Archive/File: holocaust/deniers wmm.1194
Last-Modified: 1994/10/29

Article 18638 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Persecution of the SS
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 6 Nov 1994 23:20:34 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <39k9ui$20q@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 08:07:45 GMT
Lines: 78


First, although many points you make I don't substantively disagree
with I do take offense at this "judeo-bolshevik" silliness, it's
without basis and one of the more frantic excuses I've ever seen for
what the Russians pretty well did for themselves (for better or for
worse.) I suppose in 50 more years Hitler and his Nazis will have
become a jewish conspiracy (hey, we all know about Wallenberg I
believe was his name, the billionaire jewish financier, loaning money
to Hitler early on! Wouldn't be hard to spin that story with a few
well placed, um, exagerrations. And don't forget Alfred
Rosenberg...hmm, sounds *jewish*!)

Really. Sometimes I wonder if people hate Jews or worship them as
omnipotent gods. They simply control everything. The US, Western
Europe, the Soviet Union, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the media,
all the banks, etc. It's truly staggering. One wonders why they have
any troubles at all!

From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
>Unfortunately for any such
>sentamentalists Hitler made it abundantly clear (eg, see Mein Kampf) that
     ^imentalists
>he viewed that empire as being poisoned and corrupt (perhaps not in
>theory, but certainly in practice), he viewed it as the major reason for
>the losses in WWII and the (in his eyes) degradation of his own country,
	       ^^^WWI (of course)
>Austria.
>
>You are misinterpreting Hitlers feelings here.  He had nothing against
>Hungarians as Hungarians having their own state.  He opposed what he
>called a bastardized state, wherein the Germans were losing all political
>power to the polyglot masses of the Austrian Empire - whose nobility  had
>to admit the Hungarian nobility into equality in order to maintain their
>hegemony.

I think we agree here, that's all I meant. Hitler was more concerned
about Yugoslavian influence upon Austro-Hungary as I read it, and
projected that into non-German influence in general. I don't remember
much mention of Hungary per se at all.

>Out of curiosity, Barry, why do you think that all of Central and Eastern
>Europe, excepting only the Poles and including the Ukraine and Yugoslavia
>until the Allied overthrow of Prince Paul, everyone was pro-German. Or if
>you prefer, pro-Nazi? To what do you ascribe this curiosity.  

Sentimentality for the Austro-Hungarian and Prussian Empires which
they associated with better economic and, for want of a better word,
spiritually uplifting times. The vain hope that empire would be
restored.

Go to Budapest today. On every corner of the city (almost literally)
you can buy a T-shirt or other bit of memorabilia which depicts a map
of Hungary as it is today surrounded by the (much larger) Pre-WWI
border. It is practically the national symbol, after the flag and the
paprika. And every day's newspaper has a story, usually on the front
page, about ethnic Hungarians trapped and mistreated behind these
borders.

Look at Yugoslavia/Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia/HZ, sadly all that makes them
unique is that they are a few years ahead of the rest of Central and
Eastern Europe.

Some are trying to bring WWII to a close. That region hasn't finished
with WWI. WWII was just a recent attempt to settle the score. There
are basically three loci to Europe: The West (England, France, Spain,
Italy, etc), Central (Germany, Hungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, etc) and
the East (Russia, Poland, Czechia+Slovakia perhaps or perhaps that's
the split I'm not sure, etc.) It's not very encouraging, one man's
peace is just another's temporary setback...




-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 18672 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!unixg.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!scipio.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Persecution of the SS
Date: 6 Nov 1994 23:20:34 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 150
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <39k9ui$20q@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In Message:  bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) wrote:
> Well, Mr Michael, you are capable of writing a coherent note. What a
surprise.

I might state the same for you.  I didnt notice any of the usual cussing
and defamation. Perhaps we can continue as gentlemen.


>Hungary basically capitulated to the Nazi govt near the end of the war,
around 1944? Horthy was trying to maintain some sort of neutrality up
until then. Of course, that was a difficult position, his neutrality was
seen as alliance with the Allies by the Nazis and with the Nazis by the
Allies.

Admiral Horthy was a bit of a sleaze (read typical politician).  He took
over the Hungarian Government after WWI by claiming to be the Regent of
the last Austro-Hungarian Emperor Charles II; however, he refused to allow
Charles to enter Hungary to take up his rule after Austria abolished the
monarchy.  Nevertheless he continued the fiction of being Regent of
Hungary for Charles.

Hungary, Poland, Rumania and the Czechs all had a long list of territorial
grievances to recompense.  In one of these, Hitler agreed on March 13,
1939, not to oppose a Hungarian invasion of Ruthenia, and he received a
special message of thanks from Regent Horthy.  (In the same manner the
Poles invaded part of Czechoslovakia, etc.) So the Hungarians were
definitely with the Germans as long as they could be. What Horthy did, was
to try and maintain a bit of a distance where they could opt out if it
looked like Germany would lose the war, so as to get the best terms
possible by stabbing the Reich in the back.  Finland did this until they
opted out in 1944, and Spain accepted German aid and sent the Blue
Division to Russia in like manner until 1944 when the Blue Division was
withdrawn.

This was the reason why the Germans sent Skorzeny to Budapest to take
Horthy prisoner - to prevent him from turning his coat.  It was feared
that should Horthy either go with the allies, or proclaim neutrality a la
Badoglio, the Hungarian troops would lay down their arms. Hungarian troops
were sorely needed to maintain the sagging Eastern Front and to stall the
Soviets from sweeping through Hungary itself. These troops were well
outside of Hungary from that countrys entry in 1942 as an Axis Power
through the Soviet entry into Hungary.   

>Geographically Hungary's position was not envious being just about
surrounded either by the Third Reich or the Soviets or their fairly
hostile (as far as the hungarians are concerned) allies, Austria on the
north, the Chetniks to the south, etc. Horthy goes with the Nazis. They
install themselves in Hungary and begin one of the largest wholesale
slaughters of Jews and others yet to be publically seen. The Danube
practically runs red as tens of thousands of Jews and other perceived
enemies are rounded up in Budapest, marched to its banks, shot and let to
fall in. Hundreds of thousands are sent to death camps in Poland etc.

As I stated, Horthy was installed in Hungary about the end of WWI. The
Hungarian political parties were strongly pro-German, pro-Nazi and
anti-Bolshevik, which to them also meant anti-Jewish.  Remember that
Hungary had lain under the benevolent hand of Bela Kun for some time
before they could throw off this, as they saw it, Jewish Bolshevik
Peoples Republic and regain their national freedom.  As usual with
Bolshevik practice, Kun instituted mass murders against the Hungarian
populace, and the Jews were very evident in their participation in his
government and support of it.  This is the back drop for any real or
alleged retribution.


>I think claiming that the average Hungarian was "pro-German" in this
period is, well, I see no basis for it. It was a gruesome and short
period, relatively. I'm sure you could find *someone* convinced that the
Austro-Hungarian Empire was being resurrected. Unfortunately for any such
sentamentalists Hitler made it abundantly clear (eg, see Mein Kampf) that
he viewed that empire as being poisoned and corrupt (perhaps not in
theory, but certainly in practice), he viewed it as the major reason for
the losses in WWII and the (in his eyes) degradation of his own country,
Austria.

You are misinterpreting Hitlers feelings here.  He had nothing against
Hungarians as Hungarians having their own state.  He opposed what he
called a bastardized state, wherein the Germans were losing all political
power to the polyglot masses of the Austrian Empire - whose nobility  had
to admit the Hungarian nobility into equality in order to maintain their
hegemony.  In other words, the Austrian Germans, following the loss of all
of the rest of the old Reich, could no longer maintain political
suzerainty over the empire without allies - the Hungarians were it. And so
the Austrian Empire became the Austro-Hungarian Empire.


>I think claiming that the average Hungarian was "pro-German" in this
period is, well, I see no basis for it. It was a gruesome and short
period, relatively. I'm sure you could find *someone* convinced that the
Austro-Hungarian Empire was being resurrected. Unfortunately for any such
sentamentalists Hitler made it abundantly clear (eg, see Mein Kampf) that
he viewed that empire as being poisoned and corrupt (perhaps not in
theory, but certainly in practice), he viewed it as the major reason for
the losses in WWII and the (in his eyes) degradation of his own country,
Austria.

While willing to accept German hegemony over Central Europe, neither
Germany nor the other countries wanted a new Austro-Hungarian polyglot
Empire.  Each had their own goals of nationalism and national culture,
which the National Socialists strongly supported. 

The Hungarian Arrow-Cross Party was, I understand, a fairly large
political party which assumed the direction of the Hungarian affairs
during the war, similarly to the Iron Guard and Falange.  At all events,
as stated above, the average Hungarian was strongly anti-Judeo-Bolshevik
and so, even if not wildly enthusiastic about the Nazis, were at least
willing to support the alliance and to fight along side the Reich - which
the Hungarian troops did until the end.

Even as early as 1921, following the brutal reign of Bela Kun, Bishop
Ottocar Prohazka of Hungary stated in a Letter:  Hungary wants to remain
a Hungarian State. Neither England nor the United States is qualified to
contest this right We proclaim to the world that we cannot endure the
indefinite Jewish usurpation and we shall get rid of it We do not hate
anybody, not even the Jews, but we love our people and Fatherland first.
We must safeguard our own existence first. France to the French, England
to the English. Perfect. But to whom Hungary? To the Hungarians. She
belongs to us and we shall not allow anybody to steal her from us, either
by violence or ruse Let them accuse us of anti-Semitism, or reaction or
of whatnot. We shall not be intimidated or duped by shameless subterfuge.
We unmask and we denounce this so-called liberalism that expels us from
our own house to hand it over to Jewry. This liberation is only treason.


>In several months the Russians come into Hungary after bombing the
bridges that link Budapest into uselessness (tho I think it was actually
the Nazis who detonate the Chain bridge to slow the Russian advance (?))

>Fierce fighting, including tank warfare, is going on in the streets of
the city. Finally the remaining Nazis hold up in the castle overlooking
Budapest, in Buda (ok, overlooking Pest if you want to be picky), and a
siege goes on for weeks. Much of the city is badly destroyed, hundreds of
thousands dead. The Nazis surrender.

>Now, where in this exactly are the Hungarians fighting on behalf of the
Nazis? Or do you disagree with the summary?

I dont recall who detonated the bridges, but the Hungarians, as did the
Charlemagne Division in Berlin, fought to the end against the Bolshevik
hordes overrunning Central Europe. According to everything I have ever
read, until the last German forces were forced to retreat from Hungary the
Hungarian troops remained faithful allies, unlike the Rumanians.  They
were also among the best and toughest troops on the Eastern Front.  

Out of curiosity, Barry, why do you think that all of Central and Eastern
Europe, excepting only the Poles and including the Ukraine and Yugoslavia
until the Allied overthrow of Prince Paul, everyone was pro-German. Or if
you prefer, pro-Nazi? To what do you ascribe this curiosity.  



Article 18686 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Persecution of the SS
Date: 8 Nov 1994 22:05:29 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 94
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <39pe9p$i2k@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Message-ID:
 writes:

>First, although many points you make I don't substantively disagree with
I do >take offense at this "judeo-bolshevik" silliness, it's without basis
and one of the >more frantic excuses I've ever seen for what the Russians
pretty well did for >themselves (for better or for worse.)

Okay, but that is not my name for it.  That is what it was called by
participants and observers, including the Church, the American State
Department in 1919, Winston Churchill, etc. I was simply using the
terminology of the Hungarians, etc.  Certainly there was a lot of Jewish
participation in Bolshevism, whether one wishes to accept that it was
preeminent or not could be debated.


> I suppose in 50 more years Hitler and his Nazis will have become a
jewish >conspiracy (hey, we all know about Wallenberg I believe was his
name, the >billionaire jewish financier, loaning money to Hitler early on!
Wouldn't be hard to >spin that story with a few well placed, um,
exagerrations.

I believe that has already been done.  There was a book out some years
back with a title something like _Who Financed Hitler_.


>Go to Budapest today. On every corner of the city (almost literally) you
can buy >a T-shirt or other bit of memorabilia which depicts a map of
Hungary as it is >today surrounded by the (much larger) Pre-WWI border. It
is practically the >national symbol, after the flag and the paprika. And
every day's newspaper has a >story, usually on the front page, about
ethnic Hungarians trapped and mistreated >behind these borders.

I can believe that, although I was not aware of it.


>Look at Yugoslavia/Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia/HZ, sadly all that makes them
unique >is that they are a few years ahead of the rest of Central and
Eastern Europe.

Could well be. Remember, Sir John Hacketts scenario was that WWIII would
come about because of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the resulting ethnic
clashes resulting in U.S. and Russian troops being sent in.. 


>Some are trying to bring WWII to a close. That region hasn't finished
with WWI. >WWII was just a recent attempt to settle the score. There are
basically three >loci to Europe: The West (England, France, Spain, Italy,
etc), Central (Germany, >Hungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, etc) and the East
(Russia, Poland, >Czechia+Slovakia perhaps or perhaps that's the split I'm
not sure, etc.) It's not >very encouraging, one man's peace is just
another's temporary setback...


Many of them havent finished with the 100 Years War yet.  Ethnic
rivalries die hard. Revanchism is a way of life for much of Eastern
Europe.  Territory has gone back and forth so much there that everybody
has a claim on everything. Like it or not the German Empire (Austrian or
Prussian) was the power which kept all of these various ambitions in
check, being more content in exercising hegemony traditionally than in
conquest and expulsion like many of the other ethnic groups.  

When I asked the following: (Out of curiosity, Barry, why do you think
that all of Central and Eastern Europe, excepting only the Poles and
including the Ukraine and Yugoslavia until the Allied overthrow of Prince
Paul, everyone was pro-German. Or if you prefer, pro-Nazi? To what do you
ascribe this curiosity.) You replied:  

>Sentimentality for the Austro-Hungarian and Prussian Empires which they
>associated with better economic and, for want of a better word,
spiritually >uplifting times. The vain hope that empire would be restored.

Yes, these German empires while repressing national aspirations at least
provided peace and a generally level playing field for all.  The *hated
Hun* was an allied propaganda piece more than reality.  I was always
curious as to why the Ukrainians welcomed the Wehrmacht with open arms and
military assistance.  I know good old Uncle Joes ministrations had gotten
them into a white hot hatred of the Bolsheviks, but why such a fervent
welcome.

Well, it turns out that after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk the Germans held
troops in the East and Baltics.  These troops were *officially* recalled
after the German surrender in 1918, but remained in unit cohesion with
military supplies, pay and support being sent to them by the Reichsheer -
now under the Weimar Republic.  These troops fought with the Ukrainians
and helped set up and maintain the Ukrainian and Cossack Republics until
about 1921-23 (I forget the exact year) when the Allies forced their
return to Germany.  The same is also true of the Baltic Republics - who
owed their independence after WWI to these German forces who remained and
helped fend off the Red Army.  Consequently, there was a great reservoir
of good will in the East of very recent origin, of the Germans being the
protectors of the national freedoms.  Thus when their sons entered Russia
and the Baltics in 1941 they were welcomed with open arms.



Article 18740 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Denmark: Christopherson & extremist networking
Date: 10 Nov 1994 01:15:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 22
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <39sdpm$9cg@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com


codfish@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) wrote:

>FYI Christophersen is also a survivor of the Allied bombing of Dresden. 

>              Ross Vicksell

>>dannya@xs4all.nl (Danny A. Nijburg) wrote:

>>Sorry to hear he is a survivor.


This is one of the meanest spirited things I have seen to date on the
internet.  Imagine stating such a thing.  What would happen if a
revisionist stated the same about Elie Wiesel, Simon Wiesenthal, et al.

I call upon everyone revisionist or exterminationist to reprove, rebuke
and distance themselves from this dripping hatred of Mr. (and the word is
used loosely) Nijburg.





Article 18741 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Doyal revises the calendar
Date: 10 Nov 1994 01:15:44 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 53
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <39sdqg$9dq@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com



Michael P. Stein (mstein@access1.digex.net) wrote:
:     Then you heard wrong.  The SS faked a provocation at Gleiwitz on
31st
: August 1939; Germany invaded Poland the next day.  The French and
British
: issued an ultimatum on 3rd September; since it was not obeyed, this
: constituted the declaration of war.  Russia did not cross the border
until
: 17th September.  However, their seizure of eastern Poland had been
agreed
: to by Germany under the secret terms of the Molotov-von Ribbentrop Pact.

: All this can be found in Keegan, John: "The Second World War" [Viking
: Penguin, 1990], pp. 44-46. 


Mike, I recommend you read The Forced War by  David Hoggan, which was
written depending on primary source materials from the German and Polish
Diplomatic Offices.

pg. 577 notes:

...Henderson added that Goering had discussed some of the last minute
incidents which had preceded the outbreak of the German-Polish war.
	Goering did not mention the mysterious Gleiwitz incident, which
had received extensive treatment in the German press. An unsuccessful
attempt was made at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trial, against the principal
surviving German leaders, to prove that the Gleiwitz incident was the
result of a fantastic German plot to dress prisoners in Polish uniforms
and compel them to raid the municipal radio station, while a picked stooge
delivered an incendiary broadcast in Polish.
	The Polish Bank Ludowy (People's Bank) maintained a lavish but
seldom frequented branch bank in Gleiwitz with the permission of the
German authorities. The personnel of this bank hoped to organize an
insurrection among the Polish minority in West Upper Silesia on the
misguided assumption that the Polish armed forces would soon enter the
area. Gleiwitz was only one mile from the Polish frontier, and the Bank
Ludowy people disappeared into Poland about the time of the incident. The
Gleiwitzers naturally assumed that the bank people perpetrated the
momentary seizure of the radio station, but the mystery shrouding the
actual deed has remained one of the numerous unexplained events of this
period.
	Henderson informed Halifax of several of the verified Polish
violations prior to hostilities. The Poles blew up the Dirschau (Tczew)
bridge across the Vistula River on August 31, 1939, although the eastern
approach to the bridge was on German territory. The Poles based at the
Westerplatte occupied a number of Danzig installation sand engaged in
fighting with the Danzigers on the same day...





Article 18792 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Persecution of the SS
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 8 Nov 1994 22:05:29 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <39pe9p$i2k@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 07:11:20 GMT
Lines: 70


From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael) [back and forth with me]
>>Sentimentality for the Austro-Hungarian and Prussian Empires which they
>>associated with better economic and, for want of a better word,
>spiritually >uplifting times. The vain hope that empire would be restored.
>
>Yes, these German empires while repressing national aspirations at least
>provided peace and a generally level playing field for all.

I predict we'll see a resurgence of similar feelings regarding the
Soviet Union, in some of the more troubled former satellite states.

Hey, it was oppressive, whatever that means, but they ate regularly
(at least since WWII, ie, in living memory for most people) and didn't
spend all their energy trying to kill the next village over and
avoiding being killed by them.

Some countries I couldn't dream of their feeling that way (eg,
Hungary), there's just too much animosity for everything Russian.

But Azerbaijan? Georgia? Armenia? Uzbekistan? Sure, what's going to
happen when they figure out they have almost nothing of real value to
the Western-defined world economy? Except as a consumer of arms to
kill each other with. They won't be the first people to decide that
freedom is of limited attraction without bread and peace.

>I know good old Uncle Joes ministrations had gotten
>them into a white hot hatred of the Bolsheviks, but why such a fervent
>welcome.

Sure, Stalin was a Georgian and displayed the sort of feelings towards
the Ukraine and Ukainians we see fomenting today in that regions (ie,
mostly murderous.) It didn't take much to provoke Stalin into mass
murder in the Ukraine, and it was only several years previous (1933.)

Accepting the standard Holocaust image as stands it's not unreasonable
to conjecture that Hitler et al took their lead from Stalin. Hitler
comes to power in 1933, in the same exact period Stalin murders
millions in the Ukraine (Hitler is in office in January 1933, if I
remember right the famine etc in the Ukraine is the following summer
and fall/winter.)

The world whines a little at Stalin and goes back to their daily
business.

So what would that tell someone who had an obsession about Jews et al
similar to Stalin's dislike of Ukrainians?  It tells them there's an
easy answer to the problem, and the world won't do anything. Just keep
your mouth shut and avoid reporters and stall international diplomatic
meetings for a few months and you'll be done with the problem forever.

>Well, it turns out that after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk the Germans held
>troops in the East and Baltics.  These troops were *officially* recalled
>after the German surrender in 1918, but remained in unit cohesion with
>military supplies, pay and support being sent to them by the Reichsheer -
>now under the Weimar Republic.  These troops fought with the Ukrainians
>and helped set up and maintain the Ukrainian and Cossack Republics until
>about 1921-23 (I forget the exact year) when the Allies forced their
>return to Germany.  The same is also true of the Baltic Republics - who
>owed their independence after WWI to these German forces who remained and
>helped fend off the Red Army.  Consequently, there was a great reservoir
>of good will in the East of very recent origin, of the Germans being the
>protectors of the national freedoms.  Thus when their sons entered Russia
>and the Baltics in 1941 they were welcomed with open arms.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 19002 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Khazars: the self-styled "Jews"
Date: 13 Nov 1994 13:30:11 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 38
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3a5lvj$6ih@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) in Message-ID:
 wrote: 

>Christians are comfortable with Jews as the caretakers of their Holy
>Land. Particularly if the other choice is Muslims.

Wanted to address this particular point of Barry's message.

	The Jews have defiled and destroyed the following Church
buildings: the Church of Saint John the Baptist at Ain Karim, the Church
of the Beatitudes at Capharnaum, the Church of Mensa Christi on the shores
of the Sea of Galilee, the Church of Saint Peter at Tiberias, the Cenacle
(the place of the Last Supper) at Jerusalem, the Convent of Mary
Reparatrix at Jerusalem, the Convent and Hospice of Notre Dame at
Jerusalem, the Convent of the Sisters of Saint Ann at Haifa, the
Franciscan Convent at Tiberias, the Patriarchal Seminary at Beit-Jala, the
Salesian houses at Cremisan, the Sisters' Convent at Ain Karim, the School
of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Sion at Katamon, the Sisters' residence at
Capharnaum, the Church and rectory at Ikrer. Catholic authorities have
estimated that the Jews have destroyed Church property in the Holy Land at
the rate of more than two million dollars' worth a year. To enumerate only
French Catholic institutions, they have demolished four hospitals, sixteen
dispensaries, two hospices, four seminaries, thirty-two schools and
orphanages, seven retreat houses.
	Among the countless other desecrations we might mention, none is
more heart-rending than that of Jerusalem's Church of the Dormition * the
magnificent Romanesque shrine to the Mother of God which was pillaged by
Israeli soldiers and then turned into a Jewish dance hall for the young
men and women of Haganah. It was only after a hundred such incidents that
the Apostolic Delegate, Archbishop Hughes, unequivocally charged that
there is now in operation a deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the
Arabs and to destroy Christianity in Palestine. (Feeney, The Point,
December, 1955)
	According to the current Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem this effort
is continuing and Catholics in the Holy Land have just about all been
driven out or have emigrated to gain employment against Jewish prejudice
and persecutions.



Article 19079 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: On "Destroyed" Churches
Date: 15 Nov 1994 20:55:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 52
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3aboqc$e4c@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren) Message-ID: <3a789e$rfr@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
wrote:

>Since this sounded like utter rubbish to me, I've decided to run a random
check on what "Wm Michael" >wrote. Here's one example of a Christian
institution which he claimed was "destroyed":
>
># the Convent of the Sisters of Saint Ann at Haifa,
>
>I just called that convent. They had no idea they were "destroyed".
{snip]
>I'll check more institution that appear on the list of allegedly 
>"destroyed" Christian institutions, and post my findings to  
>alt.revisionism.
>
>-Danny Keren.


You will notice that the quote I gave from The Point (Dec. 1955) states:
The Jews have DEFILED AND DESTROYED the following Church Buildings. And,
Among the countless other DESECRATIONS we might mention, none is more
heart-rending than that of Jerusalem's Church of the Dormition * the
magnificent Romanesque shrine to the Mother of God which was PILLAGED by
Israeli soldiers and then turned into a Jewish dance hall for the young
men and women of Haganah.

To what do you give the meaning destroyed meaning utterly destroyed, torn
down, demolished to all of these Churches?  Some have been defiled,
desecrated, with the contents destroyed.  Some taken over by Jewish groups
such as the Haganah, and some, the most famous such as the Church of the
Dormition, were returned as the result of international outrage.  Also
hurt the Israeli tourist trade of Christian pilgrims.

I can recall reading in the 60s following the 1967 war that many more
outrages had occured against Catholic and Orthodox religious institutions
and Churches.

Speaking of destruction as meaning demolition, note the part stating: To
enumerate only French Catholic institutions, they have demolished four
hospitals, sixteen dispensaries, two hospices, four seminaries, thirty-two
schools and orphanages, seven retreat houses.

Why dont you phone them all and speak with the superior. Find out if they
were there in the 50s and 60s, and forward, and ask THEM if they recall
the desecrations and destruction of property.  

Better yet, why dont you phone the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michael
Sabah (may have his name misspelled) and ask him what is still going on.
He has been widely quoted in the Catholic press as I stated.





Article 19093 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!hookup!news.duke.edu!convex!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: On "Destroyed" Churches
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 15 Nov 1994 20:55:24 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <3aboqc$e4c@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 03:58:11 GMT
Lines: 40


From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael) [responding to Danny Keren]
>>Since this sounded like utter rubbish to me, I've decided to run a random
>check on what "Wm Michael" >wrote. Here's one example of a Christian
>institution which he claimed was "destroyed":
>>
>># the Convent of the Sisters of Saint Ann at Haifa,
>>
>>I just called that convent. They had no idea they were "destroyed".

>You will notice that the quote I gave from The Point (Dec. 1955) states:
>The Jews have DEFILED AND DESTROYED the following Church Buildings.


Rather than responding with yet another list, as you have here, why
don't you instead explain exactly why the last list you provided
appears to have been fabricated?

Something we've learned here about revisionists is their bottomless
ability to completely fabricate anything to make their point in the
hope that if it looks sort of factual (eg, cites references etc)
people won't call their bluff.

So how about it, what happened to your claim about the Sisters of
Saint Ann at Haifa?

Just throwing out more claims won't clear it up, let's get this one
straightened out. Did you just fabricate it? Or are you perhaps prone
to believing and quoting periodicals that fabricate these sort of
things? Does it disturb you that a quick phone call proved your claims
here to be utterly false?

It would be nice to get some response to the point raised rather than
just more stuff to double-check.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 19107 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uunet!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On "Destroyed" Churches
Date: 16 Nov 1994 11:35:10 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 12
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3adcbu$ngu@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article , bzs@world.std.com (Barry
Shein) writes:

>So how about it, what happened to your claim about the Sisters 
>of Saint Ann at Haifa?

Read the post Barry. It happened. Doesn't mean that things don't get
repaired, rebuilt, restored. Or does everything have to be kept as a
monument or memorial? Catholics don't have the "never forget" syndrome -
they try to rebuild and keep going, trusting to final victory.




Article 19126 of alt.revisionism:
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!decwrl!hookup!caen!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!uunet!world!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: On "Destroyed" Churches
In-Reply-To: wmmichael@aol.com's message of 16 Nov 1994 11:35:10 -0500
Message-ID: 
Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References:  <3adcbu$ngu@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:50:30 GMT
Lines: 28


From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
>>So how about it, what happened to your claim about the Sisters 
>>of Saint Ann at Haifa?
>
>Read the post Barry. It happened. Doesn't mean that things don't get
>repaired, rebuilt, restored. Or does everything have to be kept as a
>monument or memorial? Catholics don't have the "never forget" syndrome -
>they try to rebuild and keep going, trusting to final victory.

Danny Keren telephoned (at least) three of sites you claimed were
destroyed.

All three answered the phone and denied any knowledge of having been
destroyed.

So now you just assert that they were destroyed.

I assume you do not live in view of these three sites, so on what do
you base this assertions?

Generalizations about Catholics aside...

-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD


Article 19131 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: On "Destroyed" Churches
Date: 16 Nov 1994 22:00:19 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 41
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3aeh03$401@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
References: <3add2k$a8p@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

In article <3add2k$a8p@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>, dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
writes:

>That's rubbish, "Wm Michael", pure rubbish.

>You posted a lie, hoping no one will check on you. I did, and
>you are trying to wriggle out of a major embarrassment.

No, you are the liar Danny. I will stand by the posted quote because the
source is honest. Lie if you want, I prefer to stand with the truth.

>"If you ate s*it, wipe your mouth and shut up".

You should know.  Tastes good does it!

>You're a liar, just like your fellow "revisionists".

Sure, Danny.  And you're up for sainthood.  Only Danny and the
exterminationists are so good and holy. They deserve to spout their hate
and invective, without anyone pointing out the lies and falsehoods.

Why don't you call the Latin Patriarch, Danny. Because you know he will
tell you I'm right, that's why. 

Also, why don't you tell us how you manage to get connected to
disconnected numbers?  Special agents in the secret police, or what?

>BTW, what do you say about the synagogues your Nazi heroes
>burned down? These were really destroyed.

You mean like those swastikas painted on jewish tombstones and synagogues,
where they caught the Jews who were doing it and blaming "neo-nazis"? 

Tell us what Patriarch Sabah has to say about the Israeli outrages Danny. 
Or don't you want to admit the truth of the matter?








Article 19649 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Deliberate starvation of Germans
Date: 30 Nov 1994 18:25:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 339
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3bj1ko$dn5@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

I believe the following article is germane to the discussion of the fate
of the German troops following World War II, as well as that of Allied War
Crimes, and violations of the Geneva Convention

- - - - - - - - - -

GERMANY ALIVE!

Neither the German State (Das Reich) nor the
German Government vanished in May 1945.
They are still alive and demanding
their rightful place.

BY MANFRED ROEDER



When on May 8, 1945 the German Armed forces (Die Deutsche Wehrmacht)
surrendered unconditionally, the existence of the State itself (Das
Deutsche Reich) was not affected. This legal consequence of international
law is universally known and not contested. It was confirmed by the
Constitutional Supreme Court of the Federal Republic of Germany as late as
July 1973.
	Another fact is hardly known anywhere but of even greater
explosive power: the German Government never abdicated nor did the German
people ever demand its resignation. This fact is intentionally hushed up
because the knowledge of it could lead to breathtaking developments.
	Whereas there are hundreds of books about the war or the so-called
war crimes trials, I have not yet seen one single publication on the
subject of what happened to the German Government and what would be its
legal status today.
	On May 1, 1945 according to Adolf Hitler's last will Grossadmiral
Karl Doenitz, became Head of State (Staatsoberhaupt) and Supreme Commander
of all armed forces (Oberster Befehlshaber der Deutschen Wehrmacht). As
such he directed the negotiations about an armistice with the Allies, and
his written power of attorney was necessary for Generalfeldmarschall
Keitel, Generaloberst Stumpff and Generaladmiral von Friedeburg to sign
the document of surrender. By this  the Allies had confirmed that they
regarded Doenitz as the only authority to represent the Reich, that he had
stepped fully into the legal position of The Fuehrer.
	In his memoires 10 Jahre und 20 Tage (Bernard und Graese Verlag,
Frankfurt, 1967) Doenitz describes the situation after the surrender of
the Wehrmacht: he immediately formed a temporary cabinet in order to
accept full responsibility and deal with the urgent problems arising from
the total disaster. Plans were worked out for emergency measures,
especially to rebuild the traffic system and to secure the food supply.
Doenitz also made sure that any possible war crimes would he fully
investigated and brought before German Courts. All these plans and the
list of his cabinet ministers were submitted to the Allies for approval.
Doenitz never even received an answer.

State Not Dissolved

	Therefore he pondered the questions whether he should resign with
his cabinet to underline that the coming chaos was not his responsibility.
But this consideration was dismissed because - as he writes his book -
"The Reichspraesident and his cabinet expressed the unity of the Reich.
The unconditional surrender affected only the armed forces, not the state.
The German State was not dissolved. Under no circumstances must the
government resign! Otherwise the victors would have had the excuse to
install a military administration if the German government had run away.
Only by brutal force could we be pushed aside, never legally! I am
convinced, that my voluntary abdication would have been the political
mistake which I could have made after the surrender." (Memoirs page 463).
	On May 23, 1945 Doenitz and his cabinet were ordered aboard the
liner Patria, where they were expected by the American chief of protocol
Rooks, British Brigadier Ford, Soviet Major General Truskow and the
"inevitable" interpreter Herbert Cohn from New York. Rooks declared in a
frosty manner: "By order of General Eisenhower I called you here and have
to inform you that the German government and the Command of the German
Forces with all its members shall be arrested as prisoners of war. The
temporary German cabinet is hereby dissolved. From now on all of you are
regarded as prisoners of war." Under the most disgracing circumstances
these soldiers and statesmen were then arrested by British troops.
	Only a few days later the Allies stated in their notorious
Declaration of June 5, which is their "legal" basis for all their policies
concerning Germany: "There is no central Government or Authority in
Germany capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance of order,
the administration of the country and compliance with the requirements of
the victorious powers."
	This is the pinnacle of distortion and hypocrisy: to arrest the
central government which is willing and capable to take the burden and the
responsibility for order and reconstruction of the country, and then to
declare: there is no central government!
	On this diabolical lie and trickery everything else was built
afterwards. The whole allied policy rests on this immoral and illegal act
of brutal kidnapping (the legal government) and lying (that there is no
central government). The Allied declaration continues:
"The Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Provisional Government of
the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to
Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the
High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority.
The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and
powers does not effect the annexation of Germany."
	Needless to say that the "assumption of supreme authority" was in
contradiction to all principles of international law for which the Allies
allegedly have fought.

Unprecedented Occupation

	According to Art. 43 of the Hague Convention it is never permitted
that the occupant changes the system of legislation, jurisdiction or
administration. Never even under military necessities must the aims of the
war be executed by military occupation. But the Allies did not only assume
supreme power down to the last village, they not only changed the
political, legal, military and economic system of Germany, they completely
destroyed German culture and forced upon it their own. Beyond that they
even took complete control of the educational system and ethical values.
This is unprecedented in history.
	In dealing with Germany the Allies did not feel bound by any legal
or moral considerations. The British Commander in Chief put it this way:
"The present occupation of Germany has no precedent and such a situation
was  never envisaged by the authors of the Hague Convention. There is no
German Government: supreme authority is exercised by the Four
Commanders-in-Chief, each in his own zone of occupation, and also jointly
in matters affecting Germany as a whole. In view of the supreme authority
vested in them, there is no limit in their powers save those which they
choose to adopt."
	Germany was a matter, a dead thing, not a nation or a legal
subject with inalienable rights. In their contempt of the law the Allies
went even further in their Directive 38 of the Control Council for Germany
of June 1947, where they frankly demand that steps be taken to intern all
those Germans who have never committed any crime, but might become opposed
to allied policy. It is noteworthy that this was issued not as a matter
for military safety but two years after all hostilities had ended! It is
cold blooded dictatorship and the attempt to murder the soul of a nation.
	But one might ask: Were these measures of the Allies not necessary
in an emergency situation?
	Hitler - we are told - was an unscrupulous tyrant who had come to
power by a revolution. And if his regime was illegal, then his successor
Doenitz was also illegal. In order to overthrow this dictatorship drastic
steps had to be taken. This is the official opinion today.
	Only the facts are quite different! Apart from the fact that even
a "dictatorship" in Germany would have been an internal German matter and
not the business of any other state, Hitler did not seize power by
revolution or force but was made chancellor in the most legal and
democratic way.

Largest Vote

	Hitler's party, the National Socialist German Workers Party, had
become the strongest Party in democratic elections by July 1932 with 38%.
As the Communists had over 14%, no other party was able to form a majority
government. Therefore Hitler demanded the office of the chancellor because
he was the only one to bring together a majority, but the president
refused. 
	Any stable government was impossible. One cabinet toppled after
the other. The economy was in complete chaos. Seven million unemployed
became more and more radical. By the end of 1932 the Communists had
reached 17% and prepared for an armed take-over.
	In this situation chancellor General von Schleicher planned to
dissolve the Reichstag (parliament) and postpone new elections for an
indefinite time, although the Constitution prescribed, new elections
within three months. All parties were up in protest against this breach of
the Constitution, and the trade unions even threatened with a nation-wide
general strike.
	Then something happened which our present democratic rulers don't
want to be reminded of: the two strongest parties, next to the National
Socialists, the Social Democrats and the Catholics (Zentrum) urged
President von Hindenburg rather to make Hitler chancellor than to have
Schleicher break the Constitution. And so it happened that Hitler was
asked to take the office of the chancellor on January 30, 1933 with a
majority of 52% behind him (44% NS and 8% German Nationals) and with the
approval of all other parties. Not a single shot was fired to get into
office. Only the Communists fired at the Brownshirts to prevent Hitler's
chancellorship and intensified the bloody terror which continued until
1937. They actually were ready for civil war.
	The burning down of the Reichstag building by the Communist van
der Lubbe on February 27, 1933 was meant to be the signal for the
uprising. Hitler asked the parliament for special competence to deal with
this national threat
 - and got it with an overwhelming majority (Ermachtigunggesetz). He asked
for four years to clean out the Augean Stable.
	Immediate action was taken against the Communist conspiracy. Their
leaders were arrested. Stockpiles of weapons and ammunition, enough to
equip several divisions, were found. The next battle was against
unemployment, and millions found new work. The misery of the farmers was
ended over night. The work of the church was protected with an
unparalleled generous concordat. 

Austria Rejoins Germany

	The most blatant contempt of law was the handling of the right of
self determination. The Austrian National Assembly and her parliament had
decided unanimously that Austria was a part of the German Reich (which it
was for more than 1000 years!). The Allies and the League of Nations
reacted immediately with threats of force and even started a hunger
blockade when Austria wanted a common market with Germany (Zollunion).
	in November 1933 Hitler asked the nation for approval of his
policy and 92% of the people answered "yes!" Every year Hitler rendered
account of his activity and asked the whole nation in a referendum about
important decisions, such as a change of Constitution. After three years
of NS government, in March 1936, the people approved of t his new style
with 98.74%.
	It is the greatest distortion of truth to call Hitler a dictator.
Apart from a very small reactionary clique and some notorious Communists
the whole nation trusted the Fuehrer. He became the most popular statesman
of all history. No democratic statesman has ever been more in concord with
the will of his voters. Willy Brandt spoke behind bullet proof glass
during his last election campaign. Even as late as March 1945 when
everything was lost Adolf Hitler drove in an open Mercedes through the
villages and could step unarmed into any house. Nobody would touch him.
	These are the undeniable facts:
	The Third Reich under the Fuehrer Adolf Hitler was in the truest
sense a government of the people for the people. If there was ever a legal
government carried by the will of the people - this was it! It was neither
a democracy - although it was created by a democratic process - nor was it
a dictatorship - for Hitler did nothing against the will of the people,
and there were absolutely Independent courts which could not be influenced
by government or party.
	Karl Doenitz became legal successor of Adolf Hitler on May 1,
1945. He formed a new cabinet and stayed in office until he was arrested.
He never resigned nor was his government dissolved by the German people.
	The surrender on May 8, 1945 affected only the armed forces, not
the existence of the state. This was confirmed by the Supreme
Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany in a judgement of
July 31, 1973, which says that the state, Das Deutsche Reich, survived the
collapse of 1945, and the founding of the Federal Republic was not the
creation of a new west German state but only the temporary arrangement of
a part of the Reich.

International Law Violated

	The arresting and "dissolving" of the German government by General
Eisenhower, and the assumption of supreme authority by the Allies, was in
contradiction to international law and therefore illegal and void.
	The German Reich exists legally within the borders of May 1945.
Only a peace treaty could bring alterations. The borders of 1937, as
expressed by the victors, are arbitrary and without any foundation.
Besides, the Allies have not even respected their own decision and
crippled the rest of the country far beyond the borders of 1937. No German
is therefore bound by this decision of the Allies.
	A peace treaty could only be signed by Doenitz or his successor on
behalf of the German nation and the Reich as it existed legally in May
1945.
	Austria was torn from the Reich against the expressed will of the
people. The founding of the Federal and the Communist Republics of Germany
happened on order of the Allies. They were not constituted by the people.
No German was ever even asked.
	The three so called German "states" are no states at all but
simply administrative provinces of the Allies who up to this day have
reserved the "right" of intervention at any time. Authors and protectors
of these "democracies" are not the Germans but the allied governments. The
basic right of self determination is denied to the Germans up to this day.
They live in even greater colonial suppression than any Black tribe in
Africa, because the Blacks shall get something they never had in their
history - a state; while the Germans are denied their own state which they
had for over 1000 years.

Overthrow the Regimes

Under these circumstances there is only one task for every German: not to
cooperate with these regimes but to bring about their collapse and
liberate the country.
	The humiliation of the German Reich has brought endless misery and
slavery to many European nations and has driven the whole world into
chaos. In the case of Germany it was proved that the slogans of self
determination were only propaganda weapons to win a war. They were never
meant to be honest. If the German Reich is not resurrected, all the other
nations and tribes ought to know that their "liberation" is just as dirty
a trick to lead them deeper into exploitation as the 14 points of Wilson
were to disarm Germany.
	Therefore, the further denial of a legal German government is
proof that the whole of humanity shall be enslaved. The recognition of a
true German government and the resurrection of the Reich would mean a new
dawn for all the nations on earth.


EDITOR'S NOTE: The below letter by professional historian Hans von Thenen
was written at the request of Manfred Roeder whose article, "Germany
Alive!" appears on page 34 of this issue. Mr. von Thenen adds some details
on the legality of the Hitler Government.

Editor:

	It was one of the most important factors of Hitler's success that
he emphasized his intention to stick always to the German Constitution,
and to refrain from any violence. When as early as September 25, 1930,
Hitler was called to the witness stand against three officers of the
"Reichswehr" (army of the Weimar Republic) before the Reichsgericht in
Leipzig (highest court), he said: "All my orders are led by the axiom that
if any command given is in contradiction to the law, it must not be
executed." The German nation at all times hated violence. injustice and
wars (the Germans learned this only through the Allied re-education after
1945!). And when Hitler finally had to repeat his words in Leipzig under
oath, he said: "I am standing here before God Almighty and I say to you:
when I shall have come to power legally, I will establish in my legal
government courts of state that will judge all those responsible for the
misfortunes of our people . . ." which, of course meant first of all the
dictates of Versailles, and the corrupt German government that followed.
	No wonder that by the end of 1930 Hitler's party had already
389,000 members -- against nearly five million unemployed many of whom
soon sympathized with the Movement (something Americans with over 10%
unemployed should watch closely!) Another step forward was the meeting of
the "National Opposition" in Bad Harzburg on October	11, 1931, in which
all patriotic organizations, the "Stahlhelm" and some parties of the Right
met with Hitler and vowed to do everything to save Germany from the chaos
of bolshevism. Except for the leftists and the incurable pacifists of the
center party the people as a whole began to rally behind the Swastika
flag. Hitler did not need to use any force to come to power after the
German Nation had recognized the real danger that came from Moscow.
	When in December of 1931 the American Hearst newspapers invited
Hitler to explain the goals of his National Socialism to the American
people over the radio, it was Heinrich Bruening who thwarted this. Which
means that Bruening was responsible if Americans remained uninformed and
later fell victims to the lie propaganda against Germany - which has not
come to an end yet. Otherwise the world would have known that Hitler's
only goal has been to destroy the hate dictate of Versailles.
	When on January 30, 1933 President Hindenburg installed Adolf
Hitler as Reichs Chancellor, and Hitler promised that he would serve the
President as faithfully as he had served as a soldier in the German Army
during World War I, the world should have known that the Hitler cabinet
had come to power the most legal and honest way.
	So with the declaration of February 1, 1933 the new German
government could say: "The parties of Marxism and their fellow travelers
had had 14 years to prove their abilities. The result was a heap of
rubble. We will now begin according to the order of General Field
Marshall, President Hindenburg. May God Almighty grant us His Grace for
our work, to guide our will, to bless our insight, and to give us the
confidence of the Nation. Because we do not fight for us but for Germany."
This was Hitler's intention which he never changed.
	Perhaps it should be added that Hitler contrary to most leading
politicians of our days - never used and needed a "speech writer!" It must
not be forgotten that in the years since his unsuccessful schooldays he
had studied hard and accumulated a treasury of knowledge that made he
superior to most diplomats and politicians of his and our time. The world
begins to learn that Hitler event to those who do not see in him a genius,
was an extraordinary man and after the invented "nazi-atrocities"
collapsed into nothingness, we must admit that of the four men of that
time: F. D. Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Hitler - Hitler was the only
one who was not a criminal!

						HANS VON THENE
						New York, N. Y.

The American Mercury
Summer 1975



Article 19650 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!news.bc.net!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: wmmichael@aol.com (Wm Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Other Losses
Date: 30 Nov 1994 18:25:30 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 2
Sender: news@newsbf01.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <3bj1la$dnn@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf01.news.aol.com

Please see the article posted under Re: Deliberate starvation of Germans

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor