Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die - Part II

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on June 14, 2011

By Ernst Zundel

The Nuremberg Court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges to a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges - not military career officers, who might have had some understanding and compassion for what the military leaders and the civilian government under extreme war-time conditions lived through.

They could have undoubtedly had a greater appreciation of why some of the wartime measures were undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war. The “liberal country club”-experienced set of small town American judges could not.

Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had stopped - not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely “diagnosing” psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip, starve, suffocate, and mutilate their prisoners into giving confessions and statements which were as cruelly extracted as were the confessions from witches during the disgusting witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.

The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also by Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged Nazi war criminals after the war.

Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European living space because they considered them harmful to the war effort and to Western European civilization.

Here is how the article described the rabble that came to post-war Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice Wennerstrumís eyes, after he quit in disgust:

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today,” [Wennerstrum] told friends as he packed to leave for America, “I would never have come here. The initial war crimes trial here was judged and prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany.

“What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals,” the judge continued, “applies to the prosecution. The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.

“The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.

“The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europeís hatreds and prejudices. . . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)

In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them Jews - as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, even in radio broadcasts and news reels.

Most of the “evidence” in the trials was “documentary,” selected by the Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to release, hide, or destroy any documents which did not fit their post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg.

Furthermore, the Allies admitted elsewhere that their Propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many times because they were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists gloat to this day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to surmise what these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of documents could do now with all the captured genuine German document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of any National Socialist organization you care to mention.

Even setting aside questionable “documentary” evidence, letís look at some of the accusedís “testimony” - how it was extracted, and what it really means.

Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal stand certain words: “Genocide” “Gas chamber” “Six million.” These words, and the embedded moral judgment, were derived largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, [not to be confused with Rudolf Hess!] the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

Rudolf Hoess was the Alliesí most important witness. His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the press. It was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim of the “extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz.” Hoessís “confession” is heavily relied upon by historians like Raul Hilberg and others as a primary documentary source to this day.

It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous “atrocities,” and he also confirmed the “truth” under oath of an affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of victims.

This affidavit was in English, a language he did not speak or understand, according to family members.

We now know from the book Legions of Death that Rudolf Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter, until he gave this very devastating “testimony” and “affidavit” used by the Allies propagandists ever since.

You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:

At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.

No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarkeís tone was deliberately low-key and conversational.

He began mildly: “I understand your husband came to see you as recently as last night.”

Frau Hoess merely replied: “I havenít seen him since he absconded months ago.”

Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: “You know that isnít true.” Then all at once his manner changed and he was shouting: “If you donít tell us, weíll turn you over to the Russians and theyíll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to Siberia.”

It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

Here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one of the participants, recalls it vividly:

[Hoess] was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth.

Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms.

Clarke yelled: “What is your name?”

With each answer of “Franz Lang”, Clarkeís hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was. (Ö)

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarkeís car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the manís eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine” (Ö)

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him.

This statement, tortured and terrorized out of the man, was the one we are all familiar with - the “proof” for the so-called “gassing of the Jews.”

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess was a totally unreliable witness - and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration camp “Wolzek” which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease, for a total dead of three million.

The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:

Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.

The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitlerís largest concentration camp (Ö)

The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of Hitlerís final solution.

Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, saying: “It sounds shocking and strange.” (Ö)

Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israelís Yad Vashem memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were correct.

“The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death campís Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated.” (. . .)

The Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.”

A most convenient excuse!

In 1989, I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in minute detail the cause and time of death, their birth, address etc.

The following was found:

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of Poles and members of other nationalities.

The incredibly shrinking Holocaust!

The “millions” that we have heard about for half a century and that we still hear and read about today all started with the “testimony” beaten out of Hoess on that horrible night in defeated Germany.

Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning stated that

“Ö Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole.” (Holocaust Revisionism Source Book, 1994, p. 1)

Hoessís testimony was used as the skeleton on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was constructed. Revisionists have concentrated on Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important source for Holocaust historiansí conclusions and exaggerations about the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the “Bible” of the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition, 1985) relies on Hoessís testimony heavily - and Hoess was the primary witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the “extermination of the Jews,” even though he told the court of having been savagely tortured.

Whatís more, Hoessís treatment by the Allies and the total unreliability of his “evidence” are not unusual. We donít know how many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was expunged from the record. An example is Julius Streicherís testimony. Streicher was reported in the London Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution, the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer.

Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners, however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter Sauckelís reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with deportation to Russia.

And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the only judicial proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of the proceedings - or any verdicts arrived at by this so-called International Military Tribunal. Their judgments over the leadership of Europeís most populous state, against whom they had just fought a murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly.

Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these days. And for what? The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the mother of all frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German vassal stateís first Allied-appointed chancellor:

“Ö the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion (Ö) Without the German reparations that started coming through during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure. All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israelís industry - and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle.”

Not anywhere you look!

After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the hyperbole and smoke screens which surround them, it can be put quite bluntly:

The Allies fought a war on foreign shores - in part to establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the Nuremberg Trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing of Israel.

So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and executioners - all in one! The Allies supplied the “experts” who sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in Allied control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding exonerating evidence. These investigators were told only to “find” incriminating documents against the accused, as I was told by the American scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these Allied researchers, and who testified at my own trials. These researchers were told to ignore the documents that might have spared the lives of the accused German leaders. When all was said and done, there was not even an appeal.

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746:

“Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” [Stone] remarked. “I donít mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law.

“This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”

Some sanctimonious fraud, indeed! Thatís how America and the “free world” have showed their gratitude to the defenders of Europe and Western Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who tried so valiantly for so long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy of what we now call, shuddering, the coming “New World Order.”

I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at Nuremberg. They were the worldís martyrs, not villains. Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial - not one! They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform - and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern Europe.

1996  Copyright - Ernst Zundel (Toronto. Written in 1996 and archived by Ingrid Rimland Zundel

Speaking Truth to Power: An Introduction

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on June 19, 2011

These past two years, I have been quiet but far from idle - Iíve been busily casting about for a new venue to move our struggle into a more pro-active mode. Smeared widely as a “Holocaust Denier”, I decided to make lemonade from lemons and craft the slurs heaved at myself and my compatriots into a boomerang - in other words, make it prestigious to be a “Holocaust Denier.”

And why not, pray? We are the modern “Christians of the Catacombs” of yore, thrown by the Chosenites for our belief in Truth in History to the proverbial lions with shrieks and howls of derision. And who can claim today that, in the end, when all was said and done, Christianity did not cut a decisive swath across the Western world?

The sky is the limit, I say.

This missive, though, is not about the merits or demerits of Christianity but simply meant as illustration that you canít censor an idea whose time has come if there is hunger for salvation, be it of this earth or the next.

I happen to believe there is a huge, huge hunger out there for Truth in History - and genuine Truth in History mandates uncompromising intellectual candor about the much-maligned and misjudged era of 1933-1945.

No cheap banality. No platitudes. No carton cut-outs a la Hoganís Heroes out of the smoking mills of Hollywood. And not the vile poison that the likes of Abe Foxman spew forth!

I was searching for a mental picture, a metaphor of sorts that would explain what I am after - and driving along some back roads on a magnificent Tennessee spring day, I think I may have found it. I smelled the wonderful scent of freshly cut lawns gently draping an awakening earth. Thatís what I want. A wholesome, orderly world that makes us feel young and unsullied about our surroundings.

With that in mind, I was casting about for some troops who would help me clean up some of the historical refuse. I chanced upon a website that impressed me for its candor and courage. It is the website of a cyber outfit called Veterans Today.

Now I am not a veteran, unless you count my cyber battles with the likes of Bínai Brith and their ilk - all of which, so far, Iíve won by giving it my all. How long I will last is written in the stars, but while I am still at it, I am cutting my lawn in broad daylight and enjoying the scent of the earth.

And thus it happened that I “met” the Senior Editor of Veterans Today, a fellow by the name of Gordon Duff. I started reading him and was duly impressed. But there was a small fly in the ointment, a shibboleth I didnít like at all - and I said to myself: “Aha! Here is my chance!”

I donít have the original email I sent, but I remember its essence. I complimented Gordon about his military savvy and personal integrity, but I finished what I had to say by adding: “Ö but you still kick my favorite dictator in the shin!”

To my quiet joy and happy satisfaction, Gordon didnít shriek some salty names and back away from me as though he had encountered Lucifer instead of a Lady of Decorum. He did not send me to the darkest recesses of Hades. He wrote me back politely and asked me what I meant.

What did I really think about the F¸hrer and his era?

I told him I looked upon the period of 1933-1945 the way I look upon, nostalgically, the brief years of my youth - a sweet, mysterious time, too brief, too fleeting, bewitching while it lasted and magical beyond all words - and never again to return. I lived through it as a small child. Why could I not, three generations later, describe exactly what I saw?

Thus came about a cautious cyber friendship that culminated in an invitation to write for Veterans Today.

So far, I have posted six essays within the last few weeks. They have been generally well received by a sophisticated readership, and one of those essays went viral. Itís title is “Germany: Still under the Control of Foreign Powers.” I donít even consider it my best essay, but Rense and others picked it up, and as of this writing, it is Number 2 on the “Weekly Top Ten” on VT.

Please visit my own authorís page and take a look yourself:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/06/05/germany-still-under-the-control-of-foreign-powers/

And if the Spirit moves you, as I fervently hope it will, please link to Veterans Today at www.veteranstoday.com where I have now established squatters rights and have hoisted my revisionist tent.

=====

Ingrid Rimland has worn many hats in her life. Her latest hobby is re-mastering historic Zundel tapes so as to bring them to new audiences.

Japan in WWII: A Casualty of Usury?

Was WWII Fought to make the World Safe for the Bankers?

by  Dr. Ingrid Rimland Zundel

Thanks to best-selling author, David Irving, the establishment view that the United States of America became embroiled in World War II as a result of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 is no longer accepted by major historians.The origins of this conflict, says South African politician and noted banker, Stephen Goodson, have far deeper roots.

Goodson explains the background as follows:

During the 1930s Japan rapidly expanded her industrial production, while the rest of the world, with the exception of National Socialist Germany, stagnated. By 1941 Japan had become the leading economic power in East Asia. Her exports were steadily replacing those of America and England.

Writes Goodson:

Japan has very few natural resources, so what was the secret of her success? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to return to the year 1929, when one of the twentieth century”s foremost monetary reformers, Major Clifford Hugh Douglas, went on a lecture tour of Japan.

Douglas”s economic theory advocated the transfer of the money creation process from private banks, which create money out of nothing as an interest-bearing debt, to the state. This government created money he termed social credit. He also favored the payment of a basic income or national dividend to each citizen. This dividend would provide consumers with the additional buying power necessary to absorb all the current production of goods in a non-inflationary manner2.

Major Clifford Hugh Douglas

*Douglas”s financial proposals for an honest money system, based on government creating the nation”s money and credit on an interest-free basis, were enthusiastically received by Japanese industry and government.3

All Douglas”s books and pamphlets were translated into Japanese, and more copies were sold in that country than in all the rest of the world put together.4

Since its inception in 1882 the largest shareholder of the Bank of Japan (Nippon Ginko) had been the Japanese Imperial Household. Its reorganization into a state bank, which was administered exclusively for the accomplishment of national interests, was implemented in 1932.

The reform of the central bank was completed in February 1942 when the Bank of Japan Law was remodelled on the Reichsbank Act of Germany of 1939.

Goodson continues:

“The Bank of Japan Law declared that the bank was a special corporation of a strongly national nature. The Bank was ëto assume the task of controlling currency and finance and supporting and promoting the credit system in conformity with policies of the state to ensure the full use of the nation”s potential”. Further, it was ëto be managed with the accomplishment of national aims as its sole guiding principle” (Article 2).

As for the functions of the Bank, the law abolished the old principle of priority for commercial finance, empowering it to supervise facilities for industrial finance. The law also authorized the Bank to make unlimited advances to the government without security, and to subscribe for and to absorb government bonds.

W2 Historian, David Irving

In respect of note-issues the law made permanent the system of the maximum issues limit; thus, the Bank could make unlimited issues to meet the requirements of munitions industries and of the government.

On the other hand, government supervision of the Bank was markedly strengthened. The government could nominate, superintend and give orders to the president and the directors; there was also a clause giving the government more comprehensive powers to give so-called ëfunctional orders” to the Bank, to direct it to perform any function it deemed necessary for the attainment of the Bank”s purpose.

Moreover, the law made a wide range of the Bank”s business subject to governmental approval, including such matters as the alteration of Bank rate, note-issues and accounts”.5

The results of these reforms can be seen in the sustained improvement which took place in the Japanese economy, once the shackles of usury had been removed. During the 1931-41 period, manufacturing output and industrial production increased by 140% and 136% respectively, while national income and Gross National Product (GNP) were up by 241% and 259% respectively.  These remarkable increases exceeded by a wide margin the economic growth of the rest of the industrialized world.

In the labour market unemployment declined from 5.3% in 1930 to 3.0% in 1938. Industrial disputes decreased with the number of stoppages down from 998 in 1931 to 159 in 1941.

In contrast to Japan, America had a private, mostly foreign owned central bank, the United States Federal Reserve Bank. Since its establishment on December 23, 1913 under highly suspicious circumstances, this bank had been undermining the US Constitution and destroying the freedom and prosperity of the American people.

A contemporary indictment of the US Federal Reserve may be found in a quotation from the opening paragraphs of a speech given by the Honorable Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency (1920-31). It was delivered to Congress on June 10, 1932 to the general acclaim of the members present.

“Mr. McFadden. Mr Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever know. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government board, has cheated the Government of the United States and the people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt.

The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over.

This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”

Mr. McFadden then went on to expose how the Federal Reserve Bank buys votes in the States in order to control the state legislatures; and how they use their vast financial resources in maintaining “an international propaganda” for covering up their previous misdeeds and setting in motion new opportunities for their “gigantic train of crime”.

According to McFadden, these 12 private credit monopolies were “deceitfully and disloyally” foisted on an unsuspecting public by foreign bankers, who in 1904 bankrolled Japan in her war with Russia. In 1917 they financed Trotsky”s political programme in America and paid for his passage to Russia. With the assistance of their branch banks in Sweden, these international bankers “fomented and instigated the Russian Revolution”, which resulted in the “destruction of the Russian Empire”.

Goodson points out something astounding to many of the uninitiated:

It can thus be seen that the US Federal Reserve Bank was intimately involved in plotting and financing the overthrow of the Russian Empire7. With its stranglehold on the media and its placemen occupying most of the key positions in government in 1941, the Bank was in a favourable position from which to manipulate and provoke war with Japan.

Both the Bank of Japan and the German Reichsbank8 with their systems of state creation of the money supply at zero interest - and the inevitability that those systems of finance would be replicated by other countries, in particular those of the proposed Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere - posed such a serious threat to the private investors of the US Federal Reserve Bank, that a world war was deemed to be the only means of countering it.

In July 1939 the United States unilaterally abrogated the Treaty of Commerce of 1911, thereby restricting Japan”s ability to import essential raw materials. These measures were imposed avowedly because of the war in China and were followed in June 1940 by an aviation fuel embargo and a ban on the export of iron and steel in November 19409.

General Hideki Tojo

In July 1941 all Japanese assets in England, Holland and America were frozen after Japan had peacefully occupied Indochina, with the permission of Vichy France, in order to block off China”s southern supply routes. At the same time an oil embargo was enforced. Without oil Japan could not survive.

General Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister (October 1941 - July 1944) explains in his diary how the United States continually thwarted Japanese efforts at maintaining the peace. Japan”s peaceful commercial relations were being persistently undermined by the USA and posed a grave threat to her future existence. By means of the economic blockade a noose was being placed around Japan”s neck.

Not only were the United States, England, China and Holland encircling Japan through economic pressures, but naval forces throughout the region in the Philippines, Singapore and Malaya were being redeployed and strengthened.

An American admiral claimed that the Japanese fleet could be sunk in a couple of weeks, while Prime Minister Churchill declared that England would join America”s side within 24 hours.

“Japan attempted to circumvent these dangerous circumstances by diplomatic negotiation, and though Japan heaped concession upon concession, in the hope of finding a solution through mutual compromise, there was no progress because the United States would not retreat from its original position.

In the end, the United States repeated demands that, under the circumstances, Japan could not accept : complete withdrawal of troops from China, repudiation of the Nanking government, withdrawal from the Tripartite Pact.

At this point, Japan lost all hope of reaching a resolution through diplomatic negotiation. Since events had progressed as they had, it became clear to continue in this manner was to lead the nation to disaster. With options thus foreclosed, in order to protect and defend the nation and clear the obstacles that stood in its path, a decisive appeal to arms was made.

War was decided upon at the Imperial Conference on December 1, 1941, and the shift to real operations was made at this point. However, even during the preparations for action, plans were laid in such a manner that should there be progress through diplomatic negotiation, we would be well prepared to cancel operations at the latest moment that communication technology would have permitted.” 10

A further incentive for the unprincipled leaders of the US government to instigate a war with Japan was the Tripartite Pact of September 21, 1940. This was a defensive military alliance under the terms of which, if one of the Axis powers was attacked, the others would come to its defence. By these means Germany was induced to declare war on the USA.11

After numerous diplomatic initiatives including the offer of a summit on August 8, 1941 had failed, Japan was forced into attacking America in order to maintain her prosperity and secure her existence as a sovereign state.

In the ensuing slaughter 2.3 million Americans and Japanese lost their lives. Tens of thousands of allied soldier were subjected to the indignities and sufferings of prisoner of war camp life12.

In a consummate act of hypocrisy the Japanese High Command was placed on trial for “war crimes”. These tribunals were based on ex post facto laws, which resulted in the subversion of 2500 years of Western jurisprudence. The rule of tu quoque (thou also) was cynically ignored, notwithstanding the brutal nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where an estimated 239 000 died.13

One of the first acts of the United States occupation forces in Japan in September 1945 was to restructure the Japanese banking system, so as to make it compliant with the norms of the international bankers i.e. usury. The unrestricted financing of the state by the Bank of Japan was abolished and the large industrial combines, the Zaibatsu, were dismantled. This policy was carried out by Joseph Dodge, a Detroit banker, who was financial adviser to the Supreme Allied Commander, General Douglas MacArthur.

On both the 50th and 60th anniversaries commemorating the end of World War II, Japanese officials, including Japan”s prime minister Junichiro Koizumi14 on the latter occasion, have apologized. Clearly such apologies are misplaced and it is perhaps America who should be apologizing to the Japanese for having provoked them into a senseless and useless war, which according to Allied propaganda was fought to make the world safe for democracy.

The reality is that World War II was fought to make the world safe for usury - to ensure the permanent enslavement of mankind through debt and interest.

Notes

1 Thomas Kimmel (grandson of Admiral Husband Kimmel), “12 New Pearl Harbor Facts”, The Barnes Review, November/December 2004, pp. 37-41. Critical intelligence was withheld from the local commanders to ensure that the “surprise” attack was as spectacular as possible. See also Roger A Stolley, ëPearl Harbor Attack No Surprise”, The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 119-21 who quotes LTC Clifford M. Andrew, a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, who temporarily was assistant chief of staff, military intelligence, general staff, United States Army as follows:

ëFive men were directly responsible for what happened at Pearl Harbor. I am one of those five men Ö.. We knew well in advance that the Japanese were going to attack. At least nine months before the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor, I was assigned to prepare for it.

I was operating under the direct orders of the President of the United States and was ordered not to give vital intelligence information relating to the whereabouts of the Japanese fleet to our commanders in the field.

We had broken the Japanese code Ö We”d been monitoring all their communications for months prior to the attack Ö. It was a lie that we didn”t have direct communication with Washington, D.C.”

Stolley concludes by saying the “For the people of the United States both then and now I feel sorrow, for a people to have been so misled, to have been lied to so much and to have so thoroughly believed the lie given to them.”

2.. This forms part of Douglas”s A + B theorem, viz that prices are always being generated at a faster rate than incomes are produced, so that the total prices of all goods in the economy at any particular stage exceed the total buying power of consumers. The national dividend was intended to make up for this deficit of purchasing power, and as a consequence would assist in abolishing the business cycle and the syndrome of poverty amidst plenty.

3. This enthusiasm may be contrasted with the alarm with which Douglas”s ideas were received by the City of London or Square Mile (677 acres). During the 1930s £5 million (a prodigious sum in to-day”s values) was raised by the international bankers in order to neutralize Douglas”s proposals.

4. ëNew Economics”, January 19,1934, p. 8 as quoted in D J Amos, ëThe Story of the Commonwealth Bank”, Veritas Publishing Company, Bullsbrook, Western Australia, 1986, p. 44.

5. Money and Banking in Japan, The Bank of Japan Economic Research Department, translated by S Nishimura, edited by L S Pressnell, Macmillan, London, 1973, p.38.

6. “Collective Speeches of Congressman Louis T. McFadden” Omni Publications, Hawthorne, California, 1970, Chap XVI, The Treacherous and Disloyal Conduct of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks, pp.298-9.

7. In 1914 Russia was the most prosperous nation in the world. She had a small and declining foreign debt and no central bank. See George Knupffer, “The Struggle for World Power”, London, 1971, Chap. 15, Some Details about Russia, pp. 138-46.

8. Stephen M. Goodson, “Bonaparte & Hitler Versus the International Bankers”, The Barnes Review, November / December 2004, pp. 23 -9.

9. Alleged human rights violations were the outward motivation for the imposition of sanctions. However , this may also have been a manoeuvre to protect US oil investments in China.

10. The Journal for Historical Review, Vol. 12, No.1, Spring 1992, Hideki Tojo”s Prison Diary , pp. 41-2.

11. Besides the obligations of the alliance, other factors which influenced the German declaration of war were the persistent provocations of the US Navy in the north Atlantic, and the anticipation that the Japanese would open up a Russian front in the Far East and provide relief for the beleaguered German forces outside Moscow.

12. In view of Japan”s non-ratification of the Geneva Convention in 1929, the Allied Chiefs of Staff have to bear some of the responsibility for the hardship, which they knew their soldiers would have to endure if captured. A recent study by Professor Richard Aldrich of Nottingham University, England ëThe Faraway War, Personal Diaries of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific”, 2005, Doubleday has revealed that the stereotyping of the Japanese as being cruel and robotic is inaccurate, and that most of them were tough and fair in their treatment of enemy prisoners. In contrast American and Australia soldiers frequently did not take prisoners, but massacred them as “machine-gun practice”. (1943 diary of Eddie Stanton, Australian posted to Goodenough Island off Papua New Guinea). According to a spokesman of the Imperial War Museum, London in a programme broadcast on British Sky television on August 15, 2005, Japanese treatment of Russian prisoners of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) and German prisoners of World War I (1914-18) was exemplary.

13. The justification for these bombings was that the conquest of the Japanese mainland would have cost an estimated 500 000 allied lives. Yet these disasters could have been avoided if Japanese peace overtures for a conditional surrender had been accepted in January 1945.

14. According to the September 2005 issue of the monthly journal Right Now, 78 Marylebone High Street, London WIU 5AP on p. 15, ëPrime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is attacked time and again for continuing to visit a Tokyo shrine (the Yasukini) where Japan”s war dead are deified. The International Herald Tribune and the New York Times refer to these Japanese dead as ëwar criminals.”

Stephen Goodson is the director of a central bank in South Africa. (With credits to Mr. Goodson for his meticulous research.)

Crystal Night 1938 - Third Reich's 9/11?

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on July 28, 2011

Now that the “False Flag” topic is at the forefront of political discussions, it is timely to call attention to a well-known incident that happened inside Germany, best known to history as “Kristallnacht”. Orthodox history has it that under Hitlerís orders, goose-stepping Germans went on a gratuitous rampage - burning synagogues, smashing shop windows, killing Jews ñ behaving like hysterical brutes.

Today it is widely taken for granted that this attack on the Jews in Germany was a government-sanctioned blast-off of unrestrained antisemitism that led eventually to Auschwitz. A well-researched school of thought will tell you differently.

I heard it first some fifteen years ago ñ that, like so many other covert operations since exposed, “Kristallnacht” was a brilliantly timed attempt to mortally wound the image of the Third Reich as a legitimate alternative to the corruption rampant under the Weimar Republic.

Hitler was furious when he found out. He put a stop to it immediately. He said that action was “un-German”, adding that his Germany would never recover from the adverse publicity resulting world-wide. He was right. The image of “Kristallnacht” is a major stumbling block to an impartial assessment of what the Hitler era was really all about.

This alternative analysis is best presented by a German author, Ingrid Weckert. Her revisionist treatise is freely available on Amazon as “Feuerzeichen” (1981) in German and “Flashpoint” (1991). The article below, written by Weckert, is posted at the website of the Institute for Historical Review. It is a bit long, but well-worth a read:

Crystal Night 1938: The great Anti-German spectacle

“Crystal Night” is the name thatís been given to the night of 9-10 November 1938. In almost all large German cities and some smaller ones that night, store windows of Jewish shops were broken, Jewish houses and apartments were destroyed, and synagogues were demolished and set on fire. Many Jews were arrested, some were beaten, and some were even killed. The “Reich Crystal Night” (Reichskristallnacht) was one of the most shameful events of National Socialist Germany. Although the Jews suffered initially, the greatest harm was ultimately done to Germany and the German people.

Even people who are sympathetic to National Socialism cannot understand how this event could have happened. Julius Streicher, the so-called “number one Jew baiter” [note 1] for example, was shocked when he first learned about the demonstrations and destruction the next morning.

The all-important question is: Who was responsible for the incident? It is generally accepted, especially by contemporary historians, that the Nazi gang organized and carried out the pogrom, and that the chief instigator was Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. The truth of the matter is that Adolf Hitler was so disgusted by the incident that he forbade anyone from discussing the matter in his presence. Dr. Goebbels complained that he would now have to explain this terrible affair to the German people and the world, and that he simply did not know what kind of credible explanation to give. If he had actually been responsible for the Crystal Night, he surely would have had a well-prepared explanation. The explanation he gave on the morning of the 10th was extremely unconvincing and was generally not believed by the German public. During my study of this subject, which resulted in my book on the Crystal Night, Feuerzeichen, I found many facts which do not agree with the generally accepted thesis. On the contrary, the evidence which I have found gives a completely different picture.

The Story We Are Given

The generally accepted sequence of events, according to most writers on the subject, is this:

In early October 1938 the Polish government announced that all Polish passports would become invalid at the end of the month unless they received a special stamp before then, obtainable only in Poland. This measure was meant to rid Poland effectively for all time of all Polish Jews living in foreign countries, most of whom were in Germany. Many of the approximately 70,000 Polish Jews living in the Reich at the time had arrived after the First World War. Of course, the German government now feared that it would have to permanently accept these 70,000 Jews. The German government tried to negotiate this issue with the Poles, but they flatly refused.

On 28 October, just two days before the deadline, German police rounded up between 15,000 and 17,000 Polish Jews, mostly adult males, from across the Reich and transported them to the German-Polish border. The deportees traveled in regular German passenger trains with more than adequate space. Contrary to some claims, they were not crammed into cattle cars. The deportees were well provided with food and medical care. Red Cross personnel and medical doctors accompanied them on the trains.[note 2]

The Polish border officials were surprised when the first trainloads arrived at the border, and they let the Jews enter Poland. At about the same time, the Polish government was deporting German Jews back to Germany. The next day, 29 October, the Polish and German governments suddenly agreed to stop the deportations of their respective Jewish populations to each otherís countries. The deportations were completely halted that night.

Among the Polish Jews deported was the family of Herschel Feibel Grynszpan (Gruenspan), a l7-year-old then living Paris. What followed next is generally reported either incorrectly or very one-sidedly. On 7 November Grynszpan went to the German Embassy in Paris and shot Embassy Secretary Ernst vom Rath. It is said that Grynszpan did this because he was furious over the deportation of his family. The truth about his motivation is very different. It is also claimed that the German population, upset by the news of vom Rathís death on the 8th, organized anti-Jewish demonstrations, destroyed Jewish stores, and demolished or set on fire all the synagogues in Germany. Demonstrations and destruction did take place, but the truth is that they were not organized by the German people and did not affect most of the synagogues in the Reich. Finally, it is claimed that the Crystal Night was the beginning of the extermination of the Jews in Germany. This is entirely false.

German-Jewish Relations Prior to the Crystal Night

Before explaining how the events surrounding the Crystal Night differ from what is generally believed, I must first give some background information about the peaceful years in Germany after Hitler came to power in 1933. Anyone who is aware of the true situation in Germany during the Third Reich era recognizes that the Crystal Night episode was quite extraordinary. It was a radical aberation from the normal pattern of daily life. The outburst was not in keeping with either the official National Socialist Jewish policy nor with the general German attitude towards the Jews. The Germans were no more anti-Semitic than any other people. In fact, Jews who had to leave other European countries preferred Germany as a place to live and work.

Within the National Socialist-Party itself there were two distinct anti-Semitic factions. One was scholarly and one was vulgar. The scholarly faction was centered around the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question. It published several journals and gave lectures to civic and political groups. Its activities were consistent with the policy of peacefully removing the Jews from Germany and resettling them elsewhere. The SS was totally committed to this policy and rejected vulgar anti-Semitism. The vulgar anti-Semitic faction tried to influence popular feeling. The chief exponent of this approach was Julius Streicher, who published the unofficial monthly Der Stuermer. It used crude caricatures to portray Jews in the most horrible way in an effort to convince readers that the Jews were as evil as Satan. For years the motto “The Jews Are Our Misfortune” appeared on the front page of every issue. Der Stuermer often employed improper and undignified means to make its point.

German National Socialism basically regarded the Jews as non-German aliens who had proven themselves destructive to any nation that permitted them to dominate. Therefore, the only way to prevent further problems was to separate the Jews from the Germans. In other words, they had to emigrate. On this point the National Socialists and the Zionists were in full agreement. Although the Jews made up less than one percent of the total German population in 1933, they had power and influence in finance, business, cultural affairs and scientific life far out of proportion to their small numbers. Jewish influence was very widely regarded as harmful to German recovery after the First World War. No legal measures were taken against the Jews in Germany until after the international Jewish “Declaration of War” against Germany, as announced, for example, on the front page of the London Daily Express of 24 March 1933. This “declaration” took the form of a worldwide boycott of German goods.

A week later there was an officially sanctioned boycott of Jewish shops and stores throughout Germany. This action was in direct response to the international Jewish boycott of German goods already in effect. However, the German response was a rather absurd affair and it was therefore limited to a single day, the first of April 1933. Hitler and Goebbels privately recognized that the German counter-boycott was a failure and would only turn people against the new government. Furthermore, this one-day action came on a Saturday, the Jewish sabbath. Religious Jews took malicious pleasure at the discomfort of the Jews who normally kept their stores open on Saturdays and were now, in effect, forced by the government to obey the Jewish law against work on the sabbath. The National Socialist regime thereafter sought to diminish Jewish influence and power by strictly legal means. The first German law which could be considered anti-Jewish was dated 7 April 1933. Although the legal status of the Jews was restricted, each and every Jew knew what his legal rights were and to what he was still entitled. There were no secret or extra-legal measures against the Jews.

Ironically, it was precisely the official discrimination policy against the Jews which reduced the effectiveness of anti-Semitic propaganda to almost nothing. The Germans are a generally fair-minded people. When Germans saw their Jewish neighbors being treated unjustly, they considered that far worse than the dangers which the Jews supposedly represented simply because they were Jewish. Furthermore, the examples of Jewish criminality and perversion described in Der St¸rmer were widely regarded as exceptions to normal Jewish behavior. The average German was convinced that the Jews whom he knew personally were completely unlike the criminal types sometimes described in newspapers. In my home town of Berlin most of the doctors and lawyers were still Jewish. And even the public health officer for children in the district of Berlin where my family lived was a Jew who kept this job throughout the war. I still remember one day when my mother returned from her Jewish doctor. She told us that she hadnít been able to see him because he was no longer there. He had been taken away-hauled off the previous night. My mother was very upset. A crowd of people had gathered outside his house. They were all shocked, and they discussed the injustice of this measure quite openly. My parents later talked about what had happened, and they both agreed that the doctor had never really done anything wrong. Their reaction was typical. A few days later our family pediatrician, who was also Jewish, was likewise taken away.

At the time I did not know what it meant to be taken away. It was only many years after the war, when I started reading the Holocaust literature, that I learned that I was supposed to believe that to be taken away meant deportation to a concentration camp and probable death. But like so many thousands of others, these two doctor families were not exterminated. One summer day in 1973, as I was walking through the streets of the German quarter in Tel Aviv, I came upon the name plates of both doctors on the doors of two houses. I immediately tried to visit them and found out that both families had migrated to Palestine in 1939. Although one of them had died in the meantime in Israel, I was able to speak to the other. He remembered my father very well and explained that when he and his family were arrested, they were taken to a camp and given the choice of either signing a document declaring their intention of emigrating from Germany or being taken to a labor camp. He and his family chose to emigrate. In fact, most German Jews survived the anti-Semitic measures quite well. That does not mean that those measures were not unfair to individual Jews, but they could usually manage to live with them.

The Haavara Agreement

As already mentioned, the main goal of Germanyís Jewish policy was to encourage the Jews to emigrate. After the beginning of the international Jewish boycott against German goods in March 1933, the Jewish community in Palestine contacted the German government and offered a break in the boycott as far as Palestine was concerned provided it was combined with Jewish emigration from Germany. As a result, the “Haavara” or “Transfer” agreement was signed by the Germans and Jews in May 1933. [note 3] The Jewish community thus concluded an extremely beneficial agreement with the National Socialist government only a few months after its formation. This agreement was a crucial phase in the creation of the State of Israel. When I made this claim in my book Feuerzeichen, which appeared in 1981, some readers considered it outrageous. [note 4] But then this same claim was made in The Transfer Agreement, a book by Edwin Black published in 1984. The final paragraph of his book concludes with the statement that the continuing economic relationship between the Jewish community of Palestine and National Socialist Germany was “an indispendable factor in the creation of the State ofí Israel.” [note 5]

The Haavara agreement made it possible for any Jew to emigrate from Germany with practically all of his possessions and personal fortune provided that Jews could deposit all of their assets in one of two Jewish-owned banks in Germany which had branch offices in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Upon arrival in Palestine they could withdraw their assets according to the terms of the agreement. The German capital of these two Jewish banking firms was guaranteed by the German government. Even after the war these assets were fully available to the Jewish owners or their representatives If a Jew did not wish to emigrate immediately he could transfer all of his personal assets to Palestine where they would be safeguarded by a trustee while he remained in Germany for an indefinite period with emigration as his eventual goal. In the meantime his personal fortune was safe outside of Germany.

Even poorer Jews who did not possess 1,000 English pounds were able to emigrate to Palestine with credits provided through the Haavara. The British authorities generally required minimum assets of 1,000 pounds for each immigrant to Palestine if he was not entitled to a so-called workerís certificate. Only a limited number of these certificates were available and they were issued only to persons with special job skills. In addition, Jews emigrating to Palestine were exempt from the so-called “Reich flight tax,” which all emigrating Germans normally had to pay. However, the Jewish companies which arranged the transfers charged the emigrants a fixed percentage of their total assets. The Haavara agreement remained in operation until the end of 1941 when the United States entered the war.

National Socialist Ethical Standards

I am always amazed whenever I read books about the Third Reich published after the war. Most give an almost totally false impression of the reality of the Third Reich. The Germany of Adolf Hitler was not the Germany described by such books. It was quite different. I was brought up during the Third Reich. Along with my entire generation, I received an education of the highest ethical standards. We were brought up to love and respect our country and people. We were taught to be proud of its great history. The heroes of Germanyís past represented our great ideals. They spurred us to honesty and responsibility in our own lives. In my opinion, the youth of Adolf Hitlerís Germany was the finest of all Europe and perhaps of the entire world.

The same ethical standards applied to the SS and SA. The SA stormtroopers were not sophisticated men. They usually preferred to use their fists before using their heads, but they acted according to the ideals which they had been taught: honor, faithfulness, honesty and devotion to their people and country. They were not at all the sadistic beasts portrayed by so-called historians. It was their faithfulness and gallantry which saved Germany from chaos and Communism. It is sheer stupidity to describe the SA men as blood-thirsty killers, as is widely done today. Although some individual SA men may have committed acts of brutality, it is nonsense to blame the entire organization or the whole German people and its government for such behavior. Individual SA men were indeed involved in the Crystal Night incident. But far fewer actually participated than has been claimed. Of the 28 SA Groups which existed in Germany at the time, the available evidence identifies only three as having actually received orders to join the anti-Jewish demonstrations.

What Really Happened During the Crystal Night

Now let us look at what really happened during that fateful night.

After 1945 any harm ever done to any Jew in National Socialist Germany has been described in great detail in many publications and combined with other.stories to give exaggerated figures which have then become the so-called “historical truth.” How strange it is then that despite the passage of more than forty years, no one has established the true extent of the damage done to the Jews during the Crystal Night. All one can learn from history writers is that “all” synagogues were demolished and that “all” shop windows were destroyed. Aside from this vague description, one is given almost no details.

On the basis of the so-called “historical truth” about the Crystal Night, the President of the World Jewish Congress, Nahum Goldmann, had the chutzpah in 1952 to claim 500 million dollars from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer as reparation payment for the damage done during that November night. When Adenauer asked Goldmann for his justification for this enormous request, Goldmann replied: “You find the justification yourself! What I want is not the justification but the money.” [note 7] And he got his money! Goldmann may have interpreted the willingness of the German Chancellor to pay a half billion dollars as proof for the claim that all synagogues had been destroyed. Why else would Germany be so foolish as to pay for something which never happened? All the same, the “historical truth” that “all” German synagogues were destroyed is a lie.

In 1938 there were approximately 1,400 synagogues in Germany, of which only about 180 were destroyed or damaged. Furthermore, Jews owned approximately 100,000 shops and department stores in Germany in 1938. Of this number, only about 7,500 had their windows broken. These figures show just how much the so-called “historical truth” differs from what actually happened. The damage and destruction that did actually occur was, of course, a terrible shame, but the exaggerations, especially by German historians who use them to condemn their own people, are also a shame.

History writers tell us that during the Crystal Night all the Jews were frightened, meekly accepted whatever happened to them and watched the destruction of their property with no resistance. The contrary is true. While going through the files on this subject, I found many documents which report precisely just the opposite of what is claimed. The fact is that in many cases Jews and their German neighbors fought together against the attackers, pushing them down staircases. Street mobs were beaten up and chased away in more than one case. Police and Party officials were generally on the side of the Jews. Some Jewish community leaders went to police stations the next morning and asked the police to investigate the damage done to their synagogues. The resulting police reports are still available in the files today.

Also contrary to what we have been told, most Jews were not directly affected by these events. In Berlin, for example, all of the teachers and pupils of the cityís largest Jewish school, which served the entire Berlin area, appeared in their classes the next morning without having noticed anything unusual during the previous night. Heinemann Stern, the Jewish principal of that school, wrote in his postwar memoirs that he noticed a burning synagogue on his way to the school on the morning after the Crystal Night, but he thought it was just an accidental fire. It was only after he arrived at the school that he received a telephone call informing him of the destruction of the previous night. He then went on with his classes of the day and only during the first recess did he take the trouble to inform the entire student body about what had happened. [note 8]

How can such evidence be reconciled with the claim by Herman Graml, a prominent German historian and associate of the Munich Institute of Contemporary History, who wrote: “Every single Jew was beaten, chased, robbed, insulted and humiliated. The SA tore the Jews from their beds, mercilessly beat them in their apartments and then Ö chased them almost to death Ö Blood flowed everywhere.” [note 9] Is it conceivable that thousands of Jewish children would be have been sent to school by their parents on the morning after that fateful night if the attacks against Jews had been so horrific or extensive? Would any parents have let their children go to school if they had thought there was even the slightest danger of them being attacked by roving gangs of SA men? I think the answer is clearly no! Deplorable things did indeed happen which were bad enough, but the fantasies of modern historians and history writers such as Graml are simply inexcusable.

The Grynszpan Story

It was Herschel Feibel Grynszpan (Gruenspan) who initiated the entire Crystal Night affair by shooting the Secretary of the German Embassy in Paris, Ernst vom Rath. History writers tell us that the 17-year-old Grynszpan was merely a poor Jewish boy who had been driven to despair by the injustice done to his family and who, in his deep depression, shot the young German diplomat. The fact, however, is that Grynszpan had not shown any previous interest in his familyís fate. He had wanted to be free of them and had gone to Paris to live on his own.

When the French police asked Grynszpan why he had shot vom Rath, he gave several contradictory explanations:

Version 1: He did not mean to kill vom Rath. He had wanted to kill the German ambassador but because he did not know the ambassador personally, he shot vom Rath instead by mistake.

Version 2: He had only wanted to kill himself, but wanted to do so directly beneath a portrait of Adolf Hitler. In this way he hoped to become a symbol for the Jewish people, who were being murdered daily in Germany.

Version 3: He had not intended to kill anyone. Although he had a pistol in his hand, he did not know how to handle it properly and it simply went off accidentally.

Version 4: He could not remember what had happened while he stood in vom Rathís office. All he remembered was that he was there, but did not remember why.

Version 5: He couldnít understand the question at all. He must have had a complete blackout because he no longer remembered anything.

And finally, version 6, which he gave several years later to German officials: Whatever the French police had written down about his reason was nonsense. The true story is that he used to procure young boys for the German embassy secretary because vom Rath had been a homosexual. And he shot vom Rath because he had not been paid for his services. This is the only explanation which he later retracted during interrogation. However, none of these explanations is correct.

The true story is far less heroic. Grynszpan had left his family in Hannover, Germany, in 1936 after finishing elementary school but without graduating. His father had been a piece-work tailor who had moved from Poland to Germany after the First World War. Herschel had a reputation for disliking work and he hung out at the homes of his uncles in Brussels and Paris. In February 1938 his Polish passport expired and the French government refused to renew his residence permit. As a direct result, his Paris uncle insisted that Herschel leave his home because he was afraid of getting into touble with the law. And now the story begins to get extremely interesting. Although Grynszpan had no job or money (his uncle refused to support him), he was nevertheless able to move into a hotel. His hotel happened to be just around the corner from the offices of an important and influential Jewish organization, the International League Against Anti-Semitism, or LICA. The questions which now arise are: Who supported him after February 1938 and who paid for his hotel room? Although he had no apparent means of support or even valid identity papers between February and November 1938, Grynszpan was nevertheless able to purchase a handgun for 250 francs on the morning of 7 November 1938 and then, about an hour later, go to the German Embassy and shoot vom Rath.

Grynszpan was arrested at the scene and was taken to a police station. Although he was a totally obscure Polish Jew with no money and no apparent supporters, nevertheless one of Franceís most famous lawyers, Moro Giafferi, appeared at the police station a few hours after the shooting and told the police that he was Grynszpanís attorney. Nothing could possibly have appeared about the shooting in any newspaper before his arrival. How then could Moro Giafferi have possibly known about the shooting? Why was he so eager to defend this young foreigner? And finally, who was going to pay his attorney fees? As it turned out, Giafferi took good care of Grynszpan during the following years. Before the Grynszpan case could come before a French court, the war broke out. After the Germans occupied France, he was turned over to them by the French authorities. He was taken to Germany where he was interrogated many times, but no trial ever took place. Moro Giafferi, who had moved to Switzerland in the meantime, still managed to take good care of Grynszpan.

Many German officials were actively interested in the case. They wanted Grynszpan brought to trial, but this never happened. Rumors circulated. A trial date was scheduled but then postponed again and again and again. Whenever any official asked why Grynszpan had not been brought to trial, he was given a different answer each time. The veil of mystery surrounding this case was lifted only slightly many years after the war when a note was discovered among the many hundreds of pages in the Grynszpan file. This single short note stated simply that the trial against Grynszpan would not take place for “other than official reasons.” [note 10] It gave no further explanation. Although the National Socialist regime supposedly committed the greatest imaginable crimes against the Jews, the murderer Grynszpan survived the war and returned to Paris. Why to Paris, where he could still have been arrested and tried for murder? But instead he received a new name and new identity papers there. [note 11] From whom? Who was in Paris to help him and once again take such good care of him?

Incidentally, the Grynszpan family also survived the war. The young manís father, mother, brother and sister were deported to Poland as a result of the Polish passport affair and shortly thereafter were somehow able to emigrate to Palestine. Amazingly enough, this took place at a time when immigration to Palestine was limited to persons who possessed at least 1,000 English pounds in cash. Grynszpanís father, a poor piece-work tailor, certainly never had a fortune of 4,000 English pounds. Many years after the war the father testified at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem that he and his family had to give up all of their money except for ten marks per family member when they arrived at the German-Polish border in October l938. [note l2] How did they ever raise the 4,000 English pounds only a short time later for their migration to Palestine? Who organized their move?

Perhaps the answer to all of these questions is Ö Moro Giafferi! He was not a sorcerer, but someone even more powerful: he was the legal counsel of the LICA. The LICA was founded in Paris in 1933 by the Jew Bernard Lecache and operated as a militant propaganda organization against real or imagined anti-Semitism. Its main office is still in Paris at the same address it was at in 1938. (Now known as the LICRA, it unsuccessfully sued Robert Faurisson a few years ago.) Moro Giafferi was well worth the fees LICA paid him as its legal counsel. He apparently enjoyed spectacular scenes. He had already achieved international renown at a mass meeting in Paris following the Berlin Reichstag fire of February 1933. Without knowing at all what had happened, he nevertheless delivered a spiteful speech against National Socialist Germany in which he accused Hermann Gˆring of setting the fire. In February 1936 Giafferi hurried to Davos, Switzerland, where the Jew David Frankfurter had shot and killed Wilhelm Gustloff, the head of the Swiss branch of the German National Socialist Party. During the subsequent trial it was clearly established that Frankfurter had been a hired murderer with backing from an unidentified but influential organization. All clues pointed to the LICA, but with Moro Giafferi as his defense counsel, Frankfurter remained silent about who, if anyone, had hired him. Amazingly enough, Frankfurterís answers to questions about the shooting showed the same pattern as Grynszpanís answers almost three years later after Giafferi arrived to help following the shooting of Ernst vom Rath.

Who Could the Provocateurs Have Been?

Like a medal, the Crystal Night has two sides. One side lies in the shining glare of historical research while the other remains in the shadows. Until now no one (at least as far as I know) has tried to examine the hidden side.

In the wake of the Crystal Night, almost everyone wanted to know who the culprits were. Dr. Goebbels had to give an official explanation which was, in effect, that the German people had been so enraged by the murder of Ernst vom Rath that they wanted to punish the Jews and therefore started the pogrom. But Goebbels did not really believe this story himself. To several persons he expressed his suspicion that a secret organization must have instigated the entire affair. He simply could not believe that anything so well organized could have been a spontaneous popular outburst.

One must understand the broad popularity of the National Socialist regime at that time to realize how incredibly difficult it was to imagine that any secret, well organized opposition movement could have instigated such a pogrom. We now know about some of these so-called resistance organizations. But at that time such well-organized opposition groups seemed preposterous, so overwhelming was the popularity and self-confidence of Hitler and the National Sociatist government. Although the National Socialists were probably more aware of the danger of Jewish power and influence than anyone else, they nevertheless totally underestimated it. In a real sense, they were far too naive. One consequence of this enormous popularity and self-confidence was that the Party leaders themselves simply could not imagine that it was not one of their own colleagues behind the whole affair. Among the Party leaders fingers were being pointed in all directions. Apparently to avoid internal wrangling and the harm that this would do to their public image, an investigation to determine the instigators never took place. Hitler believed that Dr. Goebbels, his closest confidant and the one man he could never abandon, had been the instigator.

The only persons actually punished were individual SA men who had participated directly in the pogrom and been accused in German courts of murder, assault, looting or other criminal acts by Jewish or German witnesses to these crimes. But before any of these cases ever actually came to trail, Hitler issued a special decree ordering the postponement of all such cases until after the accused individuals were first prosecuted by the Supreme Party Court, an internal court concerned with discipline within the National Socialist Party organization. The most severe punishment which the Court could impose was expulsion from the Party. In this way the Party hoped to remove any guilty members from its own ranks before they appeared as defendants in the criminal courts. In February 1939 the Chief Judge of the Supreme Party Court, Walter Buch, reported his findings to Hermann Gˆring. From an examination of the Buch report as well as many documents from some of the thousands of trials of so-called Nazi criminals held after the war, and corroborating testimony by thousands of defendants and witnesses, I have been able to gain a detailed and accurate understanding of what actually happened during those fateful days and nights of November 1938.

Already on 8 November 1938, one day before the Crystal Night, strange persons who had never been seen there before suddenly appeared in several small towns in Hessen near the French-German border. They went to mayors, Kreisleiters (district Party leaders) and other important officials in these towns and asked them what actions were being planned against the Jews. The officials were rather startled by these questions and replied that they didnít know of any such plans. The strangers acted as if they were shocked to hear this. They shouted and complained that something had to be done against the Jews and then, without further explanation, they disappeared. Most of those who were approached by these strangers reported the incidents to the police or discussed them with friends. They usually regarded the strangers as crazy anti-Semites and promptly forgot about the incidents ó until the next evening. Some of these apparently crazy individuals really outdid themselves. In one case two men, dressed as members of the SS, went to an SA Standartenf¸hrer (Colonel) and ordered him to destroy the nearby synagogue. To understand the absurdity of this one must know that the SS and SA were completely separate organizations. A real SS member would never have tried to give orders to an SA unit. This case shows that the strangers were foreigners who did not even understand the distinctions of German authority. The SA Standartenf¸hrer rejected the demands of the self-styled SS men and reported the incident to his superiors.

When the provocateurs realized that their efforts were not working with local officials, they changed their tactics. Instead they tried to incite directly the people in the streets. In another town, for example, two men appeared at the market place and began making speeches to the people there, trying to incite them against the Jews. Eventually some people did indeed storm the synagogue, but by then the two provocateurs had, of course, disappeared.

Similar incidents occured in several towns. Unidentified strangers suddenly appeared, gave speeches, started throwing stones at windows, stormed Jewish buildings, schools, hospitals, and synagogues, and then disappeared. These unusual incidents had already started on the 8th of November, that is, before Ernst vom Rath was dead. His death was only reported late on the evening of the gth. The fact that this strange pattern of incidents had already begun one day earlier proves that the death of vom Rath was not the reason for the Crystal Night outburst. Vom Rath was still alive when the pogrom began.

And this was only the beginning. Well organized and widespread incidents began on the evening of 9 November. Groups of generally five or six young men, armed with bars and clubs, went down the streets smashing store windows. They were not Jew-hating SA men, enraged over the murder of a German diplomat. They operated too methodically to have been motivated by anger. They carried out their work without any apparent emotion. Nonetheless, it was their destruction that encouraged certain other individuals from the lowest social classes to become a mob and contimue the destruction. There is another mysterious aspect to all this. Several district and local Party leaders (Kreisleiters and Ortsgruppenleiters) were awakened from their sleep in the middle of the night by telephone calls. Someone claiming to be from the regional Party headquarters or the regional Party propaganda bureau (Gauleitung or Gaupropagandaleitung) would ask what was happening in the officialís town or city.

If the Party official answered “Nothing, everything is quiet,” the telephone caller would then say in German slang that he had received an order to the effect that the Jews were going to get it tonight and that the respective official should carry out the order. In most cases the Party leader, disturbed from his sleep, did not even understand what had happened. Some simply dismissed the call as a joke and went back to bed. Others called back the office from where the telephone voice had pretended to be calling. If they managed to reach someone in charge, they were often told that nobody knew anything about such a call. But if they reached only a lower official they were often told: “Well, if you got that order, youíd better go ahead and do what you were told.” These telephone calls caused considerable confusion. All this came out months later during the trials conducted by the Supreme Party Court. The Chief Judge concluded that in every case a misunderstanding had arisen in one link or other of the chain of command. But when they were confronted with apparently genuine orders to organize demonstrations against the Jews that night, most of the Party leaders had simply not known what to do.

The pattern of seemingly sporadic anti-Jewish incidents in small towns, followed only later by a carefully planned outburst in many large cities throughout Germany, clearly suggests the work of a centrally organized group of well-trained agents. Even shortly after the Crystal Night, many leading Party officials suspected that the entire affair had been centrally cordinated. Significantly, even Hermann Graml, the only West German historian who has written in detail about the Crystal Night, carefully distinguished between provocateurs and people who were simply carried away by their emotions and spontaneously took part in the riot and destruction. Without providing the slightest shred of real evidence, Graml claims that the provocative agents were directed bv Dr. Goebbels.

Munich on the Ninth of November

While all this was happening across the Reich, a special annual commemoration was being held in Munich. Fifteen years earlier, on 9 November 1923, a movement led by Adolf Hitler, Erich von Ludendorff (a leading First World War General), and two major figures in the Bavarian government tried to depose the legal government and take responsibility themselves as a new national government. The uprising or putsch was put down and 16 rebels were shot down next to the Feldherrnhalle, a famous old monument building in central Munich. Accordingly, the 9th of November had been commemorated every year since 1933 as the memorial day for the martyred heroes of the National Socialist movement. Adolf Hitler and the Party veterans, as well as all of the Gauleiters (regional Party leaders) met every year in Munich for the occasion. Hitler would usually deliver a speech to a select audience of Party veterans at the famous Buergerbraeukeller restaurant on the evening of the 8th. On the morning of the 9th Hitler and his veteran comrades would reenact the 1923 “March to the Feldherrnhalle.” On the evening of the 9th the F¸hrer always held an informal dinner at the Old Town Hall (“Alte Rathaus”) with old comrades as well as all the Gauleiters. At midnight young men who were about to enter the SS and the SA were sworn in at the Feldherrnhalle. All of the Gauleiters and other guests participated in this very solemn ceremony. After it was over they left Munich and returned to their homes throughout the Reich.

It is clear that the 8th of November date was chosen very cleverly. The annual commemoration ceremony of that day insured that almost all of the Gauleiters would be away from their home offices when the anti-Jewish demonstrations began. In other words, the actual decision-making responsibilities that were normally carried out by the Gauleiters were temporarily in the hands of lower-ranking individuals with less experience. Between 8 and 10 November, subordinate officials stood in for the Gauleiters who were either in Munich or en route to or from the annual commemoration there. This temporary transfer of decision-making authority is very important because it contributed to much of the subsequent confusion and thus helped the provocateurs. Another contributing factor was the fact that no one expected any trouble. At that time Germany was one of the most peaceful countries in the world. There was no reason to expect any kind of unrest. It was only during dinner at the Old Town Hall that the first sporadic reports of riot and destruction reached Munich from some of the Gauleiterís home offices. At the same time it was learned that Ernst vnm Rath had died in Paris from his wounds.

What Was Goebbels Doing?

After the dinner was over, the F¸hrer left at about g p.m. and returned to his apartment. Dr. Goebbels then stood up and spoke briefly about the latest news. He informed the audience that vom Rath had died and that, as a result, anti-Jewish demonstrations had spontaneously broken out in two or three places. Goebbels was renowned for his passionate and inspiring speeches. But what he gave that evening was not a speech at all but only a short and very informal announcement. He pointed out that the times were over when Jews could kill Germans without being punished. Legal measures would now be taken. Nevertheless, the death of vom Rath should not be an excuse for private actions against Jews. He suggested that the Gauleiters and the head of the SA, Viktor Lutze, should contact their home offices to make sure that peace and order were being maintained. Itís very important to understand that Dr. Goebbels had no authority to give any orders to the others present.

As fellow Gauleiters they were colleagues of equal rank. Anyway, what he said was apparently considered so reasonable that the others agreed and did what he suggested.

You may have heard the widespread allegation that Goebbels started the Crystal Night pogrom with a fiery speech on that evening of 9 November. This widely accepted story is false. The following facts will clarify this point:

1. As Gauleiter for Berlin, Dr. Goebbels had no authority outside of his Berlin district. Although he was also the Propaganda Minister of the German government, this did not give him any authority over Party officials. Furthermore, he had no authority whatsoever over the SA or the SS.

2. Of all the National Socialist leaders, Dr. Goebbels would have understood better than anyone else the immense damage that an anti-Jewish pogrom would cause for Germany. On the morning of 10 November, when he first learned about the extent of the damage and destruction of the previous night, he was furious and shocked at the stupidity of those who had participated. There is substantial evidence for this.

3. How could a speech given after 9 p.m. on the evening of 9 November have possibly incited a “pogrom” which had already begun the day before when the first provocateurs appeared at municipal and Party offices to persuade officials to take action against the Jews?

4. Although we do not know exactly what Dr. Goebbels said in his supposedly fiery speech, we do know what the Gauleiters and the SA commander did after the speech had ended: they went to the telephones and called their espective home offices to order their subordinates to do everything necessary to maintain peace and order. They emphasized that under no circumstances must anyone take part in any demonstrations. These telephone instructions were written down at the home offices by whoever was on duty. The orders from each Gauleiter were then passed on by telex to other offices within the Gau or district. These telex messages are still in various records files and are available to anyone who wishes to examine them.

Orders to Stop the Pogrom

While the Gauleiters were calling their home offices, the head of the SA, Viktor Lutze, ordered all of his immediate subordinates, the SA Gruppenf¸hrers, who were together with him in Munich, to call their home offices as well. Lutze ordered that under no circumstances could SA men take part in any demonstrations against Jews, and that furthermore the SA was to intervene to stop any demonstrations already in progress. As a result of these strict orders, SA men began to guard Jewish stores that very night wherever windows had been broken. There is no doubt about this order by Lutze because we have the postwar court testimony of several witnesses confirming it. The SS and the police were given similar orders to restore peace and order. Himmler ordered Reinhard Heydrich to prevent all destruction of property and to protect Jews against demonstrators. The telex communication of this order still exists. It is in the files of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. However, during the Nuremberg trial this telex order was presented in three different forms, with forged amendments to change the original meaning. In my book Feuerzeichen I undertook to restore the original text.

Adolf Hitler joined the midnight celebration at the Feldherrnhalle. It was only after he returned to his apartment about one oíclock in the morning that he learned about the demonstrations which had been taking place in Munich, during which one synagogue had been set on fire. He was furious and immediately ordered the police chief of Munich to come see him. Hitler told him to immediately stop the fire and to make sure that no other outrages took place in Munich. He then called various police and Party officials throughout the Reich to learn the extent of these demonstrations. Finally, he ordered a telex message sent to all Gauleiter offices. It read: “By express order from the very highest authority, arson against Jewish businesses or other property must in no case and under no circumstances take place.” Synagogues were not specifically mentioned, apparently because Hitler was still unaware of the burning of synagogues, apart from the one in Munich.

How Did the SA Get Involved Despite the Orders from Its Own Leaders?

How was it possible that in spite of all these emphatic orders, so much damage and destruction could have been done and that so many SA members could have participated? According to the records, at least three of the 28 SA Groups did not obey the orders of SA chief Lutze. Instead, they sent out their men to destroy synagogues and Jewish buildings. In effect they did precisely the opposite of what Lutze had ordered. What actually happened is clear from the testimony and evidence presented at postwar trials against former SA men accused of participating in the riot. The trials, held between 1946 and 1952, were based to a large extent on the report of SA Brigade 50 chief Karl Lucke and begins with these words: “On 10 November 1938, at 3 oíclock in the morning, I received the following order: ëBy order of the Gruppenf¸hrer, all Jewish synagogues within the Brigade district are to be immediately blown up or set on fireí.” Lucke then included in his report a listing of synagogues which had been destroyed by members of his Brigade. This report has been cited by the prosecution at the Nuremberg Tribunal and by practically all of the consensus historians ever since as proof that the SA was given orders to destroy Jewish stores and synagogues.

The contradiction between the orders actually given and the statement made in the Lucke report requires a detailed explanation. On 9 November the leader of SA Group Mannheim, Herbert Fust, was in Munich together with the other SA Group leaders and the SA Chief of Staff, Viktor Lutze. When Lutze ordered the Group leaders to contact their home offices to stop all anti-Jewish demonstrations, Fust, along with the other SA leaders, did just that. He called his office in Mannheim and passed on the orders he had received from Lutze. The man who was on duty that night at the Mannheim SA office telephone and who received Fustís order confirmed that he understood it and then hung up. But he never passed on the order he had received. Instead, he transmitted precisely the opposite order.

The normal procedure would have been for the man on duty at the telephone to immediately call the deputy group leader, Lucke, who was in nearby Darmstadt. But instead he called SA Oberf¸hrer (senior colonel) Fritsch and asked him to come to the office. Fritsch had a reputation for not being particularly clever. When he arrived, the man who had received the telephone call showed him a small paper slip with a few notes on it which said that the synagogues within the Mannheim SA Group district were to be destroyed. The man who had received the call explained to Fritsch that the order had just arrived from Munich. Slow-minded as he was, Fritsch did not know what to do and called the local Kreisleiter (district Party leader) and his deputy.

These two men then arrived at the SA office and discussed the situation, while at the same time the telephone duty man notified other SA leaders, but still not the deputy Group leader Lucke. In the meantime the small paper slip disappeared and the SA men now arriving at the headquarters met only the Kreisleiter, who told them about the order which he thought had come from Munich. No one asked for any further confirmation. The SA men then left to begin the destruction. Hours later, when the whole action was almost finished, the telephone guard finally called Deputy Group Leader Lucke and passed on the false order. He also informed Lucke that the action had already been going on for several hours. Since it was almost all over by this time, Lucke also neglected to ask for confirmation of the order. It was already 3 oíclock in the morning. Lucke then alerted the Standartenf¸hrer of his Brigade and carried out the destruction within the Darmstadt district.

At 8 oíclock the next morning Lucke sat down and wrote the report which was later cited at the Nuremberg Tribunal. In fact, as already shown, there was no order to commit arson or carry out destruction against any Jewish property from the Gruppenf¸hrer in Munich, but only from the telephone guard. Who he was remains a mystery. During the postwar trials against members of this SA unit, none of the judges asked for the name or identity of this telephone guard. This mysterious man was very probably an agent for those who were actually behind the entire Crystal Night Affair.

The Fine Imposed on the Jews

Early in the morning following the Crystal Night, Propaganda Minister Dr. Goebbels announced in a radio broadcast that any action against Jews was strictly prohibited. He warned that severe penalties would be imposed on anyone who did not obey this order. He also explained that the Jewish question would be resolved only by legal means. As already mentioned, German government and Party officials were furious about what had happened. Hermann Gˆring, who was responsible for Germanyís economy, complained that it would be impossible to replace the special plate glass of the broken store windows because it was not manufactured in Germany. It had to be imported from Belgium and would cost a great deal of precious foreign currency. Because of the Jewish boycott against German goods, the Reich was short of foreign exchange currency. Gˆring therefore decided that because this shortage was caused by the Jews, it was they who would have to pay for the broken glass. He imposed a fine of one billion Reichsmarks on the German Jews. This fine is always mentioned by anyone who writes about the Crystal Night. But historians and history writers invariably neglect to explain the reason for the fine.

It was certainly unjust to force Jews to pay for damage which they had not caused. Gˆring understood this. However, in private he justified the fine by citing the fact that the 1933 Jewish declaration of war against Germany was proclaimed in the name of the millions of Jews throughout the world. Therefore they could now help their co-religionists in Germany bear the consequences of the boycott. It should also be pointed out that only German Jews with assets of more than 5,000 Reichsmarks in cash had to con- tribute to the fine. In 1938, when prices were very low, 5,000 Reichsmarks was a small fortune. Anyone with that much money in cash would certainly have had far more wealth in other assets and could therefore well afford to pay their assessed portion of the fine without being reduced to poverty, despite what history writers have maintained.

The Consequences of the Crystal Night

It is often said that the Crystal Night incident was the official start of the German “Final Solution of the Jewish Question.” This is quite true, but “Final Solution” did not mean physical extermination ó it meant only emigration of the Jews from Germany. Immediately after the Crystal Night, Hitler ordered the creation of a central agency to organize the emigration of the Jews from Germany as rapidly as possible. Accordingly, Gˆring set up the Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration (“Reichszentrale fuer die juedische Auswanderung”) with Reinhard Heydrich as director. This agency combined the various government departments which had been involved with Jewish emigration. It simplified official procedures for Jewish emigration, but its work was severely hampered by the unwillingness of almost all countries to admit Jews. The only country to which Jews could still easily emigrate was Palestine, provided they possessed one thousand pounds sterling each, as required by the British authorities there.

Despite the favorable terms of the Haavara or Transfer Agreement, only a few German Jews were willing to emigrate to Palestine. In those days Palestine was only at the beginning of its development. It was still an agrarian country with very little industry. It was only after the arrival of thousands of German Jews with their capital and experience that industrial development really began there. The Jews in Germany were generally employed in trade, industry, or the professions. There were little or no oppor tunities for them in Palestine. For example, there was virtually no financial structure in Palestine in the 1930s. There was no money market, no stock exchange, and no investment banking. How could businessmen operate in such an environment?

Because so few Jews wanted to migrate to Palestine, special efforts were made to open the doors of other countries, but this proved very difficult. Prosperous nations did not want Jewish immigrants and poor countries were very unattractive. In the summer of 1938 an Inter-Governmental Refugee Committee was established with the American lawyer George Rublee as its director. In January 1939 (that is, after the Crystal Night), Rublee and the German government signed an agreement by which all German Jews could emigrate to the country of their choice. Interestingly enough, it was the father of a future American president and the father of a future German president who nearly torpedoed this agreement: Jos‰ph Kennedy, the U.S. Ambassador to Britain, and Ernst von Weizsaecker, State Secretary of the German Foreign Office and father of the current president of the Ger- man Federal Republic. Adolf Hitler personally intervened in the negotiating process and saved the agreement by sending Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht to London to negotiate with Rublee.

Rublee himself later called it a “sensational agreement” ó and it was indeed sensational. Special arrangements between the Inter-Governmental Committee and governments of individual countries would guarantee the financial security of the migrating Jews. Training camps would be established to prepare emigrating Jews for new jobs in their future homelands. Jews in Germany who were more than 45 years old could either emigrate or remain in Germany. If they decided to remain, they would be exempt from discriminatory restrictions. They would be able to live and work wherever they wanted. Their social security would be guaranteed by the Reich government, the same as for any German citizen. As Rublee later noted, there were practically no incidents against Jews during the time between the signing of the agreement and the outbreak of war in September 1939.

The Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration, which was organized shortly after the Crystal Night, was based on the provisions of the Rublee plan. A parallel Jewish organization, the Reich Union of Jews in Germany (“Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland”), was established. Its task was to advise Jews on all questions of emigration and to act on behalf of Jews with the Reich Central Office. The two agencies worked closely together to facilitate Jewish emigration as much as possible. In addition, the SS and certain other National Socialist organizations worked with Zionist organizations to facilitate Jewish emigration. Jewish groups greatly appreciated the cooperation of the SS. For example, the SS established training centers where prospective Jewish emigrants learned new job skills to prepare them for their new lives.

With the help of the Transfer Agreement and the Rublee plan, hundreds of thousands of Jews migrated from Europe to Palestine. In September 1940 the Jewish news agency in Palestine, “Palcor,” reported that 500,000 Jewish emigrants had already arrived from the German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland, Bohemia- Moravia, and German-ruled Poland. Nevertheless, after 1950 it was claimed that the total number of Jewish emigrants to Palestine from all European countries was only about 80,000. What happened to the other 420,000 Jews? In 1940 they probably had no idea that later on they were supposed to have been “gassed”!

Conclusion

I have tried to point out just a few unmentioned aspects of the Crystal Night issue which, in my opinion, give a picture of what actually happened that is entirely different than the one generally accepted. I am convinced that neither the German government nor the leaders of the National Socialist Party instigated the Crystal Night. Ultimately it was not the Jews but the Germans who suffered most as a result of this event. Even persons sympathetic to National Socialism are still appalled when they think of the Crystal Night. Many are under the impression that murder and arson were quite common under National Socialism and that no Jew could be sure of his life or property. Nazi Germany was supposedly a country without any civil rights. The Crystal Night incident was indeed one of the darkest episodes of German history in the era of 1933 to 1945. But based on all of the available evidence, these demonstrations were neither thought up nor organized by German Party or government officials. In fact, they were completely suprised and shocked when they learned of the riot and destruction. The pogrom must have been thought up and organized by those who actually benefited from it and who wanted to create havoc in Germany.

Who could they have been? If we keep in mind the deep involve ment of the Jewish organization LICA in the murder of vom Rath, we may ask: Could the Jews themselves have hoped to benefit from a pogrom? In the aftermath of the Crystal Night, the world press became overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Jews, which is precisely what they wanted above all else. The Zionists in particular counted on worldwide support in their struggle against England, which then ruled Palestine as a British mandate. Jewish immigration to Palestine was strictly limited at that time by the British because of vehement Arab opposition to the arrival of ever larger numbers of Jews. As a result, the number of Jewish immigrants dropped in 1938 to the lowest level since the beginning of the century, when the Zionist mass migration to Palestine began.

To stabilize the situation, the British formulated a partition plan dividing Palestine into Arab and Jewish portions. Despite serious reservations, the Jews agreed to the plan, but the Arabs did not. They responded with an uprising known as the Arab Revolt. In March 1938 the British government sent Sir Harold MacMichaels as High Commissioner to Palestine. He succeeded in suppressing the uprising, but to appease the Arabs he promised to urge his government to abandon the partition plan and halt further Jewish immigration. MacMichaels returned to London in October 1938 to discuss his proposals with the British parliament. The scheduled date for the final decision was 8 November 1938, the day on which the Crystal Night violence actually began.

German Embassy Secretary Ernst vom Rath had been shot just one day earlier, on 7 November. The conspirators no doubt hoped that vom Rath would die immediately, in which case the anti-Jewish demonstrations would probably have also started on the 7th. Could someone have hoped that a pogrom in nearby Germany would influence the British to change their Palestine policy? Or that it would induce the outside world to exert pressure on Britain to open Palestine to the Jews who were being so terribly treated in Germany? I cannot give any definite answers. I can only speculate as to who conspirators behind the Crystal Night really were and as to their motives. To me it seems entirely plausible that certain Jewish groups were involved. The LICA was almost certainly involved in the murder of vom Rath. In any case, the Crystal Night incident was not an expression of the will of the German people. Nor was it organized by Dr. Goebbels or any of the other German leaders. On the contrary, it was carefully organized by people who worked in the shadows.

Notes

1.William P. Varga, The Number One Nazi Jew-Baiter: A Political Biography of Julius Streicher (New York: 1981).

2. Even Helmut Heiber, a prominent contemporary German historian, had to admit these facts. Helmut Heiber, “Der Fall Gruenspan,” ViertelFahrshefte f¸r Zeitgeschichte, 5. Hg., 1957, pp. 154-172.

3. See: Werner Feilchenfeld, Dolf Michaelis, and Ludwig Pinner, Haavara-Transfer nach Palaestina (Tuebingen: 1972); and, Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement (New York and London: 1984)

4. Ingrid Weckert, Feuerzeichen: Die “Reichslcristallnacht,” Anstifter und Brandstifterpfer und Nutzniesser (Tuebingen: 1981), p. 225.

5. Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, p. 382.

6. W. Feilchenfeld, et al., Haavara-Transfer Nach Palaestina, p. 71.

7. Nahum Goldmann, Das Juedische Paradox: Zionismus und Judentum nach Hitler (Cologne: 1978), p. 181.

8. Heinemann Stern, Warum Hassen Sie Uns Eigentlich? (Duesseldorf: 1970), pp. 298-299.

9. Hermann Graml, Der 9. November 1938 (Bonn: 1958), p. 47.

10. H. Heiber, “Der Fall Gruenspan,” p. 164.

11. H. Heiber, “Der Fall Gruenspan,” p. 172.

12. Gideon Hausner, Justice in Jerusalem (New York: 1968), p. 41.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 2), pages 183-206. This item was first presented at the Sixth IHR conference, February 1985, in Anaheim, California.

About the Author:Ingrid Weckert is the author of a detailed examination of “Crystal Night” and German-Jewish relations during the 1930s that was published as a book in Germany in 1981 under the title Feuerzeichen, and in the USA in 1991 under the title Flashpoint At the end of the Second World War Weckert was a teenager in devastated Berlin. After Gymnasium graduation she studied theology, including Judaic studies, in Switzerland. She deepened her understanding of the history and character of the Jewish people during numerous visits to Israel. Frau Weckert lived for years in Munich, where she worked as a librarian, and then devoted considerable time to historical research and writing.

Rudolf Hess: The Fuhrer’s Deputy

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on August 13, 2011
What secret did he take to the grave?

Until just a few weeks ago, an old man’s bones lay buried in a family grave in an impeccably kept cemetery in a Bavarian town called Wunsiedel. His name was Rudolf Hess. Born 1894, he suffered a mysterious death in 1987 at age 93.

Twenty-four years later, in the dark of the night of 20 July 2011, some ghouls dug up his remains, as well as the bones of his wife and his parents, and holocausted them.

Now who would want to do a ghoulish thing like that? Dracula? Some spiteful force beyond our comprehension that needs to drive a silver stake into the spirit of a man long gone - whose very memory still carries the pulse beat of an era we are not ever to investigate, much less to honor and respect?

David Irving, known even to his friends as the “reluctant Revisionist”, who, brilliant writer that he is, cannot resist to take a verbal swipe or two at twelve short years that ought to awe us at the very least with their scientific marvels, wrote this in introducing “Rudolf Hess: The Missing Years 1941-45”, Grafton Books, 1989:

“Semi-blind, his memory gone, he languished for 46 years in prison, and spent over half of that time in solitary confinement. At first, he was detained in cells with blackened windows, sentinels flashing torches on his face all night at half-hour intervals, and later in conditions only marginally more humane.

“Occasionally, mankind remembered that he was there: at a time when political prisoners were being released as a token of humanity, the world knew that he was there in Spandau, and timid souls felt somehow the safer for it. In 1987 the news emerged that somebody had recently stolen the prisoner’s 1940s flying helmet, goggles, and fur-lined boots, and fevered minds imagined that these, his hallowed relics of 1941, might be used in some way to power a Nazi revival.

“The prisoner himself had long forgotten what those relics had ever meant to him. The dark-red brick of Spandau prison in West Berlin was crumbling and decaying around him, and the windows were cracked or falling out of mouldering frames. He was the only prisoner left - alone, outliving all his fellows, his brain perhaps a last uncertain repository of names and promises and places, grim secrets that the victorious Four Powers might have expected him to take to the grave long before.

“The prisoner was Rudolf Hess, the last of the “war criminals.” In May 1941 he had flown single-handedly to Scotland on a reckless parachute mission to end the bloodshed and bombing. Put on trial by the victors, he had been condemned to imprisonment in perpetuity for “Crimes against the Peace.” The Four Powers had expected him to die and thus seal off the wells of speculation about him, but this stubborn old man with the haunting eyes had by his very longevity thwarted them.

“Few questions remained about the other Nazis. Hitler’s jaw bone was preserved in a Soviet glass jar; Ley’s brain was in Massachusetts; Bormann’s skeleton was found beneath the Berlin cobblestones; Mengele’s mortal remains were dis- and reinterred; Speer had joined the Greatest Architect. Dead, too, were Hess’s judges and prosecutors.

Hess himself was the last living Nazi giant, the last enigma, unable to communicate with the outside world, forbidden to talk with his son about political events, his diary taken away from him each day to be destroyed, his letters censored and scissored to excise illicit content. The macabre Four Powers statute - ignored, in the event - ordained that upon his death his body was to be reduced to ashes in the crematorium at Dachau concentration camp. The bulldozers were already standing by to wreck Spandau jail within hours of his decease, so that no place of Nazi pilgrimage remained.

“For forty years this Berlin charade was the sole remaining joint activity of the wartime Allied powers, a wordless political ballet performed by the Western democracies and high-stepping Red Army guards. Every thirty days the guard was rotated. Each time that the British or the American or the French came to hold the key, they could in theory have turned it and set this old man free. But they did not, because the ghosts of Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were themselves the jailers. In the name of a Four Power agreement that had long since been dishonored, these ghosts kept Hess behind bars; and so Hitler’s deputy lived on in Spandau, mocking history and making a mockery of justice itself.

“Despite everything, he became a martyr to a cause. Mankind dared not turn the key to set him free, and mankind did not know why.”

Hess Family Grave - Recently Vandalized

In this essay, I will speculate why. I claim no certainty. What I am writing is strictly conjecture, stitched together from an intriguing pattern of clues.

Conventional wisdom has it that the proposal that Hess tried to take to Britain in 1941 was Hitler’s more than generous offer to prevent the ominous bloodshed that would descend on Europe in years to come exactly as the F¸hrer feared. 

And even now enough geopolitical and financial investments are still at risk, embedded in the Order that we know, that would embarrass the Powers entrenched in London, New York, and Tel Aviv.

I offer an alternative guess - that Hess was kept from informing the world what he knew, was contained in the UFO files in his possession. His briefcase contained something else that is still being kept securely under lock and key. That “something” is widely believed to have been the secrets of Third Reich space exploration.

After all, Hess was the one who was in charge of Hitler’s Antarctic projects that were mysteriously stopped in 1938 when a curtain descended on what, exactly, was found or done beneath the ice - mind-boggling technical advances, raced with great fervor to production once World War II broke out, astounding inventions then known as Flying Saucers, called UFOs today.

I speculate, as many do, that Hess might well have meant to offer to factions friendly to the Third Reich within the British government a roadmap to the stars.

Just who was Rudolf Hess?

Hess with Child - The Family Side

 Born to a wealthy merchant family of German background in Egypt, Hess grew up in palatial surroundings.

He enjoyed the finest classical education that money could buy in those years, part of it through private tutoring in Egypt, later on in Switzerland and Britain where he was privileged to mingle with the English-speaking upper crust, even as a youngster fascinated by astronomy.

He was described as “Ö a man of excellent breeding, moral rectitude and industry, upright, courageousÖ” - a “Ö moral compass for others”. Professor Haushofer, his mentor, said that his strength was not so much intelligence as heart and character.

Hess became Adolf Hitler’s closest comrade, though by temperament and background they were of a different shade. Hitler was of an iconoclastic nature that had the force of a volcano.

Hess was a man of quiet but flawless discernment. Hitler was a pragmatist politically yet utterly uncompromising at the core as to his aims and visions; Hess knew only the rule of his heart.

This is not ever acknowledged today in politically correct society, but Hitler in his early reign projected as seductive warmth of spirit through impeccable manners that were the envy of the rulers of his time, whereas Hess remained reticent and private by nature, not a man out to woo attention and favors for himself.

Hitler and Hess - The Early Days

In a staid and placid world, Hess might well have been the Fuhrer’s superior by virtue of social position alone, but in the Twenties and the Thirties in a Europe coming apart at the seams, there was never a question in either man’s mind who was the leader called by destiny.

Hess might have been described as the finest specimen that centuries of culture and sophistication had brought forth, but Hitler was the avatar, on a trajectory like every immense persona who is guided from within, and Hess was his disciple.

After hearing Hitler speak in the spring of 1920, Hess joined the National Socialist movement as member # 16. He knew that he had met a man of a gigantic strength of will combined with a magnetic radiance.

The trust in each other these two young men enjoyed as political comrades was total. Maybe Hitler never had another friend like Hess he could trust utterly. For his part, Hess saw in Hitler the Messiah against Satan threatening his mother country in the guise of bestial Bolshevism from the East.

Likewise, Hess’s moral standing in the hearts of Germans of his time was absolute. He was commonly referred to as “the Conscience of the Party.” In the Third Reich’s hierarchy, Hess stood third in the chain of command as the leader of the NSDAP, the Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Only Fieldmarshall Hermann Goering enjoyed higher ranking.

Hitler and Hess - Numbers One and Three in the Party

Common experiences bound Hess and Hitler as well. Both had honorably served in battle.

Both participated in an awkward uprising that history remembers as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, a coup d’etat against the Weimar Republic that landed them briefly in Landsberg prison where conditions were relaxed for dissidents.

There, acting as Hitler’s private secretary, Hess volunteered as stylist and copy editor for Hitler’s book, Mein Kampf, for which world Jewry would never forgive him.Much nastiness has been claimed, then and since, about the Nazi leadership in general, but I have never read a single word of hate against Hess from his own inner circle. He was feared and persecuted with an inexorable hatred by Jewry.

 He was kept isolated from human interaction for more than half of his life, beset and tormented like few other men on this earth. Why? What did this man know? What did he try to convey to the world - and was prevented from sharing?Expanding his backgroundRudolf Hess’s path in life was tragedy writ large.

In 1941, On the eve of war with the Soviet Union, Hess flew solo to Scotland on a private peace mission in an attempt to ward off the horror to come. Instead, he was arrested by the British government and held incommunicado until the war was over.

Rudolf Hess - Open Cockpit Days

After the guns fell silent, Hess was handed over to the Nuremberg Tribunal, tried in a political show trial where white became black, found “not guilty of crimes against humanity” but “guilty for conspiring against peace”, and sentenced to life internment at Spandau Prison.

Although he was in captivity for almost 4 years of the war and thus he was basically absent from it, in contrast to the others who stood accused at Nuremberg.

He was 52 years old when he set foot in Spandau. He lived another 41 years. He died mysteriously in 1987 - as widely advertised, by suicide, as even more widely believed, by murder.

Allegedly, the magnanimous peace offer he had in his briefcase, were it to come out, would embarrass the Brits to his day. I belong to a handful of skeptics who suspect he was about to offer something vastly more important, which would have made short shrift of the prevailing political order based on expensive energy provided by the industries we know.

Metapedia, the dissident counterpart website to Wikipedia, describes this failed peace mission as follows:

“Hess planned to meet the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. He believed Hamilton to be an opponent of Winston Churchill, whom he held responsible for the outbreak of the war. His proposal of peace included returning all the western European countries conquered by Germany to their own national governments, but German police would remain in position. Germany would also pay back the cost of rebuilding these countries. In return, Britain would have to support the war against Soviet Russia. (Ö)

“Churchill turned down the proposal for peace and held Hess as a prisoner of war in the Maryhill army barracks. Later Hess was transferred to Mytchett Place near Aldershot. The house was fitted out with microphones and sound recording equipment. Frank Foley and two other MI6 officers were given the job of debriefing Hess ó”Jonathan”, as he was now known. Churchill’s instructions were that Hess should be strictly isolated and that every effort should be taken to get any information out of him that might be useful.

“Controversy surrounds the case of whether Hitler knew of Hess’ plans to make peace with Britain. It is known that Hess had been getting flying lessons in a personalized Messerschmitt aircraft in the early stages of this preparation. He was accompanied by Hitler’s personal pilot, Hans Baur.

Lured into a trap?

“There is circumstantial evidence which suggests that Hess was lured to Scotland by the British secret service. Violet Roberts, whose nephew, Walter Roberts was a close relative of the Duke of Hamilton and was working in the political intelligence and propaganda branch of the Secret Intelligence Service (SO1/PWE), was friends with Hess’s mentor Karl Haushofer and wrote a letter to Haushofer, which Hess took great interest in prior to his flight.

“According to data published in a book about Wilhelm Canaris, the head of German intelligence, a number of contacts between England and Germany were kept during the war. It cannot be known, however, whether these were direct contacts on specific affairs or an intentional confusion created between secret services for the purpose of deception. (Ö)

“Certain documents Hess brought with him to Britain were to be sealed until 2017 but when the seal was broken in 1991-92 they were missing. Edvard Bene_, head of the Czechoslovak Government in Exile and his intelligence chief Franti_ek Moravec, who worked with SO1/PWE, speculated that British Intelligence used Haushofer’s reply to Violet Roberts as a means to trap Hess.

“The fact that the files concerning Hess will be kept closed to the public until 2016 does allow the debate to continue, since without these files the existing theories cannot be fully verified.

In his final statement to the court on August 31, 1946 after his conviction, Hess declared in words that are sheer poetry in German but can only be an approximation in English:

“I had the privilege of working for many years of my life under the greatest son my nation has brought forth in its thousand-year history. Even if I could, I would not wish to expunge this time from my life. I am happy to know that I have done my duty toward my people, my duty as a German, as a National Socialist, as a loyal follower of my F¸hrer. I regret nothing. No matter what people may do, one day I shall stand before the judgment seat of God Eternal. I will answer to Him, and I know that He will absolve me.”

After having served in prison for 20 years with other leaders of the Reich, the last two prisoners, Baldur von Schirach and Albert Speer, were released. Hess remained. He was the sole remaining inmate of Spandau Prison for yet another 21 years.

Metapedia reports:

“Keeping one man in Spandau cost the West German government about 850,000 marks a year. In addition, each of the four Allied powers had to provide an officer and 37 soldiers during their respective shifts, as well as a director and team of wardens throughout the entire year. The permanent maintenance staff of 22 included cooks, waitresses and cleaners.

“In the final years of his life, Hess was a weak and frail old man, blind in one eye, who walked stooped forward with a cane. He lived in virtually total isolation according to a strictly regulated daily routine. Regulations stipulated that prison officials could not ever call Hess by name. He was addressed only as “Prisoner No. 7.”

During his rare meetings with his wife and son, Hess was not allowed to embrace or even touch them. Why this inhuman cruelty?

Of the four powers that had won the war against Germany, three - the U.S., Russia, and France - proposed that he be released on humanitarian grounds due to his age. The British government balked. Thatcher was Prime Minister of Britain, and Chancellor Kohl - some call him Cohn or Cohen - was heading Germany.

On 17 August 1987, Hess died while under Four Power imprisonment at Spandau Prison in West Berlin. At 93, he was one of the oldest prisoners in the world. He was found in a summer house in a garden located in a secure area of the prison with an electrical cord wrapped around his neck. His death was ruled a suicide by self-asphyxiation, accomplished by tying the cord to a window latch in the summer house.

Prison guards who knew him in his last years say that he was so crippled by arthritis that he could not lift his arms above his shoulders. No way could this old man have strangled himself.

Hess was buried in Wunsiedel, and Spandau Prison was subsequently demolished to prevent it from becoming a shrine. Instead, his grave became exactly that.

Metrapedia continues:

“Every year after Hess’s death, nationalists from Germany and the rest of Europe gathered in Wunsiedel for a memorial march. Similar demonstrations took place around the anniversary of Hess’s death. These gatherings were banned from 1991 to 2000 and nationalists tried to assemble in other cities and countries (such as the Netherlands and Denmark). Demonstrations in Wunsiedel were again legalised in 2001. Over 5,000 nationalists marched in 2003, with around 7,000 in 2004, marking some of the biggest national demonstrations in Germany since 1945. After stricter German legislation regarding demonstrations by nationalists was enacted in March 2005 the demonstrations were banned again.

Roosevelt Telegram to Churchill

It has often been said that a people defeated, besieged from all sides but not neutered, , will keep its myths alive. I have been told a few. One of them has it that the F¸hrer is said to have insisted that there would be one “Last Battalion” that would come back after certain defeat and would finish what he himself could not do. That “Last Battalion” would be German.

Nazi UFO technology is legendary. Cold hearts insist that Nazi UFOs are wishful thinking. What I am telling you below is things that I heard, saw, and read. I also claim, for my own protection, that as a novelist, I am attuned to lyric tapestries that translate and record things that may not pass rigorous checks but make sense by conjecture and inference and leave you with a question mark. What I am recording below is what I was told by Ernst Zundel and others.

Things that go bump in the night?

Wreckage of Hess's ME-110 in Scotland

Please understand that in the sixties, seventies, and even eighties, it was still possible to speak of Hitler and his times nostalgically if not respectfully, just as it is okay today to recount the battles of, say, General Lee who fought heroically for his beloved South but lost to overwhelming power from the North. A people need models of hope, and such models live on in their hearts.

Among many myths that survived, there lives the myth that the best of the bravest escaped, among them the F¸hrer and his scientific-minded friends.

In Ernst’s circles, people would often joke about the “Last Battalion” and claim that the F¸hrer escaped to Antarctica where he and his comrades continued his work and were busily plotting a comeback.

Why not call that as myth and keep snoozing the sleep of the righteous? Can Germans not even honor their dead by embossing the life that they lived?

On one of our trips, Ernst shared a glimpse of his young days in Canada. He claims he once saw one of those crafts, in broad daylight, rising like a phantom out of the waters of Lake Ontario. He had his two young sons in his car; they saw it, too. He was traveling in one of the middle lanes on what is called the QE2 in honor of the Queen of England. It was glistening and blinking like a Hollywood production, and by the time he could pull over, the tantalizing UFO was gone.

Roswell UFO Museum

In the late 1990s, Ernst and I were traveling through the Southwest, and stopped at the Roswell Museum. There, under glass, were tiny replicas of what was allegedly found - a saucer with a swastika!

A few tin soldiers surrounded their craft, and those toy soldiers were likewise painstakingly adorned with swastikas.

On that long trip, Ernst told me yet another story out of his young and reckless years that might bring a smile to your face but will be frowned upon by Zundel foes, who spook easily.

Have you ever heard of Hacienda Dignidad? My Spanish is a bit rusty, but I believe the name translates loosely into “Ranch of Honor” or “Plantation of Pride.”

Hacienda Dignidad is a mysterious place, deep in the Chilean mountains. Allegedly, it is a trading post for Nazi UFOs.

In 2004, when Ernst was already in prison in Canada, courtesy of the American Patriot Act, my friend Jeff Rense asked me about the place. I said I would ask Ernst.

Please find Ernst’s full letter posted on Rense:

http://www.rense.com/general52/dewi.htm

The Hacienda Dignidad myth is only a small piece of a puzzle that is much larger, much more mysterious, encompassing people all over the globe for at least 60, maybe even 70 or 75 years.

When I was young, I stumbled upon it because of my interest in space exploration and space journeys to the near planets - to the Moon, to Mars, Venus and, beyond, to Orion and Sirius. It did not take long for me to make all kinds of interesting contacts in Canada, America, Germany, Austria, Spain and, especially, South America - and, strange as it may seem, Japan of all places.

My first encounter with Japanese interests in space came in 1967 when I met the CEO of what was then a sizeable conglomerate of Japanese corporations worth well over US$250 million, all involved in the most diverse business fields. That man, let’s call him the Chairman, was a Japanese Naval AttachÈ in Germany during World War II. He was ultimately taken to Japan by German submarine in late 1943 with a secret cargo apparently involving jet planes. The Germans were far ahead of the Japanese, even the British and the US in that field, having had operational jets, several different kinds, by different manufacturers and designers since 1938. If you go and look at my UFO books, you will find the story of just such a submarine which carried nothing but mercury, which the Japanese apparently needed in war production.

Incidentally, I corresponded with some of the crew of Captain Sch‰fer’s sub which landed in Argentina long after Germany’s surrender in Europe - there is also the story of a German sub using an uninhabited island in the Falklands/Antarctic/South Atlantic region. That island could still not be visited in the 1970s because it seems the Germans used a mine barrier at the lagoon entrance to prevent the Allied ships from landing there.

This Chairman was the one who told me over a slow meal of many courses that Japan was at war with America. He pointed to an attachÈ case and said, “This time we will defeat [America] with this (meaning commerce) and not with tanks, ships, or planes.”

He said in parting that Japan would never forgive the Americans for dropping the atomic bomb and for making Japan lose face before other Asians, especially the Koreans and Chinese. That was a big deal with him, as were the humiliations and executions by hanging of Japanese leaders via the Tokyo war crimes trials and tribunals. He was far less forgiving than the Germans! (Ö)

My UFO booklets were in those days only used by me to generate interest for more serious interviews on the post World War II lies of the “death camps” like Auschwitz, a concentration camp that was, in fact, a war production center. I was beginning to concentrate on far more serious topics involving Holocaust revisionism.

I would imagine that it must have been in ‘78 or ‘79 when a reporter finally made arrangements to come over from Japan to interview me at length.

Money seemed no object with this Japanese reporter, who arrived with a photographer/sound man with state of the art tape recorders in tow. They parked their stretch limousine, chauffeur and all, in a “no parking, no stopping” zone outside my house. The bored white driver would sit there for hours, pulling away once in a while because Toronto police told him to move on. Meanwhile, we talked and looked through my UFO/Nazi Secret Weapon/Antarctica file, only interrupted by lunch, tape changes, and coffee breaks. Later on, we went out to the CN Tower where I was treated to one of the most expensive dinners in my life.

The two came back the next day, and this time they seemed quite interested in talking to one of my male secretaries, Sepp. He and I used to horse around a lot, talking of olden times, and I used to call him my “Adjutant”, for Sepp had an illustrious past. He had served as an aide-de-camp and interpreter for Field Marshall Kesselring in Italy during the latter part of the war. We were young and brazen then. We thought we would supply some visual aids for our Japanese guests, so for the occasion we dressed Sepp up in a spiffy Nazi uniform of an officer of the communications section - visor’s officer’s cap, the works! The photographer just loved that man and his uniform! I could see why - it would lend authenticity to the story being told for a magazine or television special.

Then my Japanese guests left, loaded with UFO- as well as anti-Holocaust literature, which was of course discussed at great length, once the UFO stuff was out of the way, which did not interest me all that much any more.

In the months that followed, I helped them gain entry to some circles and installations, such as the former German submarine base and bunkers in Bergen, Norway, which operated undamaged until after surrender in May 11th, 1945 - not May 8th! The Norwegians used those facilities, along with the most modern German subs, into the 1970s.

My guests also visited the Hydrographic Institute in Hamburg and looked into the thousands of air photos taken over Antarctica and its German bases, established by the Ritscher Expedition under the protection of Hermann Goering, with Rudolf Hess as the liaison for the project. They went to Camp Dora in the Harz Mountains and to the bunker complexes in the Alpine Redoubt, which figured large in the Allied propaganda in ‘44 and ‘45. They sent me many postcards from those places. Unfortunately, the 1995 arson claimed all of those files.

In the wake of those visits, UFO orders for books, spotter charts and investigator passes began to pour in from Japan. We even sold frisbees resembling UFOs. The first articles appeared, and true to his word, the writer/reporter had included the 206 Carlton Street address, and we did a brisk business for a while with Japan in that period. Many of my subsequent Holocaust trials were partially paid for by UFO trinkets and donations by fervent supporters who believed in those Nazi UFO stories. In fact, some believe them deeply to this day.

Then one day, I received a call from our Japanese writer. He was in the US, in Los Angeles. Could he drop by? He wanted to make me a proposal about a research trip.

Sure, said I. Come on up.

He arrived within a week and suggested that I accompany him to Latin America, together with another Japanese tape recorder man and photographer, using my trusty German aide - minus Nazi uniform, I insisted! - on the trail of the Nazi UFOs. The expedition was to last from 4 to 7 weeks.

I was still a hands-on graphic artist at that time. I ran a lucrative graphic arts studio, along with my publishing house, and I had important contracts with some of Canada’s largest corporations. There was no way I could stay away that long without losing my business. So we made a compromise. I would not go, but I would lend him my German “AttachÈ”.

The trip to Chile

My contact there was a man by the name of Mattern, a German who had emigrated to Chile in the 1920s as a professional photographer. In time, he became the official photographer for all the presidents and most of the military big wigs in Chile in the early 1930s and thereafter. He was in and out of the Presidential Palace, the military academies, the Parliament - he simply knew everybody! Chile’s military was thoroughly Prussian, having adopted Prussian drills, ethos, code of honor, WWII German uniforms, helmets - even the goose steps! - which, by the way, they have kept to this day. Just recently, a young Revisionist sent Ingrid a video of such a parade.

The Chilean army under Pinochet was like an extension of the World War II German Army in looks, behavior and feel as well as in outward appearance. Exclusively German marching bands and German marches were, and are, still played to this day by that time warp Chilean army!

Only a few times, Mattern told his guests, did he think that he saw strange aerial activity going on [in Hacienda Dignidad] by even stranger craft. He was never told what was it was, and it was clear to him that the host was unwilling or perhaps under orders not to expand on those strange noises and those odd goings-on.

My man on the scene spoke five languages. As a German military officer on Field Marshall Kesselring’s staff, Sepp had served as a liaison to Benito Mussolini’s government, and as such he had participated in all the high level meetings, including the ones concerning Mussolini’s liberation by German commando leader Otto Skorzeny at the Gran Sasso. But that’s a different story for a different time.

Sepp had memorized the map at the mayor’s office. A decision was made to head out into the general direction of those colored/shaded areas. Sepp was certain it had to be the Hacienda’s location, going by the description of the landscape Mattern had given them in his briefings. Sepp was confident that he could find the Hacienda by asking local people in the foothills.

By now it had begun to rain, and as they were climbing steadily, it was getting colder and darker. Quickly, they left civilization behind. Telegraph poles and electric wires ended. Farmers’ fields gave way to bushland, poor soil, and the odd Indio shack made of corrugated metal roofs, old leftover wooden pallets, crates etc. with run-down or broken down cars strewn in the fields. The road got progressively worse, and the asphalted surface had long given way to potholes and gravel, which made for a bouncy ride as they wound their way ever higher into the foothills.

It was a miserable afternoon drive. The Japanese wanted to turn back. Sepp wanted to press on, and since he was the driver and navigator, German stubbornness won out. With his cold and grumbling passengers getting more weary by the minute, things were heading for a crisis, when suddenly the rain stopped just as they came to an area of clearly man-planted, 25-year-old conifer trees on either side of the road. They could see a light flicker in some hut on a hillside in the distance.

They hit upon a paved road, and soon they found themselves on a driveway with a cut lawn on each side. They could see a white stucco gate, Latin American style, with a high wrought iron fence on either side, and then a long, heavy wire security fence, metal links with barbed wire continuing on into a distant, man-planted forest. They were, in fact, in a turn-around, circular driveway area, and there was even an electric bell.

By the street lamp they could see some metallic reflections in some high birch trees inside the fence behind the large gate, which had a smaller gate for pedestrians on the side of it. This road carried on behind the gate into a well-kept landscaped area, dotted by majestic 25-35 year old coniferous, German-type blue spruce, or Norwegian pine trees familiar to people in Central Europe, the Black Forest and the Alpine regions. There was a winding path up to the blinking light shack a few hundred meters up a steep bank.

It began to drizzle again. The Japanese were lightly clad, shivering and uncomfortable, sitting huddled in the car. Sepp had a waterproof ski jacket and offered to investigate the light, while the others waited. He decided to take a shortcut and climb straight up the hill. It was slippery and rough going - when, suddenly, a car horn sounded, and as he turned around and looked down, he saw several men in non-descript rain coats surrounding the Volkswagen Beetle.

Hastily, he slid down the hillside to get there faster, getting himself wet and muddy by the rain-covered high vegetation. The men had started questioning the Japanese who did not speak Spanish and were clearly at a loss as to what to do next. One of the strange men, to Sepp’s surprise, wore a forage cap used by German mountain troops in World War II, the famous Gebirgsj‰ger of Oberst Dietl in Narvik, Murmansh and later the Caucasus when they climbed the highest mountain, Mount Elberus, and planted the Swastika flag on the peak, creating a worldwide sensation at the time.

The German spread-eagle insignia and the Edelweifl had been neatly removed from the cap, but one could still see the outline in the sun-bleached material. This man was muscular, bronzed, blue-eyed, and blond. More yet, he spoke a heavily accented Spanish with a clear Bavarian twang, familiar to my south Tyrolian born Sepple! Sepp knew he was in the right place. He knew that was no local Indio or Chilean.

Sepp addressed him in German; however, the man refused steadfastly to answer in German. In Spanish, he asked the team what they wanted, (Ö) and requested that they hand him their passports, airline tickets, cameras and tape recorders. He then motioned them inside the gate which opened electrically, although no wires or high poles were visible anywhere. He motioned them to drive down the driveway, while the rest of the “reception committee” followed them in their own, four-wheel drive military type vehicle.

After 300-400 meters, they came to a series of typically German type buildings - sturdy masonry with baked-tile roofs, stone and stucco Alpine style architecture. They were told to park their car. Politely, they were assisted with their luggage. They entered a large office/reception type room, tastefully decorated, again Alpine type, and were asked to make themselves comfortable. It was a building with all modern amenities, electric lights, flush toilets, wash basins, typewriters, office desks, office lamps, clothes racks etc. It had the feel of a military officers’ quarters.

By now, it was pitch dark outside.

They were given sandwiches, hot herbal tea, some dessert, and then the interrogations began - at first, separately in different rooms by different people, some of whom spoke English with the Japanese. With Sepp they insisted on speaking Spanish, an odd situation. They could not be persuaded to speak German - even though they were clearly Germans.

No one answered any questions as to where they were, what the place was called. No one admitted that this was indeed Hacienda Dignidad.

The interrogations lasted several hours, and about 10 p.m. they were all brought together again. They were told that they had penetrated a restricted military area without authorization, and that this was a serious offense - that a military police escort was on its way from Parral to pick them up, and that it would be up to the military to decide what to do with them once they got there. Their passports, cameras, tape recorders, films, and luggage would be turned over to the military. It was suggested that they could get some rest in a room that had some bunk beds and blankets, and they were warned not to try anything foolish. They could use the rest room but not leave the building for any reason.

The Japanese seemed pretty upset by all this and wondered what they had gotten into. Their ardor had considerably cooled by then, and they felt it was wiser not to press their luck und instead beat it back to Parral, get their passports back and get out of the jam they were in! They were satisfied that out in nowhere, cut off from civilization, there obviously were people living with all the accountrements of civilization, European no less, who had video surveillance cameras, electricity, flush toilets, heating systems, paved roads, tall metal wire fences, automatic electric door openers as well as a facility where there were multilingual people working in shifts, people connected somehow with the military or at least the federales, the police, who had the power to take people’s passports.

Everybody was tired, and soon all were asleep, only to be wakened in the early morning hours by truck motors howling, doors being slammed, loud voices in Spanish. They were introduced to the head of their military escort - a whole convoy of trucks and jeeps! After a short breakfast, they headed out into more rain and fog, making visibility difficult. Even so, they could make out numerous European type buildings in the distance which looked like part of a community with neatly cut lawns, garden flowers, and all asphalt roads everywhere they looked!

The trip back to Parral was slow and rocky. The team was taken to an army or federal police compound where they were herded into a large room and, once again, separately interrogated. They were told what they already knew - that they had entered a restricted military area without authorization, for which they could be jailed for a substantial period, but seeing that they were foreigners, and that their press credentials and stories checked out, they were only going to lose their undeveloped film, same with the tape recordings. They were told to take their rental car, drive it all the way to Santiago, check at the federales’ posts along the way, have their expulsion orders stamped at each place - and be out of the country in 72 hours! Pronto!

A decade later, I was invited to Princeton University for a lengthy series of Nazi UFO-related interviews, which were aired on prime time Japanese TV in a remarkable if sensationalized UFO special with superb computer animations of realistic Nazi UFOs. (Ö)

From other sources, such as El Mercurio, a left-leaning mass circulation Chilean newspaper, as well as from the German weekly, Der Stern, and the German news magazine, Der Spiegel, the following story emerges:

Hacienda Dignidad is a colony totally self-sufficient in everything, technologically equipped with the very latest amenities. The community has its own schools, teachers, hospital, medical staff, technical people. It is claimed that mysterious testing of some sort is being carried on at the Hacienda for the Chilean military. Even Chilean senators and parliamentarians find all their efforts blocked, usually by courts, the police, and the military. The German Embassy reports that numerous Germans receive their World War II army, air force, and other pension checks, which are sent to a collective address in the town of Parral, where they are deposited into a joint account.

The El Mercurio newspaper reported already in the late ‘40s and ‘50s that one of their reporters, in fact, did penetrate the Hacienda terrain via back roads through the mountains, using pack horses, and that he did observe strange flying craft taking off and landing in some remote area of a valley away from the actual community - which is what Mattern reported seeing during his one and only visit in the 1950s or 1960s - I don’t remember now exactly just when his visit took place.

The latest report about Hacienda Dignidad I read in the late 1990s in Der Spiegel. There was talk that the community was run by an autocratic leader. It was described almost like a semi-religious cult, but that there were married couples with children there. After his visit to what he certainly believed had been Hacienda Dignidad or a similar enterprise in the remote foothills of the Chilean mountains, Mattern was of the view that this place was a supply base for fresh fruit and vegetables picked up by “flying saucers”. He also felt that the colony served as a rest/recuperation and medical facility for German-staffed UFO bases further to the South like Tierra del Fuego and even Antarctica proper.

The story of the El Mercurio reporter, except for Mattern the only other human being claimed to have visited Hacienda Dignidad, is in one of my booklets in excerpted form. It was a bestseller in its time and is still widely quoted, as is the hastily organized Admiral Byrd Expedition to the mysterious continent of Antarctica in 1947.

The most extensive photographic documentary is to be found in an exhaustive article in one of the National Geographic Magazines, replete with maps and flight paths of the Byrd overflights, leaving out the far more sensational revelations supposedly contained in Byrd’s private diary, which was forbidden to be published by U.S. authorities - or so it is alleged. Its content was leaked by Admiral Byrd’s son, who himself came to a rather bizarre and mysterious end.

[End excerpt]

Can you blame me for feeling intrigued? And shouldn’t you be, too?

I know someone who functions as a European diplomat at the UN - who is a firm believer in the existence of German UFOs. He told me to keep a close watch on what happens on earth, in the skies, and deep in the oceans.

Some years ago, I saw a write-up about two US Submarines having been “lost” and I third limping home with its schnozzle all crushed up and bandaged.

Here’s what your mainstream media reports:

“The US nuclear submarine USS San Fransisco en route to Brisbane Australia, for a port visit, came up all standing on Saturday, the 8th. of January 2005, when it ran into an underwater mountain about 350 miles south of Guam. One sailor died and 24 were injured.”

Then there was that strange “earthquake”, remember, in Indonesia, causing a gargantuan tsunami that mysteriously spared Diego Garcia? I read somewhere that there is no marine life at the epicenter of that “quake”. It’s probably just wicked conspiracy talk - don’t you think?.

And now we have Japan. Was that really an “earthquake”? Inquiring minds want to know.

I claim no certainty. I just put two and two together. I tell myself: If those darn, wicked Nazis could technically achieve what they achieved in 12 short years - six of which were blood and gore and human suffering beyond description - imagine what they could achieve while working undeterred and undisturbed off-earth?

Recommended viewing:

The William Pawelec Interview

The Richard M. Dolan Presentation

The German Reich Exists!

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 5, 2011

About three months ago I sent some 80 copies of two German-language DVDs to friends and supporters in Europe, most of them living in Germany. Intended recipients of these DVDs were mostly elderly people who had assisted in various ways in our lengthy struggle for Truth in History.

These were friends in their eighties and nineties - one would not think that these retired folks in their last years on earth are capable of insurrection or even revolution endangering the Vaterland!

The customs censors of the Federal Republic of Germany - in short, the Bundesrepublik - saw fit to confiscate these documentaries, apparently based on an order from the Mannheim District Court, staffed with notorious “Holocaust Denier” hounds, empowered to badger and bully. The customs civil servants duly notified the addressees of their intent to scrutinize these little disks, inferring they might well be politically suspect - and, hence, not suitable for ordinary citizens to watch.

These DVDs are now in “temporary custody” so as to be investigated bureaucratically. The functionaries of the Bundesrepublik want to make sure that their own senior citizens won’t be contaminated with politically incorrect content.

My addressees are eyewitnesses of World War II who know they live on borrowed time. It is emotionally consoling to them to be informed on how their country’s truthful history at long, long last unfolds. These people have a vested interest in seeing their ill-treated country freed from the curse of a deceitful propaganda deluge known as the “Holocaust”. They know what happened in the Third Reich concentration camps is not what current party line proclaims. To them, Ernst Zundel is both martyr and hero.

Since I am the producer and initiator of this mailing, I need to tell you of the content of these two sequestered titles.

The first is titled “Off Your Knees, Germany!”, which has been widely disseminated on the Internet in English - to wide acclaim, I feel proud and even boastful to report. There, you can check for yourself what Ernst Zundel said - and what was said about him by his detractors. Just type the title into your favorite search engine - and presto! The DVD is some 90 minutes long.

This documentary has never been censored by Youtube. There is nary a peep of dissent! I know it has been reposted on at least two dozen other websites, and I have already distributed more than 700 of them. So far, no viewer of this DVD has fainted or turned into a frog from having been exposed to the flamboyant Zundel Saga. The version sent to Europe is identical - with subtitles in German.

The second DVD is German-language only. It’s called “Feldzug gegen die Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts” - roughly translated as “Crucade against Judicial Notice of the Holocaust” - a 2-hour documentary I stitched together from 9 hours of raw footage of informal, lawyerly debriefing sessions pertaining to the 2007 Mannheim Zundel Trial that cost Ernst five years of his life, in addition to the two already served in Canada.

The Mannheim prosecution against Ernst saw fit to cloak its illegal attack on human rights and dignity on what is called Paragraph 130 - the man in the street calls it “Jewry’s Holocaust cudgel.” A sub-section of Paragraph 130 of the German penal code, known as the “Incitement Section,” punishes “approval, trivialization, or denial of the National Socialist era”. In its application, it created a new variety of a “criminal” - primarily a “Holocaust Denier.”

As the Catholic Church relies on Infallibility, judges in the German courts rely on “Manifest Obviousness” or “Offenkundigkeit”, roughly akin to the Anglo-Saxon concept of “Judicial Notice” - “Ö what exists need not be proven.” In practice, it means “The Holocaust happened! Shut up!”

“Offenkundigkeit” exists to enforce political dogma and punish heresy. It means that if you are unlucky enough to land before a judge of the kind of Dr. Meinerzhagen, a hysterically volatile servant of the entrenched status quo, a defense on the merits is sternly precluded by law. Nor are your attorneys allowed to offer a defense on your behalf - or else, they themselves become “guilty” by association and intent and maybe even, Heaven forbid, compassion for a client whose fix is in before a trial even begins.

“Offenkundigkeit” has, thus, become the Holy Cow of German jurisprudence. It gives judges court jester license.

Since the 1990s, the Mannheim District Court has become something very similar to the Victors’ Tribunal at Nuremberg for Holocaust revisionists. Guilt is a foregone conclusion. The rest is just for show and for headlines to keep the sheeple subdued.

How can a defense attorney then offer a workable defense, if the law not only forbids it but endangers the attorney himself?

Defense attorneys at the Zundel Trial decided to cut a new swath. Since it was known that it would be impossible, by law, to submit exculpatory evidence for Ernst’s “heretical” beliefs based on forensic evidence, a new form of defense was introduced by sheer necessity. The system itself would be on put on trial for its craven contravention of the law.

The Zundel Trial was uniquely suited for this strategy for two reasons:

It had international significance owing to Ernst Zundel’s high profile and the fact that the USA and Canada had collaborated with the Bundesrepublik to use trickery to abduct and extradite the dissident;  -  and -
Ernst’s lead defense attorney, Sylvia Stolz, a petite snippet of a female with a girlish voice and unflappable poise made it a dramatic and often hilarious “OMF-BRD” trial under the watchful eye of her lover, the brilliant but politically disbarred attorney, Horst Mahler.

“OMF-BRD” is an acronym that stands for a typically German mouthful: “Organisationsform einer Modalit‰t der Fremdherrschaft.” What it means in the vernacular is that the Bundesrepublik is known to strut and prance much like the pompous “sovereign” in the Christian Anderson tale, while everybody bows and grovels - until a child calls out: “The Emperor is naked!”

As I have come to understand the meaning of the “OMF-BRD line of attack”, it can be stripped down to four words:

“The German Reich Exists.”

Now don’t you snicker before you understand what this idea means. Thanks to three generations’ worth of brainwashing, the concept of the “German Reich” has been deformed to such an extent it has become a Pavlovian prompt - one shudders at the implied corollary “Ö the Reich might rise again!” In fact, that is not at all what it means. “The Reich” is not wishful thinking or Hitler propaganda. “The Reich” does exist as a subject of international law because it preceded the Third Reich and continues to exist after the destruction of the Third Reich. It is a venerable institution. It exists much as China exists, despite internal upheavals as well as external attacks. The German Reich does not mean “Hitler’s Reich.” It is a lawful entity in international jurisprudence - but it is helpless to act in its own interest.

The German Reich was not obliterated when the German Wehrmacht surrendered, but it was kept feeble on purpose so it could be ruled by a malicious cabal that took over as a provisional government that was not meant to last. It was a temporary administration - put in its place because there was a vacuum - until such time as the ill-fated Germans, held to be pathologically addicted to authoritarian rule of grandiose design, were sufficiently “matured politically” to vote themselves a democratic government of their own choice.

From the Allies’ point of view, it was a noble concept - on paper. Until desirable maturity in the German populace had taken root, the powers-that-be would rule the besieged, bloodied, starving, decimated Germans in their own ruins, and “re-educate” them thoroughly and for all time to come for their own good.

There was not ever even a peace treaty. Did you know that? Only a cease fire existed, and exists to this day. Theoretically, “The Reich” is still “at war” with the Allies.

The pity is that the Germans were never told of this provisional arrangement that would give them their freedom as soon as they showed proper remorse. It was quietly swept under the rug. The usurpers of Germany’s sovereignty smugly stayed on because they liked their warm nests and their power.

Today, more than three generations later, most Germans fancy themselves to be benevolently ruled by a bona fide entity dressed up in democratic finery that calls itself the “Bundesrepublik”, which has remained, in fact and law, still a provisional arrangement kept carefully controlled so as to serve an alien agenda.

The story of Germany’s “re-education” that brought this unnatural situation about is long and exceedingly seamy.

In a passionate interview with an Israeli journalist, Ernst Zundel explained it this way:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Wicked tongues insist that now, three generations later - you have an entire country filled end to end with Stockholm Syndrome slaves whose pride is to identify with their oppressors and who, almost to a man and woman, saw Bonn and now see Berlin as the seat of “legitimate” rulers.

And who could blame them, given their proscribed world view of their own history? The Bundesrepublik looks German. The Bundesrepublik talks German. The Bundesrepublik parades in front of friend and foe as German. In oily proclamations, it claims it wants the best for Germany. It likes to scold China for its lack of Freedom of Speech.

These ruling mandarins, however, are not in spirit and in law anything near what in olden times a German might have called “German.” They are obedient vassals of a foreign rule - and that is what the Mannheim Zundel Trial brought sharply to the fore.

That is the essence of what my DVDs make clear. The first merely serves as a political backdrop in which Ernst Zundel confronts his mendacious detractors - again and again and again! It is fast-paced and entertaining, but for me, it is the second DVD that has real meat, because the situation in the Vaterland is dismal.

No transcripts in political show trials are allowed. No exculpatory evidence is allowed to be brought forth by the defense. As stated before, if a defendant opens his mouth and points to unassailable forensic evidence as a basis for the fact that science does not lie, not even for the “Nazis”, he automatically doubles his sentence. If an attorney does likewise, he earns himself a prison sentence for his pains - as Sylvia Stolz found out.

A Mannheim Zundel Trial observer wrote this:

The mainstream media showed an unusual interest in the Z¸ndel trial. The reports in the mainstream media exposed very clearly the phoniness and hypocrisy of the much-touted German “constitutional guarantee” of freedom of opinion and information, which is indeed purely theoretical - as the entire world now knows.

This ceaseless blathering about “human rights” and “freedom of opinion”, which have in fact been ever more violated and trampled underfoot, are mere trappings for foreign consumption.

OMF yes-men freely criticize repression in foreign countries while they keep their real agenda in the dark.

Here I need to tell you, for the record, that neither Ernst nor I knew of - much less approved of - the OMF trajectory that came about by default. We wanted it to be a traditional Holocaust trial or, at the very least, a kidnapping trial. We had nothing to do with this little understood political thorn in the side of the unsuspecting populace. Ernst says he knew about the concept as a tangential issue in terms of his own information outreach, but I did not. Until I came in the possession of the debriefing tapes, I did not know any of this. I would guess that the average German has never heard of it either.

However, now in retrospect, what happened in the Zundel Trial makes lots of sense to me - why it played out as bizarre as it did, and why it is so difficult today to let a ray of light ride on a simple Zundel DVD that gets itself in trouble with customs.

I’ll show you by example:

There was a little ten-year-old boy in the audience. He had listened intently at home as his parents discussed the Zundel Trial farce where Truth was no defense and a maximum sentence already a foregone conclusion. In his little mind, he concluded correctly that Ernst Zundel was an icon of sorts. The next morning, in court, he asked if he could shake the renowned prisoner’s hand.

Do you know that five police - count ëem, five! - moved forward in a phalanx and surrounded that youngster to prevent him from doing just that?

Ernst said he and the little boy merely locked glances across the width of that sorry joke of a courtroom for what seemed a very long time. Ernst described it to me as a moment of exquisite poignancy. Isn’t that a perfect scene for a movie?

That little boy is not likely to forget for as long as he lives that a nasty police force was needed to prevent him from sharing a handshake with a man whose integrity and importance he sensed.

Talk about a phony ruling system being skittish!

To come back to the sequestered DVDs our elderly friends are not allowed to watch. Since I knew from past experience how brutal political censorship is practiced in the country of my ancestry, I made sure that what I did was not a violation of the law and would not negatively impact on my recipients.

I put an explanation in my monthly letter, Germania, that these two documentaries were meant as gifts of gratitude for past support and that, at least according to the law, a German citizen is still allowed to receive one copy each for private use of otherwise “indexed” items the current Bundesrepublik deems unfit for grown-ups to own. I even put a little paper slip inside each mailing to explain that also to the customs officials, in case they might not be all that familiar with the law.

After having received a stern notice from customs about suspected contraband, two or three of our oldsters took their trembling hearts into their hands, called customs and inquired what their options were in a politically delicate case such as this. They were told they had two choices: either refuse a well-meant present and have it sent back to America, or brace themselves for predictable political fall-out.

You have to understand that to a law-abiding German of vintage times it is a very scary thing to receive a notice in the mail that tells him he is suspect of harboring politically incorrect thoughts. Our elderly friends are terrified that they will now be hauled before a judge to account for receiving intellectual contraband from an American citizen, Ingrid Zundel. In today’s gagged and cowed Germany, that might morph overnight into media vilification, disgrace and ostracism in the neighborhood, a political show trial such as their friend, Ernst Zundel, already had to endure or, at the very least, horrendous fines few of our oldsters can afford.

So far, I have only received two returns - the rest, presumably, still lies at customs headquarters so that the Kommissars of Mannheim can hatch a solid plan to terrorize their senior citizens some more.

I say that is why these two DVDs are vitally important, especially the second one, to receive the widest distribution possible among all freedom-loving folks of German ancestry. In the second DVD, particularly, four attorneys explain what has happened to the law in light of a manipulated past. It has real intellectual and legal substance, but that’s not all. There is hilarity.

There is irreverence. The presiding Judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, is boldly raked over the coals. But it is more than that - it talks about the obscene roots of this abnormal judicial situation at Nuremberg. These documentaries are of invaluable merit for those who are not yet aware that Germany is still a country under covert Allied rule. Veterans of WWII who may still think they “liberated” Germany from a “dictatorship” - take note!

But in the meantime, what to do?

To mind comes Dr. Robert Countess, a former US Army Chaplain, a true-blue Holocaust revisionist who, in the olden days, would smuggle Bibles into the Soviet Union wrapped in a customs declaration that stated brazenly: “The Joys of Jewish Cooking.”

Iron Sky: The Movie

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 7, 2011

Okay, for the record, before I lose my scalp: I personally have never seen a UFO. I have never been “contacted”, much less abducted. I don’t believe in little green men. I think the idea of invisible “greys” among us is loony. The notion that a “highly advanced society” of non-earthlings is planning a humanitarian visit to lift us onto a “higher plane of ethical awareness” is baloney.

However, I do believe that several governments, including the U.S., are up to their ears in covert UFO projects that are blacker than black and off every radar. I also believe that people with guilty consciences have every reason to fear UFOs. I think their fear controls what we are not to see or know ñ and that the prime Weapon of Mass Deception is ridicule of the fiercest, most ferocious kind against anyone who asks for information and disclosure. Their fear is palpable. Why is that?

YouTube - Veterans Today -

In my youth I lived in several countries in South America. I know for a fact that after World War II there were two countries ñ Chile and Argentina ñ that offered shelter and protection to German scientists who had worked on space exploration. Under Peron, particularly, there was a lot of sympathy for Germans.

I am open to the possibility ñ not certainty! ñ that there exists a colony of German science expats somewhere on a near planet, perhaps even on the back side of the moon. I don’t know any specifics, so don’t come to me for additional info ñ I cannot help you there. But I am curious, and so should you be. Look for the William Pavelec interview on youtube about U.S. black projects on UFOs to get a whiff of what could possibly be true.

YouTube - Veterans Today -

So, when I read that there exists a European movie maker team who is in post-production about a film depicting a return of “Moon Nazis”, it naturally piqued my interest. I contacted Timo Vuorensola, the director, on behalf of Veterans Today to see what they were up to.

Sit back and relax. Don’t blame Gordon Duff ñ it was my idea. Take this for what it is ñ it is meant in a light-hearted vein Ö

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Veterans Today: Internetters know that there exists a huge global community of believers in “Moon Nazis”. This would include the common man in the street who is fascinated by science fiction as well as the scientific community, primarily those engaged in space exploration.

Respected NASA scientists and space researchers have spoken out about the existence of earth-like communities on the dark side of the moon. Where does your film draw the line? How much credence is given to the possibility that there exists an off-earth community of entities who look like us, talk like us, think like us ñ in essence, who are a “breakaway society” from earth?

Iron Sky: On behalf of everyone working for Iron Sky, I can say that no one of us believes in the real existence of Nazis on the Moon ñ or anywhere else outside of Earth, for that matter. Yet, we find the idea compelling; given the fact that Nazis had a lot of secret tech which eventually led partially to the big space race and space exploration, we find it intriguing to think the “what-if” -scenario, and try to approach it with two things in mind: if it would be true, how would it be even theoretically possible, and ñ even more importantly ñ how to make it cinematic. But of course, more importantly, it’s a human story, and the whole “Nazis on the Moon” issue is just a setting for a story to be told.

Veterans Today: I am a great believer in shortcuts to thinking by using precision words or phrases. In your preliminary correspondence you used the phrase “Moon Nazis”. This phrase would work for both your fans and your detractors. I actually think that “Moon Nazis” would have been a more catchy title than “Iron Sky” ñ which is excellent also with more serious and weighty connotations. Who chose the current title ñ and why?

Iron Sky: We do like subtexts, and the whole needs to be something more poetic than the core of the plot of the movie. We also liked the idea of concretically having a sky full of iron when the Nazi UFOs and Zeppelins roar on close orbit of Earth. And strangely enough, nobody had done a film with the name, so in the end it was an easy pick.

Veterans Today: I understand “Iron Sky” is a black comedy feature film. Several of your promo pieces give the impression that “Moon Nazis” are fair game for poking fun of the Hitler regime and its admittedly impressive scientists. Regardless of the negative political taint still clinging to the era, is your approach not merging respectable science and politically correct but one-dimensional political sentiment?

Iron Sky: Our political agenda is that we believe that what happened back in early 1900’s is so very close, and with people not paying attention to what the politicians are saying and blindly believing these people know better what’s good for them, we’ll end up in the same mess very soon. Hitler’s and Stalin’s eras are still so close, and watching which direction the politics in Europe are slowly stumbling to, I think Iron Sky’s message is a timely one.

Veterans Today: For decades, governments have justified a curtain of secrecy around the concept of life in space with entities who might have an interest in earth. The argument has been that such a concept would topple conventional belief systems such as religion. Do you see any harm in people projecting their own fantasies and wishes onto artistic creations that might have negative fallout in societies?

Iron Sky: Honestly believing in extraterrestial life, but not believing human kind has or will ever have connection (or at least reasonable in any intelligible way) with it, I believe humouring ourselves with such thoughts has always been a good way to learn of ourselves. Many of similar topical movies take the idea of an enemy, or friend, or something in between coming from outside of our world, and realize it among people of today to speculate what would our reactions be ñ because we want to experience, speculate and learn from “our own” reactions in a safe environment of a movie theater. And if at the same time it ignites some thought process in our heads challenging our fundamental thoughts and values and looking at everything from outside the box, I consider it to be solely a good thing.

Veterans Today: Your film is unusual in several ways. First, it is a non-Hollywood film in that it is being produced at a fraction of the costs of what a Hollywood film would cost. Secondly, fundraising involves a global community rather than a handful of fat cats. How did that novel idea come about ñ by design or by default?

Iron Sky: In many ways, by default. We had finished our previous film “Star Wreck in the Pirkinning” with the help of our Internet community, and knew that just by applying normal methods in production and funding we would not be able to reach the budget we were looking for. We again turned over our financial plight to our community, and again they were out there, ready to pitch in to see some Nazi arsekicking.

Veterans Today: Whether or not one might wish it to be so, your film will bring the concept of “Moon Nazis” into mainstream awareness and largely remove the current taboo attached to discussing such a “flat-earth conspiracy”. It is known that there has been a tight clamp on serious scientific discussions of this kind. Does your film not open the door to millions of people questioning why there exists such a curtain of silence on the part of official governments ñ in other words, make them “conspiracists”?

Iron Sky: I wouldn’t be too worried of that. It’s the same thing as with any conspiracy theory movie. It does push our imagination and offers a great “what-if” -sandbox, but in the end, I don’t assume anyone walks out of the theater and starts calling their government to reveal the big Moon Nazi plot they’ve been hiding. Well, crazy people might, but they can be triggered by anything.

Veterans Today: Has there been any censorship targeting your project? Or is this film approved at least in part so as to let off steam and prepare the global community for dramatic, in fact tectonic shifts in what folks in the future will not only believe but take for granted?

Iron Sky: Not sure what you mean by “tectonic shifts”, but we’ve had some censorship issue discussions for sure, especially regarding Germany. Their laws are very tight in portraying Nazis, but as soon as they read the script and realized the intention behind, we were clear to do the film. There are some extra-tight laws in Germany, for example with costumes and marketing, but we knew of them beforehand and were prepared for them.

Veterans Today: It is my understanding that this film is a triple production, involving Finland, Germany, and Australia? These are countries commonly seen as traditionally European by ancestry and background. We in America see large factions of Finland as openly approving of the Hitler era, and Germany as covertly approving. I don’t know about Australia, but I find it puzzling that the United States are not involved. Is this a clandestine “Declaration of Independence,” from Europe, at least in the artistic realm?

Iron Sky: Finland absolutely does not approve of the Hitler regime, and Germany even less so; not sure where this impression could be coming from. The reason why USA is not one of the production parties is simply that we didn’t find a suitable US production partner to join the production, and managed to do it without them. Three countries already involved is quite a heap.

Veterans Today: Finally, put your hand on your heart and tell me: How do you account for the enormous fascination with German science that came out of the Hitler Era, which is commonly believed to be expressed in a belief in so-called “UFOs”? Nobody talks about Russians having gone to the moon and set up housekeeping there, or Americans ñ or anybody else, for that matter. It’s always the “Moon Nazis.” This is an amazingly robust belief that defies common sense ñ for most people. Could fear be involved that such a thing as an invasion could come true?

Iron Sky: Not so much fear. I honestly don’t think there are too many people really believing in Moon Nazi invasion and being able to survive in the current day world. What fascinates people is the secrecy of the Nazi technology that’s been glorified over the decades in movies and literature and the idea that whatever the Russians or the US would be doing secretly behind our backs on the Moon without us knowing would never be as dramatic as what Nazis would be doing. There’d be only one thing they’d be doing, that’s invasion. Russians and Americans would probably be just digging for some Helium-3, which would not be so bad, given the oil dependency of today’s world.

Veterans Today: Except for making money, which I believe this film will make hand over fist, what do you expect this project to do?

Iron Sky: I hope it helps people open their eyes and ears and read between today’s political messages, especially the ones of right wing ideology and religious fundamentalists (both Christian and Muslim). We hope Iron Sky inspires people to think, but also to create and be creative. Filmmaking is no more the game of a few selected people. Anyone can pick up a camera, buy some software and start shooting the next masterpiece.

A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism - Part I

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 8, 2011

Let this lecture speak for itself:

Introductory Note

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us ó his warning to the West ó is more urgent than ever before. ñ

[Start]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity. I’m not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I’m here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world: the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

Now, first of all, I’d like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 ó that was shortly before elections ó Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America. In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern EuropeÖ when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place? The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President Kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations ó and of the ninety-nine nations there, I’ve consulted with maybe seventy of them ó and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people, we’re not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask. Well, four days after President Kennedy ó or he was then Senator Kennedy ó made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant, more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only thatÖ they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their homeland. With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group. That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite. It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world’s total population. Eighty percent of the world’s population. Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us. And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-CaucasiansÖ the non-white nations of the world, and that’s what we face.

And what is the reason? The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this ó time I’ll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement ó the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, “well, that’s a very broad statement to make”, but let me show what happened while you were ó I don’t want to wear that out ó let me show what happened while we were all asleep. I’m including myself with you. We were all asleep. What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply facing her ó and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home; they didn’t want to play war anymore; they didn’t like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany ó not a shot had been fired on the German soil. Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously! They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and ó I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible ó the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here. You can yet win this war. You don’t have to give up. You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal: “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain ó that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine ó should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916. October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that ó I don’t know how many here remember it ó the United States, which was almost totally pro-German ó totally pro-German ó because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. So the German bankers ó the German-Jews ó Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!” But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson. We’re getting from England what we want. Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.” And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war ó World War One ó in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there ó we were railroaded into it ó if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into that warñ merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.

Now, that is something that the people in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One.

Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started. The United States went in the war. The United States crushed Germany. We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened.

Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?” And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration.

So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game! That’s why the United States came into the war.” And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism - Part II

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 8, 2011

When the Germans realized this, [that they had been double-crossed by the Jews] they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers ó the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

It was a sellout that I can best compare ó suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit. We offer you peace terms. Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing [Red China] into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese? I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews. “We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now, Nahum Sokolow ó all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today ó they, in 1919, 1920, ‘21, ‘22, and ‘23, they wrote in all their papers ó and the press was filled with their statements ó that “the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them.”

The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenchener Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisrael” or “Our Father.” No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, was what the German Reich consisted of 300 ó three hundred! ó small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products. And what happened? What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: “We must slap down Germany”, because there isn’t one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists.

Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact. They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So [the Germans] did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews]. They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn’t know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933. And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler! And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was. You can’t treat us that way! And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.”

Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine. So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . . (You want to ask a question? ó Uh, there were no “Communists” in Germany at that time. They were called “Social Democrats”.)

Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called. We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former ó their status ó and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone’s head. The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn’t fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews. And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money ó you know the way the Mark was devalued ó they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermyer came back to the United States ó who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference ó and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

“The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. Their labor. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page ó a whole page ó in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “This economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA” . [National Recovery Administration] ó which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted. If anyone came in and found a dish marked “Made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs: “Hitler”, “murderer”, and so forth, and like ó something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “Made in Germany”. Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I’ve been observing women’s legs in the last twenty years, I haven’t seen a pair with cotton stockings on them. So Macy! I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “MURDERERS” and “HITLERITES”, and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, “Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?” They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that ó I don’t like to use the word ëanti-Semitism’ because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it ó the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three ó did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott ó and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It’s going to be Christian or it’s going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: “We’re going to keep it Christian if possible”. And they started to re-arm.

And their intention was ó by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 ó the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: “Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.” The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

A Jewish Defector Warns America: Benjamin Freedman Speaks on Zionism - Part III

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 8, 2011

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT.

One million tons of TNT is a megaton. Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT. That was when they were first developed five or six years ago. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. And why will it take place? It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III.

Act I was World War I. Act II was World War II. Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it’s known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do? The life you save may be your son’s. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren’t permitted to know it.

Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Others knew it. Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was ëconfidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this momentÖ at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don’t stand a chance even if they don’t use nuclear bombs. How can the United States / about five percent of the world / go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground? How can we do itÖ send our boys over there to be slaughtered? For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their ëcommonwealth’? They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” That is correct. I don’t know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews / I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews. I refer to them as “so-called Jews”, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened? The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe / and to reduce this so you don’t get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe / they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles. Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe / so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy. I don’t want to go into the details of that now. It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith / either Christianity, Islam / the Moslem faith / or what is known today as Judaism / really Talmudism. So, like spinning a top and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,” he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people / 800,000 thousand square miles / and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews. There wasn’t one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

“Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God’s chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland, It’s your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.”


Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted]. And it’s just as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems. Fifty four million! And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves ëArabs’. Imagine! Why, you’d say they’re lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren’t different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. They likewise, because their king took the faith / Talmudic faith / they had no choice. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So everybody / they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system / so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God’s chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.”

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that? Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn’t call black black anymore / you’d start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world. Because after two wars fought in Europe / World War I and World War II / if it wasn’t possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for? Did they have to / like you flush the toilet / because they couldn’t get along, did they have to say, “Well, we’re going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us”?

I can’t understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I’m telling you. But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don’t care whether you know all this or not. It doesn’t make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me [for this reason]. I’ve got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don’t want them to go and fight and dieÖ like they died in Korea. Like they died in Japan. Like they’ve died all over the world.

For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years? Is that why the United States must go to war? Because the Democratic Party wants New York State / the electoral vote? Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?Ö which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists. And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes. Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy. I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy. I think he’s a great man. I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him. And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows. He’s playing with the enemy. Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish. Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in. Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in. But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate / not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy. And tell him, “I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen”. I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do. But I don’t think it’s necessary to do that. You’re above the average group in intelligence and I don’t think it’s necessary to impress this any more.

But. . . I want to tell you one more thing. You talk aboutÖ “Oh, the Jews. Why the Jews? Christianity. Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion”. But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that dayÖ and I was one of them! This is not hearsay. I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser. I’m here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand / and it’s the only prayer for which you stand / and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months / any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: “Don’t forget / whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge / remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that”.

How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we’re going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason. (Ö)

---

[The rest of this presentation consisted of Mr. Freedman explaining his informational outreach and a follow-up question-and-answer period. I am sure that audio tapes exist that can be ordered from dissident websites, maybe even from Amazon.]

Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-Servitude

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on September 13, 2011

This article was written for mature and thoughtful people who want to understand today in light of yesterday. It was not written for baboons who start to howl the moment they hear “Hitler” ñ the way the monkeys of my youth used to howl in front of my window in South America when they heard a thunderclap.

Its author is a relatively young South African banker by the name of Stephen Goodson. I have his permission to post it.

Here goes:

[START]

At the end of November 1918, Adolf Hitler returned to Munich and then proceeded to a military camp in Traunstein in south-eastern Bavaria. When the camp was disbanded in April 1919, he went back to Munich, which was still being ruled by a Soviet republic founded by a Polish Jew Kurt Eisner (real name Salamon Kosmanowsky).

At the beginning of May, a few days after the communist revolution had been terminated on May 1, 1919 by the Bavarian Freikorps, Hitler was summoned as a member of the 2nd Infantry Regiment to attend a course on political instruction. The purpose of this course of lectures was to provide the soldiers with a background of politics, which would enable them to monitor the many revolutionary and political movements present in Munich at that time.

One of the lecturers was a former construction engineer turned economist, Dr Gottfried Feder (1881-1941).(1) His first lecture was entitled “The Abolition of the Interest-Servitude”. Hitler was enthralled by what he heard, and this was to be a turning point in his political career. The following quotations from Mein Kampf reflect his initial thoughts.

“ For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.

To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest. In fundamental questions his statements were so full of common sense that those who criticized him did not deny that au fond his ideas were sound, but they doubted whether it be possible to put these ideas into practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder’s teaching, though others considered it a weak point.(2)

And again,

ÖI understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital at such, for to do this would be to jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder’s speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.”(3)

Further, he wrote,

“The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”(4)

A few weeks later Hitler received an instruction from his superiors to investigate a political association called the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers Party). At this meeting held in the Sterneckerbrau Inn in Munich, about 20 to 25 persons were present. The main speaker was Dr Gottfried Feder.

Shortly thereafter Hitler joined this party and received a provisional certificate of membership numbered seven. His first act on assuming control of the party was to rename it the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party).

Feder, who was the principal drafter of the party’s 25 points, became the architect and theoretician of the program (5) until his unfortunate dismissal as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in August 1934.

Approximately 40 percent of Feder’s “The  Program of the NSDAP” is devoted to economic and financial policies. Below are some of the highlights.

Adolf Hitler prints its two main points in leaded type:

“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM  ABOLITION OF THE THRALLDOM OF INTEREST ñ THE CORE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.” “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.(6)

“Break down the thralldom of interest” is our war cry.(7) What do we mean by thralldom of interest? The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labor, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much weight of lead.

So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.(8)

Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labor, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question.(9)

Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest.

Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest.

Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.

Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non-interest bearing state bonds or without using ready money.

Introduction of a fixed standard of currency on a secured basis.

Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans.

Fundamental remodeling of the system of taxation on social-economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation).(10)

Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created.

The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.”(11)

Feder was appointed Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the National Socialists came to power on January 30, 1933, but his efforts to implement official National Socialist economic policy were immediately frustrated by Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who had been appointed President of the Reichsbank in March 1933. Schacht was an enigmatic character. Although he was born in Tingleff, Schleswig-Holstein in 1877, his family originally came from Hungary. In 1903 at the age of 26 he joined the Dresdner Bank, and in 1908 he became a Freemason.

He was also a student of Hebrew(12) as he deemed that knowledge of this language was necessary if one wished to advance one’s career in banking.

Schacht immediately set out to destroy Feder’s plans, which culminated in the latter’s removal from office in August 1934, after Schacht had been appointed head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

This tragic dismissal may be partially attributed to Hitler’s lack of a deep understanding of financial and economic matters. He admitted as much when he first met Feder in 1919,

“Thus the judgement arrived at by Gottfried Feder determined me to make a fundamental study of a question with which I had hitherto not been very familiar.”(13)

A somewhat attenuated version of monetary reform was introduced. In order to finance the state’s work and rearmament programs, two dummy corporations called Gesellschaft fuer Offentliche Arbeiten (Offa) and Metallforschung Gesellschaft (Mefo) were established. These corporations accepted bills of exchange from suppliers who fulfilled state orders. These bill of exchange were then discounted at the Reichsbank at a rate of 4 percent. They were issued for three months only, which was clearly unsatisfactory in view of the long-term nature of the various projects they were financing. They could, however, be extended at three monthly intervals for up to five years.

In January 1939 matters came to a head when Schacht refused extension of RM3 billion worth of Offa and Mefo bills, because of fears of “inflation”. On January 7, 1939, he sent Hitler the following memorandum:

“1) The Reich must spend only that amount covered by

2) Full financial control must be returned to the Ministry of Finance. (Then forced to pay for anything the army desired.)

3) Price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated.

4) The use of money and investment markets must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank. (This meant a practical elimination of Goering’s Four Year Plan)”(14)

By these means Schacht intended to collapse the German economy, which during the period 1933-39 had increased its gross national product by 100 percent. From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with over six million unemployed persons, Hitler had transformed Germany into a socialist paradise and the most powerful and prosperous state in the history of Europe. He angrily rejected the recommendations of the Reichsbank, describing them as “mutiny”.(15)

On January 19, 1939 he sacked the impudent lackey of international finance.(16) Without further ado he instructed the Reichsbank to issue all credits requested by the state. A form of Federgeld (Feder money) was now in circulation, although the bills of exchange still attracted nominal interest.

A new Reichsbank law, which was promulgated on June 15, 1939, made the bank “UNCONDITIONALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.”(17) Article 3 of the law decreed that the bank should be “directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.”(18) Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, suffer the same fate: an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country.

Events quickly unraveled. On March 31, 1939, Poland received a blank check(19) from England, which unilaterally offered to guarantee her sovereignty; not only if Germany invaded Poland, but also if Poland invaded Germany! This merely served to stiffen Polish resistance to Hitler’s genuine desire to achieve a permanent solution of all outstanding issues emanating from the Treaty of Versailles.

During the next five months the Polish government progressively intensified the oppression, harassment of and attacks on the 1.5 million ethnic Germans living in Poland. These attacks, in which over 58 000 German civilians were killed by Poles in an orgy of savagery, culminated in the Bromberg Massacre on September 3, 1939, in which 5 500 people were murdered. These provocations and atrocities were stoically ignored.(20) Eventually Hitler was forced to employ military intervention in order to protect the Germans in Poland.

On August 30, 1939, in an act of great statesmanship, Hitler again offered to the Poles the Marienwerder proposals,(21) namely retention of the existing 1919 borders, the return of Danzig (97% German), the construction of a 60-mile autobahn and rail link connecting West and East Prussia (from Schoenlanke to Marienwerder) and an exchange of German and Polish populations. On the orders of the international bankers, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, strongly advised the Poles NOT to negotiate. This is how and why World War II was started. The ensuing forced war resulted in victory for the international financiers and defeat and slavery for all the people of Europe.

Today the bankers reign supreme. The European Union with its commissars in Brussels and its so called “European” Central Bank headquartered in Frankfurt,(22) increasingly resembles the old Soviet Union. However, with the recent ongoing “sovereign” debt crisis and the collapse of the Euro, the plan for a united Europe anchored in perpetual debt enslavement has received a major setback and has indeed started to disintegrate.

Notwithstanding the inability of Adolf Hitler to permanently liberate Europe, it behooves us to appreciate that what he achieved was not done in vain. It is incumbent on us to learn and understand the fundamentals of usury and to spread that knowledge relentlessly, until our material and spiritual liberties have been restored.

End Notes

In 1917 Feder formed an organization called the Deutscher Kampfbund gegen Zinsknechtschaft (German Fighting League for the Breaking of Interest Slavery).

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Hurst and Blackett, London, 1922, 122. Ibid., 124.
Ibid., 124.
Gottfried Feder, The Program of the NSDAP, The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions, translated by E.T.S. Dugdale, Fritz Eher Verlag, Munich, 1932.
Ibid., 21.
Ibid., 25.
Ibid., 26.
Ibid., 27.
Ibid., 30.
Ibid., 43.
Roger Elletson, Monetary Parapometrics: A Case Study of the Third Reich, Christian International Publications, Wilson, Wyoming, 1982, 16.
Hitler, op.cit., 125.
Edward N. Peterson, Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler, The Christopher Publishing House, 179.
David Marsh, The Bundesbank: The Bank That Rules Europe, William Heinemann Ltd. London, 1992, 119.
David Irving, The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939, Macmillan, London, 1978, 172. Footnote: “Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, told the U.S. ambassador in London that Schacht was his constant informer over 16 years about Germany’s precarious financial position (U.S. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy reported this to Washington on February 27, 1939.)  In 1945, Norman tried to intercede for Schacht at Nuremberg through a fellow Freemason on the British prosecuting team, Harry Phillimore (Schacht was also a Freemason). The U.S. team flatly rejected Phillimore’s advances, but the British judge, Birkett, successfully voted for an acquittal.
Marsh, op.cit., 128
Marsh, op.cit., note 40, 300.
This was a check that was guaranteed to bounce, as England was only prepared to come to Poland’s aid in the event of a German or Polish invasion, but not one from the Soviet Union. The Poles were unaware of this circumscription. The Soviets took by far the larger portion of Poland viz. 77 300 square miles, as opposed to the 49 800 square miles acquired by Germany.
David L. Hoggan, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, California, 1989, Chap. 16, “The Terrified Germans of Poland”, 388-90 and The Lodz Riots, 4-7.
Das Letze Angebot (The Last Offer) in Verheimlichte Dokumente-Was den Deutschen verschwiegen wird, Fz-Verlag, Munich, 1993, 172-4. It contains all 16 points.
Mayer Anselm Rothschild (1743-1812) founded his banking empire in Frankfurt. He infamously counseled his five sons, “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”

[END]

The Western anti-German Narrative

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on October 30, 2011 Editor Ö Jim W. Dean

In our troubled times, it’s cool to bash to Germans. My enemies, of course, make German-bashing their favorite sports, but they can be forgiven because that’s in their nature as well as in their political interest.

However, sad to say, some of my best friends are German-bashers also.

Why? Don’t ask me. Because it is so easy? Just paint a mustache on anybody you don’t like ñ and presto! Sheeple Power! You can strut around with a halo. Few are the braves who’ll confront you and object.

It is no secret that I am on the war path against Sheeple Power. Today I launch the following two scholarly sorties ñ not written by me, I modestly hasten to add! ñ for those who strive for clarity of thought, no matter what the fall-out.

One is an excerpt from a website called www.germanviews.de/ . The commentary following that excerpt is brought to you courtesy of one of my favorite writers, the Canadian Ian Macdonald, a former diplomat par excellence and one-time anti-Sheeple columnist for the beleaguered Zundelsite.

Here goes:

The most common and widespread basis for hostility toward things German is what I call the Western anti-German narrative. In this ideology, which is spread by films, literature, and popular depictions of history, Germany has represented a danger for its neighbors in the past and still represents a potential danger.

For this reason, Germany must be fettered, disempowered and diluted because the German national character is anti-democratic, excessively obedient to established authority, collectivistic, violence-prone, warlike, genocidal, etc., etc. [ad nauseam!]

Otto von Bismark

Present day historians are generally too sophisticated to draw a clear and direct line between Luther, Frederick, Bismarck and Hitler, but the lingering effects of such propagandistic historiography are still quite noticeable today, expressed in the tendency to treat all German history as the prehistory of the Third Reich.

One cannot understand this concept of history unless one understands the historical context of the European civil war that has been raging since 1789.

This civil war is being fought by the adherents of three ideologies who constantly change their names, slogans and programs but still retain a recognizable identity and continuity.

We are dealing with two utopian and one non-utopian worldviews, Liberalism and Socialism on one hand and what is variously called Conservatism, Reaction or simply the Political Right on the other hand.

The utopian approach assumes the possibility of peaceful and civilized coexistence among mankind. This would not have to be a miracle, but is rather something that can come about as a matter of course. For this reason one does not have to examine and analyze the fundamentals of society itself; one can directly and immediately pursue the realization of paradise on earth, either through gradual reform or revolutionary violence.

The Utopian Ideologies Imply a Number of Assumptions

Firstly, utopian societies hold that man is by nature good. Social conditions such as inequality and lack of freedom are responsible for the existence of evil and must therefore be banished.

The approach of the political Right is that man is inadequate and weak and mired in original sin and must therefore rely on a social order for support. Therefore a certain measure of inequality and bondage must be accepted as necessary. The alternatives are not “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” but rather chaos, violence and barbarism.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

Secondly, Utopian ideologies hold that society can be rationally planned; its design is a matter of reason and enlightenment. The Right, by contrast, believes that what is traditional and established can be destroyed by criticism, but cannot be replaced by anything better through rational processes.

Examples of what cannot be replaced by rationalism are the concepts of family, faith, tradition and Fatherland.

Thirdly, Utopian societies hold that what is “Good” (such as Freedom and Equality) can be rationally inferred, thus the Good is culturally independent and universally valid.

They believe that mankind can be redeemed if the Utopia derived from Enlightenment principles can be globally introduced.

For Conservatives, on the other hand, each culture is a unique, unplanned and irreproducible response to the elementary question of whether an orderly society is possible. The Right emphasizes the legitimacy of the particular as opposed to the validity of universal ideology.

Fourthly, Utopian societies harbor the belief that society has to be defined and analyzed according to their standards.

These standards comprise a standpoint of norms rather than facts ñ thus “What Should Be” trumps “What Is.” They are derived from rights rather than duties.

The Utopian concept of society confuses itself with “Reason and Enlightenment” because it is built on unreal notions instead of imperfect reality, and thus mistakes itself for “The Good.”

The reason Utopia mistakes itself for “The Good” is because it proceeds from the assumption that Man himself is good, and this implies that “The Bad” resides in social structures and concepts including tradition, articles of faith, duty, etc. In their way of thinking, if the structures are bad the defenders of these structures must likewise be bad.

Attaining Enlightenment

The Utopian concept of society produces an apocalyptic concept of politics, according to which politics is a struggle between the powers of light and of darkness.

Consequently, war is not perceived as tragic and inescapable. It is perceived as justified when it is conducted for revolutionary aims and purposes. In that case, every atrocity is acceptable.

The Utopian concept perceives war as criminal when it is conducted for counterrevolutionary aims and purposes, and then the means by which it is conducted are not taken into consideration.

And what does all this have to do with hostility against all things German?

If we conceive of 20th Century wars as parts of a global ideological civil war, Germany obviously represents the Right. Germany could never accept the idea that wars are conducted in order to bring about “The Good Order” such as “War to End All War.” This Utopian idea results in an apocalyptic concept of politics.

The idea of “Good War” is part of the Utopian concept of the liberalist world order as pursued by the Western “democracies” as well as the variant of Communism pursued by the Soviet Union. The accusation that Germany was striving for world domination, which was put forward at the beginning of the 20th Century, would have been absurd even if not raised by the Anglo Saxon powers!

At every moment of the 19th and 20th centuries, those countries were infinitely closer to world domination than Germany ever was, and they continue to be so in the 21st Century.

Nations that were protected by insular geography have historically indulged in bold thinking ñ and thanks to this geography, have been able to pursue global expansionist policies.

Global Expansionist Policies

The liberal New World Order that appeared on the world stage before the First World War was also a fitting ideology for global Utopian thinking, since imperialistic power politics functioned as the armed branch of Utopia.

It is not true that one was merely a function of the other. Both aspects of Anglo Saxon (and particularly American) policy were aspects of one and the same understanding of politics.

By contrast, Germany traditionally represented institutionalized counter-revolution.

Globalist Utopian thinking was alien to the German power elite, since they faced the reality of governing a state that was constantly threatened from the inside as well as the outside.

Their political horizon was continental as opposed to insular, and so they were concerned with the consolidation of what actually existed.

The Reich did indeed adopt liberal, democratic and even socialistic ideas ñ consider the Bismarckian social legislation. However, it did so only on condition that these ideas would consolidate the existing order. The door was open for socialistic ideas to develop, but they would never be allowed to destroy the existing order.

This political concept (renunciation of revolutionary or utopian policies) determined the policies not only of conservatives, but of the Liberals as well, and ultimately even the policies of the Social Democrats. The tendency to think in revolutionary and utopian terms was simply alien to Germany ó it was too weak and exposed to attempt changing the world order or to entertain ideas of world conquest.

However, Germany was at least potentially strong enough to bring Europe into its sphere of influence and thus block establishment of a New World Order; and if Europe were going to be true to its name, it would have to do likewise.

The First Thirty Years War

The war against Germany, which, as Winston Churchill observed, was in fact a Thirty Years War lasting from 1914 ñ 1945, was obviously not fought in response to any “crimes” committed by the National Socialists.

Instead, the Thirty Year War Against Germany was fought to force Europe into the liberalist-utopian world order and the Anglo Saxon sphere of control.

Germany did not subscribe to any grandiose principle that it wanted to make real.

It was a nation rooted in concrete reality whose order and goals was derived not from utopian designs but practical necessity.

The Germans had no abstract loyalty toward liberal or “democratic” ideals, and this is what brought on the propagandistic accusation of being excessively obedient. Germany did not pretend to be fighting for universal bliss, therefore it had to defend interests that were defined not ideologically but rather ethnically.

Germany’s enemies construed this as “nationalism.” In fact, Germany championed communal values instead of individual entitlements. (Ö) Communal ideals are operative only when they are anchored in genuine emotions, the source of the clichÈ of German “romanticism” and “irrationality.”

The Thinker

In short, the facts that the Germans were different and thought differently from the Anglo Saxons and that they had no sense of Utopia, but rather represented a danger for its global realization, made them the principal enemy figure for Western Utopian thinking.

The clichÈs about the German national character represent the distorted and demagogically biased description of tendencies and dispositions that actually were (and still are) present. These clichÈs were indispensable because a country like Germany could not afford globalistic Utopianism.

As we see today, Germany still cannot afford it. Whether the Anglo Saxon peoples themselves can continue to afford it remains to be seen Ö

(Compiled and excerpted from notes of a speech given before the Berlin Institute for State Policy on the subject of “Hostility Towards Germans ñ An Appraisal” last summer by Manfred Kleine-Hartlage. Translated by James M. Damon. Full text www.german-views.de/Ö/hostility-towards-germans-part-i-the-anti-german- narrative-in-the-west/ )

What does that mean in today’s Utopian thinking with its corollary of fervent German-bashing, where it is almost seen as “normal” that institutional torture is an acceptable means to an end ñ or, worse, that it is quite okay to “liberate” a downtrodden people on the other side of the globe by lynching its titular head in full view of some cheering folks on the Net?

I am speaking of tangible costs, as summarized by my friend, Ian Macdonald:

Ian MacDonald

America’s participation in [World War II] is seen as having been undertaking for the defense of Western Christian civilization.

[ People accept] without question the thesis that Hitler and the Nazis had to be stopped ñ lest “we all end up in concentration camps” or worse, under the heel of a ferocious dictator and his sinister Gestapo. Such was the temper of the times.

[There was no awareness] that there could be a much more menacing evil afoot, even though some coverage was given to the Soviet invasion of Finland and the Nazi-Soviet pact that expanded Stalin’s bloodthirsty rule into Poland and the Baltic countries where thousands died at the hands of anti-Christian Kommissars, many tortured to death and their families sent to Siberia in sealed box cars.

It was the festering resentment of the misery caused (Ö) that set the stage for the emergence in the ëtwenties of an inspiring populist Fuehrer, promising to restore German honor and dignity, and the German economy, by the retrieval of its conquered territories.

Like most other media, the [Western media] glamourized the war, helping to persuade hundreds of thousands of young men, including the writer, to lust for the opportunity to get into action, preferably in the RCAF even when, for a time, the chance of survival in Bomber Command was slim, at best.

Creating enthusiasm for martyrdom was a challenge shared by the [media] with the Government (who controlled the news) and with almost all Canadian institutions of learning, especially high schools where morning assemblies featured patriotic songs most every day and teenage volunteers were accorded virtual hero status.

A Young Volunteer

Combining such inducements with the stigma of cowardice for malingerers ensured the Armed Forces of a steady flow of volunteers and enabled the Government to postpone the introduction of politically-unpalatable conscription for overseas service that had created fury in Quebec in World War I.

Servicemen and women who emerged from the conflict unscathed, typically referred to their experience as the most exciting and meaningful of their lives, and except for the loss of comrades, the most satisfying.

The pride of being part of the Big Show, the camaraderie among new friends from all classes, the defiance of death, the admiration of the public, the girls who couldn’t resist a uniform (thousands of whom were taken home as war brides), the travel to Britain and the battle zones, the mastery of new skills, and above all the supreme satisfaction of having defended one’s family and one’s country successfully against a ruthless enemy intent on destroying our democracy, our freedom, and our basic human rights, turned ordinary young men into warriors.

THE HITLER REGIME has passed from the scene, as have most participants in the war it so vividly and optimistically portrayed, leaving survivors to wonder how a Good War and Total Victory could have brought such calamity and so tragically betrayed the trusting patriots who had dedicated, and often lost, their lives in rallying to the defense of Freedom.

It is now clear that the celebrated Allied Victory did not save Western Christian Civilization as promised, but precipitated its demise.

There is even good reason to doubt that the case for making war was ever sufficiently plausible and compelling to justify the inevitable horrendous sacrifice, especially coming on the heels of the Great War (“to end all war”) that already had stripped both the Allied nations and Germany of many of their best and brightest, and, in most cases, of the victims’ priceless progeny. (Ö)

"Endless Crosses I did See..."

Very few had the insight, integrity and courage to challenge the ostensible purpose of the war or to recount the hideous atrocities committed on Germans during and after the fighting, let alone the authenticity of the “victory” for the democracies.

Few dared to elucidate on the disastrous geopolitical repercussions and eclipse of European power.

In retrospect, the [media], with the best of intentions and in tune with the times, appears to have accepted the Hollywood version of German intentions, and along with the entire country, acceded to the most monstrous contrived miscalculation in history, carried out against the best interests of the British Commonwealth and Western democracies.

Britons and Canadians were led to believe that their German kinfolk, who held no animosity towards them, were the enemy who threatened their freedom, when in fact the enemy was the atheistic Soviet regime whose bloodthirsty Kommissars had liquidated, by 1939, at least 20 million Christians and was intent on subjugating Europe at the earliest opportunity. Germany offered the sole effective defense against such a fearful prospect.

Germany, astutely and persistently but with increasing frustration, sought peace with Britain in order to concentrate on eliminating the imminent Soviet threat but, on Churchill’s orders, the generous “peace with honor” proposals were rejected out of hand, sounding the death knell for tens of millions, including 45 thousand young Canadians..

The same Churchill, when shortly after the destruction of Germany the Soviet threat quickly re-emerged, quipped flippantly to an Aide “It looks like we slaughtered the wrong pig!”.

Britain and Canada were soon in a military alliance with Germany, but it was a decade too late. The hostile Soviet Union had already enslaved Eastern and Central Europe, the Baltic countries. Poland, the country whose independence Britain had ostensibly gone to war to defend from Hitler, was cynically delivered into the bloodstained clutches of a far more sinister and malevolent dictator.

On the Outside - Looking In

Even more ominous was the invasion, occupation and sacrilegious militarisation of Palestine, the Christian Holy Land, by ruthless Zionist Jews, a part of the “tiny remnant” of East European Jewry who had “miraculously escaped extermination in the gas chambers” of what is now described as The Holocaust.

The Star Weekly made scant reference to the implications of this impending European colonization in the Middle East, nor to the oppressive colonization of Germany and Eastern Europe and, perhaps caught up in the euphoria of “Victory”, was content to accept the widespead prognosis of a Brave New World and lasting peace.

Other newsworthy issues and anomalies even more studiously ignored by the Star Weekly were the identity of the sinister forces behind the inexplicable decision to declare war on Germany alone when both Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September, l939 (no less illogical than the subsequent refusal of the Churchill government to accept an honorable peace).

The rationale for making war was not widely debated at the time, partly because of censorship and self-censorship by the media, but it is difficult to imagine that the issue did not loom large in the minds of all knowledgeable observers who had the best interests of their country at heart, who knew the true meaning of war and wondered whose interests were served.

An early vigorous campaign by the media against the Unnecessary War, based on self-interest, patriotism and common sense, could well have changed the course of history.

Dangerous Realignments

In the dangerous realignments of the immediate post-war era, the miscalculations of Allied “statesmen” became clear; the most calamitous being the designation of our Christian European ethnic and cultural German kin-folk as the “enemy”.

In fact, Germany was our natural ally, just as the atheistic, genocidal anti-Christian Stalin dictatorship was our natural enemy.

Making war on Germany ensured that Communism (and Zionism) would triumph, and that British and European importance in world affairs would decline accordingly.

With the strengthening of Soviet influence by the communist victory and occupation in Europe, the communist takeover in China was a foregone conclusion, as was the further extension of communism and revolt into the former Japanese, British, French and Dutch colonies, ultimately causing the death of untold millions, including thousands of Allied soldiers who died in Korea and Vietnam.

In the Middle East the outcome of the misguided, fratricidal war against Germany was no less disastrous, leading to the dispossession and cultural genocide of an entire nation and brutal desecration of the Christian Holy Land.

Worse still was the subversion and corruption of the Christian democracies leading to perpetual strife in Palestine and bloody invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S.A. (Ö)

WHAT IF HITLER HAD WON?

Might There Have Been Brighter Days?

Could there have been a more palatable outcome than the Pyrrhic victory? “What if Hitler had won?” ñ a rhetorical question asked usually to evoke shivers of horror among listeners.

But if Germany had won, arguably the world would by now be a much better and safer place.

And the “what if” is not nearly as far-fetched as Allied propagandists would have us believe. Germany certainly would have won if Britain and France, and eventually America, had acted in their own obvious best interests and remained neutral or entered the war on Germany’s side.

An Anglo-German alliance was by no means a total implausibility given that the immensely popular pro-German King Edward VIII would have remained on the throne had it not been for the fateful intervention of the seductive Wallis Warfield Simpson (described as a “god-send” by the vengeful pro-war lobby).

As King, Edward VIII could have kept war-weary Britain from declaring war on Germany and, following German success on the Eastern Front against the universally-hated Stalin dictartorship, could have brought Britain into a NATO-style alliance of anti-communist European nations (as took place in any event a few years later).

In such circumstances a grateful, friendly Germany could have guaranteed the integrity and survival of the British Empire, which Hitler much admired.

The Fate of Many - Held in the Hand of One

What if then our German anti-communist coalition had liberated the Soviet Union and reconstituted its components as semi-autonomous states under German hegemony? Surely then the Stalinist threat to freedom would have been eliminated for the foreseeable future.

Had events followed such a favorable course, almost a certainly had Edward VIII remained as King, the outlook for Western Christian civilization would now be decidedly less ominous and control of our destiny would have remained securely in our own hands.

Had Britain not been deceived and betrayed into war with Germany, with whom she had no authentic quarrel, there would have been no Second World War, tens of millions of lives would have been spared, priceless European architecture would not have been destroyed, Europe would have been united under German leadership, international communism would have become a footnote in history.

What Could There Have Been - If, if, if....?

Trillions of dollars could have been used for the betterment of mankind, the environment could have been protected, the Cold War would have been forestalled, (along with the Korean and Vietnamese wars and communist sponsored revolutions elsewhere).

Six Million or more Jews would have been harmlessly ensconsed in a tropical paradise, there would have been peace and justice in the Middle East, China would have evolved along Taiwanese lines under capitalism, sharing with Japan and the Colonial Powers influence over S.E. Asia.

There would have been no UN meddling, no Third World turmoil, no “refugee” migrations, no deprivation of freedom in the name of “human rights”, no Affirmative Action, no asinine Political Correctness and, above all, no subversion and corruption of Western society and the democratic political process by a cunning, avaricious alien minority.

Terror and Torture: Made in America

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on November 21, 2011

Dictators and Depots I Have Known

From an admittedly skewed perspective of my very young, impressionable years, I’d like to shine a brief spotlight on four twentieth century dictatorships I have personally known.

Stalin first. I was too little to have witnessed his brutalities first-hand in the Ukraine where I was born to German-descent parents.

But I heard plenty of stories about the artificial famine of the mid-Thirties where the death-cart passed each day along the street to pick up the dead by the wayside.

Seven million are said to have perished.

My young parents, then still single, were students in a teachers’ college in Odessa. A particularly poignant story I heard all my life is that my father came courting my mother each evening with a handful of beans in his pocket.

Imagine Beans as a Sole Diet

They would soak them overnight on the windowsill and cook their only meal of the day in the morning. I was born the following year. I suspect that had it not been for the beans in my father’s pockets, you wouldn’t be reading my missives in Veterans Today.

My father was arrested six years later by the Soviet Torquemadas. Every male age 14 and over was arrested in our German-descent town in the early days of September 1941, only weeks before Hitler’s Wehrmacht arrived and drove the tormentors away.

My father’s “crime”? Being German. We never saw him again. He never saw a “Nazi” in his life.

Hitler next: I know that most of my readers have a different view of history from mine. I won’t pontificate here about the power of decades of relentless atrocity tales about what the “monster of monsters” allegedly did ñ or at least ordered.

Let me just say that, having been raised in a pacifist setting of Germans of Russian descent in a religious community deep in the Paraguayan jungle, I was well into my thirties when it dawned on me that Hitler was perceived by most of what passes as the “civilized world” to be a ghoul who used to chew on a carpet in his rage against the Jews ñ and not the trustworthy liberator that I and my people experienced.

 

General Stroessner of Paraguay.

He came to power when I was still a teenager and ruled, I believe, for 30-plus years in a moderate fashion.

Not so in the beginning. I heard he made short shrift of same obstreperous liberal padres of the Catholic Church by throwing them into a tiger cage, thus crushing any serious opposition.

The simple paisanos loved Don Alfredo Stroessner to abandon. I glimpsed him only once, in 1984, when I went back to the places of my youth.

As he did each Thursday afternoon, there he walked the streets with a handful of cronies on the way to a hotel to play a game of cards. He had no bodyguards, and people greeted him without pretense as you might greet a neighbor.

Stroessner disliked and distrusted his own son, Gustavo, a not-too-bright spoiled brat. Legend has it that when he fell mortally ill, he masterminded his own benign revolution to get himself deposed to assure a successor to his liking.

His place was taken briefly his son-in-law ñ who died shortly thereafter ñ I was told, in New York hospital. Mean conspiracy buffs claim he was killed.

General Peron of Argentina. More or less the same story in terms of unreserved admiration by the populace. His wife, Evita, was worshiped like a goddess for her activism on behalf of her “descamisados” ñ the Shirtless Ones.

She helped arrange “aguinaldo” ñ at Christmas, all employees in Argentina received an extra month’s pay.

At age 17, I experienced only the end of Peron’s popular rule. A personal insight why it ended came to me by accident.

I worked at the time as a maid for a well-to-do Argentine family who, I found out much later, were personal car-racing buddies of the Perons.

As I was serving food at a small family dinner one evening, I overheard one of them say:

“Well, he finished off la rubia (the Blond One)” ñ and there were guffaws all around. A week later, Evita’s “terminal cancer” was announced, and after another few weeks, she was supposed to have succumbed.

Ever since, Argentina has been in the clutches of the banksters.

The four gents above were unabashed dictators. They didn’t hide behind “democracy” ñ as “democratic” governments these days are wont to do as they rain terror on civilians.

From the perspective of a simple youth caught in the juggernaut of a world war and brutal postwar struggles for survival, in my book only Stalin was to be feared.

Ever heard of the “School of Americas”- the place where torturers were trained in Fort Benning, Georgia? The following press release was sent to me last night:

SOA Watch ñ info@soaw.org

Solemn voices lifted up the spirits of those killed by graduates of the School of the Americas and filled the air as the music team sang out their names from the stage during this morning’s funeral procession in front of the entrance to Fort Benning. The crowd of thousands responded, “PRESENTE!”

Joining actor Martin Sheen on stage this weekend was Georgia NAACP State President Edward DuBose, who told the crowd many had asked him why he’d come here.

“I made a promise to Troy Anthony Davis that I would continue to speak out against any system that takes any innocent life,” DuBose told the crowd. “However long it takes, we’ll be here. We’re on this road until justice is served!”

United Auto Workers President Bob King also addressed the gathering, lifting up the voice of organized labor standing in solidarity with workers all across the Americas.

Social movement leaders from Colombia, Haiti, Honduras and Costa Rica joined the thousands of activists who made the trek to this year’s vigil. Jimena Paz, who helped organize the SOA Watch Encuentro in Venezuela, and who, as a young member of the Honduran Resistance, has lost friends to the SOA-led repression campaign, shared her compelling story from the stage.

Dr. Luther Castillo, a young, Afro-indigenous Garifuna doctor and community organizer, directs the foundation For the Health of Our People (“Luagu Hatuadi WaduheÒu” in the Garifuna language), and is the founder and director of the First Popular Garifuna Hospital of Honduras.

Exposing the effects of SOA training of Honduran soldiers since the 2009 graduate-led military coup, Luther shared that he and the hospital have been subject to many threats of closure and other attacks by the military and coup government.

Jani Silva, a community organizer from La Perla Amazonica, Putumayo, Colombia, addressed the reality of US foreign policy in her country, which has sent more than 10,000 soldiers to be trained at the SOA with chilling results.

Mario Joseph, a prominent Haitian human rights lawyer, is representing political prisoners and victims of political violence in Haiti. He spoke from the stage, urging solidarity with Haitian struggle to keep the army from being brought back.

Also present among those giving testimony to SOA violence was Nelly del Cid, one of the Feminists in Resistance in Honduras. She shared her deep concerns about the huge number of femicides since the coup.

Costa Rican lawyer and peace advocate Luis Roberto Zamora also gave updates about the lawsuit he filed against the Costa Rican government for sending police to the School of the Americas/WHINSEC.

Theresa Cusimano, 43, of Denver, Colorado, crossed the line for the second time following the morning’s solemn funeral procession. She was arrested by military police and faces up to six months in prison. Stay tuned for a message from Theresa!

Editing: Jim W. Dean

Faurisson: The Poor Man’s Atom Bomb

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on March 15, 2012

Even though this article was written almost four years ago, it is still timely today. I am posting it for two reasons:

First, as explanation why we keep paying so much at the pump, and secondly ñ and much more importantly ñ because there is a rather cavalier attitude afoot even among our most savvy and well-informed dissident comrades, that one still has the luxury of tiptoeing around the “Holocaust” so as not to trigger a volley of verbal spitballs from well-known thought-policing quarters.

Vicious character assassination is a Weapon of Mass Destruction in and of itself, targeting not only individuals but whole groups that are perceived to be inimical to political interests. There is ample justification to fear targeted character assassination ñ but only because it rides on our willingness to allow it to be used.

Why grant the enemies of Freedom of Speech such an assist?

A perfect example is what has happened to the jazz musician Gilad Atzman. He is an Israeli. He is famous. He is ethical. I would call him liberal in the classical sense. He has many friends in places where it counts. Yet nothing protects him once he decided to fearlessly tackle El Gran Taboo!

Why is that? Only because people fear verbal spitballs?

Here goes:

Geostrategic effects of Revisionism: the Iranian lesson by Dr. Robert Faurisson

The energy crisis is causing worry. However, Iran, which possesses huge reserves of oil and gas, wishes to exploit them better, with our help, and sell us the products, a procedure that would lead to a marked softening of worldwide petrol, diesel, fuel oil and gas prices. A good many nations have an eye on this great potential wealth and would be apt to respond favourably to Tehran’s business proposals.

But the United States has decreed the boycott of Iran and, up to now, the world’s policeman has generally been obeyed. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can make all the proposals he likes: he still finds himself considered a criminal. His request for a collaboration that would let him fully re-equip the country’s drilling, production and processing operations is refused. He goes so far as to suggest that countries using the single European currency pay in euros and no longer in dollars, but to no avail. People turn their back to him. Some threaten him. Even the Pope refuses to receive him.

In many countries, his embassies and diplomatic staff are deprived of contact with the local authorities and foreign delegations; they have ended up with pariah status. One may well ask oneself where such radical behaviour towards the Iranians ever originated and why the international community acts so obviously against its own economic interests.

Three grounds are usually brought up to explain this policy of boycott and open hostility: 1) the Iranian president is perhaps trying to arm his country with nuclear weapons; 2) it seems he wants to exterminate the Jews in Israel; 3) he holds the extermination of the European Jews during the Second World War to be a myth. The first two grounds do not make much sense; only the third is serious and, for that reason, instructive.

In reply to the first ground, it’s fitting to observe that if Ahmadinejad’s accusers possessed the slightest evidence that Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, such evidence would long since have been brandished before the world; however, up to now, they have supplied no real evidence and, in any case, if Iran had a nuclear bomb at her disposal, she could not launch it towards a geographic zone populated by as many Palestinians as Jews; her bomb would kill or maim both populations without distinction.

The second ground rests on the absurd manipulation of a text. Ahmadinejad has had and continues to have ascribed to him an incendiary statement according to which the Jewish State is to be “wiped off the map”, words taken to mean the extermination of the Jews in Israel.

Actually, he’d merely repeated in 2005 Ayatollah Khomeyni’s 1979 declaration that “the regime [in Persian, “rezhime”] occupying Al Qods [Jerusalem]” would one day “vanish from the page of time”. Ahmadinejad took care to spell out his phrase by specifying that, if all the inhabitants of the land of Palestine ñ Moslems, Jews and Christians ñ had the right one day to vote freely and opt for a regime of their choice, the Zionist regime would disappear from Palestine just as, for example, the Communist regime disappeared from Russia. The Western media, as a whole, have reported neither the exact wording nor the explanation.

The third ground is the true one: if the Iranian president causes so much fear, it’s owing to his revisionism. He has wielded the sole weapon that can deeply worry the Jewish State and its ally, the United States. He possesses what I’ve called the poor man’s atomic weapon. In the findings of historical revisionism he effectively holds a “device of mass destruction” that would kill no-one but could neutralise Israel’s number one political weapon: the Great Lie of the alleged Nazi gas chambers and the alleged genocide of Europe’s Jews.

Raised in the religion of “the Holocaust”, the peoples of North America and Europe generally believe in this Great Lie and see Ahmadinejad as a heretic; thus they dare not defend any policy of rapprochement with Iran, or call for a lifting of the boycott, although therein lies the only chance of seeing their energy costs decrease. Doubtless some of these peoples’ leaders desire an understanding with Iran, but they back away at the prospect of being criticised as accomplices of the new Satan, of the “denier”, the “negationist” who “kills the Jews once again by denying their death”.

The news of the international “Holocaust” conference in Tehran (December 11th ñ 12th 2006) rang out like a warning shot. By no means reserved to revisionists, that conference was open to all. Confrontation of opposing views was allowed, and it took place. The rout of the antirevisionists was dramatic. And President Ahmadinejad, already fully apprised of revisionist argumentation, was thus able to restate that “the Holocaust” was a myth.

Bush, Blair, Chirac, who know nothing of revisionism, responded by making a terrible fuss. As for the Israelis, they are aware of the Jewish authors’ utter inability to answer revisionist arguments on the scientific level; they now uphold their Great Lie only with Elie Wiesel-style fake testimony or cinematic guff in the manner of Claude Lanzmann, when they don’t resort to novels, drama or even sham museum exhibitions like those at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem or the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. They have therefore seized the occasion to draw up a bill in the Knesset that would let the State of Israel demand that any revisionist, wherever in the world he might be, be delivered to its own courts! When there’s no proof to show, the cudgel is used.

The Zionists and their friends are getting more and more alarmed at the diffusion of revisionism over the Internet. They make many attempts, cynical or veiled, to strengthen Internet censorship but, up to today at any rate, they have not yet achieved their aims. Throughout the Western world repression of revisionism is worsening, but it’s all a waste of effort so far. The holocaustic propaganda and Shoah Business grow ever more deafening, but henceforth they tend to annoy or tire people.

Revisionism has long been an intellectual adventure, experienced by a certain number of academics, researchers and various other persons ready to sacrifice their lives or their tranquillity for the defence of historical truth, and of justice. Today, revisionism is becoming, on the international plane, a noticeable bone of contention; it is asserted by some and violently denounced by others, and is present even in certain political or economic altercations. It is destined to play no small role in the endless crisis in the Middle East as well as in the current energy crisis. For the powerful, it will constitute a threat and, for others, a way out. In any case, the times when revisionism could be treated with contempt or quite simply ignored are decidedly past.
June 5, 2008

Demonization: The Lobby’s Resourceful Weapon of War

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on November 19, 2012

Silencing One Man - Why is it So Important

 by   Ingrid Rimland Zundel

After four assassination attempts - some traced to Jewish perps, some self-admitted in phone calls to a beholden media - Ernst Zundel spoke for the record, for all the world to hear:

 

YouTube - Veterans Today -

This clip, as well as the one right below, are part of Ernst’s piËce de rÈsistance, taken from an interview conducted by an Israeli Journalist in 1998, three years after the Zundel-Haus was burned down on the 50th anniversary of Germany’s surrender to the Allies:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

The full interview has been on the Net for more than two years, and I have yet to hear a serious objection.

Some of my best friends, lamentably, are Holocaust Enforcers. By that I don’t mean that they wish for yet another Holocaust on G-d’s Own Chosen Tribe - they merely grant the yammerers a nod of courtesy to their creative version, so near and dear to Stephen Spielberg and his ilk.

And then there are those pesky folks, some in my orbit also, who will heave the Leuchter Report in your face. Fred Leuchter is the one who caught the Zundel Taint when he mistakenly assumed truth could be used a defense in 1988 in Canada and testified accordingly in Ernst Zundel’s Second Great Holocaust Trial.

Fred used to be America’s most competent, handsomely paid government expert witness of gas chamber execution equipment used in years past in our fair land to do away with criminals beyond redemption.

Before he could say Mauschwitz, a barrage of the most vicious political demonization demolished Fred’s highly regarded career - I understand now he is driving a school bus.

What happened? What always happens in political trials of this sort. When Fred tried to testify about what he had found - or, better, not found - during a fact-finding expedition to Auschwitz - a red-faced Judge took cover behind “judicial notice”, thus throwing a perfectly sane but politically incorrect defense overboard.

In legal parlance, “judicial notice” means you can’t question the “obvious” on fear of professional ruin - such as that Monday follows Sunday, or that the moon hangs in the sky by unseen threads as one of the Almighty’s ornaments.

Here is what Leuchter had to say about his derailed testimony in a follow-up interview with one of Ernst attorneys, Kirk Lyons:

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Five minutes of plain common sense by an experienced, court-certified expert whose testimony used to carry weight in any other trial - except in a trial challenging Auschwitz! That’s really all it takes to grasp the kindergarten ABCs of a forensic finding - is it not?

I wish!

Despite Fred’s testimony, given under oath, that ought to have shaken the world to its core and reigned in the power of Abe’s Blocksman Brigade, most worthy individuals in our Western world will have nothing to do with Ernst Zundel who started it all by sending Fred Leuchter to Auschwitz. It is a sight to see how folks recoil, should they encounter a Denier.

If they can’t get away because those irritating Holocaust Negationists, as they are called in France, insist on facts versus dogma, a few invectives placed expertly will strangle a heresy neatly. Most of the time, that settles it. A sure-fire moral victory.

If all else fails because those Deniers are known to be stubborn and dig in their heels, the Holocaust Enforcers likewise know their Pappenheimers, as the Germans like to say - their mawkish media pack - who will play fast and loose with those who dare question “the obvious”.

Here is an early demonization cartoon that appeared in the Edmonton Journal when the Canadian Lobby’s Hate Campaign first gathered speed like a political tornado to get the world’s best-known “Denier of the Obvious” deported and out of the way. We’re talking 1985:

Boy, did they try! Did those sick monsters ever try!

And why did they succeed? They counted on the rings in people’s noble noses. As Ernst found out to his dismay, Canadians who ought to have used a few brain cells to put two and two together are passionate nose ring wearers. Those rings are made-to-order trinkets for Beings Sans Spine - the world’s BSSs, in short. Abe gives it a yank - and BSSs dance!

Were I not such a Lady of Decorum, I would use ber words than “spine”, but I control myself. My point is this: Abe’s energetic marketing campaign is targeting a lot of spineless Gentiles who wouldn’t hurt a fly but who are strangely keen to parade around with their nose rings.

Those rings can come in handy. They can make you shed tears on command. Unless you shed a few tears for hapless Fuehrer victims, it’s easy for some folks to reckon that you, too, might be a flaming Nutzy.

That’s how it’s done. You literally twist yourself into a Boy Scouts’ knot to prove that you are not one of those horrid creatures of the past. You curse the Fuehrer loudly, for the entire neighborhood to hear. The Weasel is the Apple of Your Eye.

Caught in the fervor of your own self-righteousness, you even curse the White Supremacists, the Southern Radicals, the dubious Ron Paulites, the Hitlerites who have their brazen get-togethers in Iran. For good measure, you also curse Zundel, with spittle flying every which way.

You may not see it that way, but thanks to that ring in your nose, Abe deftly signed you up as an active member of his Blocksman Hate Campaign - and it doesn’t cost Abe a single stripped shekel! You fight his war for him. How’s that for ingenuity?

_________________________________________

Most people think of Hitler Bashing as a sport, or, better yet, a deferential social standard that earns you brownie points. It is not seen as groveling to Israel. It is as automatic as a response to an itch in your nostrils at allergy time. Bless you!

By contrast, Holocaust Denial - now, that is serious business. That calls for Moral Outrage. If you know what is good for your career, you up and kick the Fuehrer in the shin on cue - and presto: You are a Righteous Gentile. A tree is planted in your name in Israel. You are entitled to the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

That’s where we are today. An avaricious industry has managed to implant nose rings in myriads of Beings Sans Spines, which they cannot dislodge without bleeding.

Not all is lost, however. Every once in a while, resistance self-asserts. If you still have a conscience, you might sense there is something within you that doesn’t feel right.

You surmise you may have been had, but you don’t rightly know, and you’d like to find out. After all, you have been lied to in the past, more times than you can count - Pearl Harbor, JFK, the Golf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, Oklahoma City, 9/11, the Dancing Israelis.

A tiny doubt pops into your brain: “Can it be? Was I also deceived about Auschwitz?” And there you are, a puny Righteous Gentile, half-heartedly trying to get to the bottom of who is really doing what to whom - and other politically incorrect passions.

And guess what? You are shocked right out of your socks. You find yourself in an undeclared war with a swarm of Abe’s swashbuckling nose rings wearers. Abe is a mega-man, believed to have unlimited resources, subservient friends in all the corridors of power - and you? You merely asked a few questions. Yet scores of nose ring wearing friends attack you with the fiercest, most filthiest abuse.

This used to be America, you argue. There used to be such a thing as Free Speech. Are you not a dues-paying member of the ACLU? Are not your closest friends Ö etcetera? The last thing in the world you wanted to become is to Ö is to Öbecome - “hutschoooo!” - a dreaded Holocaust Denier!

I say that hordes of BSSs with rings in noble noses are an impediment to social sanity.

________________________________

I am not even arguing the merits versus the demerits of what Fred Leuchter unearthed decades ago in one of my husband’s Holocaust Trials.That has been done to countless scientists’ satisfaction - and any BSS can spend a weekend reading up on it or listening to DVDs, if he wants to get rid of that itch in his nose and stop sneezing.

Why not beef up a bit on not only Fred Leuchter’s forensic results but what others with flawless credentials have long since found out? No gassing. No budget. No Fuehrer genocidal plan. It’s all on the Net - for the asking.

You might yet conclude that Abe’s ring in your nose is not exactly an adornment. Some people have already. You wouldn’t be alone.

_________________________________

I am a kiddie shrink by training. I realize that even grown-up people have odd psychological needs that can be satisfied with Hitler Bashing. I understand there’s applause to be had from fellow nose ring wearers.

All that! That’s not where Ernst and I are coming from, and why we so emphatically object.

For us and ever more of our Truth Batallion comrades, it’s painfully embarrassing to watch grown people we otherwise like and respect to dance to Abe’s tune for no reason.

We long for a small modicum of chivalry against a thoroughly defeated and long dead opponent of yore.

We don’t indulge in kicking a dead Stalin in the shin, though he deserves it plenty.

For me, specifically, this arbitrary Hitler Bashing Business is costly on a personal level - because the man I love and respect has paid a hefty price. Next to the long-dead Fuehrer, Ernst Zundel is probably the most reviled and persecuted dissident on earth. What hurts me most - a lot! - is when madcap disparagement comes from my friends.

And odd though it may seem, what with my Axis ancestry, I do have cherished friends on Veterans Today and elsewhere. That is why I decided to go on a public relations campaign against humbug.

What do you really know about Ernst? And what do you know about Hitler - except what Abe Blocksman has drilled into your brain?

If you can spare an hour of your life on a quiet Sunday afternoon, you might want to acquaint yourself with what unopposed political demonization can do - kidnap one-tenth of an moral man’s life in a futile attempt to quash truth-telling. Check out how Ernst defied his enemies - by refusing to let his spirit be broken.

Imperium - Then as Now

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on November 24, 2012

 

The words below were written in 1948 by a young man known to the dissident world as Francis Parker Yockey. A very brief bio sketch here from the Introduction of Imperium, written by Willis Carto of the American Free Press:

From earliest childhood, Yockey was recognized for his prodigious abilities, and resented for them by many. History may reveal that the combination of originality and high intelligence in rare individuals is essential for human progress, but we mortals find these qualities more admired in biographies than in classmates, friends, and underlings.

Yockey was a concert-level pianist; he was a gifted writer. He studied languages and became a linguist. As a lawyer, he never lost a case. He had an extraordinary grasp of the world of finance - and this is surprising, for we learn that in his philosophy, economics is relegated to a relatively unimportant position. And it is as a philosopher that Yockey reached the summit; it is this for which he will be remembered; he was a man of incredible vision. (Ö)

Like the great majority of Americans, Yockey opposed American intervention in the Second World War. Nevertheless, he joined the army and served until 1942 when he received a medical discharge (honorable).

The next few years were spent in the practice of law, first in Illinois and subsequently in Detroit, where he was appointed Assistant County Attorney for Wayne County, Michigan.

In 1946, Yockey was offered a job with the war crimes tribunal and went to Europe. He was assigned to Wiesbaden, where the “second string” Nazis were lined up for trial and punishment.

The Europe of 1946 was a war-ravaged continent, not the prosperous land we know today. Viewing the carnage, and seeing with his own eyes the visible effects of the unspeakable Morgenthau Plan which had at its purpose the starvation of 30 million Germans, and which was being put into effect at that time, he no doubt found ample reinforcement for his conviction that American involvement in the war had been a ghastly mistake. And feeling the might of the sinister power in the East, he might well have wondered whose interests were being served by such a victory.”

Does this sound familiar to what we see today? To make a tragic story short, let’s just repeat what hostle media reported: that Yockey committed suicide while still a young man in a San Franciso jail. In the opinion of many who knew him, it is far more likely that he was suicided by those who feared exposure.

Many view Yockey today as a political genius; not a few call him a seer. Imperium is his masterpiece.

Although more than six decades have passed, what Yockey wrote in 1948 - that fateful time when Europe lay in ruins and Israel ascended like an evil spirit from its ashes - fits even more today.

Here’s what Yockey tells us in his Epilog:

“Millions are starving in Europe as I write this, and no one in the outer world concerns itself with it. Other millions are living in a sub-human condition in gaols, those who have not yet been hanged. The power in Europe today is held by two kinds of men: Cultural aliens, and traitors.

Can a Civilization die thus? Will two formless powers be able to strangle a Culture, starve and dispense its population?

[Imperium] is an expression of my belief that they cannot, that the inscrutable force of Destiny will prevail over outer forces as well as against the inner obstacle of the past. Precisely at the moment when their victory seems full-blown and permanently secured, Europe begins to stir.

Widened and chastened by tragedy, defeat, and catastrophe, the Western soul is emerging from the ruins, unbroken in its will, and purer in its spiritual unity than ever before. The great dream and aim of Leibnitz, the uniting of all the States of Europe, is closer by virtue of Europe’s defeat, for in that defeat, it perceives its unity.”

I was a starving twelve-year-old in Germany when Yockey had these thoughts and, I believe, wrote part of Imperium already. In years past, when I was making a living as a convention keynoter, telling of the early post-war years when I was barefoot, hungry, ignorant, and largely illiterate, I always closed my speech by telling audiences: “America has been good to me. I am going to give something back.”

This is still America, and I am an American by choice. I, too, give thanks at Thanksgiving.  Here’s what I have done this past year. I have culled whatever I could from the voices of the past, here and there, friend and foe alike, and put those voices on the shelves of a small, private library, open only by request or invitation. I want you all to take a look - just so you know that such a place exists, that it is classy and inviting - and waiting just for those historical slowpokes who still think that World War II was the “good war” that needed to be fought to save the Jews from Auschwitz.

Yockey continues - and we ought to take his words and their meaning to heart:

The mission of this generation is the most difficult that has ever faced a generation. It must break the terror by which it is held in silence, it must look ahead, it must believe when there is apparently no hope, it must obey even if it means death, it must fight to the end rather than submit.

Fortifying it is the knowledge that against the spirit of Heroism no materialistic force can prevail. Like the men of Aragon and Castile who fought the Moor, like the Teutonic knights and Prussians who fought the Slav, the men of this generation must fight for the continued existence of the West. Ultimately nothing can defeat them except inner decadence. (Emphasis added)

The West has something to devote to the contest that neither the barbarian nor the parasite has: the force of the mightiest superpersonal Destiny that has ever appeared on this earthball. This superpersonal Idea has such tremendous force that no number of scaffold-trials or massacres, no heaps of starved or pyramids of skulls can touch it.

The West has two centuries and tens of millions of lives of the coming generations to give to the war against the barbarian and the distorter. It has a will which has not only emerged unbroken from the Second World War, but is now more articulate all over Europe, and is gaining in strength with every year, every decade. Merely material superiority will do them little good in a war whose duration will be measured, if necessary, in centuries. Napoleon knew, and the West still knows, the primacy of the spiritual in warfare.

The soil of Europe, rendered sacred by the streams of blood which have made it spiritually fertile for a millennium, will once again stream with blood until the barbarians and the distorters have been driven out and the Western banner waves on its home soil from Gibraltar to North Cape, and from the rocky promontories of Galway to the Urals.

This is promised, not by human resolves merely, but by a higher Destiny, which cares little whether it is 1950, 2000, or 2050. This Destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service.

Chutzpah in Modern Germany

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on December 11, 2012

On Jan 2, 2013, a German citizen named Gunter (sometimes spelled Guenther) Deckert will once again report to the gates of yet another penitentiary to be disciplined for his incurable devotion to Truth in History.

Michael Hoffman II, a former Associated Press wire writer turned Historical Revisionist, (www.revisionisthistory.org) explains some of the details of this case:

In the World War II revisionist history movement in Germany, G¸nter Deckert is among the most hard-working and humble of its martyrs.

Gunter Deckert, former leader of Germany’s struggling political party, NPD

I say “martyr” because any resident of Germany who persists in actively and publicly doubting the existence of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau ó the holy relic of the West’s most sacred religion (Holocaustianity) ó will be fined and likely imprisoned.

G¸nter Deckert has been to prison before in Germany for this reason ñ five years’ imprisonment, 1995 to 2000 ñ and he is about to be imprisoned again.

His “crime”? Translating from Italian into German historian Carlo Mattogno’s treatise, “Auschwitz: The First Gassing” (¸berarbeiten, deutsche Endbearbeitung/ -fassung). http://revisionistreview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/researcher-gunter-deckert-sentenced-to.html

Actually, “¸berarbeiten” means, in essence, only editing. Not translating or writing, much less agreeing! In fact, I double-checked, and G¸nter, a long-time friend of many noted European dissidents, who served as a note-taker and freelance reporter in my husband’s bizarre, drawn-out political show-trial in 2007 in Mannheim, explained:

By 1995, I had accumulated 11 years, This was reduced to five years, which I served to the last minute in JVS “Veste” Bruchsal, founded in 1948, a replica of a Pennsylvania prison model.

How did Deckert ran afoul repeatedly of “speech crimes” in ëthe free-est democracy that ever existed on German soil” ñ always held up as a bastion of “freedom of speech” to be emulated in countries like China and such? Here’s how:

*Having insulted entrenched mandarins of the establishment such as Foreign Minister Kinkel, several luminaries of the FDP, a political Party, and the illustrious Ignatz Bubis, the then Jewish leader of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, by accusing them in various ways of political hypocrisy.

*Having had the gall to call the Heidelberg Police Department “Stasi-West”.

*Having dispensed helpful advice to Michel Friedman, then Vice President of said Judenrat, former CDU politician and talk show host, yammerer par excellence and President of the European Jewish Congress ñ before he was convicted of illegal drug use and what is described on the Net as “forced prostitution” of very young girls from the Ukraine. Deckert to Friedman:

“If you don’t like it here, why don’t you pack your suitcase and join your compatriots in Israel? There you can lecture and complain.”

Arguably Deckert’s worst political sin was for an impromptu (verbal) translation of the forensic Leuchter Report, based on an investigative expedition to Auschwitz, which documented for the first time, ever, that Auschwitz could never have been the scene of an industrial-type, assembly-line, politically motivated genocide of utterly innocent bipeds through gassing. That alone, recalls Deckert, cost him two years.

(Actually, urban lore has it that ñ as he stood next to Fred Leuchter at a small gathering of fellow Germans, translating from English to German ñ he smirked!)

Deckert suggests that the current judgment ñ 5 months in prison ñ are likewise attributed to his recidivist ways, despite his carefully distancing himself explicitly on page 3 by stating that the author’s (Mattogno’s) theses and conclusions are not his (Deckert’s) own.

Paul Eisen, a free speech activist living in Britain, sent me the following comments:

“I’m glad to say I’ve had no experience of Germany’s ëIncitement of the Masses’ laws (Holocaust denial to you and me) and quite honestly, I found it all a bit hard to believe. Surely Mr Deckert must have done something worse than just translating a revisionist document into German to merit such a sentence.

Then, some days later, I received the following exchange which does clarify things a bit. It’s between a Mr William Henderson of Toronto, Canada and Georg J¸rgens, Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission to the German Embassy in Canada.

Mr Henderson wrote:

Your Excellency:

I note from an RSS feed that I subscribe to that Gunther Deckert is due to report to prison for a five month term early in the new year.

Further inquiry reveals that his crime was to translate a document from Italian into German.

It seems to me that a jail sentence for the mere translation of a document is somewhat ridiculous.

Could you please advise me what harm a simple document could do and why the matter would even be of any interest to the German authorities?

Respectfully,

William E. Henderson

And Mr Jurgens replied:

Dear Mr Henderson,

It exceeds the capacity of this Embassy to find out exactly what the notorious neo-nazi Deckert did this time.

To get an idea about this man you might want to check him out on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Deckert

Just let me add that if you translate foreign documents to deny the Holocaust or to incite racial hatred you are punishable under German law.

Kind regards,

Georg J¸rgens

Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

So, it’s true. “If you translate foreign documents to deny the Holocaust or to incite racial hatred you are punishable under German law.”

Two questions remain:

1. Why is questioning the Holocaust “incitememt to racial hatred”?

2. In this globalised, internet age, when national boundaries mean nothing and English reigns supreme, what possible purpose can this serve other than to further cow a terrified population?

Show trials and vicious speech crime convictions are extremely painful for victims of the current political system involved, but they are one fine vehicle to illuminate said system’s corruption. When will the ever-so-obedient ñ because politically terrorized ñ German judiciary ever learn and rip the Jewish muzzle from their faces? It ought to dawn on them that doing so would be in their own interest ñ especially now that they have a legal directive from highest international quarters, which they gutlessly choose to ignore!

A recent United Nations document, titled “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, dated July 11, 2011 contains some marvelously gleaming paragraphs. Most cogent for dissident historians engaged in scuffle after scuffle with the insufferably pushy Holocaust Lobby are the following gems:

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions.

Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. (Ö) The freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights.

The obligation to respect freedoms of opinion and expression is binding on every State party as a whole. All branches of the State (executive, legislative and judicial) and other public or governmental authorities, at whatever level ñ national, regional or local ñ are in a position to engage the responsibility of the State party. (Ö) The obligation requires States parties to ensure that persons are protected from any acts by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of the freedoms of opinion and expression to the extent that these Covenant rights are amenable to application between private persons or entities.

Paragraph 1 of article 19 requires protection of the right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction. Freedom of opinion extends to the right to change an opinion whenever and for whatever reason a person so freely chooses. No person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions.

All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature. It is incompatible with paragraph 1 to criminalize the holding of an opinion. The harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 1.

Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion.

Paragraph 2 requires States parties to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers. This right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others (Ö) It includes political discourse, commentary on one’s own and on public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, cultural and artistic expression, teaching, and religious discourse. (Ö)

Paragraph 2 protects all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination. Such forms include spoken, written and sign language and such non-verbal expression as images and objects of art. Means of expression include books, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, banners, dress and legal submissions. They include all forms of audio-visual as well as electronic and internet-based modes of expression.

Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. (Ö)

In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. (Ö)

States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. (Ö)

Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. (Ö)

Might there be a lesson for the Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission to the German Embassy in Canada ñ so that, next time, he won’t be embarrassing himself by resorting to name-calling ñ and even referencing his gutter behavior by citing Wikipedia?

On free-speech matters, or lack thereof in Germany, I have yet more to say. I came across a nifty little video showcasing Sylvia Stolz.

A small snippet of a girl, known affectionately by fellow European dissidents as “Germany’s Joan of Arc”, Sylvia is a young lawyer by trade. She acted as co-counsel at Ernst Zundel’s show trial in Mannheim. She volunteered as yet another German martyr for Truth in History.

Sylvia knew perfectly well that to offer a proper defense is now itself a crime in Germany in Holocaust-related trials. By offering scientific evidence on behalf of a “Denier” she would be implicitly guilty of being a “Denier” herself. Imagine a court stonewalling exculpatory evidence of, say, a murder case by accusing a lawyer defending a client accused of a murder that he, the lawyer, might be a murderer himself! And yet, in “Holocaust Denial” cases that is precisely what happens!

Sylvia decided to set an example. She engineered hilarious drama by chirping away about illegal tactics of Germany’s Zionist-beholden government and its judiciary, to the hysterical objections of Judge Meinerzhagen, ignoring his furious pounding and pontifications, insisting cheerfully that she had every right on earth to a legal defense of her client by submitting evidence for the scientific basis of his heretical beliefs! Even a Frankfurter Allgemeine reporter, Volker Zastrow, fell for her charms and wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece on Fr‰ulein Stolz’s repeated assaults on Meinerzhagen’s “limbic system” ñ that part of the brain that controls one’s emotions ñ to the point where the frustrated judge was forced to flee his own courtroom to hide out and cool off. That was petite Sylvia ñ goading him and goading him, to peels of laughter from the audience! It’s a classic!

In the end, Sylvia Stolz paid dearly for her gallant effort ñ as she knew from the start that she would. One merry morning, four sentinels in the employ of Germany’s own shadow government grabbed Fr‰ulein Stolz and bodily carried her out of the courtroom. In due course, she found herself sentenced for three-and-a-half years for insubordination against a judge’s orders ñ and bravely served all but three months of that sentence. As far as I know, she also lost her license to practice law in what Ernst Zundel calls a “Ö geographical piece of land that people still call Germany ñ where speaking the Truth is now a crime enshrined in law.”

I have two brief tapes for you I offer for comparison.

The first features Sylvia’s last words before she, too, reported to the Political Inquisition so as to be caged for three years of her life with the dregs of the Vaterland’s scum.

The second video clip is my definition of Chutzpah:

=====

World War II Negative Stereotype has to be Stopped

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on December 29, 2012

Let us Put a Human Face on the Global War for Truth in History

The fake chimney built after WWII for the fake gas chamber at Auchwitz with an SS hospital right next door

Herewith I announce that I have set myself the worthy goal of shedding light on who we really are and what we really say. Iíll try to do this weekly.

Whoís “we”, you ask? We, whom our numerous detractors like to call all kinds of nasty names - among them, “Holocaust Deniers.”

Itís got to stop - and it wonít stop by our salutary efforts of heaping facts on top of facts and reason upon reason. For thirty-plus years, thatís what Revisionists have done.

We counted on people with brains, on people who understand fairness, people who would not close their eyes to overwhelming evidence that “Germans” didnít do what “Jews” proclaim they did.

We need to rethink our strategies. Facts are too dry - too unappealing and too boring. Facts by themselves will never win the battle. Spielberg understood that perfectly with his defamatory feature, Schindlerís List. Logic takes brains, and brains take a hike when b emotions are triggered. Name-calling costs nothing and works like a charm.

“Itís just a novel,” we pleaded. “Look at forensic evidence. Science does not lie, not even for a ëNazi.í”

Fat chance that argument would make the tiniest difference.

Put Schindlerís List and the Leuchter Report side by side, and not another word need to be said. You know the “truth.” You saw it in the movies and read it in the papers. Period.

I had a telling experience once when I was more politically naÔve than I am now. The year was 1995. I had just launched a website and had christened it the Zundelsite - and did I ever cause a global cyber-storm! This was a time, remember, when html coding was still done by hand? I had the feeling I was flying a jumbo-jet solo - with no idea about what kept it in the air.

Down came a huge, huge censorship attack. I felt like a mosquito being shot at with a cannon - what had I done that was so scandalous?

I soon found out. I had just met an interesting Swabian with the worldís thickest accent and thought that he needed some help, publicity-wise - a task at which I excelled.

Smack on the Zundelsite, I posted a fat trial transcript titled “Did Six Million Really Die?” and half a dozen essays from The Institute for Historical Review. Long story. I lived in San Diego at the time.

My introduction into Revisionist Purgatory went thusly:

I got a friendly call from a producer of a television series called “The Learning Channel”, broadcasting out of San Francisco. Did I mind doing a program on my Ö ahÖ controversial views?

I didnít know I had any.

He insisted gently I did. He would pay my airline. He would send a cab. He would make sure I had protective escort. No need for me to be nervous. Me, nervous? Whatever for?

I was a novelist of some acclaim, doing media all the time. By then, I was a pro at doing interviews. I didnít come unglued in front of a camera. I thought he was a bit too squirming and solicitous, but did not give the matter further thought.

I would be glad to do a show with him, I told him.

I wasnít really all that knowledgeable about what he referred to as “Ö the hoary issues between the Germans and the Jews,” but what was there to fear? This was America.

Itís hard to believe, but in the mid-ë90s I was a grass-green novice.

So far, so good. I flew to San Francisco. I was picked up by a young Jew, as friendly and engaging as they come.

It was an impressive studio, with all kinds of people smiling and smiling at me. Wall-to-wall smiles. Ear-to-ear smiles. The anchor, a young, very blond female, a Jane Pauley type - with a smile as radiant as the sun - simply outdid herself by making me feel welcome. She could not have been nicer - as smooth, polite, and polished as can be.

An assistant pinned the mike on me. My stunningly beautiful anchor leaned forward, pulled her face into the ugliest visage of hatred I have ever had the displeasure to see, and literally hissed at me:

“Are you a Nazi?”

I leaned forward, too. I said as calmly and as sweetly as I could: “Are you a Kike?”

I might as well have punched her in the nose. She reeled back. She was speechless.

I caught my breath and added:

“I just called you a name. You didnít like it, did you? You just called me a name. I didnít like it either.”

After that, as I remember this episode, we just stared at each other for a minute or so. There was the Great Divide. I stood right at the precipice. I know I didnít flinch. To my knowledge, that interview was never broadcast.

I have sometimes told this story to others, and I can always sense that, while people might agree with me and even sympathize, they think that wasnít very ladylike of me.

That in itself is telling. Itís perfectly okay to insult a German morning, noon, and night, right? Itís not okay to answer tit for tat?

I want to spend this coming year to do my part in diminishing the virulent, utterly unjustified hatred against Germans in general and my own love specifically.

Ernst is a kind and thoughtful activist who is not what his detractors shriek from the roof tops. Ernst Zundel doesnít hate. Ernst Zundel is an activist of rock-hard principles, however. Whatís fair is fair, he says.

Well, isnít he a “racist” and “White Supremacist” - and isnít racial hatred a byproduct of being biased and intolerant against non-Whites?

That argument is hardly ever made by all the numerous minorities his opponents like to recruit into their camp. Most minorities sense Ernstís good will and his abundant tolerance for others.

Itís not minorities of different skin hues who are the ones who will resort to innuendo.

_________________________________________

Here is one such example, drawn straight from experience itself:

The year is 1984. Ernst has just been convicted in Canada for “spreading false news.” For the first time in his life, he finds himself in a cell awaiting sentencing. What now?

His feeding slot clicks. A female guard is on the other side of the heavy metal door.

He gets on his knees to peer out. On the other side is a pair of the most beautiful, expressive black eyes that he has ever seen.

“Mr. Z¸ndel? Mr. Z¸ndel? Can I do something for you? Can I get you something?”

He speaks with gallowsí humor: “A saw?”

Her large eyes fill with tears.

He is taken aback. “What did I say? How did I hurt you?”

She whispers, barely audible: “I am a Palestinian.”

_________________________________________

Or picture this scenario:

Waco

America has just been treated to a mini-Holocaust called Waco. More than a dozen small children have been fried to a crisp on government orders for reasons never fully proven or explained.

Survivors are arrested by the U.S. government. Among them is a jet-black woman named Anita, David Koreshís nurse, who was by his side when he drew his last breath.

She is what the government calls a “material witness” - and her testimony, logic tells you, might well be feared by some who would like nothing better than to sweep the details of the U.S. mini-holocaust right under a convenient rug.

Anita is contacted by a dissident Southern attorney, Kirk Lyons, well-known in alternative political circles. Anita rightfully fears for her life. Kirk manages to get her released and asks Ernst to give Anita shelter at the Toronto Z¸ndel-Haus.

He did. She stayed. She lived there for seven months, washing Ernstís dishes and making herself otherwise useful until the danger passed.

When Ernst told me this story of Anita living at the Z¸ndel-Haus, I said: “For heavenís sakes! Why you?” and Ernst said dryly: “Well, isnít that the last place they would have looked for her?”

When Ernst was arrested in 2003 and deported back to Canada, Anita - who now lives quietly in the vicinity of Buffalo - offered to be a character witness for him.

As you will recall, Canadian officials did not allow exonerating character witnesses - or any other evidence - to prove that Ernst was not the “security risk” they had gone to great pains to capture in America and import back to Canada Ö so as to kick him out!

_____________________________________

H.K. Edgerton - Former NAACP chapter president, Ashville, N.C.

There is a third vignette it is my pleasure sharing with my readers to make my point that Ernst does not deserve the “racist” slur his political enemies routinely hurl in his face.

This is the story of “His Excellency”, as we would call him fondly.

I donít even remember his real name, but I do remember that this little, dainty Black was - perhaps still is! - the representative of the Asheville branch of the national NAACP.

His Excellency was as delicately graceful as can be - impeccably dressed, perfectly groomed, proudly sporting a political attitude you would never have expected, if you are sold on stereotypes, from a spokesperson of the NAACP.

Politically, His Excellency was stoutly on the side of various Southern Confederacy organizations and had carved himself a niche as a much-sought-after speaker at their political events and even demonstrations.

It was only natural that he and Southern Activist Attorney Kirk Lyons would strike up a friendship. On occasion His Excellency would double up as Kirkís driver because Kirk has a vision problem and does not like to drive, especially at night.

Thatís how we met His Excellency sometime in 2002, prior to Ernstís arrest and kidnapping.

One sunny morning an FBI Special Agent named Scott Nowinski showed up at our door and said to Ernst, who was puttering around with some flower beds in front of our home: “Your friends in Canada sent us your file.”

(Scott, who was tasked to sniff out yet another “White Supremacist”, as we found out via FOIA, later denied that he said that, but that statement is in our notesÖ”)

Would Ernst agree to a friendly little chat?

Ernst said he would be glad to, but not without a lawyer present. He added he would call Kirk Lyons and meet with Nowinski at FBI quarters in Knoxville.

And thus it came to pass that one late afternoon Kirk and His Excellency appeared at our door to spend the night with the Z¸ndels. And since the Zundel couple was short on beds but long on hospitality, His Excellency slept on my couch.

When the next morning the threesome arrived at FBI quarters, special Agent Scott Nowinski threw up his hands in surprise behind His Excellencyís back and asked with raised eybrows: “ErnstÖ? “ Ernst isnít sure if he added, “Ö what gives?” or if a big fat question mark just stood by itself in the air.

Both Ernst and I remember His Excellency with real affection. He is the one who rose, his dignity intact, from our couch to settle down for breakfast, unfolded his napkin, put it on his lap, and spoke with understated elegance: “I like my toast with honey.”

This article shall be my launching pad. I want you to get to know the flesh-and-blood people behind the nasty stories - the “Holocaust Deniers” and other sundry activists who have spearheaded science and scientific scholarship at great costs to themselves. Above all else, I want you to draw a mental picture in your head about the man who kick-started it all by sending Fred Leuchter to Auschwitz.

Below, I introduce a clip that shows yet one more side of Ernst that might solicit some respect and perhaps even a lump in the throat. It describes what happened right after he was arrested in Tennessee - almost ten years ago to the day. We are still waiting that he be allowed to return:

YouTube - Veterans Today - - Ernst Art

It offers DVDs in English and German, as well as many books. Zundel Prison Art items will be raffled off later to help support sound scholarship for Truth in History.

Editing:  Jim W. Dean

_____________________________________

Historical Revisionism - the Irreversible Contagion

By Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel on January 6, 2013
Doug Collins at the Zundel-Haus

 

[Editors Note: Dear readers, we are looking forward to Ingrid's series on going down the yellow brick road of Historical Revisionism to revisit not only some of the main events, but those on the front lines at the time. We hope to be having a mystery contributor later in the Spring-Jim W. Dean]

 

The famous WWII Vet - Doug Collins

As I have lamented many times, the problem with historical revisionists has always been that they have tried to be so scrupulously "neutral" for fear of being smeared that they have undermined their own effectiveness.

Power goes to him who seeks it - and revisionist never sought power. They merely sought respect for their forensically based arguments. Their efforts were impeccably scholastic, but a vivacious human element was missing.

Holocaustianity, the temporal religion of the world, is not about respect. Itís hard to get respect for constant yammering. It is about power anchored firmly to belief, not proof. Guilt-tripping is one handy tactic that pays off.

Political censorship aims for control. Censors expect unquestioning surrender to dogma. This is not readily admitted, but historical revisionism has been profoundly threatening to those politically entrenched brainwashing experts - a threat unlike most any other threat in that their doctrine must not be perceived as a means of carefully targeted mass manipulation. Once that self-serving aspect stands out in relief, the game for the censorship hucksters is over.

In revisionist ranks, there have been some exceptions to the political detachment rule in that flamboyant personalities rose here and there from the lackluster scholarly dust. In his younger years, Ernst Zundel was one such exception. You will meet him in the clip below that was filmed at the Zundel-Haus almost three decades ago.

I did not know Ernst then - I wish I did. I ache to have been part of those exhilarating days when it all started with just a handful of motley supporters against the mightiest moneyed power in the world. What was unleashed at Zundel-Haus became a spiritual avalanche that is still gathering momentum. Itís awesome to behold!

Doug Christie

Another one who used his magnetism was Ernst's dynamic attorney, Doug Christie, whom you shall get to know in due time. A third was Doug Collins, a feisty Canadian reporter who early joined the uneven struggle and thus upset the apple cart with his inimitable style and raw professional guts.

The clip below comes from a documentary I stitched together in 2005 after Ernst had already been kidnapped and deported to the Vaterland, courtesy of what David Irving christened "the non-members of the High Church of Scotland" - for fear of calling them "the Jews". It certainly wasnít the Eskimos or Hottentots who did it!

I am a bit apologetic for that tape because it was my first attempt at using film to spread a vivid message, and I was technically unskilled. Yet I knew what I wanted ñ I wanted a documentary with a b human interest storyline that summarized what all this persecution and prosecution of Ernst Zundel was really all about.

It was meant to be played in the Court in Mannheim - and in fact portions of it were introduced and even written up in Germanyís paper of record, the widely read Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Right on Page Three - almost full page!

It would have cost us tens of thousands of Euros, had we been asked to pay for the space. Proof that a human interest story gets more attention and more mileage, publicity-wise, than all the scholarly arguments by an otherwise brilliant defense inside a court. Emotions in the service of a Cause!

The song at the beginning of this tape fit my mood in those days because I seriously feared for Ernstís life in captivity - if life there was to be at all. In those scary weeks that dragged into months, I really feared the worst.

Ernst Zundel leaving prison in Germany

At the very least I assumed Ernst would never see freedom again - that the very "Germans" whom he had tried to free from their shackles had conspired to put lifelong shackles on him.

To paraphrase a saying from the Bible - easier might it be to pass a camel through a needle's ear than to get a brainwashed German with his thumb in his mouth to let go of his lollypop guilt!

I am planning a series of brief video vignettes to show that there was flesh and blood and pain and tears behind this monumental struggle for Truth in History.

Not only that - there was also often poignancy and out-and-out hilarity because so much of this trial, and subsequent trials, was wacky to the point of being utterly bizarre.

Now that I have "set up the clip", as they say in Hollywood, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Doug Collins, a top notch journalist who started as your average media dupe but soon became a trusted Zundel friend and comrade for Truth in History.

 ____________________________________

A bit of background on Doug to frame this story properly. Hereís Wikipedia's bio, condensed:

At the start of World War II he joined the British Army. He was captured in the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940, later being awarded the Military Medal for bravery during this campaign.

During his four years as a prisoner of war, he made no fewer than ten escape attempts. I've been told he succeeded with seven we used to refer to Doug as "the one who got away"! He was able to escape from a German POW camp in Silesia and stealthily made his way to Hungary.

After being captured there, he made another daring escape, this time making his way to Romania. There he was imprisoned once again, but when Romania capitulated in 1944, he was freed and returned to Britain, serving in combat with British forces in northwest Europe to the end of the war.

Doug Collins - Ten escape attempts

From 1946-1950, Collins worked as a political intelligence officer with the British Control Commissionís de-nazification department in Germany.

Collins immigrated to Canada in 1952 and worked for several decades as a reporter or columnist for several Western Canadian newspapers, including the Calgary Herald, Vancouver Sun and Vancouver Province.

In 1960 eight trade unions sued Collins for libel when he was the Vancouver Sun's labour reporter. The same year, the newspaperís managing editor, Erwin Swangard, fired Collins for doing outside freelance work.

Collins successfully sued for wrongful dismissal. He was reinstated and returned to work after four months. He collected his back pay, walked into the editorís office and quit - and then went to personnel to demand holiday pay.

In 1963, he sued Readerís Digest for libel - and won.

Collins returned to the Sun in the 1970s. He quit for the last time when then-publisher Clark Davey tried to restrict his freelancing.

Collins worked as an interviewer/editorialist for CBC Television in Vancouver from 1958 to 1968. From 1981 to 1985 he was the news director/talk show host for CJOR radio in Vancouver.

Collins was the recipient of two awards for journalism. He received the National Newspaper Award (1953). He received the MacMillan Bloedel Award (1975) for reports on alleged corruption at UBC.

In 1993 he was awarded the 125th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada Medal, given to approximately 42,000 Canadians "who have made a significant contribution to their fellow citizens, their community, or to Canada."

Between 1983 and 1997, Collins wrote a column for the North Shore News, a small weekly community paper in North Vancouver, B.C.

No mean media maven, that one! Doug Collins was a man of principles and a journalist and anchor of distinction. When he first met Ernst Zundel in 1985, he did not care for him.

Like most in his profession who take their marching orders from what are now called Zionists who serve a non-Western agenda, Doug had absorbed the Canadian media venom, and as a former British soldier and later intelligence officer in a defeated, bombed-out Germany, he had to overcome some built-in biases. It is to his credit that he did.

Here's Doug, going to bat for Truth in Reporting if not for the "Nazi on Carlton Street" yet. Itís one of my favorite moments: 

YouTube - Veterans Today -

Fairly recently, Ernst filled me in on how Doug shed his prejudice against a so-called "Holocaust Denier" and joined the Ranks of the Damned. Conversion happened on the roof of the notorious Zundel-Haus where Ernst had built himself a private little nook for those few hours of the day when he needed to escape the frenzy of his ever-present friends and foes below.

The Pow who would not accept prison, Collins did not accept ideological boundaries either

With two bottles of wine and a sausage between them, those two re-fought World War II, with Dougís nose getting redder and redder. That's where, incidentally, Doug shared with Ernst the true fate of the infamous Heinrich Himmler, the Chief of the F¸hrerís SS. You might want to know. Tread with caution.

You may have read that Himmler bit into a cyanide capsule the Hitler government provided for high echelon officials if worst should come to worst. I did. That is the orthodox story, widely believed.

Now Doug told Ernst that in his capacity as intelligence officer in the employ of vengeful Allies, he was an eye witness to a different scenario. Himmler had been beaten to death, and Doug was shown the body.

I found this story shocking and asked: "Who did it? The Brits?" and Ernst replied, "no - those who worked for them."

See? You have just experienced an important revisionist moment. Truth in History can and will surface in the most unlikely times and places, if only you'll give it a chance.

Anyway, the salutary lesson of this story is that, at the end of a deprogramming session, a renowned newspaperman climbed down from the Zundel-Haus roof top a seriously contemplative man - and subsequently penned many a column where he talked boldly of "Swindlerís List" and other politically incorrect stuff, spreading revisionism every which way for the rest of his life with real gusto.

Here are some authentic Doug Collins gems, as taken from a little paperback, published 1998 ñ ìHere We Go Again!î:

"Swindler's List" will hit the Academy bell because Hollywood is Hollywood and what happened to the Jews during the Second World War is not only the longest lasting but also the most effective propaganda exercise ever - Dr. Goebbels himself couldnít have done it any better. (..) Hardly a day goes by but that press, radio and television donít mention something about the six million. That figure is nonsense but media go on parroting what everyone knows. "I used to do the same."

"[Holocaut propaganda] is so effective that the mere mention of Auschwitz makes even babes feel guilty."

"Your man Doug is in trouble for saying that the ëholocaust's" six million story is nonsense, that the biggest influence in Hollywood is the Jewish influence, and that the whole thing has become a business"

"It brings a blush to my battle-hardened hide, but frankness forces me to confess that in 1997 I became the most discussed columnist in the country, thanks to the Canadian Jewish Congress and other would-be censors. But it still puzzles me that my harmless offerings could create a national furore and, in British Columbia, a media feeding frenzy."

"Such are the joys of political incorrectness. Only a few years ago, when men were men and liberals, homosexuals and feminists did not rule the roost like so many squawking chickens, the columns in question would never have raised an eyebrow."

"For such critics I was the serpent in the Garden of the Politically Correct Eden. Sleepwalkers in the major media nodded their heads like clockwork Barbie dolls as your correspondent was put through the grinder, describing me as an anti-Semite, a racist, a dork, and other terms with people who profess to hate hate."

"Free speech has always had a bad name. It had a bad name when Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral. It had a bad name when John Milton wrote that Truth and Falsehood should grapple freely, and when John Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. The peasants couldnít be trusted with it. Who knows what ideas they might get? The Spanish Inquisition had no time for free speech either - oh, there was one other chap who got bad headlines for speaking out. I think his name was Jesus."

"Stick with me,"î Doug Collins counseled, "and I will educate thee. Difficult but not impossible."

"It ainít easy, being me. The rage of the politically correct and the journalistically gutless knows no bounds. So they denounce ìhate literatureî while writing it."

Doug was not shy about dropping names either. Here are a few such nuggets:

"About a fellow named Foth who apparently gave Doug a hard time in some publication:

"On reading all this, I cried with joy and went into the attack mode. To suckle fools and chronicle small beer was a waste of time, I wrote, but [these] inanities had to be dealt with. I felt sorry for Foth, I sobbed, but that would not prevent me from kicking him in the gonads. We of the lower classes are like that."

"About Lisa Mrozinski, a lawyer representing the government side [who] stated that the need for proof makes it difficult to get anywhere with such complaints in the courts."

"About Roger McConchie, legal counsel for the B.C. Press Council, who put it perfectly when he said that the purpose of the [Hate Laws] was to ëstifle speech that is not criminal."

"Wasn't it Elie Wiesel, a major holocaust propagandistî asked Doug, who said the world should never stop hating the Germans?"

 __________________________________

And here comes my all-time favorite punch line where Doug speaks of "Sol Littman, a propagandist from the Simon Wiesenthal Institute who dines out on the holocaust."

In our self-chosen revisionist battles where verbal sorties fly every which way, it doesnít get any better than that!

Toward the end of his life, Doug was sued twice by Jewish spokesmen for his irreverence - and, true to his colors, he kept swinging like the true champion he was, lambasting them for suing him, under the terms of the B.C. Human Rights Act, which should be renamed the Kill Collins Act or the Never Call a Spade a Spade Act."

And elsewhere, many times in various venues:

"Under the vicious B.C. Human Rights Code truth is no defense, fair comment is no defense, which it is in libel and slander, and within the framework of the code there is no right to appeal."

That was a lesson that Canada learned, largely thanks to Dougís columns and subsequent defeat. He and his publisher, a fellow named Speck of the North Shore News, ended up ordered by court edict to line the pockets of Canadaís censors to the tune of $200,000 for their politically incorrect ways. Wikipedia, that lying outfit in the service of said censors, claims it was a puny $2,000.

Doug Collins passed away about a dozen years ago, but he is not forgotten. I miss him very much. He and I fought many cyber wars together when the Zundelsite was under global siege and I needed all the help that I could get. I met him only once in person - on the barge to Vancouver Island sometime in 1998. I believe it was on that occasion that he told me: "Ernst Zundel is a man in a nation of wimps."

Just count yourself in, Doug! That makes two of you. Might there be three? Four? Five? Never underestimate the clout and muscle of steadfast dissidents for Truth in History to "Set the Record Straight!" - so we can all relax!