er février 1945. En mars 1945, des entretiens du Président du CICR avec Kaltenbrunner, général de la SS, eurent des résultats encore plus décisifs. Les colis de vivres purent désormais être distribués par le CICR et un délégué de la Croix Rouge fut autorisé à séjourner dans chaque camp..." (Vol.III, p.83). Il est donc évident que les autorités allemandes faisaient tout leur possible pour remédier à cette situation désastreuse. Le Croix Rouge précise que le ravitaillement des camps fut interrompu à cause des attaques de l'aviation alliée sur toutes les voies de communication, et dans l'intérêt des détenus juifs, la Croix Rouge protesta le 15 mars 1944 contre "la guerre aérienne barbare des Alliés" (Inter Arma Caritas, p.78). Le 2 octobre 1944, le CICR avertit le Foreign Office de l'effondrement imminent du système de transport allemand en déclarant qu'il entraînerait inévitablement la famine pour tous ceux qui se trouvaient en Allemagne à l'époque.

L'examen de ce volumineux Rapport en trois volumes nous montre -- et il importe de le souligner -- que les délégués de la Croix Rouge Internationale n'ont trouvé aucune preuve, dans les camps de concentration des pays européens occupés par l'Allemagne, d'une politique délibérée d'extermination des Juifs. Il n'est fait mention nulle part, dans les 1.600 pages du Rapport, d'une chose telle qu'une chambre à gaz. Le rapport reconnaît que les Juifs, comme beaucoup d'autres peuples pendant la guerre, ont subi les rigueurs de la vie dans les camps et ont souffert de privation, mais le silence complet du rapport sur une extermination voulue et planifiée réfute amplement la légende des Six Millions. Comme les délégués du Vatican avec qui elle a travaillé, la Croix Rouge Internationale estime qu'il lui était impossible d'adhérer à la campagne irresponsable menée partout à grand fracas pour accuser l'Allemagne nazie d'avoir appliqué une politique de génocide.

Quant au taux réel de la mortalité, le Rapport explique qu'on utilisa les services de la plupart des médecins juifs des camps pour lutter contre le typhus sur le front de l'Est, de sorte que ces médecins n'étaient pas dans les camps quand les épidémies de typhus s'y déclarèrent en 1945 (Vol. I, p.204 ff). On prétend souvent, par ailleurs, que des exécutions en masse eurent lieu dans des chambres à gaz habilement maquillées en salles de douches. Le Rapport réduit aussi à néant cette allégation.

"Les délégués visitèrent non seulement les lavabos, mais aussi les installations de bain, les douches et la blanchisserie. Ils durent intervenir souvent pour faire améliorer les appareils et pour les faire réparer ou agrandir" (Vol. III, p.594).

Le Volume III du Rapport de la Croix Rouge, chapitre 3 (I. Population civile juive) traite de "l'aide apportée aux Juifs de la population libre"; ce chapitre montre clairement que tous les Juifs d'Europe ne furent certainement pas internés mais restèrent parmi la population civile en étant soumis à certaines restrictions. Ceci contredit nettement le soi-disant "perfectionnisme" du prétendu "programme d'extermination", et ce qui est affirmé dans les faux mémoires de Hoess, à savoir qu'Eichmann était obsédé par l'idée d'arrêter "absolument tous les Juifs qu'il pourrait attraper." En Slovaquie, par exemple, où l'adjoint d'Eichmann, Dieter Wisliceny, exerçait ses fonctions, le Rapport spécifie qu'"une grande partie de la minorité juive fut autorisée à rester dans le pays, et à certaines périodes, la Slovaquie fut considérée comme un hâvre relatif pour les Juifs, spécialement pour ceux qui venaient de Pologne. Les Juifs qui restèrent en Slovaquie semblent avoir été relativement en sûreté jusqu'à la fin du mois d'août 1944, quand il se produisit un soulèvement contre les troupes allemandes. Il est vrai que la loi du 15 mai 1942 avait entraîné l'internement de plusieurs milliers de Juifs, mais on les mit dans des camps où les conditions de nourriture et de logement étaient tolérables et où les détenus pouvaient travailler en étant payés dans des conditions presque égales à celles de l'extérieur" (Vol.I, p.646).

Parmi les 3 millions de Juifs à peu près qui se trouvaient en Europe pendant la guerre (comment en exterminer 6 dans ce cas?), il y en eut non seulement pas mal qui ne furent pas détenus, mais une partie d'entre eux put continuer à émigrer pendant toute la guerre, généralement via la Hongrie, la Roumanie et la Turquie. Ironie du sort, cette émigration, à partir des territoires occupés par les Allemands, fut facilitée aussi par le Reich, comme dans le cas des Juifs polonais arrivés en France avant l'occupation de ce pays. "Les Juifs de Pologne qui avaient obtenu, quand ils étaient en France, des permis d'entrée aux Etats-Unis, furent considérés comme des citoyens américains par les autorités allemandes d'occupation qui acceptèrent ultérieurement de reconnaître la validité d'environ trois mille passeports remis à des Juifs par des consulats de pays d'Amérique Latine" (Vol.I, p.645). Comme futurs citoyens américains, ces Juifs furent rassemblés au camp de Vittel réservé aux citoyens américains. L'émigration de Juifs européens à partir de la Hongrie, en particulier, se poursuivit pendant la guerre, sans entraves des autorités allemandes. "Jusqu'au mois de mars 1944", dit le Rapport de la Croix Rouge, (des Juifs qui avaient le privilège de posséder des visas pour la Palestine furent autorisés à quitter la Hongrie" (Vol.I, p.648). Même après le remplacement du gouvernement Horthy en 1944 (il voulait conclure un armistice séparé avec l'Union Soviétique) par un gouvernement qui dépendait davantage de l'autorité allemande, l'émigration de Juifs continua. Le Comité obtint les promesses de la Grande-Bretagne et des Etats-Unis "d'aider par tous les moyens l'émigration des Juifs à partir de la Hongrie", et le CICR reçut un message du gouvernement américain: "Le gouvernement des Etats-Unis répète de façon précise qu'il fera le nécessaire pour prendre soin de tous les Juifs qui sont autorisés à partir dans les circonstances actuelles" (Vol.I, p.649).

http://vho.org/Intro/F/index.html



Inversion accusatoire: expérimentations humaines
GRIGORI MOISSEVITCH MAIRANOVSKI

Vous avez dû entendre parler des expérimentations humaines auxquelles se livraient les nazis dans les camps. Mais je parierais que vous avez moins souvent entendu parler de celles qui se pratiquaient dans les coins discrets de la Loubianka, le siège des services secrets soviétiques, qu’ils se soient appelés Tchéka, Guépéou, KGB ou NKVD.

Et encore moins de celui qui eut la haute main sur ces expérimentations de 1937 à 1951. Il a fallu pour cela que Soljenitsyne lève le voile en 2003 dans le tome 2 de sa fresque Deux siècles ensemble – Juifs et Russes pendant la période soviétique. Et révèle des choses bien étonnantes, quoique quasiment boycottées depuis.

Le laboratoire des poisons du régime bolchevique est installé dès 1921. En 1926, il passe sous la férule de Gendrik Yagoda, alors second de la Guépéou. A partir de 1937, sous le nom de Laboratoire 1, ses activités vont considérablement se développer sous la direction de Grigory Moïssevitch Maïranovski.

Les sources ne sont pas très loquaces sur ce personnage qui ne manque pourtant pas d’intérêt et dont les hauts faits mériteraient de passer à la postérité au moins autant que ceux du Dr Mengele. Difficile déjà de trouver un portrait de lui. On sait qu’il est né en 1899 à Batoumi en Géorgie. Dans sa jeunesse, il s’affilie au Bund (l’Union – socialiste et antisioniste – des travailleurs juifs), mais devant les nuages qui s’amoncellent sur ce mouvement, qui sera finalement liquidé, il préfère rejoindre les bolcheviques. C’est plus sûr. Il devient médecin biochimiste.

VIDEO - Spingola Sand VKC on Mengele Myths and More

Il travaille ensuite à l’Institut de recherches médicales Gorki à Moscou qui sera placé sous l’autorité du NKVD. En 1937, l’année des grandes purges, ce serviteur très zélé du régime obtient une promotion dont il tâchera de se rendre digne : on lui confie la direction du Laboratoire 1 avec la tâche très spéciale de mettre au point un poison mortel ne laissant pas de traces. Un poison provoquant un décès qui semblerait naturel, du genre « insuffisance cardiaque ».

Dès lors, il va se mettre au travail avec ardeur et sans états d’âme superflus. De toute façon, n’est-ce pas, ses victimes étaient des ennemis du peuple, et lui-même travaillait à instaurer un monde meilleur, alors les détails…

Il va se livrer à des recherches sur toutes sortes de poisons : la digitaline, le curare, la ricine, etc. Et comme c’était un homme consciencieux et désireux de bien faire, il fera des essais sur des cobayes humains – les oiseaux, ainsi les appelait-il poétiquement – d’âge et de condition physique très variés. Il administrait le poison dans la nourriture ou la boisson, puis à travers un judas, observait les phases de l’agonie, notant scrupuleusement tous les détails.

Il est si bien noté par ses chefs qu’il est promu colonel du NKVD en 1943. C’est la guerre, ce ne sont pas les ennemis du peuple qui manquent. Outre les russes, il aura bientôt à sa disposition des oiseaux allemands, polonais, voire japonais. Il expérimente à tour de bras.

Et d’ailleurs il réussira apparemment à mettre au point la substance parfaite, appelée C-2 qui vous tuait doucement en quinze minutes, sans laisser de traces. Elle sera largement utilisée.

Le NKVD demandera également à ce précieux auxiliaire d’expérimenter un « camion à gaz ». Mais nous en reparlerons.

Ce n’est qu’à la veille du procès de Nuremberg, en 1945, que les expérimentations sur cobayes humains effectuées par le bon docteur Maïranovski furent interdites. Du moins officiellement.

Les luttes de pouvoir sauvages au sein du NKVD, alors dirigé par Lavrenti Béria, vont affecter le colonel-empoisonneur qui se croyait pourtant bien à l’abri dans son laboratoire. Il savait tant de choses, ayant personnellement pratiqué tant d’assassinats politiques, qu’il se considérait intouchable ....

Il est cependant arrêté en décembre 1951 - pas pour ses crimes, je vous rassure tout de suite - mais dans un contexte de luttes de clans. Et, sans qu’il y ait de procès, il est condamné à 10 ans de prison pour… abus de fonction et détention illégale de poisons ! Curieusement, il ne sera pas libéré à la mort de Staline, en mars 1953, et dans l’espoir de se dédouaner, il chargera copieusement son ancien patron, Lavrenti Béria, lors du procès de celui-ci en juin de la même année, reconnaissant du même coup ses propres crimes.

Il fera bel et bien ses 10 ans de prison, à sa grande indignation. Voilà comment on récompensait la vertu militante ! Il est libéré en décembre 1961 et assigné à résidence au Daghestan où il travaillera dans un laboratoire de chimie.

Il commettra une erreur fatale en essayant d’obtenir avec acharnement sa réhabilitation. Dans ce but, il écrit à Krouchtchev, le nouveau maître, pour lui rappeler certains faits anciens – notamment un assassinat commun – que ce dernier n’avait apparemment nulle envie de voir ressurgir. Maïranovski n’aura pas l’occasion d’en parler davantage car il succombe opportunément en décembre 1964 d’une… insuffisance cardiaque. Source : LICRA : « La France LICRAtisée », le blog d'Anne Kling




Inversion accusatoire: Camions à gazage... bolchéviques!
ISAÏ DAVIDOVITCH BERG

Je me sens quelque peu frustrée d’avoir si peu d’informations sur ce personnage. Là encore, nous devons à Soljenitsyne d’avoir soulevé le coin d’un voile épais cachant ce qui n’était pas censé être exposé aux regards.

Isaï Davidovitch Berg est un rouage du système bolchevique comme il y en eut des milliers. Il n’a dû sa – relative – célébrité qu’à son esprit ingénieux qui va s’exercer, hélas pour lui, sur un sujet aujourd’hui des plus sensibles.

Voilà un homme qui s’est retrouvé, dans les années trente, chef du service économique du NKVD pour la région de Moscou. Un poste de responsabilité, certes, mais pas le sommet de l’échelle. Chargé comme il l’était des problèmes économiques, il devait donc veiller à dépenser et faire dépenser le moins d’argent possible. C’est logique.

Nous sommes en 1937, période de grandes purges, lorsque les exécutions, dans le secteur de Moscou, prennent une ampleur telle que nos braves fonctionnaires ont du mal à suivre. Tous ces ennemis du peuple à fusiller en même temps ! Sans compter toutes les munitions nécessaires pour leur tirer une balle dans la nuque, ça finit par coûter cher ! Et le temps que ça prend pour les assassiner un par un !

C’est là que va intervenir la cervelle ingénieuse de notre bonhomme. Il va inventer un moyen moins onéreux de procéder. Un moyen simple, mais encore fallait-il y penser : le camion dont les gaz d’échappement sont orientés vers l’intérieur. Cette invention sera appelée en russe dushegubka, ou «chambre à gaz ambulante».

La procédure était effectivement très simple : les « patients » étaient entassés dans un camion hermétiquement clos renvoyant les gaz d’échappement vers l’intérieur, et c’était parti pour une longue promenade autour de Moscou. A l’arrivée, – ô miracle de la technique - ne restaient plus que des cadavres qui étaient immédiatement escamotés dans un coin discret. Voilà, ce n’était pas plus compliqué que ça. Et relativement économique, encore que… l’essence …

Eh bien, le croirez-vous, ce rouage pourtant zélé et méritant finira misérablement en 1939, victime lui aussi d’une purge. Quels ingrats !

Ce brave Berg a inventé une application pratique mais, soyons juste, l’idée d’utiliser des gaz pour tuer était plus vieille que lui. Elle démarre en fait durant la 1ère guerre mondiale, vite relayée par les bolcheviques qui n’étaient jamais en reste dans ce domaine. Les gaz seront largement utilisés par eux, souvent contre les paysans refugiés dans les bois, notamment à Tambov en 1921. Les ordres reçus de Moscou spécifiaient : « Les forêts où les bandits se cachent doivent être nettoyées par l'utilisation de gaz toxique. Ceci doit être soigneusement calculé afin que la couche de gaz pénètre les forêts et tue quiconque s'y cache ». Source : LICRA : « La France LICRAtisée », le blog d'Anne Kling





Bernhard Schaub: La pensée rend libre

Samedi 9 janvier 2010

On trouvera enfin ci-dessous le texte complet de l’article du révisionniste suisse allemand Bernhard Schaub (intervenu à la Conférence de Téhéran des 11/12 décembre 2006) (l’article original en allemand).

La pensée rend libre

Le monde bouge. La crise financière ébranle une confiance jusqu’ici par trop aveugle dans le système économique et politique en place. Cette crise présente un aspect positif : elle incite à la réflexion. Nombreux sont ceux qui subodorent que les solutions qui nous sont proposées par les politiques n’en sont pas réellement, mais constituent simplement des mesures destinées à maintenir en vie le système. Le soupçon s’étend que la crise dans son ensemble pourrait n’être, en réalité, qu’une gigantesque action de redistribution, afin de concentrer l’argent et le pouvoir dans un nombre de mains toujours plus réduit. Il est grand temps de soumettre les dogmes incontestés à l’épreuve de la réflexion.
Le système sociétal actuel repose en fait – comme tous les systèmes – sur certains axiomes qui constituent des piliers auxquels il ne faut pas toucher, sous peine de menacer l’ensemble d’effondrement. Ces piliers sont toujours, de ce fait, tabous.

Qui veut progresser dans notre société, ou bien simplement y être toléré, est bien inspiré, vis-à-vis de certains articles de la foi, de les répéter ou, à tout le moins, de ne point les contester trop souvent. En font partie l’action de grâces envers l’économie de marché libérale, pilotée par les taux d’intérêts et reposant sur l’indépendance des banques, envers la prétendue démocratie parlementaire et le bipartisme gauche-droite qui en découle, envers le philosémitisme, l’antiracisme, l’homosexualité, l’avortement et enfin un cri d’amour vibrant pour les Droits de l’Homme dont on croit disposer.
Il est certes permis d’adhérer à la religion ou à la philosophie de son choix, mais à la condition tacite de ne pas y croire vraiment. Dans le cas contraire se répand très vite un relent de fondamentalisme. Dans le paysage médiatico-politique d’aujourd’hui, on entend par fondamentaliste quelqu’un qui est susceptible de placer ses convictions catholiques, protestantes, islamiques ou autres au-dessus des valeurs indépassables évoquées ci-dessus.

Les fondamentalistes ne peuvent, de ce fait, pas être tolérés dans le cadre du Nouvel Ordre mondial global, qui est le cheval de bataille de la politique américaine. Il n’y a du reste qu’un tout petit pas qui sépare le fondamentaliste de l’infamant qualificatif de terroriste. Or point n’est besoin ici d’expliciter davantage le traitement qui attend les terroristes. Il suffit de se référer aux suites du 11-Septembre.
L’Européen qui réfléchit constate avec étonnement que les zones taboues, définies par le politiquement correct et surveillées par la justice et les médias, s’étendent toujours davantage. Le citoyen est condamné au silence par toutes sortes de lois-bâillons et intimidé par le grotesque et menaçant mandat d’arrêt délivré par l’Union européenne, ne sachant plus ce qui est punissable, où et pourquoi. Il a été récemment publié qu’au cours de l’année 2008, près de 14.000 "délits DU DROIT???” – on se demande bien de quoi il s’agit ­ ont été commis en République Fédérale d’Allemagne, dont plus de 700 actes de violence. Si l’on déduit ces derniers, il reste donc environ 13.000 “délits” à motivation politique non accompagnés de violences. Cela est remarquable, d’autant plus que, dans le même temps, les politiciens allemands, infatués de leur légitimité, ne cessent de rappeler à l’ordre la Chine ou d’autres pays pour “exiger le respect des droits de l’homme”.

Manifestement, les droits de l’homme relatifs à la liberté d’expression, de recherche scientifique, de conviction religieuse ou philosophique qui sont invoqués ne valent que pour autant qu’ils ne contreviennent pas aux Tables de la Loi régissant la "Communauté de Valeurs occidentale” qui trônent au-dessus d’eux. L’on utilise ici deux poids et deux mesures. Il s’agit d’une démarche profondément insincère, pour ne pas dire mensongère : une manœuvre d’un machiavélisme très transparent au profit des structures de pouvoir occidentales.

L’aspect le plus remarquable des zones taboues occidentales est cependant de nature historique. C’est que, lorsqu’il s’agit du national-socialisme et du Troisième Reich, nos contemporains suspendent alors toute réflexion. Le cerveau se trouve privé de sa fonction et des réflexes qui semblent quasi religieux se déclenchent. Tout discernement est suspendu, tout questionnement relatif à la condamnation en bloc qui prévaut aujourd’hui est jugé inconvenant et même empreint de malignité. Il n’y a sur ce sujet qu’une opinion admise : les nazis ­ comprendre les Allemands ­ sont coupables de tout et les Juifs sont des victimes, fondamentalement et à toutes les époques. On peut se référer aux remous autour d’Erika Steinbach, Eva Hermann, Martin Hohmann et le général Günzel. Quiconque doute de ce sacro-saint article de la foi n’est plus un interlocuteur valable mais est assimilé à un hérétique et un lépreux, menacé sans délai de comparution devant le juge de l’Inquisition, de bannissement de la société et de mort économique. Et toute personne ayant à faire avec lui doit immédiatement “ "prendre ses distances” ".
Cela s’applique avant tout aux questions tournant autour de l’Holocauste, qui constitue le coeur de ce terrain miné. L’interminable tapage médiatique à propos de l’évêque Williamsson nous a mis ce tabou une fois de plus en évidence. Mme Merkel y voit l’occasion de donner des leçons au Pape, et le Pape de sommer l’évêque de se rétracter; le parquet de Ratisbonne émet contre l’homme d’Eglise un mandat d’arrêt international que la justice de la République Fédérale examine – pourquoi? Parce qu’il considère un fait historique différemment de ce qui est habituel et admis. C’est ici que réside son hérésie. On ne peut appeler cela autrement, puisque cet événement historique a été soustrait à la sphère scientifique, et de ce fait au débat contradictoire, pour l’élever vers la sphère de la religion, en l’occurrence une religion mondiale qui, dans la République Fédérale, a revêtu, nul ne peut s’y méprendre, les traits d’une semi-religion d’Etat.

Alors que la campagne médiatique contre Williamson battait son plein, l’avocat et révisionniste Horst Mahler était condamné à 6 années de prison à Munich, puis, dans la foulée, à 4 années supplémentaires à Potsdam pour avoir contesté l’Holocauste. Déjà, en 2007, la collaboratrice de Mahler, l’avocate Sylvia Stolz, avait été condamnée à 3 ans et demi de prison et interpellée en plein tribunal pour être incarcérée. Motif: elle avait défendu le publiciste germano-canadien Ernst Zündel devant la justice à Mannheim et avait tenté de démontrer qu’il avait raison. Zündel lui-même écopa d’une peine de 5 ans. Les deux années de détention provisoire qu’il avait passées dans des conditions indignes au Canada ne furent pas prises en compte. Zündel prend donc sept ans pour avoir diffusé sur son site internet des arguments qui, à son avis, plaident en défaveur de la thèse du gazage massif des Juifs. Peu après Zündel, le chimiste diplômé et auteur de plusieurs livres Germar Rudolf, ancien scientifique au sein de l’Institut Max-Planck de Stuttgart, se vit infliger une peine de deux ans et demi de prison parce qu’il croyait, sur la base de ses propres recherches menées à Auschwitz, être parvenu aux mêmes conclusions que d’autres chercheurs révisionnistes avant lui, tels que le Français Robert [F. qui a été] condamné en France, à plusieurs reprises, à des amendes astronomiques et blessé par des bandes d’agresseurs non identifiés.
Un des chercheurs et écrivains révisionnistes les plus connus est le Suisse Jürgen Graf, spécialiste des civilisations romaine et scandinave, condamné par un tribunal helvétique à 15 mois de détention pour contestation de l’Holocauste. Il n’a pu échapper à son arrestation que par la fuite vers l’exil. Le Français résident belge Vincent Reynouard, père de sept enfants, est également en cavale. En Autriche, c’est l’ingénieur diplômé, expert auprès des tribunaux, Wolfgang Fröhlich, qui en est à son deuxième séjour en prison pour ne pas croire à la présentation officielle de l’Holocauste.
Où est passé Amnesty International?

Que fait le Tribunal Européen des Droits de l’Homme?

Qui entend les médias protester?

Où sont les manifestations estudiantines?

Que dit l’Eglise?
Toutes ces femmes et tous ces hommes, ainsi que beaucoup d’autres, comme Ursula Haverbeck, le politologue Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, le Dr Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz n’ont commis d’autre crime que celui d’arriver, par leurs recherches et leur réflexion, à des conclusions divergeant de la représentation officielle ­ et pour avoir ensuite posé des questions certes incisives à ceux qui répandaient leur désinformation sur le monde.
C’est la fierté de la science occidentale de ne connaître aucun tabou depuis la Renaissance et particulièrement depuis le Siècle des Lumières, et de retenir comme unique critère une objectivité absolue. La révision – donc l’examen, la vérification, la remise en question – est un principe scientifique fondamental. Tout le reste n’est que dogmatisme. La science ne peut accepter de préalables, ni religieux, ni politiques, ni de quelque autre nature sociétale. Dans le domaine des sciences naturelles, il n’existe pas de vérités chrétiennes ou non chrétiennes, morales ou non. Le scientifique a droit à l’erreur car nul ne détient la vérité absolue. La science a substitué à l’ère médiévale de la foi celle des découvertes.

Appliquée à la recherche sur l’Holocauste, cela signifie qu’elle ne peut être biaisée par des réflexes philo- ou antisémites, pas plus que philo- ou antigermaniques. Que l’on aime ou non les Juifs ou les Allemands n’est pas un critère de recherche et ne doit ni la conditionner ni y faire obstacle.
Dans son message à Benoît XVI Mme Merkel a dit: “Il ne peut y avoir aucune négation de l’Holocauste.” Que signifie ici: “Il ne peut”? Cela veut-il dire qu’il existe – à l’encontre de toute démarche scientifique – dans ce domaine des directives politiques valables à l’échelle mondiale, auxquelles aussi bien l’administratrice en chef de la République Fédérale que le Commandeur de la Chrétienté doivent se conformer?
Il est des déclarations qui, à tout le moins, corroborent cette supposition. Dès le 21 mai 1979, le professeur William Rubinstein, de l’Université australienne de Melbourne, écrivait dans la "Nation Review”:
"Si l’on pouvait démontrer que l’Holocauste est une imposture, c’est l’arme n°1 de l’arsenal israélien de propagande qui disparaîtrait.”
Et à la suite de la condamnation à plusieurs années de prison du professeur et révisionniste Günter Deckert, le “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (FAZ) écrivait le 15 août 1994: "Si l’opinion de Deckert sur l’Holocauste était juste, la République Fédérale d’Allemagne serait fondée sur un mensonge. Chaque discours présidentiel, chaque minute de silence, chaque livre d’histoire serait entaché de mensonge. En mettant en doute le meurtre des Juifs, il conteste la légitimité de la République.”
Il semble même qu’il y ait des points de vue plus élevés: "Le souvenir de l’Holocauste est un élément central de la construction du Nouvel Ordre mondial.” C’est ce qu’écrivait le directeur canadien du B’nai B’rith Ian J. Kagedan dans le "Toronto Star" du 26.11.91.
Ces dépêches journalistiques insignifiantes nous permettent de comprendre pourquoi Mme Merkel n’organise pas à Berlin une conférence internationale sur l’Holocauste et ne soumet pas les affirmations des révisionnistes à une discussion publique et à la critique. Ce sujet douloureux serait mis une fois pour toutes sur la table et les "billevesées pseudo-scientifiques” des sceptiques de l’Holocauste se trouveraient balayées sous les yeux du public et par des scientifiques, pas par des journalistes… Mais pour ce faire, naturellement, il faudrait exposer les arguments et les contre-arguments.

Pourquoi cela ne se peut-il? Par peur qu’il puisse en sortir d’autres résultats que ceux politiquement souhaités? Est-ce pour cela que les révisionnistes sont en prison? Que leurs livres sont mis à l’index? Que l’opinion publique n’a pas le droit de se faire sa propre opinion sur l’état de l’argumentation révisionniste? La raison de cette remarquable retenue scientifique paraît être la même que celle de la prudence régnant dans les prétoires. Il est ici aussi de pratique constante – ce qui est pudiquement dissimulé à l’opinion publique – de ne jamais rechercher si l’accusé est fondé dans son argumentation. Les éléments de preuve ne sont pas retenus et si le prévenu tente d’expliquer son point de vue, il ne fait que s’exposer à de nouveaux chefs d’inculpation, idem pour son avocat! Monstruosité juridique. Il suffit de déclarer le gazage homicide de millions de personnes "fait de notoriété publique” et le tribunal n’a plus qu’à déterminer si l’accusé est effectivement un contestataire de cette évidence et à fixer la sentence. Un événement historique se trouve ainsi carrément élevé au rang de loi naturelle connue de tous et vérifiable, alors que dans le même temps on interdit de facto cette vérification!
Quelqu’un ici aurait-il peur de la vérité?
Des voix s’élèvent, toujours plus nombreuses, qui veulent voir briser le silence: en 2007, le Pr Karl Albert Schachtschneider, qui enseigne le droit public à l’Université d’Erlangen, s’exprimait à Salzbourg sur la constitution de l’Union européenne. Réagissant à la question du public “ "La liberté d’expression existe-t-elle chez nous?” " il répondit:
"Un pays n’est pas libre quand la liberté d’expression y est entravée par de sévères sanctions. Le grand Kant disait, à propos de la liberté d’expression, que l’on doit pouvoir parler de tout, que ce qu’on dit soit vrai ou faux. Quoi qu’il ait pu se passer à propos de l’Holocauste, je n’y étais pas. Mais si je n’en parle pas, c’est aussi parce que c’est interdit. On n’a pas le droit d’en débattre, même scientifiquement. La notion d’ ‘incitation à la haine’ l’interdit. Ce pays n’est pas libre.”

Au cas où le "Nouvel Ordre mondial” que le Canadien du B’nai B’rith a évoqué serait conceptuellement plus ou moins identique au système financier qui a précipité le monde dans une crise sans précédent, cela vaudrait sans aucun doute la peine d’examiner de plus près ses principaux fondements historiques et philosophiques. "Ce que tous condamnent, nous devons le vérifier. Il en va de même pour ce que tous encensent.” Ainsi serait bouclée la boucle de nos observations: La pensée rend libre!

via anne kling

Enfin, surtout quand Israël est visé. Parce qu’en d’autres circonstances, c'est tout à fait vertueux …
Vous trouverez ci-après un texte d’un avocat membre du comité directeur du CRIF, qui vous prouvera que devant les pressions exercées, on s’est démené dans les ministères ad hoc pour donner pleine et entière satisfaction aux indignés. C’est l’acte 1.
L’acte 2, que vous trouverez à la suite, ce sont des extraits d’un article publié sur le blog en date du 1er février 2009, qui rappelait le boycott exercé par les juifs contre l’Allemagne en mars 1933. Intéressant parallèle.
Acte 1 : « Boycott : ce que dit la loi
7 janvier 2011 : une fois de plus, le boycott ne passera pas en France, par Pascal Markowicz (avocat au Barreau de Paris et membre du Comité Directeur du CRIF)
En France, les actions de boycott d’Israël par de pseudo « citoyens qui cherchent à promouvoir la paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens » mais qui, en réalité, veulent délégitimer totalement Israël pour mettre ce pays au ban des nations, se développent (voir la nouvelle rubrique du site internet du CRIF : « La délégitimation d’Israël à travers le boycott »).
Elles sont menées contre l’économie israélienne à travers ses produits (agrumes CARMEL, machines SODASTREAM…), la culture (boycott de festivals ou de films), le sport (match de football ou de volleyball opposant des équipes israéliennes à des équipes françaises), ou encore les relations académiques (colloques universitaires, jumelages d’écoles…).
Mais, à juste titre, le boycott et l’appel au boycott sont considérés comme des actes discriminatoires selon la loi en France. Ce sont ainsi des délits et ceux qui promeuvent ces discriminations, en appelant au boycott de tout ce qui provient d’Israël, doivent être sévèrement punis par nos juridictions.
 



A plusieurs reprises, nous avons pu constater que ces actions de boycott entraînaient des réactions antisémites par leurs sympathisants, que l’on croyait à jamais oubliées.
Des actions judiciaires sont donc intentées pour que les auteurs de ces pratiques illégales soient jugées et condamnées.
A ce titre, le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bordeaux, par un jugement du 10 février 2010 confirmé par un arrêt rendu le 22 octobre 2010 de la Cour d’Appel siégeant dans cette même ville, a déjà condamné une boycotteuse pour avoir participé à une action de boycott économique dans un supermarché (voir le détail dans la nouvelle rubrique du site internet du CRIF : « Boycott : ce que dit la loi »).
Le 7 janvier 2011, le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Créteil vient de condamner un boycotteur qui avait mis en ligne sur internet, une vidéo d’une action de boycott se déroulant dans un supermarché de la banlieue parisienne.
La diffusion d’une vidéo sur internet (en l’espèce sur Dailymotion) filmant une action de boycott de produits israéliens se déroulant dans une grande surface, s’analyse donc comme une provocation à la discrimination aussi dangereuse qu’un tract, une affichette ou l’action de boycott elle-même. Pire, elle peut être visualisée par un nombre considérable de personnes.
Ce boycotteur comparaitra d’ailleurs devant une autre juridiction dans quelques mois pour des faits similaires.
Les tribunaux appliquent donc correctement les lois et, si un appel est à ce jour possible de cette décision judiciaire, il s’agit toutefois d’une nouvelle bataille qui a été gagnée dans cette guerre contre la
tentative de délégitimation d’Israël, et nous pouvons nous en réjouir. »
Acte 2 : La Judée déclare la guerre à l'Allemagne


Ce titre fait la une du quotidien britannique Daily Express le24 mars 1933. Hitler n’est Chancelier que depuis quelques semaines. En URSS, les horreurs de l’Holodomor, la famine orchestrée par le pouvoir bolchevique en Ukraine, battent leur plein. Elles feront des millions de victimes, dans l’indifférence absolument générale. Les juifs oublieront de se mobiliser pour dénoncer les dérives inhumaines d’un régime largement porté par eux au pouvoir.
Voici la traduction de l’article du Daily Express « JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY », sous titré « JEWS OF ALL THE WORLD UNITE » (Les juifs du monde entier unis dans l’action) publié le 24 mars 1933, donc bien avant la shoah (extraits relatifs au boycott seulement) :
« (…)
Les plans de l’action concertée juive prennent forme en Europe et en Amérique pour rendre coup pour coup, en représailles contre l’Allemagne hitlérienne.
A Londres, New York, Paris et Varsovie, les commerçants juifs s’unissent dans une croisade commerciale contre l’Allemagne.
Les résolutions d’interrompre les relations commerciales avec l’Allemagne ont été prises partout dans le monde juif des affaires.
Un grand nombre d’hommes d’affaires à Londres ont résolu de ne plus acheter de marchandises allemandes, même au prix de grandes pertes financières.
Une action similaire est entreprise partout aux Etats-Unis. Des réunions massives à New York et dans d’autres villes américaines, auxquelles plusieurs milliers de juifs indignés assistaient, ont appelé au boycottage total des marchandises allemandes. L’embargo commercial dirigé contre l’Allemagne est déjà entré en vigueur en Pologne. En France, un interdit d’importation des marchandises d’Allemagne est actuellement proposé par des cercles juifs.
Un boycottage concerté au niveau mondial par des acheteurs juifs va sans doute entraîner de lourdes pertes dans le commerce d’exportation allemand. Les commerçants juifs, partout dans le monde, sont d’importants acheteurs des produits de fabrication allemande, en premier lieu des produits en coton, en soie, des jouets, de l’appareillage électrique et des meubles.
La réunion des entrepreneurs juifs du textile a été convoquée pour lundi afin d’examiner la situation et déterminer les mesures à prendre vis-à-vis de l’Allemagne.
MENACE SUR LE COMMERCE MARITIME
L’Allemagne est un grand emprunteur sur les marchés monétaires étrangers, où l’influence juive est considérable. L’antisémitisme continu en Allemagne va vraisemblablement se retourner contre elle. Un tournant est en passe d’être franchi par les financiers juifs pour exercer des pressions afin de stopper l’action antijuive.
Le trafic maritime transatlantique allemand est menacé de la même manière. Les paquebots renommés Bremen et Europapeuvent beaucoup souffrir du boycottage juif anti-allemand. Les voyageurs juifs transocéaniques représentent une partie importante de la clientèle de ces paquebots, en raison de leur rôle considérable dans le commerce international. La perte de leur clientèle serait un coup grave pour le commerce atlantique allemand. (…) »
Il est intéressant de constater, en cette année 1933, le (déjà) gros pouvoir financier et commercial de ces quatorze millions de personnes, qui s’estiment capables de faire plier l’Allemagne. On est assez loin de l’image traditionnelle de la victime sans défense en butte à l’incompréhensible animosité du reste de l’humanité.
Ceci dit, Hitler décidera en retour à ce boycott décrété par les juifs, de boycotter à son tour les commerces juifs en Allemagne. Mais il se bornera prudemment à une mesure plus symbolique que réelle : le boycott aura bien lieu, mais se limitera à un seul jour : le 1er avril 1933, qui était du reste un samedi, jour de Sabbat où les commerces juifs n'exerçaient aucune activité.
Une mesure d’ailleurs plutôt impopulaire dans la population allemande et sévèrement critiquée à l’étranger.



dimanche 03 octobre 2010
Chamberlain 1939 : "C'est l'Amérique et le monde israélite international qui nous ont précipités dans la guerre."
Le dernier livre de Francis Delaisi, La Révolution Européenne, est paru en pleine guerre, en 1942, en éloge du système économique allemand fondé – non sur l’étalon-or ou le dollar – mais sur le CAPITAL-TRAVAIL – en opposition radicale avec le système spéculatif boursier des Anglo-Américains de Londres et de Wall-Street qui se voyaient ôter d’un coup toute possibilité de spéculation et d’emprise financière sur l’économie allemande. A la suite de quoi la presse juive s’empressait de déclarer le boycott des productions en provenance du Reich, et les gouvernements alliés brandissaient l’ultimatum à l’Allemagne : retour à l’étalon-or, ou la guerre. Le Chancelier Hitler n’obtempéra pas et ce fut la guerre. Les peuples, une fois de plus, payèrent de leur sang pour le Veau d’or et la rapacité des banksters et de leurs affidés. Nous en sommes toujours au même point.

Francis Delaisi (Système économique allemand, organigramme p. 215)  
Francis Delaisi (Système économique allemand, organigramme p. 215)

Extraits de la revue flamande Periodiek Contact sous la signature de Frans de Hoon :

"Comme il n'est encore jamais arrivé qu'un vainqueur avoue publiquement sa culpabilité au déclenchement d'une guerre, nous devons bien consulter l'Histoire pour découvrir la cause réelle du conflit. Nous constatons d'abord que dans le "Daily Express" du 24 mars 1933 le Congrès juif mondial a déclaré la guerre économique à l'Allemagne. Ensuite le 7 août 1933 Samuel Untermayer, président de la "World Jewish Economic Federation" déclarait dans le "New-York Times": "La guerre que nous avons décidé de mener contre l'Allemagne est pour nous une guerre sainte."

"Par la suite les milieux financiers de Wall Street agissaient de telle sorte que le rapport entre le dollar et le Reichmark était dévalué de 57% au préjudice de cette dernière monnaie. Il devint désormais impossible à l'Allemagne d'acheter des matières premières, des denrées alimentaires et d'autres marchandises sur le marché international dominé par le dollar. Adolf Hitler réagit immédiatement et résolument : il détacha le Reichmark de l'étalon-or et introduisit la "Valeur-Travail". Son principe partait de la constatation que ce n'était pas la valeur-or, ou une autre valeur, qui était déterminante pour la plus-value d'un produit, mais seulement et uniquement le travail qui avait été presté pour le fournir. Par les conséquences du Diktat de Versailles l'Allemagne était tombée dans la misère et ne disposait plus de devises, ce qui était aussi le cas de nombreux pays pauvres, par exemple en Europe Orientale et en Amérique du Sud.

"Hitler remplaça le commerce extérieur basé sur la monnaie par un commerce de troc : marchandises contre marchandises, de sorte que les devises tombaient en désuétude. Associées aux nécessaires investissements publics ces mesures eurent pour conséquences une fulgurante diminution du chômage et une forte augmentation du commerce avec les pays concernés.

Cela amena plus de stabilité et d'aisance dans le Reich, ce qui fut très désagréablement ressenti par les puissances de l'Ouest, d'autant plus qu'elles redoutaient que le nouveau système économique allemand basé sur la "Valeur-Travail" puisse un jour avoir un très grand succès dans le monde et supplanter l'empire du dollar couplé à l'étalon-or. Les puissances de l'Ouest ne le voulaient à aucun prix et elles commencèrent à préparer la guerre contre l'Allemagne.

"En Amérique la campagne d'excitation contre l'Allemagne (dont la résurrection économique était attribuée au réarmement) se renforça, mais les USA eux-mêmes commençaient la construction d'une flotte aérienne de bombardement à grande distance : les "forteresses volantes" dont le programme prévu devait être réalisé pour... 1939. Le 4 mai 1935 le diplomate polonais, le comte Szembeck, informait Varsovie que la campagne excitant à la guerre contre l'Allemagne trouvait encore et toujours son point de départ dans les milieux financiers israélites et franc-maçons.

"Curieuse est la constatation que le général britannique Fuller exprime dans un livre paru en 1937 disant que : "Le système de financement régnant ne repose plus sur la capacité de production, et que l'argent en tant que moyen de nouvelle répartition est devenu une marchandise que l'on peut, comme toute autre marchandise, acheter et vendre. Ou, autrement dit : la maladie qui causera la ruine du monde s'appelle l'usure. La France et l'Angleterre sont alliées l'une à l'autre parce que toutes les deux sont construites sur la puissance de l'argent et se trouvent sous la domination du système banquaire international. L'Allemagne s'est libérée de cette puissance internationale et devient ainsi l'objet de suspicion. Elle opère déjà avec le concept "valeur-travail" et c'est ce que l'on voudra éviter à tout prix. Déjà l'on s'active fébrilement à l'anéantissement de ce pays. Les financiers n'ont rien à y perdre, mais tout à y gagner". Et le gouverneur de la banque d'Angleterre déclara lui-même en 1939, un peu avant sa mort : "Notre société, telle qu'elle existe maintenant, repose sur la base d'une ploutocratie décadente. La confiance en elle diminue de plus en plus. Comment pouvons-nous, face à l'Allemagne, parler d'une société meilleure avec plus de justice aussi longtemps que nous souffrons nous-mêmes de ce mal de l'argent ? Le système monétaire est fatal à l'état : il crée la pauvreté et il apparaîtra être la cause principale de la guerre."

"Kristjan Rakowski, qui avait été ambassadeur de l'URSS à Londres et à Paris, fut impliqué en 1938 dans les procès staliniens d'épuration. A cette occasion il déclara, entre autres : "Une des raisons pour laquelle Hitler doit être anéanti est que, intuitivement et en dépit de l'opposition technique de Hjalmar Schacht, il a mis au point un système social dangereux. Obéissant uniquement à une nécessité il a écarté le système international aussi bien que le système privé des capitaux. En effet il ne possédait pas d'or et ne pouvait donc pas prendre pour base le système reposant sur le dollar dans son plan économique de gouvernement. Les seuls atouts qu'il possédait étaient la compétence technique et la capacité de travail de sa Nation. De la technique et du travail il a fait son capital et il y avait dans ce principe quelque chose de si formidablement contre-révolutionnaire qu'il parvint, comme par magie, à surmonter dans les plus brefs délais le chômage de sept millions de techniciens et d'ouvriers." Rakowski releva aussi que le système hitlerien de la Valeur-Travail ne possédait pas la base d'une théorie scientifique, mais reposait uniquement sur la pratique. Si d'autres nations devaient adopter ce système, il ne faudrait pas longtemps avant que des scientifiques ne trouvent à l'étayer par la théorie. Dans ce cas plus rien n'arrêterait ce système. Pour prévenir ce danger il n'y avait qu'une solution : faire la guerre.

"Sébastien Affner, un Allemand émigré en Angleterre a admis après la guerre dans son livre intitulé : "Anmerkungen zu Hitler", que le miracle économique de 1933 avait été bien plus considérable que celui de 1948. Il dit aussi qu'il n'avait aucun rapport avec le réarmement et que la majorité du peuple allemand, aux référendums, soutenait fermement Hitler. Qu'en était-il d'ailleurs de ce réarmement si abondamment cité ? Il ressort de recherches faites après la guerre à l'université de Harvard et au Pentagone que jusqu'au début de septembre 1939 pas une seule nouvelle fabrique d'armement n'avait été construite. L'Allemagne était alors tout au plus en état de soutenir une guerre que durant deux mois. A la lumière de ces constatations nous devons admettre qu'il n'existait aucun plan du côté allemand pour conduire une guerre d'agression ou de conquête de longue durée. Pourquoi une guerre d'ailleurs ? Pourquoi la nouvelle Allemagne aurait-elle voulu anéantir ses réalisations économiques, politiques et sociales par une guerre ?

"(...) D'un discours prononcé en 1947 par le capitaine J. Creagh-Scott nous apprenons ce qui suit : "Lors des échanges de télégrammes de la période 39-40 les Britanniques se déclarèrent prêts à négocier la paix si l'Allemagne revenait à l'étalon-or.". Churchill aussi déclara pendant les pourparlers relatifs à la Charte de l'Atlantique, qu'il réintroduirait l'étalon-or dès qu'Hitler aurait été vaincu.

Ceci et rien d'autre que l'abandon de l'étalon-or par l'Allemagne a été la réelle raison de la guerre. Le sort des petits pays comme la Pologne n'a joué aucun rôle. Chamberlain, à cette époque encore premier ministre, écrivit le 10 septembre 1939 à sa soeur : "...C'est l'Amérique et le monde israélite international qui nous ont précipités dans la guerre."



ANTI-NAZI New World Order quotes:

1939


"Germany must be handed over to Jewry and the Germans shall be scattered amongst the peoples of the world."
Lionel de Rothschild, scion of the Rothschild clan, demand on October 22, 1939 to John Colville, Winson Churchill's secretary. Lord Lionel was the sponsor of the so-called "Balfour Declaration" that committed Britain to the establishment of a Jewish "National Home" on stolen Arab lands in Palestine. Rothschild's demand is recorded in Colville's "Downing Street, Diaries 1939-1945", Siedler Publishers, Berlin 1988, p. 31 (1939)

"The Jews, taken collectively, view this war [World War II] as a holy war."
The Daily Herald (1939)
"He [the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain] is being hampered by incessant intrigues. Mr. Eden is now allied to the Fabian-Zionist faction headed, by Mr. Israel Moses Sieff with its policy of parlour Bolshevism."
Evening Standard, 5th August 1939 alluding to the powerful Dark Forces undermining the peace efforts of Neville Chamberlain (1939)


"Only when the Jewish influence that splits the Nations apart has been eliminated will it be possible to bring about international co-operation based on a lasting understanding."
Adolf Hitler: from his Wilhelmshaven speech warning the world of the divide and rule strategy used by World Jewry to enfeeble and destroy Gentile Civilisation: April 1st (1939)

1940

"We Germans, don't like this war. We think it needless and silly."
Paul Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) German propaganda minister in Nazi Germany speaking to Lothrop Stoddard, the American authority on Race during a tour through Germany and Central Europe: Daily Mail, 13th January 1940.
"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'"
Excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in the New York Times (1940)




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DUuGAlAj8Pw/TZ_GdiKKQDI/AAAAAAAALf4/-K8mrOKrCxc/s1600/New%2BWorld%2BOrder%2Bto%2BJews.jpg

 





"The fight against Germany has been carried out for months by every Jewish conference, trade organisation, by every Jew in the world .... we shall let loose a spiritual and a material war of the whole world against Germany."
V. Jabotinski, founder of Revisionist Zionism, Natcha Retch, January (1940)
"The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years."
Rabbi M. Perlzweig: head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress speaking to a Canadian audience, quoted in the Toronto Evening Telegram, 26th Feb. (1940)
"This war is our business."
Rabbi Dr Stephen Wise emphatically declaring the interest of Zionist Jews in the expansion of the war with Germany and by embroiling America in it: Defence in America, June (1940)
1941

"The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures the international financial interests, and many others"
Charles A Lindbergh (1902-74) United States aviator and patriot who in 1927 made the first solo non-stop flight across the Atlantic Ocean and who also understood the powerful occult forces, of which Organised Jewry via its Evil Jewish Leadership is one manifestation, that propelled America into war: The Wartime Journals of Charles Lindbergh May 1 (1941)
"Jewish brothers of the whole world: Let the holy flame of vengeance burn more and more brightly in your hearts with every hour! Be ready to act at any minute! You must do everything in your power to destroy the economic resources of the fascists, no matter in what part of the world you live. Go among the most vital sections of the death-bringing industries of the Hitlerian hangmen and cripple them with every means at your disposal. Boycott their products everywhere! Struggle together with the noble, self-sacrificing partisans! Develop everywhere a fully effective propaganda for solidarity with, and an active support for the Soviet Union. Mankind wants to be freed of the brown plague. Do your duty in this holy war."
International Conference of the Jews, Moscow (1941)

1942


"There would never be peace in Europe until the problem of the Jewish People in Europe was solved. And the world ought to know that."
Rabbi A. H. Silver: described by the London Jewish Chronicle as "one of the greatest leaders of the American Community," speaking at his first meeting in England on a tour for the Second Palestine War Appeal, at Conway Hall on 12th March (1942)
"We have been at war with him [Hitler] from the first day that he gained power."
Jewish Chronicle: "Sermon of the Week" 8th May (1942)
"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism."
The Chicago Jewish Sentinel, 8th October (1942)

"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war [World War II] and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."
Philadelphia Inquirer (1942)


"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God."
American Institute of Judaism, article in the New York Times (1942)


"We are not denying and we are not afraid to confess, this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry ... stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based. We are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them within their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horse in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory."
Chaim Weizmann, arch-Zionist Intriguer, President of the World Jewish Congress (1942)

1943


"The Yishuv [the Zionist colonies in Palestine] was at war with Hitler long before Great Britain and America."
Moishe Shertok, speaking at the British Zionist Conference in Jan. 1943 quoted in the Jewish Chronicle, 22 Jan. (1943)





À lire sur le web (droits réservés) mais aussi sur scribd et 911oz:


The Jewish Declaration of War
on Nazi Germany The Economic Boycott of 1933
Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45.
The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.
By M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D., assistant editor of TBR;
published here with kind permission from TBR.
This digitalized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.
eMail TBR - subscribe to TBR here


According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government.






Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II - the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership - not the Third Reich - that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer (above right) was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a "holy war."

Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the "New Germany" at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.

The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel - a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.

To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.

While there were sporadic eruptions of violence against Jews in Germany after Hitler came to power, this was not officially sanctioned or encouraged. And the truth is that anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) were actually nothing new. As all Jewish historians attest with much fervor, anti-Semitic uprisings of various degrees had been ever-present in European history.

In any case, in early 1933, Hitler was not the undisputed leader of Germany, nor did he have full command of the armed forces. Hitler was a major figure in a coalition government, but he was far from being the government himself. That was the result of a process of consolidation which evolved later.

Even Germany's Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, contested the suggestion (made by some Jewish leaders outside Germany) that the new government was deliberately provoking anti-Jewish uprisings.

The Verein issued a statement that "the responsible government authorities [i.e. the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation," saying, "we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews."
Despite this, Jewish leaders in the United States and Britain determined on their own that it was necessary to launch a war against the Hitler government.

On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. At that time the commander in chief of the Jewish War Veterans called for an American boycott of German goods. In the meantime, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York's City Hall as rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.

According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read "Judea Declares War on Germany - Jews of All the World Unite - Boycott of German Goods - Mass Demonstrations." The article described a forthcoming "holy war" and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. According to the Express:

The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany. The appearance of the Swastika as the symbol of the new Germany has revived the old war symbol of Judas to new life. Fourteen million Jews scattered over the entire world are tight to each other as if one man, in order to declare war against the German persecutors of their fellow believers.
The Jewish wholesaler will quit his house, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his business, and the beggar his humble hut, in order to join the holy war against Hitler's people.

The Express said that Germany was "now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry.... In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade."

The article said "worldwide preparations are being made to organize protest demonstrations," and reported that "the old and reunited nation of Israel gets in formation with new and modern weapons to fight out its age old battle against its persecutors."

This truly could be described as "the first shot fired in the Second World War."
In a similar vein, the Jewish newspaper Natscha Retsch wrote:

The war against Germany will be waged by all Jewish communities, conferences, congresses... by every individual Jew. Thereby the war against Germany will ideologically enliven and promote our interests, which require that Germany be wholly destroyed.

The danger for us Jews lies in the whole German people, in Germany as a whole as well as individually. It must be rendered harmless for all time.... In this war we Jews have to participate, and this with all the strength and might we have at our disposal.

However, note well that the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as "propaganda," "mendacious" and "sensational."

In fact, the Zionist faction had every reason to ensure the permanence of National Socialist ideology in Germany. Klaus Polkehn, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies ("The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941"; JPS v. 3/4, spring/summer 1976), claims that the moderate attitude of the Zionists was due to their vested interest in seeing the financial victory of National Socialism to force immigration to Palestine. This little-known factor would ultimately come to play a pivotal part in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Jews.

In the meantime, though, German Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath complained of the "vilification campaign" and said:

As concerns Jews, I can only say that their propagandists abroad are rendering their co-religionists in Germany no service by giving the German public, through their distorted and untruthful news about persecution and torture of Jews, the impression that they actually halt at nothing, not even at lies and calumny, to fight the present German government.

The fledgling Hitler government itself was clearly trying to contain the growing tension - both within Germany and without. In the United States, even U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull wired Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress and urged caution:

Whereas there was for a short time considerable physical mistreatment of Jews, this phase may be considered virtually terminated.... A stabilization appears to have been reached in the field of personal mistreatment.... I feel hopeful that the situation which has caused such widespread concern throughout this country will soon revert to normal.


This New York Daily News front page headline hailed the massive anti-German protest rally held in Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933. Despite efforts by the German government to alleviate tensions and prevent the escalation of name-calling and threats by the international Jewish leadership, the rally was held as scheduled. Similar rallies and protest marches were also being held in other cities during the same time frame. The intensity of the Jewish campaign against Germany was such that the Hitler government vowed that if the campaign did not stop, there would be a one-day boycott in Germany of Jewish-owned stores. Despite this, the hate campaign continued, forcing Germany to take defensive measures that created a situation wherein the Jews of Germany became increasingly marginalized. The truth about the Jewish war on Germany has been suppressed by most histories of the period.

Despite all this, the leaders of the Jewish community refused to relent. On March 27 there were simultaneous protest rallies at Madison Square Garden, in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations. The New York rally was broadcast worldwide. The bottom line is that "the New Germany" was declared to be an enemy of Jewish interests and thus needed to be economically strangled. This was before Hitler decided to boycott Jewish goods.

It was in direct response to this that the German government announced a one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany on April 1. German Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels announced that if, after the one-day boycott, there were no further attacks on Germany, the boycott would be stopped. Hitler himself responded to the Jewish boycott and the threats in a speech on March 28 - four days after the original Jewish declaration of war - saying:

Now that the domestic enemies of the nation have been eliminated by the Volk itself, what we have long been waiting for will not come to pass.
The Communist and Marxist criminals and their Jewish-intellectual instigators, who, having made off with their capital stocks across the border in the nick of time, are now unfolding an unscrupulous, treasonous campaign of agitation against the German Volk as a whole from there....

Lies and slander of positively hair-raising perversity are being launched about Germany. Horror stories of dismembered Jewish corpses, gouged out eyes and hacked off hands are circulating for the purpose of defaming the German Volk in the world for the second time, just as they had succeeded in doing once before in 1914.

Thus, the fact - one conveniently left out of nearly all history on the subject - is that Hitler's March 28, 1933 boycott order was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership just four days earlier. Today, Hitler's boycott order is described as a naked act of aggression, yet the full circumstances leading up to his order are seldom described in even the most ponderous and detailed histories of "the Holocaust".

Not even Saul Friedlander in his otherwise comprehensive overview of German policy, Nazi Germany and the Jews, mentions the fact that the Jewish declaration of war and boycott preceded Hitler's speech of March 28, 1933. Discerning readers would be wise to ask why Friedlander felt this item of history so irrelevant.

The simple fact is that it was organized Jewry as a political entity - and not even the German Jewish community per se - that actually initiated the first shot in the war with Germany.

Placard text:
"Germans! Defend yourselves!
Don't shop at Jewish stores!"

Photo not part of original TBR article -
added by The Scriptorium.
Germany's response was a defensive - not an offensive - measure. Were that fact widely known today, it would cast new light on the subsequent events that ultimately led to the world-wide conflagration that followed.

To understand Hitler's reaction to the Jewish declaration of war, it is vital to understand the critical state of the German economy at the time. In 1933, the German economy was in a shambles. Some 3 million Germans were on public assistance with a total of 6 million unemployed. Hyper-inflation had destroyed the economic vitality of the German nation. Furthermore, the anti-German propaganda pouring out of the global press strengthened the resolve of Germany's enemies, especially the Poles and their hawkish military high command.
The Jewish leaders were not bluffing. The boycott was an act of war not solely in metaphor: it was a means, well crafted, to destroy Germany as a political, social and economic entity. The long term purpose of the Jewish boycott against Germany was to bankrupt her with respect to the reparation payments imposed on Germany after World War I and to keep Germany demilitarized and vulnerable.

The boycott, in fact, was quite crippling to Germany. Jewish scholars such as Edwin Black have reported that, in response to the boycott, German exports were cut by 10 percent, and that many were demanding seizing German assets in foreign countries (Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement - The Untold Story of the Secret Pact between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine, New York, 1984).

The attacks on Germany did not cease. The worldwide Jewish leadership became ever the more belligerent and worked itself into a frenzy. An International Jewish Boycott Conference was held in Amsterdam to coordinate the ongoing boycott campaign. It was held under the auspices of the self-styled World Jewish Economic Federation, of which famous New York City attorney and longtime political power broker, Samuel Untermyer, was elected president.
Upon returning to the United States in the wake of the conference, Untermyer delivered a speech over WABC Radio (New York), a transcript of which was printed in The New York Times on August 7, 1933.

Untermyer's inflammatory oratory called for a "sacred war" against Germany, making the flat-out allegation that Germany was engaged in a plan to "exterminate the Jews." He said (in part):

...Germany [has] been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.

We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage....

Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the... slaughter, starvation and annihilation... fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children....

When the tale is told... the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people...

The Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000 human souls from the tortures of hell....

...What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.

...We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand....

Untermyer then proceeded to provide his listeners with a wholly fraudulent history of the circumstances of the German boycott and how it originated. He also proclaimed that the Germans were bent on a plan to "exterminate the Jews":

The Hitler regime originated and are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in vile concentration camps and starving and torturing them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.

Untermyer concluded his largely fantastic and hysterical address by declaring that with the support of "Christian friends... we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism...."



The Biggest Secret of WWII?
Why Germany Began Rounding Up Jews
and Deporting Them to the East
Why did the Germans begin rounding up the Jews and interning them in the concentration camps to begin with? Contrary to popular myth, the Jews remained "free" inside Germany - albeit subject to laws which did restrict certain of their privileges - prior to the outbreak of World War II.

Yet, the other little-known fact is that just before the war began, the leadership of the world Jewish community formally declared war on Germany - above and beyond the ongoing six-year-long economic boycott launched by the worldwide Jewish community when the Nazi Party came to power in 1933.

As a consequence of the formal declaration of war, the German authorities thus deemed Jews to be potential enemy agents.
Here's the story behind the story: Chaim Weizmann (above), president of both the international "Jewish Agency" and of the World Zionist Organization (and later Israel's first president), told British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in a letter published in The London Times on September 6, 1939 that:
I wish to confirm, in the most explicit manner, the declarations which I and my colleagues have made during the last month, and especially in the last week, that the Jews stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies. Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations [against Germany].
We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the coordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc.
[Emphasis in red added by The Scriptorium.]


That his allegations against Germany were made long before even Jewish historians today claim there were any gas chambers or even a plan to "exterminate" the Jews, displays the nature of the propaganda campaign confronting Germany.

However, during this same period there were some unusual developments at work: The spring of 1933 also witnessed the beginning of a period of private cooperation between the German government and the Zionist movement in Germany and Palestine (and actually worldwide) to increase the flow of German-Jewish immigrants and capital to Palestine.

The modern-day supporters of Zionist Israel and many historians have succeeded in keeping this Nazi-Zionist pact a secret to the general public for decades and while most Americans have no concept of the possibility that there could have been outright collaboration between the Nazi leadership and the founders of what became the state of Israel, the truth has begun to emerge.

Dissident Jewish writer Lenni Brennar's Zionism In the Age of the Dictators, published by a small press and not given the publicity it deserves by the so-called "mainstream" media (which is otherwise obsessed with the Holocaust era), was perhaps the first major endeavor in this realm.

In response to Brennar and others, the Zionist reaction has usually consisted of declarations that their collaboration with Nazi Germany was undertaken solely to save the lives of Jews. But the collaboration was all the more remarkable because it took place at a time when many Jews and Jewish organizations demanded a boycott of Germany.

To the Zionist leaders, Hitler's assumption of power held out the possibility of a flow of immigrants to Palestine. Previously, the majority of German Jews, who identified themselves as Germans, had little sympathy with the Zionist cause of promoting the ingathering of world Jewry to Palestine. But the Zionists saw that only the anti-Semitic Hitler was likely to push the anti-Zionist German Jews into the arms of Zionism.

For all the modern-day wailing by worldwide supporters of Israel (not to mention the Israelis themselves) about "the Holocaust", they neglect to mention that making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible - in cooperation with German National Socialism - was part of the plan.

This was the genesis of the so-called Transfer Agreement, the agreement between Zionist Jews and the National Socialist government to transfer German Jewry to Palestine.

According to Jewish historian Walter Laqueur and many others, German Jews were far from convinced that immigration to Palestine was the answer. Furthermore, although the majority of German Jews refused to consider the Zionists as their political leaders, it is clear that Hitler protected and cooperated with the Zionists for the purposes of implementing the final solution: the mass transfer of Jews to the Middle East.

Edwin Black, in his massive tome The Transfer Agreement (Macmillan, 1984), stated that although most Jews did not want to flee to Palestine at all, due to the Zionist movement's influence within Nazi Germany a Jew's best chance of getting out of Germany was by emigrating to Palestine. In other words, the Transfer Agreement itself mandated that Jewish capital could only to go Palestine.

Thus, according to the Zionists, a Jew could leave Germany only if he went to the Levant.
The primary difficulty with the Transfer Agreement (or even the idea of such an agreement) was that the English [!!!; Scriptorium] were demanding, as a condition of immigration, that each immigrant pay 1,000 pounds sterling upon arrival in Haifa or elsewhere. The difficulty was that such hard currency was nearly impossible to come by in a cash-strapped and radically inflationary Germany. This was the main idea behind the final Transfer Agreement. Laqueur writes:

A large German bank would freeze funds paid in by immigrants in blocked accounts for German exporters, while a bank in Palestine would control the sale of German goods to Palestine, thereby providing the immigrants with the necessary foreign currency on the spot. Sam Cohen, co-owner of Hanoaiah Ltd. and initiator of the transfer endeavors, was however subjected to long-lasting objections from his own people and finally had to concede that such a transfer agreement could only be concluded on a much higher level with a bank of its own rather than that of a private company. The renowned Anglo-Palestine Bank in London would be included in this transfer deal and create a trust company for [this] purpose.

Of course, this is of major historical importance in dealing with the relationship between Zionism and National Socialism in Germany in the 1930s. The relationship was not one merely of mutual interest and political favoritism on the part of Hitler, but a close financial relationship with German banking families and financial institutions as well. Black writes:

It was one thing for the Zionists to subvert the anti-Nazi boycott. Zionism needed to transfer out the capital of German Jews, and merchandise was the only available medium. But soon Zionist leaders understood that the success of the future Jewish Palestinian economy would be inextricably bound up with the survival of the Nazi economy. So the Zionist leadership was compelled to go further. The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist organizers shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany.

Thus one sees a radical fissure in world Jewry around 1933 and beyond. There were, first, the non-Zionist Jews (specifically the World Jewish Congress founded in 1933), who, on the one hand, demanded the boycott and eventual destruction of Germany. Black notes that many of these people were not just in New York and Amsterdam, but a major source for this also came from Palestine proper.

On the other hand, one can see the judicious use of such feelings by the Zionists for the sake of eventual resettlement in Palestine. In other words, it can be said (and Black does hint at this) that Zionism believed that, since Jews would be moving to the Levant, capital flight would be necessary for any new economy to function.

The result was the understanding that Zionism would have to ally itself with National Socialism, so that the German government would not impede the flow of Jewish capital out of the country.

It served the Zionist interests at the time that Jews be loud in their denunciations of German practices against the Jews to scare them into the Levant, but, on the other hand, Laqueur states that "The Zionists became motivated not to jeopardize the German economy or currency." In other words, the Zionist leadership of the Jewish Diaspora was one of subterfuge and underhandedness, with only the advent of German hostility towards Jewry convincing the world's Jews that immigration was the only escape.

The fact is that the ultimate establishment of the state of Israel was based on fraud. The Zionists did not represent anything more than a small minority of German Jews in 1933.
On the one hand, the Zionist fathers of Israel wanted loud denunciations of Germany's "cruelties" to the world's Jews while at the same time demanding moderation so that the National Socialist government would remain stable, financially and politically. Thus Zionism boycotted the boycott.

For all intents and purposes, the National Socialist government was the best thing to happen to Zionism in its history, for it "proved" to many Jews that Europeans were irredeemably anti-Jewish and that Palestine was the only answer: Zionism came to represent the overwhelming majority of Jews solely by trickery and cooperation with Adolf Hitler.

For the Zionists, both the denunciations of German policies towards Jews (to keep Jews frightened), plus the reinvigoration of the German economy (for the sake of final resettlement) was imperative for the Zionist movement. Ironically, today the Zionist leaders of Israel complain bitterly about the horrific and inhuman regime of the National Socialists. So the fraud continues.


Note to readers of this article who can also read German: a booklet discussing the emigration of Jews from Third Reich Germany, and the Transfer Agreement that facilitated their emigration, may be found here!


Source:
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html






"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express, March 24, 1933

“Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!” - These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March 24, 1933.

“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler’s people.” - Daily Express, March 24, 1933.

“Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping…. we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.” – Samuel Undermeyer, in a Radio Broadcast on WABC, New York, August 6, 1933. Reported in the New York Times, August 7, 1933.

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)
"Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child." (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)

"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German -- wipe them out!" (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).

"Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, {England}, declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans'{Jews} around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label." (Ashamed and Humiliated The British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16/84 (AP))

"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us." (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)
"Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War." (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).

"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany..." (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

Samuel Untermeyer was a Jewish leader and close friend of presidents Wilson and Roosevelt.
Bernard Baruch was a presidential adviser to Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman…and also, to Winston Churchill!

Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany, Bernard Baruch, at the same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany. “I emphasised that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit.” – Baruch, The Public Years, by Bernard M. Baruch, p.347 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).

"...Jabotinsky insisted that all energies be expended to force the Congress to join the boycott movement. Nothing less than a 'merciless fight' would be acceptable, cried Jabotinsky. 'The present Congress is duty bound to put the Jewish problem in Germany before the entire world...(We [Jews] must) destroy, destroy, destroy them, not only with the boycott, but politically, supporting all existing forces against them to isolate Germany from the civilized world...our enemy [Germany] must be destroyed." (Speech by Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Polish Jews, on June 16, 1933)

For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany's ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.
- Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in Histoire de l'Armée Allemande by Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303)

"War in Europe in 1934 was inevitable." - H. Morgenthau, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, Hearst Press, September, 1933 (also quoted in "The Palestine Plot" by B. Jenson, p. 11).

"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon." - Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book "The New Holy Alliance").

"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign, 1934 (quoted in "I Testify Against The Jews" by Robert Edward Edmondson, page 188 and "The Jewish War of Survival" by Arnold Leese, page 52).

"We want to bring about a deep hatred for the Germans, for German soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We must hate until we win." - Lord Beaverbrook, quoted in Niemals! by Heinrich Goitsch.

"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S.A will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus, "La Vie de Tanger" May 15, 1938.

On the 3rd of June, 1938, the American Hebrew boasted that they had Jews in the foremost positions of influence in Britain, Russia and France, and that these "three sons of Israel will be sending the Nazi dictator to hell." - Joseph Trimble, the American Hebrew.

"Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her. One may be sure of this: We will lead that war!" - Bernard Lecache, the president of the "International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism," in its newspaper "Droit de Vivre" (Right to Life), 9 November, 1938.

"The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world." - Brigadier General George Van Horn Mosely, The New York Tribune, March 29, 1939.

"I wish to confirm in the most explicit manner, the declaration which I and my colleagues made during the last months, and especially in the last week: that the Jews "stand by Great Britain and will fight on the side of the democracies." Our urgent desire is to give effect to these declarations. We wish to do so in a way entirely consonant with the general scheme of British action, and therefore would place ourselves, in matters big and small, under the co-ordinating direction of His Majesty's Government. The Jewish Agency is ready to enter into immediate arrangements for utilizing Jewish manpower, technical ability, resources, etc." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, the London Times, September 5, 1939, and the London Jewish Chronicle, September 8, 1939.

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." - Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939.

"Stop talking about peace conditions! Break Germany in pieces!" - The Daily Herald, No.7426, 9 December, 1939.

"The Jews, taken collectively, view this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No.7450, 1939, quoted in "Reichstagsbrand, Aufklärung einer historischen Legende," by U. Backes, K.H. Janßen, E. Jesse, H. Köhler, H. Mommsen, E Tobias.

"Even if we Jews are not physically at your side in the trenches, we are morally with you. This war is our war and you fight it with us." - Schalom Asch, Les Nouvelles Litterairres, February 10, 1940.

"In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. Therefore t was determined to re-conquer it." - Louis Marschalko, "The World Conquerors : The Real War Criminals."

"The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years." - Rabbi M. Perlzweig (head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress), Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.

"The Second World War is being fought for the defense of the fundamentals of Judaism." - Rabbi Felix Mendlesohn, Chicago Sentinel, October 8, 1942.

"We are not denying and are not afraid to confess that this war is our war and that it is waged for the liberation of Jewry... Stronger than all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry. We are not only giving this war our financial support on which the entire war production is based, we are not only providing our full propaganda power which is the moral energy that keeps this war going. The guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance. And we are the Trojan horses in the enemy's fortress. Thousands of Jews living in Europe constitute the principal factor in the destruction of our enemy. There, our front is a fact and the most valuable aid for victory." - Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Jewish Congress, Head of the Jewish Agency and later President of Israel, in a Speech on December 3, 1942, in New York.

"Played golf with Joe Kennedy (U.S. Ambassador to Britain). He says that Chamberlain stated that America and world Jewry forced England into World War II." - James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy (later Secretary of Defense), Diary, December 27, 1945 entry.

"It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war in 1939. It was wanted and provoked solely by international statesmen either of Jewish origin or working for Jewish interests. Nor had I ever wished that after the appalling first World War, there would ever be a second against either England or America." - Adolf Hitler, April, 1945.

The joke doing the rounds of the British Union of Fascists at this time was that the Jewish national anthem was, 'Onward Christian Soldiers





Shocking Revelations Emerge in New Book
• Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941
By Michael Collins Piper
Until a few years ago, most patriots fondly recalled aviator Charles Lindbergh for his leadership of the America First movement that fought to prevent Franklin D. Roosevelt from steering the United States into war against Adolf Hitler’s Germany.
However, in recent times, pernicious Internet agitprop has convinced many patriots that heroes like Lindbergh and his “isolationist” colleagues were actually traitors doing the work of the New World Order.
One broadcaster in particular promotes this nonsense by constantly harping about “the Nazis,” hyping writers who smear Lindbergh and claim Hitler’s heirs are today plotting the “rise of the Fourth Reich.”
Those conned by this garbage fail to see this is really a ploy to keep the image of “the Holocaust” alive, thereby advancing the interests of Israel, which benefits from the Holocaust in multiple ways, without ever mentioning the word “Israel” even once. And that’s propaganda at its most deceptive and calculating.
Even more disturbing is that—as a consequence of this skewed version of history taking a grip on the minds of so many—a remarkable number of today’s patriots have no idea that roughly 90 percent of the American people agreed with Lindbergh: A war against Hitler was a war America should not fight.
The history of that period has been savagely distorted and those who should know don’t have a clue as to what really happened.
Ironically, however, coming out of an elite publishing giant, Random House, is a new book presenting a fascinating look at the efforts by Lindbergh to stop the push to embroil America in that unnecessary war: Those Angry Days: Roosevelt, Lindbergh and America’s Fight Over World War II, 1939-1941.*
The flagrantly pro-British author, Lynne Olson, clearly holds Lindbergh’s traditional American nationalism in contempt, which explains why former secretary of state Madeleine Albright—who famously said the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children was “worth it”—hails Olson as “our era’s foremost chronicler of World War II politics and diplomacy.”
Still, though soiled by its pro-New World Order slant, this is a book patriots need to read. Many books from establishment sources contain a lot of valuable facts. This is one such volume. Here are just a few of the author’s amazing admissions:
• Solid data proving that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Wall Street backers did not support Hitler, but vehemently opposed him.
• British intelligence set up shop at Rockefeller Center in Manhattan and collaborated with the pro-war Fight for Freedom—mostly “upper class East Coast Protestants”—and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, the Jewish espionage agency. All worked closely with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who was tapping the phones of those who opposed to the drive for war that Lindbergh said was the work of “the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.”
• The amazing story of how many high-ranking military officers “fiercely opposed” FDR’s efforts to arm Britain. Opposing aid to the British was no less than Gen. George C. Marshall whom the author says is now “regarded as the country’s greatest military figure in WWII.”
•While Americans today believe Britain was always seen as a grand ally, the author reveals that, after World War I, “many Americans came to believe that their country had entered the war not because its own national interests demanded such action, but because it had been tricked by the scheming, duplicitous British.”
• FDR utilized warmongering rhetoric of exactly the type today coming from essentially the same sources, including advocacy of the kind of police-state measures such as the Patriot Act and the concept of “homeland security,” which patriots have become convinced was a “Nazi” invention. Substitute’s today’s Muslim-bashing for German-bashing and it is history repeating itself.
Declaring any criticism of his policies as detrimental to national security, FDR spoke of “clever schemes of foreign agents” on American soil. However, the author admits: “The United States never faced any serious threat of internal subversion before or during the war. But the American people never knew that; in fact, they were told the opposite.”
• And, despite Pearl Harbor, most Americans still didn’t see the need for war against Hitler. The author admits, “the odds are high that Congress and the American people would have pressured the president to turn away from an undeclared war against Germany . . . and focus instead on defeating Japan.” Today, most Americans think Pearl Harbor sparked a nationwide cry of “Defeat the Nazi Beast.” It never happened.
——
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth, The Judas Goats, Target: Traficant and The Golem.
The Book’s Publisher Says
Those Angry Days is the definitive account of the debate over American intervention in World War II—a bitter, sometimes violent clash of personalities and ideas that divided the nation and ultimately determined the fate of the free world.
At the center of this controversy stood the two most famous men in America: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who championed the interventionist cause, and aviator Charles Lindbergh, who as unofficial leader and spokesman for America’s isolationists emerged as the president’s most formidable adversary. Their contest of wills personified the divisions within the country at large, and author Lynne Olson makes masterly use of their dramatic personal stories to create a poignant and riveting narrative.
While FDR, buffeted by political pressures on all sides, struggled to marshal public support for aid to Winston Churchill’s Britain, Lindbergh saw his heroic reputation besmirched by allegations that he was a Nazi.
Spanning the years 1939 to 1941, Those Angry Days vividly recreates the rancorous internal squabbles that gripped the United States in the period leading up to Pearl Harbor. After Germany vanquished most of Europe, America found itself torn between its traditional isolationism and the need to come to the aid of Britain, the only country still battling Hitler. The conflict over intervention was, as FDR noted, “a dirty fight,” rife with chicanery and intrigue, and Those Angry Days recounts every bruising detail.



39-45 : les dossiers oubliés : retour sur les crimes soviétiques et américains


VARSOVIE via (NOVOpress)


Boguslaw Woloszanski, journaliste polonais, continue dans son nouvel ouvrage, 39-45 : les dossiers oubliés, aux Editions Jourdan, d’explorer les faces méconnues de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, sur la base notamment de la récente ouverture des archives de l’ex-Union Soviétique.


Le premier chapitre du livre est d’ailleurs consacré aux manœuvres de l’un des plus grands criminels de l’histoire du XXème siècle : Joseph Staline. Où comment l’ami de Lénine liquida en 1937 le chef de son armée, Mikhaïl Nikolaïevitch Toukhatchevski, danger pour son pouvoir absolu, avec l’aide… du régime hitlérien, trop heureux de priver l’Armée Rouge de son officier le plus talentueux.

http://www.disons.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/tuhachev-251x300.jpg



Boguslaw Woloszanski rappelle aussi les coups tordus perpétrés par les démocraties occidentales durant ce conflit qui saigna à blanc le continent européen. L’auteur souligne pourquoi des centaines de Canadiens furent sacrifiés à Dieppe le 19 août 1942 alors que seulement 50 Américains débarquèrent sur le sol normand ce jour là.


http://www.herodote.net/Images/Dieppe1942.jpg
http://members.home.nl/almeloliberated/images/dieppe4.jpg

Plage de Puys près de Dieppe

Les Etats-Unis mirent le paquet en revanche pour s’attaquer à des cibles non militaires. Boguslaw Woloszanski revient sur les raids aériens américains sur Tokyo en 1945. Celui du 9 au 10 mars fut le plus meurtrier des bombardements de la Seconde Guerre mondiale : 100 000 victimes, pour la plupart brûlées vives. Puis les bombardements d’Hambourg en juillet 1943 ou le génocide satanique de Dresde en février 1945.

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/5/52/524/524021/dresden_1200488132.jpg

Au cours des sept derniers mois de cette campagne, ce type d’actions a provoqué la destruction de 67 grandes villes japonaises, causant plus de 500 000 morts et quelque 5 millions de sans abri. Pourtant, aucun général américain ne fut traduit devant un tribunal international pour ces crimes de guerre.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/heroesvillains/g5/images/g5cs1s2a.jpg


The Soviet ‘Discoveries’ In Auschwitz
By Udo Walendy
The following has been excerpted from issue No. 31 in the series of brochures (now over 70 in number) entitled Historische Tatsachen (“historical facts”) in which German history in the first half of the 20th century has been accorded the most thorough revisionist reexamination achieved by any contemporary German historian. For several decades, Udo Walen dy was permitted to freely publish the results of his research and analysis without undue harassment. However, in the wake of the recent environment of anti-revisionist laws, and much to the disgrace of the German judiciary and the entire German nation, Mr. Walendy has been arraigned, found guilty of “inciting racial hatred” and is currently incarcerated. On February 1 and 2, 1945, the Soviet propaganda organ Pravda published lengthy initial accounts of the findings of the Red Army upon its occupation of the Auschwitz camp sites on January 27, 1945. These initial reports and the treatment accorded them are of particular significance for historical analysis, because they had not yet been adapted to Allied propaganda of the time, at least not in detail. The lengthiest first-hand report was published in the issue of February 2, 1945, and began in this manner:
City of Auschwitz—An impartial committee will investigate the accurate number of people killed or tortured to death . . . After the Red Army disclosed the horrible and disgusting secrets of Majdanek [another concentration camp—Ed.] before the world, the Germans in Auschwitz began to remove the traces of their crimes. They leveled the burial mounds of the so-called “old graves” in the eastern part of the camp. Likewise they removed and destroyed all traces of the electric conveyor system, where hundreds of people at one time were electrocuted.
The bodies fell onto a slow-moving transport belt, taking them to a blast furnace. There they were burnt completely, the bones ground in a roller mill and the remains spread on the fields as fertilizer. The special mobile devices to kill children were relocated to the back fields.
The stationary gas chambers in the east side of the camp were remodeled. They were ornamented and decorated with little towers, placed on top of the roof, so they looked like harmless garages.
But it is still possible to assemble traces of the murder of millions. Based upon descriptions by prisoners liberated by the Red Army, it is not difficult to verify everything the Germans tried so carefully to keep secret. This huge death mill was equipped with the latest style of fascist technology and supplied with all those testing devices which only the German brutes are able to invent.
In the first years of the camp the Germans still performed [inefficiently]. They simply led the prisoners to a pit and ordered them to lie face down in the pit and shot them in the neck. After the first row was murdered, the second was forced to lie on top of the first one and was shot; then the third row and so forth. When the grave was full, they shot again at the whole pile of dead people with automatic rifles, just to make sure. The people who did not find room in the graves were also shot and buried [sic]. In this way hundreds of huge graves were filled in the eastern part of the camp. Customarily, these were termed the “old graves.”
Then the Germans recognized this procedure as being primitive and decided to increase the productivity of the murder process. It was mechanized; gas chambers, and electric conveyor systems were installed, they built blast furnaces for cremation and so-called “chimneys.”
But the most terrible thing for the prisoners in Auschwitz was not even death. The sadistic Germans let them starve in the cold, while working 18 hours and punished them most cruelly. I was shown steel cudgels, covered with leather, on the handles of which the factory brand “Krupp Dresden” was engraved. These torture tools were manufactured in mass production.
To the south of the adjoining section, I saw compartments with benches, covered with tin and leather strips attached. On these, people were beaten to death. Tin covering was used, so the blood of the victims could be washed off. Fastidious henchmen caring about sanitation.
I saw a specially constructed chair with steel teeth to break the back of the victim to be killed. I saw massive rubber cudgels, all marked with the brand name “Krupp,” with which the heads and genitals of the prisoners were beaten.
I saw thousands of ghost-like wretches in Auschwitz, so emaciated they staggered like shadows in the wind. They praised the Red Army who had saved them and tore them away from the hell, bringing revenge to the fascist henchmen for Majdanek, Auschwitz, and for all the tortures and sufferings caused to the people of Europe.
–Polewoj
(via telegram)

T
he Soviet “reporters” knew what was expected of them regarding their communiqués after taking the concentration camps. Anybody naïve enough to believe that the Soviets, in performing this “duty,” were concerned with “honesty and truth in reporting,” should be reminded of the Soviet record of always trying to avoid culpability for any misdeeds.1
It is therefore not at all surprising that the Soviet reports on Auschwitz were strictly in line with wartime atrocity propaganda, and that they later, in spite of the obvious falsity, clung to them with relentless perseverance.
Note that neither of the two Pravda articles examined here brings out a single detail of what the Red Army really discovered when occupying the camp. In the first article, only the account of one former prisoner from Auschwitz, identified as “Lukaschew, from the Woronesch area,” was offered; and this contained nothing but unprovable statements—this is, at best, hearsay. Furthermore, this prisoner was not even able to describe how and when the Germans performed these various alleged atrocities.
In connection with this second article of Pravda from February 2, 1945, we do not want to forget to quote the United Press correspondent, Henry Shapiro, who obediently echoed the Soviets. Referring to the Pravda articles, he wrote on February 2, 1945, in the Washington Daily News, the following:
“Ghosts” with undefinable age or sex freed from the death mill [quote marks added–Ed.]. The semi-official [Soviet] newspaper Pravda reports today that the Red Army has saved several thousand tortured, emaciated inmates of the largest German murder factory in southwest Poland. They all were of ghostlike appearance, nearly undefinable in their age or sex, thrown to the ground at the slightest wind, as Pravda correspondent Boris Polewoj reports.
Fragmentary reports say that at least 1.5 million people were killed in Auschwitz, says Polewoj. During 1941, 1942 and early 1943, he says, daily, five trains reached Auschwitz with Russians, Poles, Jews, Czechs, French and Yugoslavs, forced into sealed cars. The trains always left Auschwitz empty.
The first shock in Auschwitz is its size. Dozens of square miles are soaked with human blood and literally blanketed with human ashes. This was a huge industry with many departments and arrangements, each one specially designed for its function. The victims were classified according to age and ability to work before deciding on execution. The main station was the smelter where the victims were burnt after sophisticated tortures.
Not satisfied with the earlier methods of killing with automatic guns in pits, the Germans themselves “increased the production” and mechanized the murder machinery, he said. The most perfected equipment was an electric conveyor where hundreds of people could be electrocuted at one time and then conveyed into the smelter furnace. They burned up at once and subsequently were spread as fertilizer on the nearby cabbage fields, says Polewoj.
But the released prisoners say death almost was merciful, compared with the tortures of hunger, cold, and physical drudgery the victims were exposed to before execution, he added.
[Apparently paraphrasing Pole woj:]
I saw leather-covered cudgels that were mass produced in the “Krutz” [sic] factories in Dresden, for the sole purpose to beat prisoners. I saw tin-covered benches with leather strips, where the victims were beaten to a [pulp]. I saw heavy oak chairs, where the victims were killed, after the backbone was broken. I saw rubber cudgels with the trade name “Krutz” [sic] for beating the head or genitals.
Polewoj said the Germans had tried to remove the traces in Auschwitz. They destroyed the conveyors, leveled the high grave mounds, full of skeletons, removed the mobile equipment for killing children, and rebuilt the gas chambers to make them look like harmless garages, he said. But the evidence for the destruction of a million people could not completely be wiped out, he said. A special committee of investigation will need several weeks of careful, intensive study, to understand the meaning of these atrocities to the fullest extent.
In the early June of 1944, the British Ministry of Information had issued a directive to the Anglo-American press to intensify horror propaganda. Auschwitz in particular was to be singled out to personify the evil of everything German. The British knew that propaganda stories were most effective when promptly released after whatever event initiated it. Or, expressed the other way, if there was a long delay, the story lost most of its impact. The British were, therefore, curious as to why the Soviets did not immediately supply photos, film material and other evidence after they occupied Auschwitz. The British government had already sent two inquires to Moscow for such information. Now the reason for the lack of evidence is clear.
The first two articles of Pravda—February 1 and 2, 1945—were pure atrocity propaganda.
The Soviets who overran the camp and made the accusations published in Pravda failed to produce any concrete evidence such as the alleged mobile apparatus to kill children, let alone the “disguised gas chambers.” There are vague hints about various delegations arriving at the camp and inspecting the traces of the crimes, but no reports or pictures. Most of what the Soviets purport to have found does not appear in contemporary Auschwitz literature; on the other hand, and most importantly, what we read in today’s books, was not found by the Soviets—a grotesque situation.
Now let’s check the Pravda articles in detail:
The implication of extreme murderousness during 1941, 1942 and early 1943 is remarkable. No mention was made by Pravda of 1944, when according to the various establishment “holocaust researchers” the real climax of mass annihilation occurred, with the killing and cremation of up to 20,000 prisoners per day. Of this, the Pravda fabricators did not know anything. If they had, it is certain they would have reported it immediately.
It is quite true that from 1941 till spring 1943, many persons arrived at Auschwitz. It was at this time that its huge industrial installations were built. Toward the end of the war the work force had increased to about 100,000—some of it contracted, but mostly forced labor.
Besides German foremen and technicians there were Poles, Czechs, French, Russians, Yugoslavs and Jews. It is strange that nowhere in the Pravda article is there any mention of these ongoing industries, nor did the Poles point this out when later questioned. The “huge expanse of the Auschwitz complex” is ascribed by the allegedly astonished Polewoj entirely to the “murder machine.” There is not a single word that indicates that the camp is a part of the German armament industries, as we now know it clearly was.
The Germans are said to have begun to remove the traces of mass murder in Auschwitz when the Soviets occupied Majdanek concentration camp, which occurred on July 24, 1944. This means the Germans had barely six months left to destroy evidence, including three months of winter, with the ground frozen solid. In this short time, they supposedly removed “the old graves in the eastern part of the camp” and dismantled the mechanisms of the murder of millions of individuals.
These were said to have included hundreds of huge grave pits and high mounds above them with countless layers of bodies. The graves are said to have been quickly “leveled” by the Germans, and this means that, therefore, the bodies would still have been present, especially those bodies that were originally in the pits. However, anyone familiar with the matter knows that in Auschwitz no grave sites were ever found, and in particular none of the alleged mass graves.
The contemporary version, published for several decades, is that the Germans burned all the bodies and ground the remains into dust and then dumped everything into the Vistula River, where it floated away, an impossibility.
Mass graves in the Auschwitz area were not possible, due to the high level of the water table. Even individual grave sites in the area had to be removed later because of ground water contamination. As early as 1942 there were extended periods of typhus epidemics because of ground water contamination.
Mass graves simply could not be tolerated near the Monowitz (Auschwitz III) site, without serious risk to the operations of the armament industries.
Also, it is a delusion to think such clues can be removed that easily.
Even if graves had been cleaned out and refilled, any soil expert could easily verify the excavations by cutting across with trenches. Such findings, witnessed by independent Swiss or Swedish observ ers, would constitute irrefutable proof that something had happened at the site. But there is no such evidence.
What else did the Germans “remove”? The traces of the “electric conveyor system.” That is to say, not just the supposed electric conveyors, but all accessories, the power plant, the electric power lines, the one or several “blast furnaces” or “smelter furnaces.” How credible is the story that all of this heavy apparatus was removed at the last moment by the Germans?
The vanished facilities must have been of such a “high fascist technology” that even today similar hardware has yet to be reinvented, which could facilitate the cremation of, as stated by Polewoj, “hundreds of people completely . . .”
Also the grinding mills for bones, the huge conveyor belt, the piles of coal or other fuel. Are we to believe that everything was wiped off the face of the earth in less than six months, including three months of winter, and nothing was ever found? Not even any construction blueprints?
In other words, the Soviets did not find traces of any of that, or else they would have said so. All this was an invention masquerading as historical truth, to be used against a prostrate German nation.
Even the most German-hating agitators have long ago distanced themselves from these fantastic stories. They did not believe them from the first day.
The fact remains, however, that the Allied power that alone conquered and occupied Auschwitz (the USSR) at the same time shielded the camp from any inspection by foreign observers for many months afterward, and this same ally was the only one to publish stories about what it claims to have found in Auschwitz.
The eastern part of the camp was Monowitz. However, not one of the “holo caustorians” has ever insisted that there were gas chambers in Monowitz. Instead, they all speak of a gas chamber within the main camp only in the beginning—surprisingly, in the immediate neighborhood of the camp kitchen and in the center of the whole complex. It is said to have served later as an air raid shelter. But the holocaust experts all talk about Birkenau, a part of the camp far to the west of the huge industrial complex. And here again the gas chambers supposedly were in the western part. This is quite different from where the “liberators” claim they found them.
But then the story becomes even more complicated.
The Soviet “liberator” has supposedly found the gas chambers, decorated with ornaments and little turrets, to look like harmless garages. All the holocaust experts, however, seem to agree that the Soviets did not find the gas chambers, because (allegedly) they all were completely destroyed in advance of the Soviet “liberation” by the Germans.
Why, after all, should the Germans have spared just these gas chambers from destruction? The Germans otherwise were so obsessed with removal of all traces of the alleged genocide, and yet they decorated them with ornaments and little turrets for the reception of the Soviets.
Not once did the Soviets provide illustrative evidence of these “gas chambers, looking like harmless garages,” to the outside world. Not even a photo was taken of these remarkable structures, despite their obviously tremendous importance.
In a Soviet film on the liberation of Auschwitz, shown on West German television on November 16, 1986, of course, these “gas chambers” were not shown. More surprisingly, the Soviets did not even search for gas chambers, though the film’s contemporary background narration did talk about them constantly.
As to the allegation that refers to the killing by shots into the neck as found in the mass graves in the first years of Auschwitz, at once one is reminded of the Katyn Forest and other Soviet crime scenes, where the NKVD executed thousands of Polish officers in April-May 1940, using exactly the methods they charged against the Germans. And it is typical that people such as Polewoj, a Pravda reporter, and other Soviet organs of publication, were involved in the manipulation of the Katyn case for propaganda.
A Soviet document later produced by the Soviets in Nuremberg, “Doc. USSR-008,”2 carries the signatures of people such as Mytrolitos Nikolaus and Lyssenko, who, in spite of their knowledge of the true perpetrators of the mass murder at Katyn, lied and assigned blame for this genocidal act on Germany.
The compartments with benches, torture chairs to break backbones, steel cudgels from Krupp, etc. were never “shown to the world,” though Polewoj has “found and seen them.” Not even a photograph was made. United Press staff correspondent Henry Shapiro did not believe this deception, but changed the brand name Krupps into the fantasy product Krutz—exchanging one lie for another.
Polewoj saw “thousands of martyrs in Auschwitz, so emaciated that they staggered like shadows in the wind.” Whoever looks at the physical condition of the prisoners in the Soviet film shown recently on the West German television cannot help feeling that—besides really sick ones—the prisoners looked well fed. These pictures have been known throughout the holocaust literature. One gets the impression that these prisoners appeared in better physical condition than the German soldiers of January 1945.
In this context we remember the British inquiries of February 15 and of April 25, 1945 to Moscow, to request release of the information as to what they really did find in Auschwitz.3 So far none of the holocaust experts has taken the meager Soviet answer of May 7, 1945 seriously, and so did not publish it. And this in spite of the fact that they accepted the Soviet figure of 4 million Auschwitz dead without hesitation.
It is worth noting in the Pravda article of February 2, 1945 what Polewoj did not state and did not find: He did not find piles of eyeglasses; he found no piles of dentures, no piles of human hair, no piles of shoes, no piles of worn clothing. Such photos were later published officially by the Soviets but these were mostly faked—some drawn or painted as collages, composed of various parts, which were exhibited as being actual photos.
The Pravda reporter, who spent several days at Auschwitz to search for material with which to make accusations against the “German fascists,” had seen nothing of underground “gas chambers and dressing rooms,” not even heard of them. More surprisingly yet, he had not even singled out “Birkenau,” or found anything worth mentioning about the camp to pass on to the world.
He had not seen or heard anything of the alleged “farmhouses, remodeled already in 1942” to become gas chambers west of Birkenau, and supposedly in operation until October 1944. Not one of the liberated prisoners in the euphoria of liberation reported about them, none mentioned Birkenau, none talked of what had been going on there in 1944.
This is surprising.
He did not see the station platform strewn with suitcases and worn clothing or pilfered freight cars; he saw no mass graves, no rivers (Vistula and Sola) clogged with human ashes, no fields covered with human ashes and bone fragments used as fertilizer, no “mobile gallows.”
In summary it can be said that Polewoj was the first Soviet reporter on the scene; what he saw and reported, was not seen and reported by the subsequent Extra ordinary Soviet Commission.
What the later commission saw and what their cameramen filmed and recorded, was not seen by Polewoj, the first reporter on the spot.
What they did have in common was a devotion to atrocity propaganda.


Footnotes
1 Soviet responsibility for many massacres has been well established, as at Lemberg (Lwow), 1941; in the Baltic states, in 1939-40 and again in 1945-48; Vinitsya, Ukraine; Katyn Forest near Smolensk, where the Germans in 1943 found the bodies of 4,253 Polish officers in several mass graves. These are the only remains yet uncovered from a known group of 15,000 men who disappeared while in Soviet captivity after the communist takeover of Eastern Poland in April and May of 1940. The new government of the Russian Federation has yet to dig into the former Soviet NKVD archives and disclose the location of the mass grave sites where the remaining 10,000 men rest.
2 Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Nov. 14, 1945 to Oct. 1, 1946. Nuremberg, 1947, Vol. XXXIX, pp. 241-261.
3 Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz und die Allierten, Munich, 1982, pp. 395-396. Com pare Historische Tatsachen No. 15, p. 35.



 http://www.vsubhash.com/article.asp?id=124&info=John_Sack%E2%80%99s_Eye_For_An_Eye

John Sack's An Eye For An Eye

You might have heard of concentration camps that the Germans ran for the Jews. But, have you heard about the 1255 concentration camps that the Jews ran for ethnic Christian Germans AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR? Did you know that 60,000 to 80,000 thousand Germans died in those camps? Did you know that the German government refused to investigate these crimes? Did you know that when John Sack, a well-known Jewish reporter, decided to write a book about these camps, no publisher in the "Free World" would dare to publish it? Did you know that one publisher printed it and pulped the entire edition? This is his account in his own words. (You can read the book online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/89657197/An-Eye-for-an-Eye-by-John-Sack-PDF

Writing Lola's Story

Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Israelis and Palestinians ... Maybe they'll read it, and maybe they'll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.
We Jews always say of the Holocaust, "Never again. Never again will people hurt us simply because we are Jews." But Lola was apparently saying, "Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because he's a German." Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, "Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me." This story I wanted very much to write. So ...
I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysés in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.
I write a twenty-page article on Lola's revenge and Lola's redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it's reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.
And then I write a book proposal. I write, "It's Lola's redemption, not Lola's revenge, that this book's about." I'll go to Germany. I'll find some prisoners maybe. I'll go to Poland. I'll find some more guards, maybe. I'll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, "Okay! We want it!" Good news, and I phone it to Lola.
And Lola on the telephone says, "Listen, John, I don't want you to write it." I say, "Lola? Lola, this is the first time you've told that to me." I say, "Lola, we signed a contract." We had signed one. Lola had written, "I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish a book about my life."
That night I go to Lola's apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting and screaming. You're just sitting there stupefied. You're thinking, "What is going on?" Well, I'm in Lola's condo. Lola is saying, "Lookit, John. I don't like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you!"
Lola's daughter is there. She's saying, "John, give it up. I'm begging you to give it up. John! Give it up!" Another daughter of Lola's is there. She's a lawyer, and she says, "John! You're going to have instantaneous and very expensive litigation!" Lola's saying, "I'll go to court." The daughter's saying, "John, I want you to sign this release. John! Sign the release!" The other daughter's saying, "John! Just leave us! Just go!" Lola's saying, "John! Get out of our lives!"
I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn't answer. I write her, but she sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed "refused."
And not just Lola. Lola's second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz was Moshe, also a Jew. He won't talk to me. His wife on the telephone says, "We don't give you the permission to write this." I say, "I ... You ..." That's what I say, "I ... You ... One doesn't need permission!" I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe's wife hangs up.
And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola's guards in Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, "I was never in Gleiwitz!" Then she says, "Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I'll never talk about it!" And then she talks for an hour saying, "I don't know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing!"
People won't talk to me. People tell other people, "Don't talk to John Sack." People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they'll sue me, they'll destroy me, they'll kill me. One man takes my driver's license, writes down my address, and says, "If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia."
Here's some advice. Never tell a reporter, "You'd better not write this." I have a contract with Henry Holt. I've made a promise to Henry Holt. I keep my promises.
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It's the German Federal Archives, and they've got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola's prison.
I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with banners on the stone walls. It's a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. They're drinking beer. They're eating sausages and sauerkraut. They're laughing and singing, "Ein prosit, ein prosit ..." And I'm like a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table selling roses? I'm going around asking, "Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz?" Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola's prisoners.
I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it's Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I'm arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevìkerung aus den Gebieten ótlich der Oder-Neisse ["The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse," published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I'm let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It's a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don't speak Polish, but I find three of Lola's guards. They remember her well.
It's 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola's prison, into the prisoners' cells. I tell them, "Djien dobre. Good morning." I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, "I want revenge"? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, "I want to cooperate against our German oppressors." I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.
After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.
And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day in 1989, I'm having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny. We're eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, "You know, Lola stopped. She told us, 'Stop!' She said, 'We're going to show the Germans we're not like them.'"
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn't telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.
One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, "You're wearing black pants! You're a fascist!," and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola's prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola's prison. They weren't Gestapo. They weren't SS. They weren't even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.
But the Germans in Lola's prison were slapped and whipped. And I'm so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a "beater-to-death." It's a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German's f ace.
Lola didn't tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola's guards told me, "Yeah, the Germans would die." He told me, "I'd put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I'd cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I'd ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I'd take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave."
We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola's prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn't locked in a room night and day. She wasn't tortured night after night. She herself told me: "Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren't allowed to." But all of that happened to German girls at Lola's prison in Gleiwitz.
One woman I talked with wasn't even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola's prison pulled off her clothes and told her, "Let's do it!" They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, "What, what is that blue thing you're wearing? Oh, oh, it's your skin."
And ten feet away was Lola's office. Lola in her brass, braid, and stars. I once asked her, "Lola, where did you get that uniform?," and Lola said, "Well, the Russians must've given it to me." That wasn't the whole truth either.
Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German, you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans, imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.
In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics, but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn't alive, but I met some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of them, were Jews.
In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers - not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains and such - one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola's. It also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola's boy friend, a man who'd lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers (he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon Morel.
But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans' barracks, and said, "My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I swore I would take revenge on you Nazis." They weren't Nazis, but Solomon said, "Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song!" That was a Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old, didn't even know it.
Solomon had a club. He said, "Sing it!" Some people began, "Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen ..." "Sing it! Sing it, I say!" They started singing, "Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear the street for the Storm Section men." Solomon had all this hate inside him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death certificates for 1,583 Germans.
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died. German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski - he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz -- he didn't heat the barracks, and he didn't give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and forty-eight of the fifty babies died.
All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation, but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another holocaust. Well, I'm sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.
But let's not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn't do what the Germans did. We didn't plot to exterminate the German people. We didn't mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.) We didn't send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.
But let's also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or Buchenwald.
All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved didn't talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in Breslau, all he says is, "We moved westward to Breslau and ... from there ... to Prague." That's it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn't write about it. There's a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, "Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it's true." But he himself, he never wrote about it.
The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel's central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, "Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security?" They have nothing. I ask them, "What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security?" Nothing. I say, "Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish ..." The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, "It sounds rather imaginary," and the director of archives says to me, "Imm-possible! Impossible!"
Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But historically I don't think it's a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn't deny it. Yes, Abraham, the father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah (the word "Jew" comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn't let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy. Solomon -- good, wise, old King Solomon -- did evil. He "worshipped idols." We didn't cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.
It seems to me that that's the Jewish tradition. How can we say to other people -- to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus -- "What you're doing is wrong," if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel. I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn't say it, then I had to say it.
I'm a reporter. That's what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don't report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I'm a Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil, and if I know it and don't report it, then I am guilty too.
So I start writing this book. The title now won't be Lola. It'll be An Eye For An Eye. And on the third page I write, "I hope that An Eye For An Eye is something more than the story of Jewish revenge: that it's the story of Jewish redemption." I write about Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an Eye. Mostly I write ...
I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who refused to look at, much less work at Lola's prison. I write about Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel. I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and, at the risk of his life, told people in it, "You must stop doing this."
I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread, her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German prisoners. Now this isn't something that Lola told me. No, the prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she'd have gone to prison herself.
And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola -- again at the risk of her life -- escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected.
I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye For An Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: "Okay. I've done it. That's the end of the cover-up."
No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, "We don't want it." They don't say it's wrong. They know it's right. They just say, "We don't want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand." Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper's, to Scribner's - you name it, we sent it - to two dozen other publishers.
And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they're practically blurbs. The publishers say: "well-written," "extremely well-written," "chilling," "compelling," "disturbing," "dismaying," "shocking," "startling," "astonishing," "mesmerizing," "extraordinary," "I was riveted," "I was bowled over," "I love it!" And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin's Press says, "I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I'd have trouble distinguishing this book ... from other books ... in this vast area of literature."
Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can't sell a book, we'll try magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.
Solomon is still alive. He's wanted by Interpol for crimes against humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest. But he's fled to Israel. He's taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no one in America -- no newspaper, magazine or television network -- has ever reported it.
So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I've been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, "No." We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, "Yes!" The editor says it's the most important story in GQ's history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, "Ha, ha! You don't have it! We do!"
For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don't find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, "John, this isn't a happy phone call. We aren't going to run it." He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.
So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper's magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and "I'm sure you'll understand." Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine ("Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you!") doesn't even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye For An Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it's all over. I can relax now. Not.
Because one day later there's a telephone call to Basic Books. It's from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn't get it he'll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he'll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, "They are all anti-Semites." Well, we don't retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn't denounce. But …
Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn't true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.
Please! Much of An Eye For An Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, "This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism."
Much of An Eye For An Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn't found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, "The facts are true," "The facts are right," "The facts are iron-bound."
But in the United States, one review was entitled "False Witness." Another was headed "The Big Lie, Continued."
The Jewish paper Forward said, "Sack is transparently writing docudrama," and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, "I was the commandant," and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, "We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant," and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, "The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack ... seems ... oblivious." As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? "Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me?" I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I've had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.