Line Line
Apr
19
2014

ADL Outs another False-Flag Attack

Print This Post Print This Post

By Jett Rucker-

Letter distributed to Jews in Donetsk, Ukraine, April 2014

Abe Foxman, venerable head of the Anti-Defamation League, hasn’t exposed many false-flag attacks during his long career, but a peculiar echo of the Holocaust in eastern Ukraine has drawn just such a reaction from him.

It’s Byzantine. As this article details, Jews exiting a synagogue in Donetsk this Pesach just past were handed an ominous letter apparently from the local Russia-favoring militia instructing them to register with the local government as Jews (no report of anyone attempting to do so has surfaced as yet).

(Read more…)

Jun
15
2013

Publish the Rosenberg Diaries

Print This Post Print This Post

By Richard A. Widmann-

Alfred Rosenberg

Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946)

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.

(Read more…)

Oct
24
2011

Relative of Shlomo Wiesel says he died in 1943, not at Buchenwald

Print This Post Print This Post

By Carolyn Yeager

 

 

 

Elie Wiesel’s father Shlomo in 1942, according to Hilda Wiesel.

Is he 39 or 48 years old?

 

 

 

 

 

A report in the Yad Vashem Shoah Victims database by Yaakov Fishkovitz contradicts Elie Wiesel’s story about his father’s death.

Yaakov (Jacob) Fishkowitz filled out a death form in 1957 for his cousin Shlomo Wiesel, shortly after Yad Vashem first began its “Central Database of Shoah Victims Names.”1 He also filled out a form for Shlomo’s mother Nisel Basch Wiesel, his aunt. The cousins shared a maternal grandfather, Moshe Basch. (Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Eye-witnesses,Holocaust | Tags:
Jun
04
2011

Sobibor – Muehlenkamp’s “best explanation”

Print This Post Print This Post

By Thomas Kues

After my comment on the terms Sonderlager and SS-Sonderkommando in relation to the Sobibór camp,[1] Roberto Muehlenkamp has focused his untiring yet self-defeating powers of “argumentation” on the following passage in the March 1944 Benda report on the Sobibór prisoner uprising:

Mit Rücksicht auf die Art die Sonderlagers und dessen Häftlinge, wurde veranlasst, dass die Wehrmacht sofort die Verfolgung der Flüchtigen und die Schutzpolizei die Sicherung des Lagers ausserhalb der Lagerumzäunung aufnahm.”[2]

In English translation:

In view of the nature of the special camp [Sonderlagers] and its prisoners, the Wehrmacht was ordered to organize an immediate posse after the fugitives, and the Police to secure the safety of the camp outside its fences.”

(Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Operation Reinhardt,Sobibor | Tags:
May
27
2011

On the terms Sonderlager and SS-Sonderkommando

Print This Post Print This Post

By Thomas Kues

In a reply [1] to my recent article [2] on the holocaust historians’ lies and obfuscations about the contents of Nuremberg document NO-482, wherein Sobibór is designated as a transit camp (Durchgangslager), anti-revisionist blogger Roberto Muehlenkamp focuses on the fact that in the 17 March 1944 report of SS-Untersturmführer Benda concerning the Sobibór prisoner uprising and mass escape the Sobibór camp is called a “Sonderlager” (special- or exception camp). According to the Tarnsprache exegesis, adopted by Muehlenkamp and his likes when it suits them, this means that Sobibór was a death camp, since the prefix Sonder– (special- or exception(al)-), it seems, always denoted killings in Nazi jargon! Muehlenkamp further accuses me and my co-authors of the study Sobibór. Holocaust Propaganda and Reality,[3] Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, of having hidden Benda’s use of the word Sonderlager from our readers. He writes:

“M[attogno], G[raf and ]K[ues] merely mention that «Five months after these events, on 17 March 1944, SS-Untersturmführer Benda wrote an account of the Sobibór uprising – which he wrongly dated 15 October 1943 – and of the ensuing search for the fugitives, stating that the rebels had “shot an SS officer as well as 10 SS NCOs.”» (MGK, Sobibór, p. 22). “

The quote presented by Muehlenkamp is correct. The non-mention of Benda’s wording, however, is in effect an editorial error, which unfortunately was carried over to the German edition of our book.[4] If Muehlenkamp had bothered to read the condensed (and somewhat “popularized”) German version of our book, Die Akte Sobibor, which is readily available online,[5] he would have found the following remark in the corresponding section:

(Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Operation Reinhardt,Sobibor | Tags:
May
25
2011

The Office – the German Foreign Service during the Third Reich

Print This Post Print This Post

A Review and Assessment of a Controversial German Commission Report

by Dr. Claus G. Wagner Bartach

 

Introduction

In the early 1960s, a determined, powerful group of Zionists and Israelis decided to broadcast to the world one of the horrific atrocities of the twentieth century, relating to their special concerns. Out of the more than 100 million deaths of civilians, ethnic minorities and political opponents committed in the 1940s by gruesome draconian totalitarian regimes during and after World War 2, the terrible fate of an alleged six million Jews was determined as a uniquely horrific picture of especially German atrocities and guilt towards Jews in Europe. As inconvenient as the truth may be, the reason for this special emphasis was apparently twofold: to establish a perpetual symbol for the alleged eternal suffering of Jews and to materially and politically benefit from a worldwide emotion of guilt resulting in sympathy towards Jews and Israelis, exempting them from inconvenient scrutiny and criticism of their own crass misbehavior. The term Holocaust was carefully chosen (or “invented”) and broadcast, having a vague abstract background in the Bible. An eager media was blindly following suit.

The Jewish author Norman G. Finkelstein differentiates between the “Nazi holocaust” – in which Jews and other victims were exterminated – and “The Holocaust” – the well-known public “persona” of the event, the image that he alleges is nothing but the product of propaganda of the Jewish establishment. Continuing the financial coercion of the past, “The Jewish establishment,” he tells an interviewer, “was now in a rush to shake down mainly the Swiss on the banks issue, and used pressure exerted by agencies of the American government – [saying] that if they didn’t pay up, they would be boycotted in the U.S. There is an extortion racket at work here, and for this alone the extortionists should have been thrown out of public life.”

(Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Holocaust | Tags:
May
22
2011

Lies and obfuscations about Himmler’s Sobibor directive

Print This Post Print This Post

by Thomas Kues

 

Peter Black is a Senior Historian at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum who received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1981. He is also the former chief historian for the “Nazi hunting” Office of Special Investigations of the United States Department of Justice.

In a long article entitled “Foot Soldiers of the Final Solution: The Trawniki Training Camp and Operation Reinhard”, published in the prestigious exterminationist journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Black has the following to tell us about the Sobibór “extermination camp”[1]:

“Himmler had intended to convert it [Sobibór] into a concentration camp servicing a plant that recycled captured ammunition; Pohl and Globocnik convinced him instead to make Sobibor into a ‘transit camp’ (Durchgangslager)”

As a source Black offers [2]:

“On plans for an ammunition recycling plant, see circular order of the Reichsführer-SS [initialed R. Brandt], July 5, 1943; Chief of WVHA [signed Pohl] to Reichsführer-SS, July 10, 1943; and Reichsführer-SS/Personal Staff [initialed Brandt] to Pohl, July 24, 1943, NARA, RG 238, NO-482.”

However, if we look at the Nuremberg document NO-482 referred to by the venerable Senior Historian of the USHMM we find that the crucial part of Himmler’s 5 July 1943 directive reads as follows:

Das Durchgangslager Sobibor im Distrikt Lublin ist in ein Konzentrationslager umzuwandeln. In dem Konzentrationslager ist eine Entlaborierungsanstalt für Beutemunition einzurichten.”

In English translation:

“The Sobibór transit camp, located in the Lublin district, is to be converted into a concentration camp. A dismantling unit for captured enemy munitions is to be set up in the concentration camp.”

(Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Operation Reinhardt,Sobibor | Tags:
Nov
27
2010

Lithuanian Historian Accused of “Denying the Holocaust”

Print This Post Print This Post

By Thomas Kues

On 25 November 2010 the AFP news bureau reported the following:

A Lithuanian historian quit his civil service job Thursday after seven ambassadors from fellow European nations accused him of denying the Holocaust. Lithuania’s interior ministry said that Petras Stankeras, an independent historian who also held a middle-ranking post in its planning department, had left at his own request. Interior Minister Raimundas Palaitis said Stankeras’s views were personal.

‘Such interpretations have nothing in common with the position of the interior ministry with regard to the Jewish genocide,’ Palaitis said in a statement.

The announcement came a day after the ambassadors of Britain, Estonia, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden slammed an article by Stankeras in the mainstream weekly Veidas on the Nuremberg trials, where the victorious Allies tried top Nazi German officials after World War II. Stankeras wrote that the trials ‘provided a legal basis to the legend about the six million purportedly murdered Jews’. (Read more…)

Written by Thomas Kues in: Documentary Evidence,Genocide,Holocaust,IMT Nuremberg | Tags:
Jul
22
2010

New website challenging Elie Wiesel on tattoo and other identity issues

Print This Post Print This Post

by Carolyn Yeager

I Con the World

Is Elie Wiesel an icon or an “I con?”

Venerated and billed as “the world’s most famous Holocaust survivor” and a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars every year in speaking fees (at $25,000 a pop it might be closer to say a million), and holding a prestigious, but undemanding six-figure professorship in Humanities at Boston University, Elie Wiesel has never been asked to show any proof that he is what he says he is.

Everything written about Elie Wiesel that this writer can find skims over the details and dwells on the emotionality of holocaust, humanity and hate. Among the many unnerving quotations from Elie concerning the last h-word is this one, found preceding an essay in the Jewish Daily Forward of June 9th by Anita Epstein, titled “Why I Cannot Forgive Germany:” [1]

“I cannot and I do not want to forgive the killers of children; I ask God not to forgive.”

     – Elie Wiesel

Ms. Epstein is influenced (or inspired?) by Wiesel to hold onto hate by holding on to the holocaust legends, such as the one about “Germans” throwing babies off of balconies. Another famous statement made by Elie is:


“Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy virile hate – for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead. ”

Elie Wiesel actually plays God. The world has been conned into seeing him as the next best thing to God, as someone who has risen above it all, as someone who is capable or has earned the right to pass judgment on the rest of humanity. What has earned him this right is clearly his suffering during the one year he was held in concentration camps and his “powerful prose” in describing it.

However, Elie’s actual presence in the Auschwitz “death camp” and the Buchenwald concentration camp during 1944-45 rests solely on the claims of the New York Times and his well-promoted books, the most famous being his first one, Night, published in 1955 in Buenos Aires. That’s an interesting story in itself, but here I will limit myself to a chronology of NYT features on Elie that coincide with his advancing fortunes.
(Read more…)

Jul
08
2010

The ”Sonderkommandos” of Auschwitz

Print This Post Print This Post

By Carlo Mattogno

In my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term[1] I have written as follows:

«“Special Units” of the Crematoria
Danuta Czech explains the origin and meaning of the term “Sonderkommando” (special unit) as follows:
“The extermination camp created also one other group of people, those who were forced to work in the crematoria and gas chambers – the unfortunate people were assigned to the work of the special unit. The SS used code words if they spoke about the mass extermination of those ‘unworthy of life.’ It called the mass extermination as well as the transports leading
to selection ‘special treatment’ (often abbreviated as SB). Thus, also, the expression ‘special unit.’”

In other words, since criminal activity described by the code word ‘special treatment’ was allegedly being conducted in the crematoria, the staff employed there had of necessity to be a ‘special unit.’ Naturally it was the only work unit at Auschwitz that merited the prefix ‘special’ [sonder] – otherwise the word would have lost the criminal significance that it possessed according to official historiography.
Based on the documents, the reality is entirely different. First of all, the expression ‘special unit’ does not appear in a single document referring to the crematoria. In its ‘magnum opus’ the Auschwitz museum attempted to prove, on the basis of two documents, that this term was used for the crematoria personnel. The first document is a duty roster for July 18, 1944 [”Dienstplan für Dienstag”, dated 17 July], the second order no. 8/43 of April 20, 1943 from the Commandant’s Headquarters. But the first document merely mentions the term ‘special unit’ in connection with a gate control [Torkontrolle

Here a correction is necessary. (Read more…)