El malware e infecciones de computadora del NSA o gobierno deEstados Unidos - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Regin Malware Unmasked as NSA Tool after SPIEGEL Publishes Source Code - SPIEGEL ONLINE

5 datos del sucio encarcelamiento de EU de personas en la Segunda Guerra - Business Insider

5 Surprises About American Internment During World War II - Business Insider

Time travel to a destroyed city: Dresden 1945 | Visit Germany | DW.DE | 26.01.2015

Time travel to a destroyed city: Dresden 1945 | Visit Germany | DW.DE | 26.01.2015

Adolf Hitler, el Hombre que SÍ luchó contra la Casta

Frau Ursula Haverbeck Declares Victory: “We can now dismiss Auschwitz!” | Justice for Germans

Frau Ursula Haverbeck Declares Victory: “We can now dismiss Auschwitz!” | Justice for Germans



ALemania puede olvidarse de Auschwitz. Ese lugar pierde relevancia como el centro del holocausto y si no fue entonces ahí el Holocausto entonces ¿Dónde? ¿Dónde están los seis millones? plantea Ursula Haverbeck.

Judíos, sacrificios humanosde critianos, Libelo de Sangre y conspiraciones desde la antigüedad

R.E.G.C.:

 Los judíos se han dispersado por el mundo entero tras la destrucción de su estado por parte de los babilonios y los romanos desde tiempos muy remotos, expandiéndose principalmente en Europa y Asia, convirtiéndose en una minoría rechazada y muchas vecesperseguida por diversas razones; una de ellas es el libelo de sangre consistente en realizar sacrificios humanos, por lo general cristianos y especialmente niños, para oscuros rituales. El libelo de sangre fue una acusación lanzada por primera vez contra los judíos en la era precristiana. Uno de los primeros casos registrados fue la historia de un sirio (en el siglo II aC) que escapó de un misterioso ritual donde un grupo de judíos planeaban sacrificarlo después de haberlo tenido prisionero durante un año. Aquello se convirtió en un elemento que alentó el anti-judaísmo medieval y que trajo consigo disturbios y linchamientos contra comunidades judías señaladas de llevar a cabo dichos rituales. En 1144 los judíos de Norwich, en Inglaterra, fueron acusados de asesinar a un joven y utilizar su sangre para preparar matzoh (pan sin levadura). El historiador del siglo XII, Thomás de Monmouth, informó que existía una conspiración global de judíos que planificaban asesinatos anuales con fines similares: "Los judíos estipularon en la antigüedad que todos los años deben sacrificar a un cristiano en alguna parte del mundo [...]; lo echan a suertes entre todos los países habitados por judíos, y la metrópolis del territorio elegido tiene que aplicar el mismo método en sus poblaciones y ciudades, para cumplir con la obligación impuesta por la autoridad". El libelo de sangre ha sobrevivido hasta nuestros días. En 1983, el ministro de defensa sirio Mustafá Tlas publicó 'The Matzoh of Zion', un texto donde habló sobre este tema y afirmó que los judíos predican el odio hacia los no-judíos, razón por la que ningún país debería firmar ningún tratado de paz con Israel. En su portada se muestra una grotesca caricatura donde aparecen judíos con su tradicional vestimenta sacrificando a una víctima durante un ritual. Fuente consultada: La Biblia de las Sociedades Secretas (Joel Levy)

Tras la caída del Reich de Hitler, la brutalidad y despojo aliado en Alemania

Inconvenient History | A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry

After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation

by Giles MacDonogh. Basic Books, New York, 2007. 618pp., illustrated, with notes, bibliography, indexed.

Joseph Bishop

A recent work with some refreshing angles on the post-WW2 occupation of defeated Germany is always welcome, minimally at least as a small antidote to the continued appearance of Holocaust-related works which seem to endlessly exhaust and over-exhaust every minute aspect - real or imagined - of that 'footnote' to the Second World War. This work by Giles MacDonogh is not perfect, and no one should expect it to be so when so much that is historically 'inconvenient' surrounding that period is still hidden today or is ignored or pressured into a 'memory hole' oblivion. In fact, overall, this book is quite useful and informative and is recommended to all revisionists and others interested in this period of our history.

As a brief aside, I sometimes wonder if book reviewers actually read the works they comment on. The rear panel citation from Thomas Burleigh insists that MacDonogh 'never loses sight of the fact that this was an occupation that the western powers got right'. Actually a careful reading of the book reveals that a central thrust of the author is to point out how very badly ALL of the allies administered defeated Germany, even to the point at which a great many Germans were regaining sympathy for National Socialism because of years and years of post-1945 occupation in which starvation, pillaging, demontage, rape, murder, requisitioning of a high percentage of surviving homes, etc. reflected the misery of so many average Germans. The purported goal of persuading the occupied to embrace the social and political systems of the USA, Britain, France, or the USSR was being torpedoed by the very occupiers themselves in their consistent policies of continuing to regard the defeated population as 'the enemy' who must needs be 'punished'.

This 'punishment' is ably catalogued by the author in all important regards, detailing the crimes committed against the vanquished by the victors and even adding a few new categories which other historians typically have under-emphasized.

Geographically Germany was radically reduced in size as Austria was made independent again, the Sudetenland was returned to a reconstituted Czechoslovakia, and whole provinces were torn away and handed to a newly emergent Poland - from the German entity of Prussia which was made to cease to exist entirely. France took the provinces of Lothringen-Elsass, Luxembourg was broken off, and the German South Tyrol went to Italy (again).

The German people themselves were physically punished. All of the victor powers kept food away from the population, reducing it to well below daily nutritional requirements and unintentionally but unavoidably forcing into existence a black market economy to enable sheer survival. The Russians routinely raped German women, and not just in the immediate takeover. It actually went on as a daily experience for several years in many areas, and even men were raped. Beatings, torture, deprivation of medical treatment and of shelter, were fairly routine too. The French deliberately brought in black colonial troops from Morocco and elsewhere and unleashed them upon the helpless German civilian communities. The Americans did something similar with a high proportion of black American troops. The British were slightly more restrained but inflicted 'punishment' in other ways - especially with absurdly reduced daily rations for the occupied and which resulted in mass starvation - especially for infants and small children.

Industrially, the Soviets, French, and British practiced the dismantlement-theft of whole industries and dragged same off to their own homelands. The western Allies eventually woke up to the reality of how counter-productive this was and put a stop to it, but the Soviets took a bit longer to end the practice. The Americans had little in the way of industrial needs or desires and tended instead to make off with whatever seemed eminently lootable - although all the victors did this of course. Masses of Germans were literally enslaved to run mines in Poland and stolen industrial concerns taken to France. German scientists (and many others) were spirited off to the USSR and to the USA. While these enslavements and forced deportations were occurring, individual Germans were on trial in victor 'war crimes' courts for doing the same thing - an irony not lost upon the author.

If not for the tragedy of it all, the practices of the Russians were almost comical. As the Soviet forces entered modern Germany, they found themselves unable to comprehend all that they had at their feet. Even the flush toilet was something new and amazing to most of them, and much of what was looted was not understood or served them no practical purpose.

Culturally, socialists and communists - including a very high number of Jewish internees recently released from concentration camps or importing themselves into Germany from the USA, Britain, or elsewhere - were given virtual control of a revamped German cultural life, including theatre, music, publishing, newspapers, etc. The population was deprived of anything remotely National Socialist or nationalist in nature, and were instead fed on an imposed internationalist-socialist intellectual life. Almost literally in fact, as the starving population thirsted for music, books, etc. to take their minds off their hunger and other deprivations. MacDonogh explores the development of postwar Germany's literature in particular, as well as the various disputes between exiles and anti-Nazis who stayed in Germany throughout the war.

Politically the punished received an imposition similar to that of the cultural realm, as fairly quickly the Russians and Americans granted the 'freedom' to the Germans to choose their own representatives and government - up to a point, that is - and so long as it (a) excluded National Socialism, (b) closely resembled the systems practiced by the victors, and (c) remained under the overall control of the Allied military governors and their troops. This strange form of self-government was formalized with the formation of the Adenauer government in 1949, and the author provides a number of interesting insights into Adenauer's own goals and how the Allies viewed and used him. The author details the formation of the various new political parties, their goals, and the extent to which they were controlled or directed by the victors. He cites the failure of Soviet policy in which their own sponsored candidates failed dismally in early elections, largely because of German women voters who saw a vote for Soviet sponsored candidates as a vote for rape.

The treatment of captured German POWs is covered, in which MacDonogh cites their re-categorization from POWs into 'DEPs' (disarmed enemy persons) and thus airily (and illegally) erasing their Geneva Conventions protections; he minimizes the numbers of their fatalities under the new acronyms, resultant to starvation and deprivation of shelter and medical care. Millions of POWs - now 'DEPs' - living in holes dug out of the mud in sub-zero temperatures and without sufficient food and no medical care did not afford much of a life-expectancy, all the more so as their captivity dragged from months into years. But the author's own politics intrudes, as indeed he indulges a common practice of that period in which the Cold War began, by attributing or shifting responsibility for the huge numbers of 'missing' German prisoners to the Russians.

Revisionist authors who have done outstanding work in this area are mostly ignored. James Bacque, for example, is mentioned briefly, but only to be dismissed without argument, his detractors' assumptions and criticisms being apparently blindly accepted. An exception is that of the several citations of Victor Gollancz's books and his central argument that starving and mistreating the civilian population of Germany did nothing to advance the moral or political agendas of the Allies and instead merely created new enemies and the possibilities of new conflicts.

The consequences of the Holocaust are presented by MacDonogh with a few rather revealing snippets. He repeatedly cites the amazing reappearance of improbably large numbers of Jews as Nazi power collapsed, they emerging both from the opened camps as well as from all over Germany itself - this being rather strange in view of the received history of a Nazi system efficiently exterminating them all. Many of these Jews were almost immediately re-established into positions of power and influence along with their co-religionists who had been resident in Britain and America during the war. Unfortunately the author jumbles some fiction with fact, for example when citing human lampshades as a reality at Buchenwald, or stating that the German military men mass-murdered at Dachau after the Allied takeover in 1945 were SS guards (actually they were ordinary military who had nothing to do with the camp administration), or as he mentions the former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss's testimonies as reliable (when in fact they were often false and resultant to beatings and torture).

The great deal of material he presents about the crimes against German civilians by Poles and Czechs seems to lack any knowledge of John Sack's work An Eye for an Eye. Sack pointed out that many 'Jewish avengers' who ran the concentration camps filled with German civilians after the war, in which beatings, torture, murder, etc. were routine, used Polish, Czech, etc. names to hide their own ethnicity and/or misattribute it to that of others. MacDonogh seems to be wholly unaware of this aspect.

Disagreements amongst the victors are explored in this book in several very interesting regards. The French desired to seize huge areas of western Germany but the British and Americans blocked this. The British and Americans combined their zones into 'Bizonia' but the French long resisted the formation of 'Trizonia' as they fought hard to prevent any form of German unification. Most interesting of all is the fact that the Soviets wanted ALL of Germany reunified - but of course under their own sponsored communist system and control; it was the United States that pushed forward 'Trizonia' and the independence of West Germany, dividing it from the eastern zone which the Soviets were belatedly forced to re-work into the 'German Democratic Republic'.

The Berlin Airlift is given a great deal of space, especially with regard to its origins within a failed Soviet political stratagem embarked upon in angry response to the American alteration of the German currency in the USA zone of occupation.

The somewhat intricate politics of Austria and the South Tyrol is discussed, including a few surprises such as how and why the latter was returned to Italy. The fiction, or self-serving ploy, of the Austrians posing (or being presented as) 'victims' of 'Nazi aggression' and how the victors reacted to this theory is treated: the Russians rejecting it consistently, the western Allies usually pretending to its reality for their own political purposes.

MacDonogh practices some of the expected moral equivalencing of Nazi crimes with postwar victor crimes, i.e. since the Russians, Poles, Czechs, et al suffered this or that at the hands of the Nazis, then it was only to be expected that revenge would be practiced. Interestingly, he cites an observation that of all the avengers, the Americans were not directly victimized by the Nazis and that the American hatred of Germans and a thirst to punish them was somewhat irrational. He does not mention, but hints, that this is was in consequence of the virulent Germanophobic propaganda of the war years. In connection with this, he provides an interesting history of the Morgenthau Plan and how it was ultimately rejected by Truman and the American military governors. Not out of sympathy for the defeated, but as something impractical as well as inimical to new 'Cold War' goals and requirements in which the German people would be required as a re-strengthened (but carefully controlled) bulwark against the new enemy in the form of the Soviet Union.

Denazification and the 'war crimes' trials are covered in some depth. He points out that the denazification process was uneven, impractical, and often pursued without much enthusiasm, the process itself eventually being quietly abandoned. The trials he correctly sees as without much legal basis and being little more than 'show trials' in pursuit of vengeance. He cites Paget's work on the von Manstein experience; interesting from a revisionist perspective, he discusses Paget's conclusions about the exaggerations and falsehoods re 'war crimes' in wartime Russia - which is itself of supreme importance given the strange new pseudo-reality of the huge majority of the alleged six million said to have perished in those vast domains at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen and others, instead of via the once ubiquitous gas chambers. This is a little understood and rarely mentioned part of the Holocaust story, but one of supreme importance given the numbers-juggling that has occurred after revisionist researchers have torn so many giant holes in the Auschwitz and 'gas chamber' legends.

This important book has an impressive notes section in which a great many little-known works are cited; Giles MacDonogh is fluent in German and relied heavily on original source materials in that language, most of which have not seen English publication.

This reviewer can be contacted at:
revisionist21@aol.com

Copyrighted 2008 by Joseph Bishop
All rights reserved.

Con reportes y relatos, aún así Churchill se hizo ciego ante el Holocausto judío y se desentendió

Inconvenient History | A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry

Churchill, International Jews and the Holocaust: A Revisionist Analysis

Paul Grubach

Copyright 2011

In the interests of fairness, Jeffrey Herf, whose work is here critiqued, was sent the following essay prior to its publication here, and asked to correct any possibly false or misleading statements. No response from Mr. Herf had been received by press time.

Introduction

Winston Churchill played an important role in the history of the twentieth century. For this reason alone, it is important that revisionists re-examine the beliefs and historical forces that motivated this lionized British icon. By improving our understanding of Churchill’s views of and his relationship with the Holocaust and the powerful Jewish groups that played a decisive role in his career, we gain a more accurate view of the past and can use these lessons to hopefully make a more peaceful future for all.

This essay is based upon the studies of three well-known Jewish historians, and will focus only upon issues that most mainstream intellectuals ignore or are afraid to deal with. In 1985, Professor Michael J. Cohen published his obscure but well researched academic study,Churchill and the Jews. Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, published his more widely known Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship in 2007, which inspired a recent Canadian movie documentary. Finally, we will be commenting upon some of the material included in Professor Jeffrey Herf’s “Holocaust classic,” The Jewish Enemy, published in 2006.1

Winston Churchill’s 1920 article, in which he highlighted the predominant Jewish role in the world-wide communist movement, is pretty well known. What is not discussed is how he misled his readers in essays and books published many years later. In many contemporary academic environments, it is held that the concept of “International Jewry”—groups of powerful Jews who operate on an international basis and feel that the world-wide Jewish community is united by racial bonds—is a “neo-Nazi” and “radically anti-Semitic” canard that should be immediately dismissed. Sir Winston and the British government showed us otherwise. Finally, it may raise the eyebrows of many when they find out what Churchill told the House of Commons in August 1946 about his knowledge of the Holocaust during the war.

Churchill poses for air raid warning circa 1940

By Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/images/wc0107-04780r.jpg (Library of Congress) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Jews and Communism: Churchill’s Duplicity

During the early part of the twentieth century, Winston Churchill was very much aware of the decisive role that Jews played in the rise of Bolshevik Communism in Russia. Gilbert writes:

“He was familiar with the names and origins of all its leaders: Lenin was almost the only member of the Central Committee who was not of Jewish origin. Neither Churchill nor his colleagues, nor the Jews, knew that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew.” The Jewish historian adds an observation that, if stated by a non-Jew, could possibly earn him the dreaded “anti-Semite” label: “Churchill had studied the Bolshevik terror against political opponents, democrats and constitutionalists, and he knew the significant part individual Jews had played in establishing and maintaining the Bolshevik regime.”2

In a June 1919 telegram to a British general, Churchill pointed out the prominent role Jews played in the Bolshevik regime and the atrocities they were guilty of.3 In a 10 October 1919 letter to Lloyd George, Churchill again noted that Jews certainly “have played a leading role in Bolshevik atrocities.”4 Gilbert attempts to put this in historical context: “Not only was there a deeply anti-Semitic tradition in southern Russia and the Ukraine that had seen pogroms and massacres in both the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, but after the Bolshevik revolution in November 1917 many Jews, hoping for a better break, had thrown in their lot with the Bolsheviks. A few Jews, whose deeds were much publicized and greatly feared, became political commissars, charged with the imposition of Bolshevik rule in southern Russia, and carrying out their tasks with cruelty and zeal.”5

Gilbert devotes a long discussion to Sir Winston’s famous 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People.”6 Churchill pointed out that left-wing Jews were a major force behind Communist Marxism in many parts of Europe and Russia, which ultimately brought horror and suffering to millions. He discussed:

“the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”7

Churchill specifically stated that Jewish Marxists were causing major problems in Germany. He wrote:

“The same phenomenon [i.e., Jewish involvement with left-wing and Communist movements] has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers is astonishing.”8

More recent scholarship has vindicated some of Churchill’s views. Jewish-American political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, and anti-National-Socialist historian Robert Payne documented the decisive role that Jews played in far left and Communist movements in Germany prior to World War II, although they may not believe that Jewish influence was as destructive as Churchill believed it to be.9

Despite Churchill’s 1920 exposé of the decisive Jewish involvement with Communism, in a November 1935 article he criticized Hitler and the German National Socialists for believing that Jews “were the main prop of communism.”10 Of course, this is precisely what Churchill had stated in “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” when he wrote:

“There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews [Gilbert pointed out that Lenin’s paternal grandfather was a Jew. Ed.]. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.”11

Furthermore, in his famous book, The Gathering Storm, written after the Second World War and widely regarded as a “classic,” Churchill again misled his readers. He insinuated that Hitler and his followers engaged in “delusional thinking” when they claimed that Jews played a major and destructive role in German Communist and Left wing groups. Describing the alleged fantasies of Hitler in regard to Jewish influence prior to and during the First World War, Churchill wrote: “As in a dream everything suddenly became clear [to Hitler]. Germany had been stabbed in the back and clawed down by the Jews, by the profiteers and intriguers behind the front, by the accursed Bolsheviks in their international conspiracy of Jewish intellectuals.”12 In fact, there is nothing in this “masterpiece” about the decisive role that Jews played in German communism, the international Bolshevik movement, and the threat this posed to Germany and the world, which Churchill had so vividly complained about in decades past.

On this issue, Churchill was deceitful. In 1935, he criticized National Socialists for holding beliefs that he himself had propounded years earlier. In 1948, when criticism of Jewish influence became taboo, he implied that the National Socialist idea of Bolshevism being a world-wide conspiracy of left-wing Jews that wreaked havoc in Germany was all a “paranoid fantasy.” He dishonestly failed to point out that this is very similar to what he emphatically stated in his 1920 article.

Churchill, the British Government, and the Reality of International Jewry

In his widely known works on National Socialist Germany, Jeffrey Herf asserts that the concept of “International Jewry” is a paranoid fantasy of “radical anti-Semites.” This allegedly false notion “rested on the belief that the Jews were a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds that transcended any allegiance to nation-states.”13 Of course, enlightened people of today should immediately reject this “canard.” The University of Maryland professor insists that Hitler was delusional, as he believed “International Jewry” to be an “actually existing political subject with vast power that was hostile to Germany.”14 According to Herf’s politically correct mode of thought, a world-wide Jewish entity that transcends the boundaries of nation-states had no existence whatsoever before, during or after the Second World War. Winston Churchill’s statements and behavior, and that of the British government, show us otherwise.

We remind the reader that in his 1920 article, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Churchill referred directly to the “schemes of International Jews,” their “sinister confederacy” and “world-wide conspiracy.” Historian Gilbert, relying upon Churchill, defines “International Jews” as “those Jews who supported Bolshevik rule inside Russia and Bolshevik revolution beyond its borders.”15 (As we shall soon see, this is an incomplete and inadequate definition of the term, “International Jews.” To cite just one problem, it does not include international Jewish Zionists who were opposed to Bolshevism.)

What was the goal of these “International Jews?” Churchill believed that they were seeking “a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination.”16 It is important to note that inThe Gathering Storm, he correctly imputed this very belief to Adolf Hitler. In Churchill’s description, Mein Kampf promoted the idea that the aim of Soviet communism was the triumph of international Judaism.17 Of course, Churchill never informed his readers of the striking similarity between his 1920 article and Hitler’s book on this issue.

Professor Herf apparently believes that only “radical anti-Semites” promoted the concept of “International Jewry”—but Winston Churchill was a philo-Semite and Gentile Zionist who worked for Jewish interests his entire career, and was accused of being “too fond of Jews” by his friend and fellow parliamentarian General Sir Edward Louis Spears.18

In November 1917, the British Foreign Office issued the Balfour Declaration. It read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”19 Gilbert reveals the beliefs that moved the British government to issue the Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war, and that American Jews would be stimulated to accelerate the military participation of the United States—already at war, but not yet in the battlefield. To secure these results, [Jewish-Zionist diplomat] Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to lead a campaign to rouse the pro-war sentiments among the Jewish masses in both countries.”20

In 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:

“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22

In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:

“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23

Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25

In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27

Here we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29

In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a centre in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine in his 3 September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31

The reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.

But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantin von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33

Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34 There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.

A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.

In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.

The reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States and Europe.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.

Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism

In June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38

On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.

On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41

Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.

Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43

In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:

“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes...”44

In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)

The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47

On 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48

In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49

On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weizmann, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:

“Now Weizmann reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51

Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53 The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.

On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitz by the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55

At the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56

Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.

Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58

As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60

The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.

Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.

Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62

Throughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65

Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66

I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67

Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.

We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70

Notes:

1. Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (Frank Cass, 1985); Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship (Henry Holt, 2007); Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Belknap Press, 2006).
2. Gilbert, p. 37.
3. Ibid., p.31.
4. Ibid., p.33.
5. Ibid., p.31.
6. Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920. Online:http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionchurch.html Gilbert reproduces the article in facsimile, but it is virtually unreadable.
7. Ibid..
8. Gilbert, pp. 40-41.
9. Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982), pp.84-89; Robert Payne, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (Popular Library, 1973), pp.124-125.
10. Gilbert, p. 104.
11. Ibid., p.40.
12. Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm (Bantam Books, 1948), p.48.
13. Herf, p.7.
14. Ibid., p.3.
15. Gilbert, p.40.
16. Ibid., p.42.
17. Churchill, p.51.
18. Gilbert, p.xv.
19. Ibid., p.27.
20. Ibid., p.28.
21. Ibid., pp.69, 78-79, 112.
22. Cohen, p.195; Gilbert, p.165.
23. Cohen, p.328.
24. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988), p.342.
25. Ibid..
26. Ibid., p.343.
27. Ibid., p.343.
28. Ibid., pp.342-343.
29. Cohen, pp.186-187.
30. Gilbert, p.74.
31. Ibid., p.132.
32. Gilbert, p.132.
33. Quoted in Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (University of Texas Press, 1985), p.121.
34. For a further discussion of this topic, see Paul Grubach, “Does ‘International Jewry’ Exist?: Grubach Contra Herf.” Online: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zionpgint.html
35. Herf, p.265.
36. Jared Diamond, “Who Are the Jews?,” Natural History, November 1993, pp. 12-19.
37. The following is just a small sample of the works that document Jewish power and influence in the Western world. Alexander Bloom, Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals and Their World (Oxford University Press, 1986); Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (Crown Publishers, 1988); Benjamin Ginsberg, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State (University of Chicago Press, 1993); Ernest van den Haag, The Jewish Mystique (Stein and Day, 1969); Jacob Heilbrunn,They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, 2008); Paul Findley,They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israeli Lobby (Lawrence Hill & Co., 1985); Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (John Wiley & Sons, 1979); Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace? (North American, 1982); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Praeger, 1998); Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (The Occidental Press, 2007); Janine Roberts, “The Influence of Israel in Westminster,” The Palestine Chronicle , 24 May 2008. Online:http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=13821; Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (Oxford University Press, 1982); Charles Silberman, A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives Today (Summit Books, 1985).
38. Gilbert, p.186.
39. Ibid., pp.186-187.
40. Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2003), pp.241-242. Online: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/HoaxV2.pdf
41. Gilbert, p.186.
42. Ibid., p.187.
43. Ibid., p.187.
44. Gilbert, p.192.
45. Ibid., p.194.
46. Ibid., p.195,
47. Ibid..
48. Cohen, p.271.
49. Ibid., p.290.
50. Ibid., p.294.
51. Ibid..
52. Ibid., p.368fn120.
53. Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002), p.116.
54. Cohen, pp. 294-296.
55. Cohen, p. 291; Gilbert, pp.215, 216.
56. Gilbert, p.219.
57. Ibid., p.220.
58. Gilbert, p. 257; Cohen, pp. 266-267.
59. Cohen, p.267.
60. Ibid., p.268.
61. Gilbert, p.188.
62. Butz, p.114.
63. Gilbert, pp. 46, 58-59, 71-72, 76, 77, 78, 93, 102, 117, 144, 154, 157, 202, 205, 222, 229, 230, 232, 235, 237, 246, 249, 285.
64. Ibid., pp. 109, 180, 213, 243, 245, 257.
65. Ibid., p.193.
66. Cohen, p.325.
67. Butz, p.113.
68. Gilbert, p.257; Cohen, p.267.
69. Gilbert, pp.240-241.
70. A good place to start would be Ernst Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” (Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), p

Los crímenes de Winston Churchill, del holocausto Indio al genocidio palestino

Churchill’s Crimes From Indian Holocaust To Palestinian Genocide

Blog de NintendoShyGuy: Maravillas modernas: las tendencias de la degeneración social

Blog de NintendoShyGuy: Maravillas modernas: las tendencias de la degeneración social

CNN le preguntó a un experto una pregunta tonta. Su respuesta simplemente la mató | Pagina Popular

CNN le preguntó a un experto una pregunta tonta. Su respuesta simplemente la mató | Pagina Popular





Vean el video del enlace, muy bueno, dice que las mutilaciones femeninas no son un problema del Islam en sí sino de una zona de África donde sin importar la religión que sea las mujeres son tratadas así. Esto y más datos interesantes.



Le pregunatn al experto (me parecerá interesante leer sus trabajos pro su postura) "¿Promueve el Islam la paz o la guerra?" y responde "El Islam no promueve ni paz ni guerra es solo una religión y depende de cada quien lo que haga de ella" Esto tras un video de Nethanyau en la ONU, al que el experto veía con una risa ampliamente de sorna y burla sobre las palabras del genocida Israelí.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KQZza2hKx7M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Libro revela la admiración que John F. Kennedy sentía por Adolf Hitler

Libro revela la admiración que John F. Kennedy sentía por Adolf Hitler

Héroes de Guerra: - Rememorando III: Hermann, Balck, uno de los mejores estrategas alemanes

Héroes de Guerra: - Rememorando III: Hermann, Balck, uno de los mejores estrategas alemanes





Un estupendo blog

El pacto Churchill-Stalin para permitir a la URSS invadir Finlandia. Carta de Ribbentrop’s a Mannerheim, Marzo 7, 1940 | Justice for Germans

A Follow-Up to the Stalin-Churchill Pact – Ribbentrop’s Letter to Mannerheim, March 7, 1940 | Justice for Germans

The Controversial Memorial in Honor of WWII German Soldier Karl-Heinz Rosch: "Hero with No Glory" - WAR HISTORY ONLINE

The Controversial Memorial in Honor of WWII German Soldier Karl-Heinz Rosch: "Hero with No Glory" - WAR HISTORY ONLINE

Willy Toledo dice que el video del policía del ataque a 'Charlie Hebdo' es "un burdo montaje" | Diario Público

Willy Toledo dice que el video del policía del ataque a 'Charlie Hebdo' es "un burdo montaje" | Diario Público

Jeff Rense & Jim Marrs - La historia la escriben los vencedores. ¿Hitler en Argentina?

12 Things You Were Not Told About Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany

12 Things You Were Not Told About Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany