Recent news accounts tell how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) have located the long-lost diary of Alfred Rosenberg.  While it is certainly surprising, to me at least, that ICE and Homeland Security spend their time looking for lost documents from the Second World War, the discovery is certainly of interest to historians and those interested in National Socialist Germany and the Holocaust.

The diary of Rosenberg, who served as Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete (Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories) has been missing since the Nuremberg trials.  News accounts suggest that researchers will find a vast treasure-trove of new information regarding the Holocaust, but will they?

I suspect that the story will quietly disappear after no bomb-shells or even evidence of a program to murder Europe’s Jews is discovered within the diary’s pages.  There may be a minor discovery based on a tortured translation, but nothing more.  The diaries will then likely be sealed up and only allowed review under the watchful eye of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum lest anyone reveal some inconvenient history.

The discovery may even cause embarrassment to the keepers of the orthodox Holocaust story.  Rosenberg’s initial thoughts and comments after being shown atrocity films during the Nuremberg trials have long been recorded and published.  In fact, Nuremberg psychiatrist G.M. Glibert published these in his Nuremberg Diary in 1961.

Gilbert recorded the reaction of Rosenberg to “recent revelations” as follows:

“Of course, it’s terrible – incomprehensible, the whole business. – I would never have dreamed it would take such a turn – I don’t know. – Terrible!”

And later during the interview:

“I don’t know.  I guess it just ran away with him [Hitler]. – We didn’t contemplate killing anybody in the beginning; I can assure you of that.  I always advocated a peaceful solution.  I held a speech before 10,000 people which was later printed and distributed widely, advocating a peaceful solution. – Just taking the Jews out of their influential positions, that’s all.  Like instead of having 90 per cent of the doctors in Berlin Jewish, reducing them to 30 per cent, or something like that – which would have been a liberal quota even then. – I had no idea that it would lead to such horrible things as mass murder.  We only wanted to solve the Jewish problem peacefully.  We even let 50,000 Jewish intellectuals get across the border.”

Rosenberg continued on the idea of Jewish Lebensraum:

“Well, I knew they were being transported to the East, and understood that they were being set up in camps with their own administration, and eventually would settle somewhere in the East. – I don’t know. – I had no idea that it would lead to extermination in any literal sense.  We just wanted to take them out of German political life.”

Rosenberg was found guilty on all four counts of the indictment: 1. Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts; 2. Crimes against peace; 3. War Crimes; 4. Crimes against humanity.

He was sentenced to hang.

For the sake of truth, I advocate the immediate publication of Rosenberg’s diaries in the original German language on the internet.  Let’s let the world see what was really written and let the chips fall where they may.

I for one expect that an honest inquiry will lead to the rightful revisionism of this dark time in our recent history.

For additional reading: G.M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary (New York, Signet Book, 1961).

Thousands of people read IH but very few contribute.  Years ago the only way we could publish would be through hardcopy subscriptions.  Subscriptions cost money, and for small publications such as ours we likely need to charge between $50 and $60 for an annual subscription.  But we have chosen Internet publishing instead.  The advantage is that we can reach the largest number of people.  And we do so without charging a dime.

For IH to continue to grow and provide the type of historical research you can’t find elsewhere, we need your assistance.

Your donation now can help pay for our various expenses associated with running our Website.  Today IH thrives based on the hard work and efforts of a small but dedicated band of volunteers.

Consider what IH is worth to you, and make a donation today.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/donate/index.php

Though it could have been from an assassin’s bullet or a terrorist’s bomb so virulent and persistent were the threats against him, Catholic attorney Douglas “Doug” Christie, Canada’s premier defender of the damned, the marginalized and the downtrodden, has died at the age of 66 from cancer, which he had been battling for approximately two years. He worked virtually up to the time of his death. He is survived by his magnificent wife, Keltie, who shared in his battle for freedom, and two lovely children who are pursuing law and engineering careers, respectively.

Christie stood up for mostly indigent Canadian “thought criminals” who were victims of censorship and prosecution directed by a government-backed, misnamed “Human Rights” cabal which seeks to protect Judaism, Zionism and Holocaustianity from the same kind of scrutiny and skepticism which every other religion and ideology faces in the marketplace of ideas.

If the criminal and civil prosecution of heretical speech and press had been suffered by Zionists and rabbis  in Canada, the New York Times and Fox News would have been stuffed to the gills with regular reports and alarms. Instead, the whole sorry Orwellian ordeal of Canada’s independent thinkers has been largely flushed down the memory hole by the U.S. corporate media, which are content to stigmatize and dismiss the dissidents Doug defended, as “anti-semites” and “Holocaust deniers,” the better to deny their humanity in the name of human rights.

For truth seekers and lovers of liberty, the loss of Doug Christie is an incalculable one. His life of sacrifice and idealism is a shining paradigm. May he rest in peace. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Reposted with Permission from The Hoffman Wire:

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2013/03/canadas-greatest-defender-of-freedom-of.html

 By Nigel Jackson.

The Australian Press Council has declined to accept for processing a complaint against the Melbourne newspaper The Age which I laid before it on 2 October 2012. As the reasons given by the Council for so acting appear to me to be logically invalid and not in accord with its own principles, I believe that the situation should be presented for consideration to the general public, especially since very important ethical issues are involved. During 2012 the Finkelstein Report, chartered by the federal government, called into question the effectiveness of the Council and recommended that it be replaced with a government-regulated body. This generated enormous public interest and discussion. Thus a context exists in which the Council’s practice should be most closely studied.

     The Council was established in 1976, as its publication Objects, Principles and Complaints Procedure tells us, with two main aims, one of which is ‘to ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically’ by providing a forum for complaints. In a section of this booklet (pages 6-7) we are given the Council’s ‘Statement of Principles’. I made my complaint relying on the following aspects of this declaration: (1) that in dealing with complaints the Council will give first and dominant consideration to what it perceives to be in the public interest; (2) that publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced, and that they should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers either by omission or commission (Principle 1); (3) that where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence (Principle 2); (4) that where individuals or groups are a major focus of news reports or commentary, the publication should ensure fairness and balance in the original article, but, failing that, it should provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in an appropriate section of the publication (Principle 3); that publications are free to advocate their own views and publish the by-lined opinions of others, as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion, but that relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed (Principle 6).

II

This is the complaint which I submitted to the Council.

In its editorial ‘Free speech has to include freedom to offend’ published on 8^th August 2012 The Age made statements about what it called ‘Holocaust denial’ which I believe are fundamentally false and which seriously misinformed readers about the nature of revisionist historians and their writings about the Holocaust. (‘Holocaust denial’ is a term habitually used by hostile critics of such historians and their work, whereas these historians themselves, and their supporters, prefer the more accurate term ‘Holocaust revisionism’,)

The editorial stated that ‘Holocaust denial’ is ‘speech so toxic or inflammatory or dangerous’ that ‘it threatens public safety and free discourse’ and implied that it constitutes ‘hate speech or incitement to racial violence’. It added that it is ‘an attack on historical truth’ which is ‘necessarily pernicious’ and ‘designed to provoke fear among Jews and other victims of Nazi terror.’ I believe that these claims are of no worthwhile substance whatever and involve a gross impugning of the motives of the revisionist historians concerned.

A representative statement of the aims of Holocaust revisionists is published on the website of Inconvenient History. It includes the following words: ‘Our desire is to return to the roots of revisionism without any political agenda or desire to white wash totalitarian regimes. We are free-thinkers who seek to support the concept of intellectual freedom as a means to peace and understanding between nations.’ Their writings appear to be clearly in accord with these aims. (The six Holocaust revisionists I named in my correspondence to The Age can be taken as representative of the school.)

On 8^th August I sent a short letter of correction and balancing to The Age, but it was not published. Subsequent requests for reconsideration made to the Letters Editor and then the Editor were ignored. I believe that The Age is now in breach of the Council’s principles 3 (failing to publish a balancing response) and 6 (misrepresenting and suppressing relevant facts).

The matter is profoundly important to the public interest because the editorial was using its misleading assertions to argue for a very serious limitation on free speech in Australia. As I noted in my appeal to the Letters Editor, ‘a particular historical event, or set of events, is, it appears, not to be subjected to the usual scrutiny by successive generations, on pain of legal punishment,’ This would constitute a serious invasion of traditional free speech in Australia.

III

My original letter to the editor which The Age declined to publish read as follows.

Your editorial claim (‘Free speech has to include freedom to offend’, 6/8) that ‘Holocaust denial’ (or do you mean Holocaust revisionism?) is ‘so toxic or inflammatory or dangerous it threatens public safety and free discourse’ is nonsense. The work of men like Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno is in no way an ‘attack on historical truth’, but is a set of well-researched and calmly expressed theses arguing that some of the hitherto accepted truths of World War Two are in fact falsehoods.

In effect, you are claiming that a reassessment of certain aspects of history is ‘necessarily pernicious’ – a thoroughly unacademic position. Most false of all is your despicable slander that Holocaust revisionism is ‘designed to provoke fear among Jews and other victims of Nazi terror.’ Far from that, it is designed to free humanity from serious misunderstanding that is still used by some groups to wrongfully obtain advantage for themselves.

It is a shame to see The Age expressing such an illiberal prejudice.

IV

As a justification of my request to the Letters Editor for reconsideration, I supplied the following four points.

(1)         The Age editorial is advocating a very serious limitation on free speech: a particular historical event, or set of events, is, it appears, not to be subjected to the usual academic scrutiny by successive generations, on pain of legal punishment, and The Age supports this limitation. I don’t recall The Age ever before stating this position so bluntly. Surely the principle involved needs to be widely discussed! Most thoughtful people would see claims that some matter of history cannot lawfully be discussed and challenged in public forums as the infallible mark of tyranny.

(2)         The editorial wrongfully and unnecessarily insults and defames critics of the current understanding of the Holocaust. Examination of the writings of men such as those I named and others such as Jurgen Graf, Paul Grubach and Richard Widmann does not reveal any sign of a desire to cause fear among Jews or other victims of Nazism. If the Holocaust revisionists are plain wrong, then the only explanation that is credible is that they are deluded or suffering from an idee fixe. The Age needs to withdraw this accusation or at least allow it to be challenged in its letter columns.

(3)         ‘Holocaust denial’ is a term used by those opposed to the Holocaust revisionists. It is a propaganda term. Ordinary people, ignorant of the work of the revisionists, which they never see fairly presented in mass media like The Age, can be gulled by this term into thinking that the revisionists deny the obvious – that Nazi Germany had an anti-Semitic policy and that large numbers of Jews (and others) suffered unjustly as a result. I’ve never seen any published claim stating such an absurdity. The correct term to use is ‘Holocaust revisionism’. That is what Faurisson and the others have engaged in. They argue that the Holocaust was not as bad as has hitherto been believed, but they are still strongly critical of Nazi wrongdoing. Revisionism is and always has been a fundamental principle of historical research generally. Does The Age really believe that the Holocaust and World War Two history should be immune to that process?

(4)         The position of The Age in this context is incongruent with its general stance as a liberal/radical newspaper. A strong presumption exists that The Age in this matter has been unduly influenced by pressure, perhaps financial, from those Jewish agencies which regularly attack Holocaust revisionists. If that is so, The Age should, in the public interest, free itself from that influence. Publishing my letter would be a step in the right direction. If it is not so, then The Age needs to provide explanation for its extraordinarily illiberal position as expressed in its editorial.

My original letter and the above reasons were provided as evidence with my complaint to the Council.

V

On 11 October Paul Nangle, Director of Complaints for the Council, responded to my complaint as follows.

The editorial does not elaborate on the type of comment about the Holocaust that it is referring to as ‘Holocaust denial’. Accordingly, there is no basis on which to establish that the editorial is referring to the views of the kind which you describe as ‘Holocaust revisionism’. In any event, the meaning and application in this context of the distinction between ‘denial’ and ‘revisionism’ is likely to be a matter of contestable opinion, in relation to which a newspaper is entitled to express its own views in an editorial. It is also for these reasons that The Age was not obliged to publish your letter.

I understand that you may be dissatisfied with this conclusion, but I am not able to assist you further in this matter.

VI

These reasons given by the Council to justify its refusal to process my complaint appeared to me to be entirely insubstantial, so I appealed to Mr Nangle to reconsider his decision, providing the following statements to support my appeal.

It is true that The Age editorial does not elaborate on the type of comment about the Holocaust that it is referring to as ‘Holocaust denial’.

However, the correct presumptions to be made from this are surely that The Age was confident that its readers would understand what it meant, and that therefore the term is to be understood to mean what it does in common parlance.

There is, in my view, no doubt about what it means in common parlance and what, therefore, The Age meant it to mean. Wikipedia, which I consulted on 27^th September, is quite clear about what it means: ‘Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II. The key claims of Holocaust denial are: the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews, Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews, and the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.’

The views of the kind I have described in my complaint as constituting ‘Holocaust revisionism’ very much include those listed by Wikipedia as ‘Holocaust denial’.

Your claim, therefore, that ‘there is no basis on which to establish that the editorial is referring to [those views]’ itself has no basis in logic or fact.

You are correct in stating that ‘the meaning and application in this context of the distinction between “denial” and “revisionism” is likely to be a matter of contestable opinion.’ Wikipedia itself notes that ‘Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term “denial” as an appropriate description of their activities, and use the term “revisionism” instead.’ I made this point both in my letter to The Age and in my complaint.

However, this semantic debate in no way constitutes a justification for the Council to decline to accept and process my complaint.

The fact that ‘a newspaper is entitled to express its own views in an editorial’ is not in dispute and did not form part of my complaint, although I personally believe that The Age breached Council Principle 2 in publishing the remarks I have complained about.

Thus I am unable to see any grounds in your case for not accepting and processing my complaint.

Effectively, what I am complaining about is that the comments by The Age about ‘Holocaust denial’ were so extreme and slanderous that it should have been prepared to publish a balancing letter (mine in this case). I rely on Principle 3 here and you have provided no argument to show that Principle 3 has not been fairly and relevantly invoked here.

There is such a gulf between the actual writings of Holocaust revisionists and the description of these given by The Age that its account cannot, I believe, be seen as ‘fair comment’, but only as outright and serious misrepresentation. That is why my complaint invokes Principle 6; and you have also provided no argument to show that this cannot be relevantly and fairly invoked here.

It will not be hard for the Council to investigate (and, in my view, establish) the truth of my complaint. I have provided the names of six such historians (a manageable number) and can refer the Council in due course to two or three short essays by each to justify my claims. The amount of research needed is not excessive.

A serious deficiency of your response to me is that you have made no reference to my point about this matter being very much in the public interest, since a very serious breach of free speech is being advocated by The Age. Surely the Council will agree that thoughtful readers should be given both sides of the controversy over Holocaust revisionism (or ‘denial’), especially when the question of free speech is being debated so widely in our public forums at this time.

The matter is also important because in a number of Western nations people have been fined and/or imprisoned for ‘Holocaust denial’ and it is undesirable, I assert, that such a situation should be reached in Australia. This is a point that I believe the great majority of thoughtful Australians would agree with.

Bearing in mind all these points, I ask you to reconsider my complaint and to accept it for processing.

VII

This appeal elicited a brief letter dated 29^th October 2012 from Derek Wilding, the Council’s Executive Director, as follows.

I referred to the Chair of the Council your request for reconsideration of my decision not to proceed with your complaint against The Age.

The Chair considered that the editorial in The Age refers to the term ‘Holocaust denial’, but does not specify what type of views about the Holocaust fall within this term and does not refer to any particular group of people. It cannot be said, therefore, to misrepresent the issue of ‘Holocaust revisionism’ (under General Principle 6) or to be unfair to a group of people who might identify as ‘Holocaust revisionists’ (under General Principle 3).

The Chair decided to uphold my decision not to proceed with the complaint.

VIII

The Executive Director’s letter clearly did little more than repeat Mr Nangle’s position. I thus exercised my right under Council rules to appeal to Professor Julian Disney, the Council’s chairman, to review the situation, writing to him on 30^th October as follows.

Mr Wilding’s letter does not deal with any of the arguments and evidence I submitted with my request for reconsideration.

If those arguments and evidence really fail, I would expect the Council to explain clearly why that is so. As it is, it seems to me that the Council, in unreasonably rejecting my complaint, is failing to abide by its own principles. Can you show otherwise?

IX

Professor Disney did not reply to this personally. Instead I heard again on 19^th November from the Executive Director as follows.

The Chair has received your letter dated 30 October. He asked me to confirm to you that my letter of 29 October accurately conveyed his decision in response to your request for review and that he considers that sufficient reason for his decision was given in that letter.

We appreciate that you remain dissatisfied but this file will now be closed.

X

The question of Holocaust revisionism (or denial) – its nature, validity or lack thereof, what should be done about it and what has been done about it – is one of the great intellectual controversies of our times. One feels that men like John Milton, John Bunyan, Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill, to name only four possible candidates from among the great defenders of human freedom within Western European culture, would be horrified to learn that in 2012 some fourteen or so nations, most of them within that cultural orbit, forbid by law dissent from the received account of a major historical topic, many of them imprisoning the dissenters and one at least (Germany) even imprisoning a defence lawyer for a dissenter. We should do everything we can to prevent this system of repression from engulfing our own nation.

As for our Australian scene, I believe that the great majority of thoughtful Australians do not relish the idea of the state decreeing what may or may not be publicly spoken and published about any area of history. Today it might be the Holocaust, tomorrow it might be ‘the Stolen Generation’, the next day it might be the crucifixion of Jesus. Government censorship of historical debate on any issue is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a free society. Thus, the gravity of what The Age suggested in its editorial needs to be exposed and laid open in public forums for the people to discuss it.

It is common knowledge that ‘the Holocaust’ is the most sensitive political topic around and that dissent from the received view of it can lead to destroyed reputations and careers. Is it really right that this should be so?

Is it right that for a long time our major media, judging (in my case) from the major newspapers read in Melbourne, have failed to report properly on this great controversy, instead shielding the proponents of repression from the light of day and refusing space to the revisionists to put their cases?

It seems to me that the Australian Press Council, having been asked to assess a complaint that brings all these matters out into the open, has fallen at the first jump.

In my view the Council has much explaining of its position to do if it wants to remain credible. It needs to answer each salient argument I have brought forward, and not just depend upon assertions which I have, I believe,  shown to be intellectually worthless.

Melbourne, 20^th November 2012

Our answer to the paper “Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard”, which was authored by the above-mentioned five gentlemen, is now ready. It is much longer than originally planned (about 800 pages). As one of Mattogno’s chapters still has to be translated into English, we will not be able to publish our text before January.

Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, Jürgen Graf

12 December 2012

October 28, 2012

Re: Nazis and Arab Nationalists Can Speak the Truth: Jeffrey Herf Can Distort Reality.

Mr. Herf;

As always, I have a legitimate reason to contact you.  I am writing an analysis of your widely acclaimed book, Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, for the online Revisionist journal, Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com).  In the interests of fairness and truth, you are being given an opportunity to view my arguments and evidence prior to publication, even though I do not expect you to respond.  With that being said, consider the following important issues.

Your books are sometimes plagued with a fallacy that philosophers label as the “emotional language fallacy.”  To be specific: some claims and statements that are viewed as dangerous and threatening to Jewish-Zionist interests are simply labeled with emotionally charged phrases, such as: “anti-Semitic abuse,” “Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda,” “absurd hatreds,” or “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.”  In this context, what you wrote in the “Preface” of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World is very revealing: “In postwar Europe, on the whole, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and equally absurd hatreds rooted in ancient religious texts became a disgraced and dead relic buried in the ruins of the Third Reich.  But in the postwar Middle East, these notions persisted in elements of radical [Arab] nationalist and Islamist politics.”

You must be fully aware that since Nazis and “radical” Arab nationalists have been so demonized by the American mainstream media, many people will immediately dismiss whatever they say as false, regardless of the fact that the claims they make may be true.  Your emotion-laden epithets–”Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda,” “anti-Semitic abuse,” “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories”–conjure up all of the negative thoughts that are linked with these terms and induce the listener to reject as “false” any claim that is classified under these terms.  In short, instead of offering good reasons or evidence to disprove the claims of the Nazis and “radical” Arab nationalists, this tactic places an emotive label (a code word which elicits automatic, negative responses) on the claims, thereby magically, through an illogical sleight of hand, disposing of them.  Let me offer some specific examples.

On page 26 of your book, you refer to a Nazi and Arab nationalist “propaganda” claim of the 1930s.  To wit: Nazis and their Arab nationalist allies believed there was a “British-Jewish conspiracy to take over Palestine from its inhabitants [verbatim quote].”  After reading your subsequent discussion, the reader is left with the impression that this was just another blatantly false and wildly inaccurate, anti-Semitic propaganda lie that was propagated by Nazis and Arab nationalists.  Quite the contrary, Mr. Herf.  Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann made it perfectly clear in 1919 and 1921 that there was indeed a British plan/conspiracy for Jewish-Zionists to take control of the land and government of Palestine.

I direct your attention to Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, the enlightening work by the Jewish historian and Churchill biographer, Martin Gilbert. As Gilbert points out (p.35), when Winston Churchill was Secretary of State for War in October 1919, he wrote a very revealing memorandum, which touched upon his beliefs about how Palestine would be ultimately conquered by Jewish Zionists.  Churchill stated: “Lastly, there are the Jews, whom we [the British government] are pledged to introduce into Palestine and who [the Jews] take it for granted that the local population [the Palestinian Arabs] will be cleared out to suit their [the Jews] convenience.”

On pages 69-71, Gilbert discusses a 22 June 1921, conversation about the fate of Palestine between Canadian Prime Minister Arthur Meighen and Winston Churchill, which was recorded in the Imperial Cabinet Minutes of the Lloyd George Papers.  Prime Minister Meighen questioned Churchill about the meaning of the term, “a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine.”  He wanted to know if this actually meant giving the Jewish Zionists control of the government of Palestine.  Churchill responded by saying (verbatim quote): “If, in the course of many, many years, they [the Jews] become a majority in the country, they [the Jews] naturally would take it [Palestine] over.”  One month later, 22 July 1921, Churchill met with Jewish-Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann.  Gilbert points out that Weizmann explained that the Balfour Declaration “meant an ultimate Jewish majority [in Palestine].”  That is to say, the Balfour Declaration “justified” a continuous influx of Jewish immigrants into Palestine that would ultimately result in a Jewish majority in the land, and the native Palestinian Arabs would become a minority.

Do you now see, Mr. Herf, that there was a British and Jewish-Zionist plan/conspiracy to take over Palestine from its Palestinian Arab inhabitants?  Weizmann wanted the Jews to become a majority in Palestine by way of Jewish immigration, and Churchill said that when the Jews become a majority they will take control of the government.

So you see, Mr. Herf, the claim of a “British-Jewish conspiracy to take over Palestine from its inhabitants” was not a Nazi and Arab nationalist “propaganda lie” as you clearly insinuate.  On this issue at least the Nazis and Arab nationalists were telling the truth, and Jeffrey Herf distorted reality.  There was a powerful element in the British government and the international Zionist movement who were both planning for Jewish-Zionists to take control of Palestine.  Let us move onto another example to illustrate my points.

Again in your book, Nazi propaganda For The Arab World (p.175), you speak of a 26 June 1943, German “propaganda” broadcast to Arab people.  The National Socialist broadcasters stated that “the Jews want the whole of Palestine exclusively for the sons of Israel without a single Arab remaining in the country.”  Your readers are left with the impression that this is simply “false Nazi propaganda” that should be immediately dismissed.  In your own words, it is part of a “flood of anti-Semitic abuse.”  What you failed to note is that there is good reason to believe that the “Nazi propaganda claim” is indeed true!  Herewith.

Consider the following observation made by United States presidential adviser and political scholar George W. Ball in The Passionate Attachment, regarding Zionist plans for the deportation of Arabs from Palestine.  He wrote: “The Jewish plan for an exclusively Jewish nation, free of the inconvenient presence of native peoples, was scarcely new.  Theodor Herzl had laid out the framework for such a system in 1898, when he sought a charter from the Ottoman Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, for the Jewish Colonial Society, a precursor of the Jewish Colonial Trust established in 1899. One of the provisions of the abortive charter gave the Society the power to deport the natives, and Herzl sought such powers whether the new Jewish homeland was to be in Argentina, Kenya, Cyprus, or Palestine.  The Jewish Land Trust incorporated the doctrine in its rules, which designated all its properties exclusively for Jewish use and even prohibited the employment by the Jewish tenants of non-Jews, thereby forcing such persons to seek employment abroad.”  So Mr. Herf, long before the Second World War even began, there were influential Jewish Zionists who wanted to remove Arabs from Palestine and create a “racially pure” Jewish state.

With that being said, let us move onto the year of 1940.  I direct your attention to findings of Dr. Uri Davis, the renowned Israeli-Jewish scholar and author of Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within.  He points out that one of the main goals of the Zionist movement was to drive the indigenous Arabs out of Palestine and transform it into an exclusively Jewish state (pp. 19-20, 160).  He quotes one of the chief architects of Zionist settlement, Joseph Weitz (1890-1973), deputy chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1951 to 1973.  According to Davis, Weitz made the following statement in 1940, three years prior to German radio broadcast mentioned previously: “Among ourselves [Jews] it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples [Jews and Arabs] together…With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being independent people in this country.  The only solution is Eretz Israel  [Palestine], at least the west part of Eretz Israel, without Arabs…and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain, and the transfer must aim at Iraq, Syria, and even Transjordan.  For this purpose money will be found, much money; and only with this transfer could the country absorb millions of our brothers [Jews].  Their is no other alternative.”

So there you have it, Mr. Herf.  The claim–”"the Jews want the whole of Palestine exclusively for the sons of Israel without a single Arab remaining in the country.”–was not a “Nazi propaganda lie.”  There were Jewish Zionists in powerful places who were thinking along these lines since the time of Theodor Herzl.  And it your duty to tell your readers this truth.

In closing, I hope that this missive induces you to become more objective in regard to your subject matter.

Paul Grubach

There are several issues re. The Third Reich – “The Holocaust” in particular – historians, and I am being kind, continually struggle with. One is the phenomena, at least we are to believe that it was that, of why the majority of ordinary Germans continued to support Hitler right to the bitter end. Ian Kershaw tried to explain it in his latest work The End: Hitler’s Germany, 1944-45. I found two reviews, the first by Roger Moorhouse, here’s an excerpt:

“Kershaw adopts a largely narrative approach, which – with various digressions – spans the period between the failed attempt on Hitler’s life of 20 July 1944 and the German capitulation 10 months later. In this period, horrors at the front – such as the first Red Army incursion into German territory at Nemmersdorf in East Prussia – would increasingly be matched by horrors at home, as the murderous SS condemned to death all those who dared to resist or showed insufficient martial spirit.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-end-hitlers-germany-194445-by-ian-kershaw-2341116.html

Then this, by Ben Shephard:

“The real difficulty with The End is that its premise is false. It simply isn’t true that no one has dealt adequately with the question of why Germany kept fighting. On the contrary, historians have discussed this issue ad nauseam; Kershaw himself gave an excellent account in his monumental biography of Hitler. What is needed now is not yet another staging of Götterdämmerung, but a new production altogether. In 2009, in his Germany 1945, the historian Richard Bessel showed the way. While conveying the scale of destruction in the last year of the war, Bessel used those events to underpin a wider argument: that the typhoon that swept through Germany in 1945 changed the course of its history, blasting away for ever the strains of nationalism, philosophical idealism and geopolitical ambition that had produced the two world wars. If only Kershaw’s book had some of that originality.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/the-end-ian-kershaw-review

Both of the above, as well as Kershaw, miss the mark. They can not admit – because of the continued demonizing of Hitler – that Germans, the workers and middle class, appreciated what Hitler had done for Germany and therefore backed him. Unless of course one is stupid enough to adopt Goldhagen’s thesis of Hitler’s willing helpers. Shepard babbles about “..nationalism, philosophical idealism and geopolitical ambition that had produced the two world wars”. Dummkopf. But the so called intelligentsia, as well as much of the officer core, did not support Hitler and plotted his overthrow in the background, they were however afraid of the backlash by ordinary Germans. Hans Rothfels writes:

“…Could one risk having the stab-in-the-back legend turn like a boomerang against the officer core? As long as the road to victory still seemed open, how could one convince the people and the army that Hitler was leading them to disaster?”( The German Opposition to Hitler, Henry Regnery Company Hinsdale, Illinois 1948, p.74)

Gee, why not tell the people and the army about “The Holocaust”? And that brings us to the next issue,  the question: How much was know about the alleged mass murder in the camps and when? Here too the story flips back and forth. Rothfels in the above writes, p.18:

“Of course, all this changed (he writes about stories told about the camps but not believed) in the spring of 1945. The unbelievable horror which were then discovered in the liberated camps as well as the unearthing of evidence of the crimes committed in Poland and Russia, shook the western world”.

In the Industries newest effort, we also read:

“Even when – following the war – it became know what had occurred in the concentration- and extermination camps, many did not accept it, others denied it happened” (Neue Studien Zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen Durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag Belin, 2001, p.XI)

And following the war, we had “Death Camps” everywhere in Germany, Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen. Then, after the lies told about those camps were exposed, the ‘extermination camps’ were moved east, into Poland. But the Soviets refused to allow access to the sites, or so we are told, allowing no ‘investigations’ by westerners. Still, if mass murder would have been committed by the Germans on Polish soil details about it would have been known from day one. Some of the camps, Treblinka for instance, the site where 880,000 Jews had been murdered, according to Yad Vashem, were in the open, ‘shielded’ by a barbed wire fence.

We do have reports of rumors circulating, the Jesuit church historian Pierre Blet S.J. (Society of Jesus) mentions some of them (Pius XII and the Second World War. According to the Archives of the Vatican, Paulist Press new York, N.Y, Mahwah, N.J., 1997). But nothing of substance is offered. There are of course efforts made by “historians” to try and convince us that details were known about it before the war ended, a feeble effort – because nothing of substance is provided.

But, if what is alleged did happen, the ‘industrialized killings’, “The Holocaust” a reality, reports about it would have been leaked and details about the killings broadcast worldwide. Germany was riddled with spies and traitors, right up in to the highest ranks. Former Minister Dr. Ohnesorge told his friend Dr. Goldmann after the war that no plenary session of the parliament had taken place since 1936, because anything discussed was broadcast by the BBC in the evening news (H. Härtle, Deutsche und Juden, Druffel-Verlag Leoni am Starnberger See, 1977, p.294). We also know that the Abwehr, the intelligence service, was lead by traitors. Erwin von Lahousen, for instance, testified at the IMT:

“We were currently informed of all happenings by our officials at the front or in the camps. Offices of the Abwehr Division III were active in these camps, and in this way, that is, through the normal service channels, we were informed by reports and oral presentation of all these measures and of their effects.” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/11-30-45.asp, p. 458.

There are a few more details provided here http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/12/german-guilt/ ). Why did these people not provide details about “The Holocaust” to their contacts abroad? The answer is rather simple: There was no Holocaust.

We do however have some official information about the concentration camps. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, Evolution and Dissemination Section, G-2 (Counter Intelligence Sub-Division) in May 1944 published the Basic Handbook KL’s (Konzentrationslager) Axis Concentration Camps and detention centres reported as such in Europe, Compiled by MIRS (London Branch), from material at Washington and London. The handbook available here http://www.milspecmanuals.com/ap_allied_europe_expeditionary_force_headquarters_supreme.html

As stated, this was compiled by the counter intelligence service. Allan Dulles, intelligence operative and later head of the CIA, had set up shop in Switzerland and the Abwehr (intelligence) officer Bernd Gisevius, for one, met with him (Allan Welsh Dulles, Germany’s Underground. The Anti-Nazi resistance, Da Capo Press, 2000, pp.25; 126, etc.). So, with the German intelligence service “informed of all happenings…in the camps” (Lahousen above), one would expect details about the alleged mass killings to be provided in the ‘handbook’.

Starting with p.1, under the heading: The German Concentration Camps, we read:

“1. General

This publication represents an attempt to compile the names, locations and pertinent data of confirmed, reported, or alleged detention centres in Axis Europe which come within the elastic definition of the term “Concentration Camps”. “Elastic” because of the many types of detention

camps used by the Germans in addition to the official Konzentrationslager (Concentration Camps), .Among these are:

Arbeitslager (Work Camps)

Zwangslager (Forcible Detention Camps);

Zwangsarbeitslager (Penal Servitute Camps)

Zvilgefangenenlager (Detention Camps for Civilians)

Straflager (Punitive Camps) .

Recent political and military developments in Europe are said to have established new trends in German concentration camp policy, but these reports have not been adequately confirmed.

Greater leniency towards inmates of concentration camps has been reported. A former inmate of ORANIENBURG said that the beating of inmates there has been forbidden and in

SACHSENHAUSEN the guards are said to have been informed that the inmates should be treated as “property of the Führer”.

Hitler is stated to have intervened on behalf of the inmates at DACHAU. As a result, a brothel (?) is said to have been opened for the inmates, and permission was granted for the clearing of a soccer field.

Other factors which might cause a change in policy include the deterioration of the guard system and the transfer of inmates to war time activities…”

Strangely, nothing about ‘extermination camps’, but the above confirms that the allies were well informed about the concentration camps. We learn that inmates were transferred “to war time activities”. Meaning, that some were moved to the front, their fate unknown. The report continues by talking about preparations made by camp officials “in case of an Allied invasion of Germany proper”, with guards hiding civilian clothes under their beds, as well as more detailed information. To p.2:

“2. Definition of Concentration Camps

According to German law, a Konzentrationslager (officially abbreviated to KL, but popularly referred to as KZ) provides Schutzhaft (Protective Custody) for persons who have not been legally sentenced to prison by a court of law, and/or for those who, having served a legal sentence, have been ordered further detention by the Gestapo (Secret State Police),

Sicherheitsdienst (SD or Security Service) or the Geheime Feldpolizei (Secret Field Police) .

Because of the scarcity of documentary material, which is only slowly becoming available, the indefinite nature of details obtained from former inmates and the similarity in administration and treatment of charges at these various detention centres, many camps have been incorrectly reported as Konzentrationslager although they are actually different types of establishment.“

In spite of the “scarcity of documentary material”, they are close to being bang on as definition goes, but still nothing about Jews, which are now front and center. We read that:

“Movements of inmates from one camp to another, especially from camps in occupied territory to those in the Reich have been reported rather frequently during the last two years.”

That because of the severe labor shortage, but we are to believe that this was ignored in regards to Jews, they allegedly were killed by the millions. Now to p.3:

“3. Number of Camps and Inmates

[T]he number of KL’s in greater Germany has been estimated at various times during 1941,1942, and 1943 to total from about thirty to seventy-five, although a total of more than a hundred camp sites has been reported. The capacity of KL’s in Germany is probably about 500,000.

A report, dated October, 1943, concerning the camps in Poland spoke of the existence of 109 camps in that country, divided into the following types:

Nine Transit Camps

Twenty- four KL’s

Three large forced labour camps

Sixty smaller forced labour camps

Three camps for priests

Nine camps for Jews

One camp “for the improvement of the Nordic race”.

Very detailed and finally we have “Nine Camps for Jews”, in Poland. We also have this referral to transit camps, nine of them. The report then states that “…the number of Germans who have been inmates at various periods during the years 1933 to 1944 to be between 750,000 and 1,300,000”, and that:

“The most conservative estimate of the number of persons in “protective custody” in Germany proper in July, 1944 was from 170,000 to 370,000.

The number of KL inmates in Germany proper at present is generally estimated to total between 300,000 and 500,000. Of this number a high percentage is believed to consist of “pure” Germans, as defined by Nazi law.”

Very detailed again, showing that the allies were well informed. Also of note is the fact that a high percentage of inmates were “pure” Germans, something forgotten with Jews now in the foreground. The paragraph ends with:

“The number of inmates of these detention centres in Europe has probably been reduced as a result of Germany’s man power shortage and many former inmates may already have been absorbed by the Organisation TODT and other labour and auxiliary organisations. Even the Wehrmacht has accounted for some – the 999th Division for example.”

This would suggest that Jews were also used as slave labour, many in harms way. Much more information is provided about “Commitment and Release”, “Administration”, “Camp Organisation”, the guard system, etc., etc., 13 categories in all taking up 16 pages. It has to be stressed that this is detailed information, right down to names and numbers. We then get to p.17, it starts out with:

“A N N E X E  A

(List of Identified Concentration. Camps)

Key:

1. Annexe A gives all locations reported by various sources as sites of KL’s at one time or another; such a list cannot of course be regarded as either complete or entirely reliable.

Of the 708 entries, 93 are cross-references.

 708 camps are listed”

The camps are then listed, first by country, then in alphabetical order. And as mentioned, the list is not considered to be complete. Still, in the alphabetical list details are provided for each camp, more evidence that the allies had good information. A given, with Germany riddled with spies and traitors, as well as millions of foreign workers, no secret could be kept. To list all the camps of interest would make this too long, so, just the main camps in Poland, considered by the Industry to be, horror, ‘extermination camps”, even though not one shred of substantial evidence to back this claim has ever been submitted. Here we go then, starting with Auschwitz:

“AUSCHWITZ (OSWIECIM)

(Oberschlesien, formerly Poland) 3O Km. SSE Kattowitz.

Type

Definitely KL: mentioned frequently since 1939. One report claims MAJDANEC to be part of Doppellager AUSCHWITZ.

BIRKENAU camp is definitely connected, as AUSCHWITZ makes use of  BIRKENAU’s gas

chambers, though it is said to have 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers itself.

Capacity

In 1940: 40,000

A recent report claims 62,000 Jews and foreign workers to be employed in the synthetic rubber plant and other enterprises around this town.

Inmates

One report gives the following figures as an outline of the camp’s history:

1939/40 – Over 5,000 inmates

July 1941 – 8,000 inmates , all Poles

Mortality rate 20% for each 6 month period.

Late 1941 – 600 Russians and 200 Poles gassed.

September 1942 – More then 120,000 persons had passed through the camp.

Mortality has risen as over 80,000 are said to have died or been shot.

May 1943 – “At least 2 trains of 20 car loads each arrived daily” .

1944 – Another report states that 150,000 names were listed as having passed through

this camp…

Remarks.

Many typhus epidemics are said to have raged here throughout its existence.

In the neighborhood, reported to be at DWORY, is an I.G. Farben plant for synthetic rubber and “benzene” whose workers also live in nearby camps; slackers (those who take more than 2 days

off per month) are confined to an Arbeits-erziehungslager (Workers ‘ educational camp) connected with the KL.

BUMA-WERKE (Synthetic Rubber Plant ) draws labour from the KL.

SS Units in the Vicinity

Hauptwirtschaftslager der Waffen SS.”

The rest is about staff stationed at Auschwitz. What is of interest here is that Jews are not mentioned as being gassed en masse, also no details are provided re. the, horror, gas chambers. We read that “AUSCHWITZ makes use of  BIRKENAU’s gas chambers, though it is said to have 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers itself”. So according to this, Auschwitz I, as it is now referred to – but no mention of this description then – had 10 crematoria and 4 lethal gas chambers. Solid evidence that nothing was known about the alleged industrialized mass murder of Jews in gas chambers, all that was peddled were rumors. This is confirmed by the phrase “though it is said”, meaning it is rumored.

This is strange, for we have Bruno Baum telling us about the well organized resistance inside Auschwitz, that resistance sending reports of the (alleged) killings to the outside by courier, at one time even by short wave (Widerstand in Auschwitz, Kongress Verlag Berlin, 1961, pp.84ff). That is confirmed in the “Report by Captain Witold Pilecki”, who also provides details about the resistance.

Then we have: “Late 1941 – 600 Russians and 200 Poles gassed”. This rumor, shown to be a lie by Signor Mattogno (http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/atfg.pdf ), made it into the report, but very little else. We have 120,000 “persons” passing through in September 1942 and another 150,000 in 1944, the latter Hungarian Jews? There is mention of the “typhus epidemics” and the high mortality rate because of them, something ignored by “historians”. Then the referral to “slackers”, workers taking off more than two days a month and send to an educational camp. Why not just gas them? The resistance was aware of the (alleged) gassings of Jews, Baum writes about it, why no details in this handbook?

Now to Birkenau:

“BIRKENAU (BRZEZINKI) (SW Poland)

Type:

Special KL and annihilation camp for women reported here.

Inmates:

Reported to be mostly Hungarian Jews.

Remarks:

Most likely controlled by AUSCHWITZ , where Jews are sent to keep the 4 crematoria, busy.”

And that’s it. Up to the demise of the Soviet Union we were told that 4 million people, most of them Jews, were killed at Auschwitz/Birkenau, with Birkenau the main killing site. And all we have here is “Special KL and annihilation camp for women reported here”. ‘Reported here’ meaning that rumors were spread. Also, just for woman? And that with resistance groups operating in the camp, sending information out by various means. Workers from towns nearby entered the camp, prisoners escaped, partisans picked up information(Baum, p.73), etc., etc.

For Majdanek, the Auschwitz “Doppellager”, we have this:

“MAJDANEK (Poland) Near LUBLIN,

Reported in 1942 and 1943.

Mentioned variously as KL “Dulag”, part of Doppellager AUSCHWITZ, and also as extermination camp

One report mentions three camps located there.

MAJDANEK, special concentration camp with enclosures for women.

MAJDANEK I, transit camp.

MAJDANEK II, KL and annihilation camp. (These are the camps referred to in the newspapers as “the LUBLIN extermination camps”).

Inmates: Unconfirmed estimates of number of inmates range from 25,000 to 50,000.”

‘Mentioned’ as Dulag (Durchgangslager, transit camp) and extermination camp? How about some details? It is also of note that German terms are used throughout, evidence that the information was provided by either German traitors or German Jews, but all they had was rumors. A given, since no mass murder took place in any of the alleged ‘extermination camps”.

Now to the Reinhardt camps, erroneously spelled Reinhard:

“BELZEC (Poland) Location: 80 Km. NW of LEMBERG,

Type:

KL. Extermination camp for Jews.

Capacity:

10,000 Jewish inmates reported there.

SOBIBOR (E. Poland) 65 Km. ENE of LUBLIN

Reported in September 1942 as KL and extermination camp for Jews.

TREBLINKA (Poland) Location 80 Km. NE of WARSCHAU

Type:

September 1941 : reported as consisting of 3 camps:

I punitive camp for forced labour.

II KL

III Extermination camp for Jews”

A few lines about three sites where some 1.5 million Jews had allegedly been killed. Astonishing! In Treblinka alone, 880,000(Yad Vashem) Jews perished, allegedly, 700,000 of them buried first in huge mass graves, then exhumed and burned on open pyres, along with the rest. And all of it at a site clearly visible from most sites, with a village, Wolka Okraglik, near by. People also visited the camp, to do business:

“The Polish peasants “came with the aim of doing business;”(4) they brought the prisoners all kinds of food, which they exchanged for gold:(5)

“And so it came to pass that baskets filled with rolls, roasted chickens, cheese, butter, cream, and so forth began to arrive each day at Treblinka.”

4 Eyewitness statement by Samuel Willenberg, in Alexander Donat (ed.), The Death Camp

Treblinka, Holocaust Library, New York 1979, p. 192.

5 Eyewitness statement by Abraham Krzepicki, in A. Donat, ibid., p. 125. (Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, Theses & Dissertations Press

PO Box 257768, Chicago, Illinois 60625, January 2004, p.11)

And in spite of all the activity allegedly going on, the digging of graves, the mass killings, the burning of hundreds of thousands of corpses, with people around the camp witnessing this alleged commotion, all we have in the handbook is the laconic remark “Extermination camp for Jews”, in Treblinka III, a camp that didn’t even exist.

This report, issued in May 1944, when the alleged killings neared completion, confirms that nothing was known about “The Holocaust”. Sure, extermination is mentioned, as ‘reported’, i.e., rumored, but without detailed descriptions – and they would have been available if mass killings would have taken place – they are just that, rumors.

There never was a “Holocaust”.

Re: Does the World’s Most Prominent Opponent of “Holocaust Denial” Harbor a Hypocritical Double Standard on “Racist Nationalism?”

Ms. Lipstadt:

As you may know, I am planning to write another critique of your writings for Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com).  In the interests of fairness and truth I am giving you an opportunity to view my arguments and evidence prior to publication on the revisionist web site.

Since you are the world’s most prominent academic opponent of “Holocaust denial,” I would like to bring to your attention a hypocritical double standard that appears to plague your thinking and that of the Holocaust Lobby in general.  It pertains to the issue of “racist nationalism.”

In your 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust, you condemned as “racist” British Revisionist Richard Harwood and other “Holocaust deniers” for their opposition to non-White immigration into Britain.  I give you Deborah Lipstadt in her own words (p.106): “Harwood echoed the familiar extremist charge that the Anglo-Saxon world faced the gravest danger in its history: the presence of ‘alien races’ in its midst.  Linking Holocaust denial and the defense of the ‘race,’ he argued that unless something was done to halt the immigration and assimilation of non-Caucasians, Anglo-Saxons were certain to experience not only ‘biological alteration’ but the ‘destruction’ of their European culture and racial heritage.”  You clearly offer this as an example of “evil racist nationalism.”

Well Ms. Lipstadt, Israel – the state that you have admitted has captivated your undying love and devotion (See History on Trial, pp.4-5) – has in recent years experienced an influx of Black people from Africa.  In response, your fellow Jewish Zionists in Israel have expressed ideas almost identical with those of Harwood.  According to a Jewish Telegraph Agency missive of May 20, 2012, Israeli government reports claim there are more than 50,000 African migrants and asylum seekers in Tel Aviv alone.  In response, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the surge of illegal African migrants into Israel “threatens national security and identity.”  He then added: “”If we do not stop this, 60,000 infiltrators could become 600,000 and possibly even jeopardize Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish democracy.” According to a Wall Street Journal article of July 7-8, 2012, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai wants to deport the African migrants in order “to preserve the identity of the Jewish Zionist state [verbatim quote].”  In May of 2012, a legislator from Netanyahu’s party called the Black people from Africa “a cancer in our [Israel's] body.”  These sentiments are shared by a large number of Israeli Jews, because according to an Associated Press report of March 25, 2012: “Many Israelis are concerned that large numbers of African migrants could dilute the Jewish character of their state.”

So Ms. Lipstadt, will you now publicly condemn as “racists” Netanyahu, Yishai, and all of the other Jewish-Zionists in Israel that believe the African migrants are a threat to the racial and cultural identity of the Jewish state?  Of course, you may rebut me by saying the situation in Britain cannot be compared to that of Israel.  The non-Whites entered Britain legally while the Africans entered Israel illegally. Even though this is largely true, the fact of the matter still remains is that both Harwood and the Israeli Zionists view the non-Whites as a threat to the racial/cultural identity of their respective states, and in this sense the two examples are both comparable.

With that being said, I do not believe that you would ever condemn as “racists” the Israeli Zionists who believe the Africans are a threat to Israel’s identity, because the evidence suggests that you harbor a hypocritical double standard on the issue of “racist nationalism.”  It is even possible that you may secretly agree with the ideas expressed by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other Zionists.  Let me provide some documentation.

In your History on Trial (p.5), you expressed pride in the fact that, early in life, you marched in solidarity with those who wanted to implement Black-White integration policies in the United States: “My mother and I marched in Harlem in solidarity with the Birmingham-Salem civil rights protestors. We took a vicarious pride in the fact that Andy Goodman, one of the civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi, had lived down the block from us and we always pointed out this building to visitors.”  Although you worked to achieve racial integration and assimilation between Blacks and Whites in the United States, you appear to have a much different agenda for your Jewish people: the evidence suggests that you oppose the intermarriage and assimilation of Jews with non-Jews.  Herewith.

As Jewish author Ellen Jaffe McClain pointed out in Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the Future of the American Jewish Community, you are flatly opposed to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. In McClain’s own words: “Although people like Deborah Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage, much the way they expect their children not to take drugs, a large majority of parents (and more than a few rabbis) are unable to lay down opposition to intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] as a strict operating principle.”

At the Irving/Lipstadt trial in winter-spring of 2000, historian David Irving was labeled a “racist” because he was accused of opposing the intermarriage between Whites and non-Whites. Even D.D. Guttenplan, an anti-Irving journalist who covered the trial, hinted at the racial double standard at work here. He wrote: “[I]t was hard not to feel queasy listening to Rampton [the defense attorney for Lipstadt] quiz Irving about his attitude to ‘intermarriage between the races’—on behalf of a defendant [Deborah Lipstadt] who has written, ‘We [Lipstadt and her fellow Jews] know what we fight against: anti-Semitism and assimilation [of Jews and non-Jews], intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] and Israel-bashing.”  (See The Holocaust on Trial, p.209 )

So let us get this perfectly straight.  You marched in the United States to achieve assimilation and integration between Blacks and Whites; you condemned as “racist” Holocaust Revisionists who were opposed the immigration of non-Whites into Britain; so why won’t you publicly condemn Prime Minister Netanyahu and the other Israelis as “racists” for their belief that African Blacks represent a threat to the racial/cultural identity of Israel, just as you condemned Harwood and other “Holocaust deniers” for holding very similar beliefs?  Since you may never provide me with an answer to this question, I will dare to advance one.

The African-American intellectual, the late Harold Cruse, and White American psychologist Kevin MacDonald suggested the reason that so many Jews ardently supported racial integration between Blacks and Whites in the United States is because they wanted to dilute the political power of their potential enemy, White America, by creating a multicultural society.  In a racially integrated culture, Jews are better able to acquire power and achieve their political ends.  Or, to look at this in another way: outside of Israel Jews see themselves as an alien element within predominantly non-Jewish cultures and they want to build racially integrated, multicultural societies that tolerate their long-term policy of non-assimilation and ethnic-racial solidarity.  In such racially integrated, multicultural societies, the Jewish people are much safer and in a better position to gain power and influence.  In summary, a Jewish agenda that promotes the racial integration of Europeans and non-Whites outside of Israel, and simultaneously condemns all manifestations of European solidarity and self-preservation, actually serves the long term interests of Jewish-Zionist racial nationalism and Israel.

So I ask you, Ms. Lipstadt, is this the ulterior agenda that explains why you would publicly condemn Harwood and the other “Holocaust deniers” as “racists,” yet refuse to publicly condemn Netanyahu and the other Israeli Zionists for claiming that the Africans represent a threat to Israel’s racial/cultural identity?

If I am wrong about any of this, please correct me and I will retract my statements.

Paul Grubach

To: dlipsta@emory.edu
Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2012, 9:43 PM

Re: The Hypocritical Double Standard that Surrounds Questioning and Debunking the “Holocaust”

Ms. Lipstadt:

I have a legitimate reason to contact you. Since you are generally considered a renowned scholar of the Jewish Holocaust, I would very much like to hear your commentary on the following matter. After all, this information will pertain to my forthcoming critiques of your writings for Inconvenient History (www.inconvenienthistory.com) I really do not expect you to respond, but in the interest of fairness and truth, I want to give you a preview of my arguments. Please consider the following email an amended version of my email of October 15, 2012.

Consider the book by Israeli historian Uri Milstein, The Birth of the Palestinian Nation: The Myth of the Deir Yassin Massacre, which argues the Deir Yassin massacre of Arabs by Jewish Zionists was a “myth.” Notice the hypocritical double standard at work here. Western society and Israel consider it “morally acceptable” for a Jewish intellectual to attempt to repudiate and debunk the claim that Arabs were massacred and murdered at Deir Yassin by Jews, regardless of the fact that the feelings and sensibilities of Palestinian Arabs are offended in the process. There is no taboo here in the United States that prevents Jewish people from questioning the history of that event. To my knowledge there are no “Deir Yassin denial” laws in Israel or Europe that imprison Jews or others who question it. Nevertheless, there are “Holocaust denial” laws in Israel and throughout Europe, and strictly enforced taboos in the United States, that prevent people from questioning or debunking the “Holocaust,” the alleged massacre of Jews by Germans. And there is even more to consider.

Many Gypsy/Roma people claim that the Third Reich committed genocide against their people. Another Jewish intellectual, Guenther Lewy, wrote a lengthy tome entitled The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies–which was published by the very distinguished academic publishing house, Oxford University Press–that debunked this claim. This shows it is “morally acceptable” in our society to debunk the genocide claims of the Gypsy/Roma people, regardless of the fact that this offends many of them. Nevertheless, Oxford University Press would not dare publish a book that repudiates and debunks the Jewish “Holocaust.” Undoubtedly, in their view it would be “morally repugnant” and “anti-Semitic prejudice” to critique and undermine the traditional Jewish Holocaust story. Oxford University Press would not dare offend the feelings and sensibilities of Jews by publishing a “Holocaust denial” book. And there is still more.

Go to http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/28/french-court-rules-armenian-genocide-law-unconstitutional/ or see the article that follows this missive.
According to France’s highest court, a law that forbids the denial of the Armenian genocide by the Turks is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, laws that forbid the denial of the Jewish “Holocaust” are supposedly constitutionally valid. The article states that France’s highest court ruled as follows on the law that forbids denial of the Armenian genocide by Turks: “The Council ruled that the law, which would have imposed a 45,000-euro fine, a one-year prison sentence, or both, on genocide deniers, ran against the principles of freedom of expression written into France ‘s founding documents.” Once again, an Armenian genocide denial law violates the French constitution–but a Jewish Holocaust denial law does not violate the same constitution!!! France has strict laws that forbid anyone from debunking Jewish Holocaust claims. In effect, in France the feelings and beliefs of Jews are raised above those of Armenians.

Finally, consider this. Former president of the United States Jimmy Carter claimed that 5 million non-Jews were allegedly murdered by the Nazis in the concentration camps. Jewish Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt debunked and repudiated this claim in The Eichmann Trial; she says that it was a myth invented by Simon Wiesenthal. Once again this demonstrates how Jewish intellectuals such as yourself have infused the Holocaust issue with a hypocritical double standard. According to your criteria as presented in The Eichmann Trial, it is “morally acceptable” to question, debate and repudiate the story that the Nazis murdered five million non-Jews. Yet, according to the same standards as presented in The Eichmann Trial, that the Nazis murdered six million Jews is “not a matter of debate.” It is “an established fact that needs no validation.”

These four examples show how the international Zionist power elite has inculcated Western public consciousness with their own hypocritical double standard in regard to the “Holocaust” ideology.

If I am in error on any matter, please correct me.

Paul Grubach

By Wilfried Heink

As mentioned, Heydrich was send to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia as a replacement of Baron von Neurath, the first governor (Reichsprotektor), because of the latters failure to curb the unrest:

“The Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia, Baron von Neurath, had resigned from his post ostensibly because of illness. It was a convenient excuse. He was a failure. Czechoslovakia, far from being the model dependency Hitler expected of a founder member of his empire, was sullen and uncooperative. Production had fallen; students had the impudence to demonstrate in the streets; it appeared that the puppet government could do nothing with these irascible Czechs.

Upon the 27th September, 1941, S.S. General Reinhard Heydrich arrived in Prague in the post of Acting Reichsprotector of Bohemia and Moravia to remedy this state of affairs…

Within a matter of days, intelligently appraising the situation, Heydrich had also wooed the workers. Of what use were these Generals and intellectuals to the Czechs, he asked? He appealed on an effective materialistic level. For just a little extra work, extra fat coupons, meat coupons and bread coupons could be won. It was a belly bribery almost impossible to resist. And if a worker really cared to exert himself, there were holidays at the best Spa hotels—once the preserve of the aristocratic and the wealthy—for him and his family, higher wages, and food. Always the promise of more food, Within a month, production, especially war production, was rising…

There was no curfew in Prague in those days (month later. Wilf). It was a very secure corner of Hitlers empire and the Czechs were a people that Heydrich was quite certain he had tamed.” (Alan Burgess, Seven Men At Daybreak, The Companion Book Club, London 1960, pp.39/40; 89)

This was of course a concern to the Brits and their allies (see part IV), as well as to the Benes Czech government in exile in London and plans were made to assassinate Heydrich. It was hoped that the Germans would react harshly and that the countermeasures taken would incite the Czech public. The operation was codenamed “Anthropoid”.

When the remainder of the Czech state was turned into a German protectorate, a large number of Czech soldiers fled, via Poland and the port of Gdynia, Hungary, the Balkans, as well as other countries, to eventually make it to England. There they were incorporated into the Czech legion, the army of Benes (Stanislav P. Berton, Das Attentat auf Heydrich vom 27. Mai 1942. Ein Bericht des Kriminalrats Heinz Pannwitz [The Heydrich assassination. Report by inspector Heinz Pannwitz], VfZ 1985, vol.4, p.675). Jan Kubis, one of the Heydrich assassins, belonged to a Czech resistance group, he was arrested by the Gestapo but was able to flee to Poland. In the refugee camp he met his co-assassin Josef Gabchik. The French had set up a recruitment office for the French foreign legion in that camp and both joined. Deployed in the western campaign, they were part of the forces who were evacuated at Dunkirk and thus also made it to England. There they joined the Czech legion.

When  the British special Operations Executive (SOE), murder squads of the British Secret Service, were looking for people to operate behind German lines, Jan and Josef, along with 160 others, volunteered for actions in the Protectorate. In a six week seminar at Camusdarach/Scotland they were trained by the British to perform acts of sabotage, in hand to hand combat and also taught how to kill. In Manchester they had received a two week training course in the operation in wireless transmission and at the conclusion of the training they were send back to their units to wait for further instructions (VfZ, pp.675/76; Deschner, p.268, source: Charles Wighton, Heydrich – Hitlers most evil Henchman, London 1962, p.268).

Who was responsible for the assassination, the British or the Benes government? Burgess writes in his Authors note:

“I am grateful to the Czech Ministry of Information for allowing my visit and putting no obstacles in the way of my research. On the other hand I formed the definite opinion that because Jan Kubis and Josef Gabchik and the others were trained in Britain, and the operation as a whole was conceived in Britain, the present Communist regime tends—if not to suppress—then at least to play down the story. I am therefore doubly grateful to all of those people in Czechoslovakia, whose names I shall not enumerate, who helped me and gave me information”. (pp.13/14)

The truth is buried in those sentences. Following the war, the Burgess book published in 1960, a lot of subjects were treated as taboos. The “cold war” was in full swing and neither side admitted to any collaboration in the attempts to destroy Germany, the German traitors were ignored, it was in fact forbidden to mention them (H. Rothfels, The German opposition to Hitler, Henry Regnery Company, Hillsdale Illinois 1948, pp.20/21). The communists did not want people to know that it was terrorists who were trained, outfitted and transported by the RAF to Bohemia, that killed Heydrich, so it was ignored. Benes was not in the position to act independently, he had to rely on the Brits. We know that the Brits trained the assassins, but the “fair” British would of course not admit that they would order an assassination, therefore efforts are made to credit Benes with the planning of the assassination. Treachery is perfidious Albion’s game.

On December 29, 1941, Jan and Josef were dropped from a “Halifax” of the Royal Air Force near Plzen, three others near Kolin. Their assignment: The assassination of Heydrich and the blowing up of the Skoda factory in Plzen (VfZ, p.676). Jan and Josef eventually made it to Prague and started to plan the assassination.

As mentioned, the Heydrich’s had moved into a mansion in the village of Panenske Brezany, 20km from Prague. And, Heydrich was a creature of habit, travelling to Berlin often, either by plane or train, but always following the same routine. His driver would take him in the open Mercedes, the same route was taken and when he went to work he travelled at the same time. All of those strictly against all regulations, some of them devised by Heydrich. He had ordered that the backrests of the car seats used by officials be reinforced with steel plates, his Mercedes did not have them. Heydrich had done his job in the Protectorate, Hitler was impressed and since Belgium and Northern-France had become somewhat of a problem, London organized acts of sabotage in the countries, Heydrich counted on being appointed as top official to those places to work his magic. He was instructed to come to Berlin on May 27, 1942 to receive his new orders (Deschner, p.266).

London and Moscow were also aware of those developments, not surprising when considering the mass of traitors in all spheres of the Reich (Deschner mentions a resistance informant, p.270. Wilf). In March 1942, during a routine inspection security  police in the Warsaw train station had arrested a musician on his way to Prague. His papers were in order but his brand-new suitcase aroused suspicion. In a secret department the security police found a disassembled, special gun. After lengthy interrogations the suspect admitted to being a Russian and ordered to assassinate Heydrich on his route to Prague or home. His story was taken with caution but before it could be confirmed, the suspect committed suicide in his cell (Ibid, pp.266/67).

The London plans were advancing satisfactorily, Jan and Josef surveyed the Heydrich property, in plain daylight and any observer should have detected them, nobody did. What happened to the guards deployed by Himmler? Plans to kill Heydrich en route were dropped, the car was traveling too fast and there was no place to hide in the open country. Thus, they were changed to have the assassination take place in Prague. Heydrich’s driver, on the way into the city, had to negotiate a hairpin curve, forcing him to slow down. Valcik, a Czech SOE agent had been placed up the street from the curve, to signal, with a mirror, the arrival of Heydrich’s car (Deschner, p.271). Josef was stationed just ahead of the curve, with an English machine gun under his coat, with Jan standing right at the curve, armed with a hand grenade.

The morning of May 27^th was a bright and sunny. The plane that he was to pilot to Berlin himself stood at the ready at the airport, but Heydrich took his time getting started on that day. He counted on a longer stay in Berlin and the good-byes stretched out, he played with his kids, but finally, at 10:00am, he left. The assassins in the meantime were getting nervous, Heydrich should have arrived already, had the Gestapo gotten wind of their plan? Not so, at 10:30 Valcik’s mirror flashed and Josef walked over to the other side of the street. The car approached, Klein at the wheel with Heydrich sitting beside him, and getting close to the hair-pin Klein slowed the car and shifted down. When they were right beside Josef, Josef brought the gun out from under his coat, pointed it and pressed the trigger, but nothing happened (Here stories differ but it is believed that he had not completely disengaged the safety. Wilf). If the gun would have fired, Heydrich would have been riddled with bullets. Heydrich of course noticed the would be assassin and ordered Klein to stop. A fatal mistake and against his own instructions, which stated that if an event as this occurs, the driver should try and get away as fast as possible. As the car slowed down, Jan threw his grenade, it exploded just ahead of the right rear wheel, the grenade shrapnel piercing the backrest of Heydrich’s seat and wounding him.

When the car had come to a stop both jumped out to pursue the assassins. Jan tried to flee but bystanders blocked his way, he fired his colt pistol and they dispersed. Heydrich had pulled a pistol out of the door side pocket, aimed at Jan but the gun did not fire, Heydrich had forgotten to work the slide. Klein in the meantime had set out after Josef, but his pistol also did not fire, he had inadvertently pushed the knob to release the magazine. Josef fired at him, wounding him in the knee and Klein went down. Heydrich had in the meantime given up pursuit and returned to the car. There he stood, bend over in pain, completely helpless and alone. Did the people around him take advantage of the situation, did they settle their scores with “The butcher of Prague”? No, a woman approached him to help, a van was flagged down, Heydrich loaded into it and sitting in the loading area was transported to the hospital.

One of the shrapnel had entered Heydrich’s spleen, carrying along some of the horse-hair filling of the seats backrest. In the morning of June 4^th Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich died of blood poisoning, in spite of the best care possible. Penicillin might have saved him but non was available in Germany. On the evening of the 5^th, a battalion of SS troops, as well as all of SD and security police officers held wake in the yard of the hospital. He was then transported to the Hradčany on a gun carriage, the streets through which the possession passed cleared of civilians, thousands of SS men lining the streets. On this night the SS were among themselves. On June 7^th, the corpse lay in state in the yard of the Hradčany castle, a huge wooden iron cross in the background, the coffin flanked by bowls containing a flaming substance. High ranking SS and army officers provided the honor guard, the black and white SS banners at half staff. Starting in early morning, tens of thousands passed by the coffin, Germans, Czechs, policemen, workers, Czech farmers in traditional dress, the woman bringing flowers. In late afternoon a special train, carrying the casket of Reinhard Heydrich, left for Berlin.  On June 9^th, at 15:00hrs. sharp, the state funeral began, the most impressive celebration since the death of Hindenburg. All the dignitaries spoke, Himmler called Heydrich ‘irreplaceable’ and Hitler pinned the Highest German Order onto a black pillow (Ordenskissen), held by an officer. Only Fritz Todt had received it before, and it was not bestowed to anyone else. The gun carriage with the coffin, decked in a huge Swastika flag, was drawn by six black stallions, the saber and helmet of the man on top of the coffin. Himmler following right behind, then all of the other dignitaries, among them those glad to be rid of the man who knew too much: Bormann, Lammers, Frick, Goebbels, Rosenberg…(Deschner, p.302)

An investigation was ordered following the assassination, a reward of one million Mark offered. A curfew was put in place, Kurt Daluge, head of the Order Police, arrived in Prague but Nebe and Müller only send deputies. The investigations were unsuccessful, in spite of a huge effort. Reprisals were ordered, in Lidice, a town that had housed some of the “parachutists”, as the British trained Czech terrorist were called, was leveled, the men shot. Finally, on June 16^th, the Czech Karel Curda appeared at the Prague state police office and asked to be taken to a leading officer. He gave the police the name of Josef Grabcik and Jan Kubis was then soon identified. They were holed up in a church, along with five other terrorists. On the morning of June 18^th, the church was surrounded and all of terrorists shot, some died of the gunshot wounds later (Deschner, pp.311/12)

Comments: Some of the details vary, different authors give different accounts. What is of interest however is the time it took to finally find the murderers. Heydrich’s men had almost wiped out Czech resistance and were also successful in intercepting parachutists. Was the delay the work of people behind the scenes? Canaris had very good connections to abroad and it is possible that he had known about the SOE plans. Deschner writes that Heydrich was about to expose Canaris, the assassination prevented that. Then we have the police inspector Heinz Pannwitz, in 1940 appointed head of department II g (assassinations, illegal possession of weapons, sabotage) of the Gestapo in Prague. Following Heydrich’s assassination he was put in charge of the investigations, and compiled the final report (I have the report but this is a separate issue. Wilf). In the introduction to the report by Stanislav F. Berton, who found it, we read re. Pannwitz: “Das Ende seiner Karriere…kam mit seiner Verhaftung durch die französische Militärpolizei Anfang Mai 1945 in Österreich. Auf eigenen Wunsch wurde er den Sowjets übergeben“ (His arrest by the French military police in May 1945 in Austria ended his career. At his request he was handed over to the Soviets)(VfZ, 1985, vol.4, p.671). A traitor leading the investigation? The Brits, and Benes, had hoped that the reaction by the Germans would incite the Czechs, that they would rise up and make it very difficult for the Germans. That did not happen, but perhaps it was hoped that by dragging out the investigation, and by the continued repression, the revolt would start, even if delayed? Too many loose ends here, but I find it hard to believe that it had to take an informant to finally locate the murderers.

Did Heydrich tempt fate? Highly unlikely, he was convinced that “his” Czechs would not harm him. And they didn’t, Czech onlookers tried to get in the way of the British trained assassins and only when threatened with a gun by him did they give way. Heydrich was helped by Czech civilians to get to the hospital, would they have done so if the story of “Heydrich, the butcher of Prague” is true? Of course not, they knew that Heydrich had acted fairly and had improved conditions for the working people. No revolt broke out, even after the reprisals by the Germans.

The last chapter in Deschner’s book is titled Die Summe eines Lebens (Summary of a Life). He tells us that Eugen Kogon, a communist who had spend time in a concentration camp (KZ), has Heydrich as the inventor of the KZ’s, a fable. Jacob Burckhard, League of Nations commissioner of Danzig and who had only briefly met Heydrich, told that he had Raphaelian hands, made for slow strangulation. Post war allied propaganda has him as Heydrich the Butcher, but when considering the divergences a different picture emerges. Joachim Fest was aware of the contradictions and tried to build a small bridge for himself, claiming that Heydrich was a broken person, fighting his daemons. But that bridge can only carry weight if the Jewish ancestry supports are left in place, a legend.

Heydrich was the impersonation of National Socialism (NS) as a new ideal/model (without the Holocaust lie. Wilf). If NS would have looked into the mirror the picture of Heydrich would have looked back. Prof. Ernst Nolte, an expert on NS, stated that most NS personalities had an unidentifiable identity. Not so Heydrich, he was homogenous, he had an identifiable identity. He had been able to assemble the most intelligent NS people around him. He was not burdened by party politics but realized that for a revolution to be successful in an highly advanced industrialized nation as Germany –  that it would be necessary to have people of intelligence and conviction in all important positions. Traitors and enemies of this new ideal had to be removed. “Two Vatican’s are issuing encyclicals today”, he told his officers, “one is located in Rom and the other in Moscow, and we are the heretics of both religions”. He was also not really committed to NS ideology, but instead to his conviction that a new order must be created. Hatred of Slavs or Czechs was foreign to him, he told German officials at the beginning of his tenure in Prague that pacifying the Czechs was his mission and that he would work with anyone committed to that. He did not spare Germans who were negligent.

Deschner claims that the transit camps in which Jews were sanitized and relieved of most of their earthly belonging were called “Aktion Reinhard” camps in his hono. A strange statement by Deschner, he does not refer to the Reinhardt camps as extermination sites, mentions only the confiscation of property. He also has the name wrong, his source: R. Kempner in Vorwärts of June 8, 1972, p.9. One has to wonder when the extermination camp story was concocted. But what about his Einsatzgruppen (EG), the alleged Nazi murder squads? No mass graves have ever been found by independent investigators. The Russians claim to have investigated, but not one of those graves alleged to have been found by them is on display, all we have are papers of dubious origin (F. Seidler, Das Recht in Siegerhand, pp.271ff). Prof. Maser wrote that huge areas in Eastern Europe, the alleged killing sites, are still today terra incognita, historians are reluctant to investigate out of fear not to find what is allegedly there (Fälschung, Dichtung und Wahrheit…, p.332). And only investigations by experts in the field of crime investigations should be accepted, not the efforts by some amateurs. We also have the testimony by perpetrators, that by attorney and economist Otto Ohlendorf for instance, who told his interrogators that his EG had shot 90,000 Jews, but this has never been substantiated, no grave ever found.

Heydrich does not come across as someone with a split personality, quite the contrary. This is why Deschner’s biography is ignored and a new one had to be produced by the Netsbeschmutzer and story-teller Gerwarth, something more compatible with the Zeitgeist. Heydrich was not a mass murderer, his personality did not lend itself to it. Neither were the intellectuals he had gathered around him, and since the murder story rests on testimonies and has never been substantiated, we can safely dismiss it as a lie. Heydrich of course ordered the hanging or shooting of enemies of the Reich, his EG did the same and yes, Jews were among those killed. He told his wife Lina: „Ich fühle mich frei von jeder Schuld“ (I am free of any guilt feelings). And he should be, his job was not an easy one and he had to make life and death decisions, difficult for him and Deschner makes that clear. But he never was “Heydrich the Butcher”.

May he RIP