Scrapbookpages Blog

May 21, 2016

What’s wrong with this map?

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, World War II — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 8:12 am
Map of Poland

Map shows 3 Nazi death camps on the border of Poland

The map, shown above, identifies the locations of three of the alleged Nazi death camps: Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec. All 3 of these camps were very near the Bug river, which is not shown on the map.

Allegedly, the Nazis transported Jews to Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec for no reason, other than to kill them. But why waste trains and manpower to transport Jews to these Godforsaken places when it would have been more efficient, and cheaper, to gas them in Warsaw or at Auschwitz.

Transporting Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka and Belzec, both of which are right on the border of Poland, was highly inefficient, since the Jews could have been killed in a hidden gas chamber in Warsaw, and no one would have known about it.

Note that the locations of Warsaw and Auschwitz were easier to reach, than the three locations along the river. Auschwitz was the largest central railroad hub in Europe; trains from anywhere in Europe could go to Auschwitz without changing tracks.

If you have ever been to Germany, you know that the German people are very smart and very efficient. So why did the Germans come up with this stupid plan of transporting the Jews to Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec to be killed?  This is a trick question. The answer is that the Jews were not transported to these places to be killed; the Jews were sent, from these locations, into the eastern territories to get rid of them, but not to kill them.

So why am I writing about this now, you ask. It is because I have just read a news article about these camps: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unearthing-the-atrocities-of-nazi-death-camps/

The following quote is from the news article, cited above:

Begin quote

During the Second World War, [Caroline] Sturdy Colls knew, more than 900,000 Jewish deportees had been killed at the Treblinka death camp, an unassuming site about the size of a suburban shopping mall. After closely guarded boxcars of arrivals passed through the gates of Treblinka or its sister camps, Beec [Belzec] and Sobibór, it took less than an hour for camp staff to exterminate them in engine-exhaust gas chambers.

All three of the Operation Reinhard camps were located within a few hundred miles of each other in formerly central (now eastern) Poland, and some 500 miles from the notorious Auschwitz death camp. Of the approximately 1.7 million Jewish people who arrived at the three Reinhard camps, scarcely a hundred survived the war, and they only made it because they staged desperate breakouts that succeeded against all odds.

End quote

Photo credit: Culture Club/Getty Images

Photo credit: Culture Club/Getty Images

My 1998 photo of the memorial stones at Treblinka

My 1998 photo of the memorial stones at the Treblinka camp

According to my tour guide, who accompanied me to Treblinka in 1998, the stones in the photo above cover the area where the ashes were buried after the Jews were gassed and burned at Treblinka. Each stone represents a town or a city from which the victims were taken to Treblinka to be killed. This monument prevents anyone from digging in this area to see if ashes or bodies are buried here.

43 Comments »

  1. “If you have ever been to Germany, you know that the German people are very smart and very efficient.”

    Not when Hitler was in charge.
    Examples of German “efficiency:”

    1). Attempting a mass migration of Jews and Poles that messed up the local economy in Poland so bad both Goering and Frank stopped it.
    2). Attacking the Soviet Union without ensuring that their troops had appropriate winter equipment.
    3). Delaying the transition to full war-time production until 1942.

    “So why did the Germans come up with this stupid plan of transporting the Jews to Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec to be killed?”

    Not so stupid when you consider that the whole idea behind the opening the Reinhard Camps was secrecy.

    “This is a trick question.”

    It really isn’t.

    “The answer is that the Jews were not transported to these places to be killed; the Jews were sent, from these locations, into the eastern territories to get rid of them, but not to kill them.”

    Where in the eastern territories? Kube ordered a halt to any further unauthorized transports on July 31st, 1942. This over 1000 able bodied Jews sent as labor. This was at the height of the clearing of the ghettos in the General Government.
    Also, this directly conflicts with Operation Blue, the German attempt to seize the oil fields in the Caucuses, not to mention the transport of troops north to Leningrad to assist in the siege there. Even Himmler had to ask for transports that Summer and Fall for his “special transports.”
    Of course you then have to take into account the Battle of Stalingrad and the partisan wars going on behind the lines.
    So, where did these transports go? Did the Germans send these Jews on an extended road trip? Send them careening merrily about the countryside?

    Comment by Jeff K. — May 22, 2016 @ 4:51 pm

    • Jeff wrote: “Examples of German “efficiency:” 1). Attempting a mass migration of Jews and Poles that messed up the local economy in Poland so bad both Goering and Frank stopped it. 2). Attacking the Soviet Union without ensuring that their troops had appropriate winter equipment. 3). Delaying the transition to full war-time production until 1942.”

      1) Merely a clash between living space policies (i.e. the General Governorate for Poles and Jews & the rest of German-occupied former Poland for Germans) and war necessities. Note that the policy of deporting Poles and Jews to the General Governorate predated the need to stop that policy because of war requirements. Your example is anachronistic. The stoppage of that policy rather refutes your claim and demonstrates the beneficial effects of German efficiency and adaptability when needed.
      2) Operation Barbarossa was designed as a Blitzkrieg pre-emptive strike supposed to force military surrender on the Soviet Union within a few months, i.e. before winter. If the Soviet-German war was fought in winter (and we now know that it was), that meant that the German plan for a fast Soviet military collapse had failed and that WW2 was lost.

      3) Quite naive pacifist optimism…

      You could have opted for the huge gap between the [real] advanced German technologies and the [fictional] utterly-primitive (not to say dumb) ‘German’ Holo-weapons of mass murder. But only gross lies and distortions make it possible to call that ludicrous Judeo-Mujik Holo ‘science’ “German technologies.”

      Comment by hermie — May 23, 2016 @ 7:29 am

      • Jeff wrote: “Examples of German “efficiency:” 1). Attempting a mass migration of Jews and Poles that messed up the local economy in Poland so bad both Goering and Frank stopped it. 2). Attacking the Soviet Union without ensuring that their troops had appropriate winter equipment. 3). Delaying the transition to full war-time production until 1942.”

        “1) Merely a clash between living space policies (i.e. the General Governorate for Poles and Jews & the rest of German-occupied former Poland for Germans) and war necessities. Note that the policy of deporting Poles and Jews to the General Governorate predated the need to stop that policy because of war requirements. Your example is anachronistic. The stoppage of that policy rather refutes your claim and demonstrates the beneficial effects of German efficiency and adaptability when needed.”

        No, efficiency is thinking a policy through before implementing it. Himmler made no provision for replacing valuable Poles and Jews in the local economy, nor did he make any provision for the care of said Poles and Jews. Instead he forced them out and then dumped them in the General Government, disrupting the economies of both the areas of deportation and the General Government. This understandably pissed off Frank, who was responsible for governing the GG and Goering, who was responsible for making Poland a profitable country to occupy.

        “2) Operation Barbarossa was designed as a Blitzkrieg pre-emptive strike”

        There was no Soviet plan to attack Germany. Stalin never believed the Germans would without Britain surrendering first. Because in June of 1941 Britain showed no signs of surrendering Stalin thought the USSR was safe. He refused to believe any intelligence to the contrary and shut down Zhukov when the general brought up the possibility of a preemptive attack. In fact Hitler thought the best way to end British hopes was to destroy his only remaining rival on the continent. Hitler was wrong, in fact Churchill pinned his hopes on the United States, so Hitler miscalculated.
        The Soviet military was in no shape to attack the well-armed, well-trained and experienced German army.

        “supposed to force military surrender on the Soviet Union within a few months, i.e. before winter.”

        Again, the height of inefficiency and frankly the height of arrogance. All military operations should have a back-up plan just in case things don’t go as planned. In fact the German military came up with a pretty good plan, Hitler spoiled it by meddling.

        “If the Soviet-German war was fought in winter (and we now know that it was), that meant that the German plan for a fast Soviet military collapse had failed and that WW2 was lost.”

        That seems rather fatalistic. Everything risked on a single toss of the dice?
        No, the Germans thought they could steamroll the Red Army just like they had everyone else. When it didn’t work out they had no back-up. Some German efficiency, huh?

        “3) Quite naive pacifist optimism…”

        Not an answer. The Germans started the war in 1939 and it took them 3 years to switch over to a war economy. Yep, that’s German efficiency for ya…..

        “You could have opted for the huge gap between the [real] advanced German technologies and the [fictional] utterly-primitive (not to say dumb) ‘German’ Holo-weapons of mass murder. But only gross lies and distortions make it possible to call that ludicrous Judeo-Mujik Holo ‘science’ “German technologies.””

        None of that made any sense whatsoever. You have the Holocaust on the brain, none of our discussion dealt with this in any fashion. But, you can’t help yourself, your life is so populated with mystical Jewish conspiracies it occupies your every thought.

        Comment by Jeff K. — May 23, 2016 @ 11:40 am

        • Jeff wrote: “No, efficiency is thinking a policy through before implementing it. Himmler made no provision for replacing valuable Poles and Jews in the local economy, nor did he make any provision for the care of said Poles and Jews. Instead he forced them out and then dumped them in the General Government, disrupting the economies of both the areas of deportation and the General Government.”

          You can’t compare the German needs in October 1939 (when Himmler ordered the deportation of Poles and Jews to the General Governorate, when no armies were fighting, when Germany didn’t vitally need Polish economy for its onw survival) and in subsequent years (when Germany was fighting a titanic war against many powerful armies). The conditions and requirements had radically changed between both eras. Adapting policies to new conditions is a sign of efficiency. Flexibility is a major part of a country’s efficiency. Your argument amounts to claiming that a guy is inefficient because he didn’t buy the same kind of car when he was 16 and when he was a father with 3 children to support. Different life, different needs, different car.

          Jeff wrote: “There was no Soviet plan to attack Germany. Stalin never believed the Germans would without Britain surrendering first. Because in June of 1941 Britain showed no signs of surrendering Stalin thought the USSR was safe. He refused to believe any intelligence to the contrary and shut down Zhukov when the general brought up the possibility of a preemptive attack.”

          Stalin didn’t indeed believe in a German preemptive strike, what led to think he could attack when and how he had planned to do it. He had never contemplated the idea of being anything but an invader. He was stunned when Operation Barbarossa turned him into a defender, something he had neither considered nor prepared.

          Jeff wrote: “Again, the height of inefficiency and frankly the height of arrogance. All military operations should have a back-up plan just in case things don’t go as planned.”

          Luxury of large nations with almost unlimited natural, industrial and human resources. Germany couldn’t afford that. It was a successfull gamble against the Soviet juggernaut or a total defeat in general as the future demonstrated.

          Jeff wrote: “The Germans started the war in 1939 ”

          Only in your dreams and the victors’ ludicrous WW2 narrative…

          Jeff wrote: “and it took them 3 years to switch over to a war economy.”

          A mortal blow to the laughable story of a Nazi war for world domination, isn’t it?

          Jeff wrote: “Yep, that’s German efficiency for ya….”

          No, that was naive optimism and belief in a possible peace. I’ve just told you. Reading and understanding disorders?

          Jeff wrote: “none of our discussion dealt with this in any fashion. ”

          Very funny. Caught shamelessly lying once again. Be careful not to catch a cold with your pants so often down…😉

          Comment by hermie — May 24, 2016 @ 4:31 am

          • Jeff wrote: “No, efficiency is thinking a policy through before implementing it. Himmler made no provision for replacing valuable Poles and Jews in the local economy, nor did he make any provision for the care of said Poles and Jews. Instead he forced them out and then dumped them in the General Government, disrupting the economies of both the areas of deportation and the General Government.”

            “You can’t compare the German needs in October 1939 (when Himmler ordered the deportation of Poles and Jews to the General Governorate, when no armies were fighting, when Germany didn’t vitally need Polish economy for its onw survival) and in subsequent years (when Germany was fighting a titanic war against many powerful armies). The conditions and requirements had radically changed between both eras. Adapting policies to new conditions is a sign of efficiency.”

            Apparently Goering and Frank didn’t think so. They stopped it when they realized how much damage it was doing.

            “Flexibility is a major part of a country’s efficiency.”

            Flexibility is a sign of efficiency. Firing off half-cocked is not. At the time Himmler tried his warped experiment he didn’t have enough ethnic Germans to take over the Poles and Jews businesses, farms, factories, etc. In fact, a great many ethnic Germans were languishing in refugee camps because the Germans made no provision for THEIR care.

            “Your argument amounts to claiming that a guy is inefficient because he didn’t buy the same kind of car when he was 16 and when he was a father with 3 children to support. Different life, different needs, different car.”

            Those types of changes occur gradually. I know, I have a family. What you speak of can take a few years to occur, even babies take nine months.
            Wait, did you not know it takes nine months from conception to birth? You did major in biology, right?

            Jeff wrote: “There was no Soviet plan to attack Germany. Stalin never believed the Germans would without Britain surrendering first. Because in June of 1941 Britain showed no signs of surrendering Stalin thought the USSR was safe. He refused to believe any intelligence to the contrary and shut down Zhukov when the general brought up the possibility of a preemptive attack.”

            “Stalin didn’t indeed believe in a German preemptive strike,”

            ?

            “what led him to think he could attack when and how he had planned to do it.”

            ?

            “He had never contemplated the idea of being anything but an invader.”

            Yes, because that worked out so well when he attacked Finland.
            Imagine the Red Army attacking the German army……..

            “He was stunned when Operation Barbarossa turned him into a defender, something he had neither considered nor prepared.”

            No, he was stunned that the Germans would attack him with Britain still fighting.

            Jeff wrote: “Again, the height of inefficiency and frankly the height of arrogance. All military operations should have a back-up plan just in case things don’t go as planned.”

            “Luxury of large nations with almost unlimited natural, industrial and human resources. Germany couldn’t afford that. It was a successfull gamble against the Soviet juggernaut or a total defeat in general as the future demonstrated.”

            You are looking at the end result.
            To be fair I think Hitler believed this was his best option, plus he didn’t think the USSR could withstand a German assault. Hitler believed that the Germans could trap and annhilate the Red Armies before they retreated into the interior. He failed to account for the distances involved, the poor condition of Soviet roads that slowed his mechanized divisions (even though much of the German army was horse drawn) or take into account the possibility of his armies still fighting in the USSR in the Fall and Winter. He also failed to account for fanatical Soviet resistance (exacerbated by the knowledge of what was happening to Soviet POWs in German POW camps and Beria’s blocking units). It also didn’t help that Hitler detached Guderian’s panzers from Bock’s Central Army Group to help take Kiev when Bock was less than 200 miles from Moscow in August of 1941. This cost Bock the opportunity to surround and take Moscow before the Fall rains struck.

            Jeff wrote: “The Germans started the war in 1939 ”

            “Only in your dreams and the victors’ ludicrous WW2 narrative…”

            Well, Hitler did invade Poland after the French and British told him this would lead to war. So, the responsibility for the war falls on Hitler.

            Jeff wrote: “and it took them 3 years to switch over to a war economy.”

            “A mortal blow to the laughable story of a Nazi war for world domination, isn’t it?”

            Nope, it just proves how inefficient the Nazi government was.

            Jeff wrote: “Yep, that’s German efficiency for ya….”

            “No, that was naive optimism and belief in a possible peace. I’ve just told you. Reading and understanding disorders?”

            No, it just proves my point.

            I do find it amusing that you and Jim constantly bring up Hitler’s desire for “peace.” Invading other countries and then screaming “I want peace!!!!!! I want peace!!!!! is really contradictory. Why on earth would any country believe in Hitler’s sincerity?

            Jeff wrote: “none of our discussion dealt with this in any fashion. ”

            “Very funny. Caught shamelessly lying once again.”

            What? Sorry, I have problems following denier logic.
            I never mentioned the Holocaust
            in this context.

            Be careful not to catch a cold with your pants so often down…😉

            Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 6:44 am

            • Jeff wrote: “Apparently Goering and Frank didn’t think so. They stopped it when they realized how much damage it was doing.”

              …and when Germany could no longer afford such economic losses, i.e. when conditions had changed, as I said.

              Jeff wrote: “Yes, because that worked out so well when he attacked Finland. Imagine the Red Army attacking the German army……..”

              Cute to see you believe Stalin regarded the Soviet citizens as anything but insignificant insects. His purges had damaged the leadership of the Red Army, but he couldn’t care less about that. When you have so many men and resources at your disposal, you can afford almost any amount of losses and waste no time with minor considerations such the death of few million ‘insects’ here and there.

              Jeff wrote: “Hitler believed that the Germans could trap and annhilate the Red Armies before they retreated into the interior.”

              Something he was able to achieve to a great extent by NOT capturing Moscow, with his move South before Moscow, what led to the German capture of very numerous Soviet soldiers in 1941.

              Jeff wrote: “He failed to account for the distances involved, the poor condition of Soviet roads that slowed his mechanized divisions (even though much of the German army was horse drawn)”

              He couldn’t start Operation Barbarossa earlier. Since winter played extra time in 1940-1941, Spring ‘Rasputitsa’ prevented any military operation from taking place before late June 1941.

              Jeff wrote: “or take into account the possibility of his armies still fighting in the USSR in the Fall and Winter.”

              Fighting against the Soviet juggernaut was like fighting against a tiger with a knife. Either you’re able to kill the tiger at one blow, or you’re dead.

              “In the event of a general conflict, only one country can win. That country is the Soviet Union.” – Adolf Hitler, November 1937

              Jeff wrote: ” It also didn’t help that Hitler detached Guderian’s panzers from Bock’s Central Army Group to help take Kiev when Bock was less than 200 miles from Moscow in August of 1941. This cost Bock the opportunity to surround and take Moscow before the Fall rains struck.”

              Napoleon captured Moscow and was defeated in Russia nevertheless. Academic historians always make a big deal about the German non-capture of Moscow. But the capture of Moscow would have been a quite minor benefit and a very costly victory. The fall of Moscow would only have compelled the Soviet leaders to launch their hordes from another HQ further east. Almost a non-event. No result on the outcome of WW2.

              Jeff wrote: “Well, Hitler did invade Poland after the French and British told him this would lead to war. So, the responsibility for the war falls on Hitler.”

              Yes, France and Britain have always been altruistic countries willing to send millions of their men die for the sole sake of small remote eastern countries resurrected 2 decades earlier, NOT rogue nations building empires by cutting their rivals to pieces on any excuse. (Sarcasm detected?)

              The transparent Polish pretext of France and Britain for a war against Germany in 1939 was no better than Britain’s Belgian pretext for a war on its German rising rival in 1914. Mere fairy tales for gullible kids. Nothing more.

              England, France and others brilliantly turned “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” into “I want to make the enemy of my enemy a friend so that I can easily get a gold pretext to kick the ass of my enemy.” Blaming others for lousy reasons, convenient pretexts, is an age-old trick. Any wife beater in this world always finds a ‘good’ reason to punch his wife’s teeth out of her mouth.

              Jeff wrote: “Nope, it just proves how inefficient the Nazi government was.”

              So you mean that a regime planning world domination through war took 3 years to switch over to a war economy during the war it had allegedly wanted and started?!? Ha ha ha. Ridiculous beyound everything…

              Jeff wrote: “I do find it amusing that you and Jim constantly bring up Hitler’s desire for “peace.” Invading other countries and then screaming “I want peace!!!!!! I want peace!!!!! is really contradictory.”

              Not more contradictory than making peace impossible like FDR and Churchill did and screaming “I want peace!!!! I want peace!!!”…

              Jeff wrote: “What? Sorry, I have problems following denier logic. I never mentioned the Holocaust in this context.”

              What context? The context of German technology and efficiency?

              Comment by hermie — May 24, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

              • Jeff wrote: “Apparently Goering and Frank didn’t think so. They stopped it when they realized how much damage it was doing.”

                “…and when Germany could no longer afford such economic losses, i.e. when conditions had changed, as I said.”

                They stopped it before Himmler could do any more harm. They stopped it because it was a waste.

                Jeff wrote: “Yes, because that worked out so well when he attacked Finland. Imagine the Red Army attacking the German army……..”

                “Cute to see you believe Stalin regarded the Soviet citizens as anything but insignificant insects. His purges had damaged the leadership of the Red Army, but he couldn’t care less about that. When you have so many men and resources at your disposal, you can afford almost any amount of losses and waste no time with minor considerations such the death of few million ‘insects’ here and there.”

                Finland humiliated Stalin and made him realize how far his military was from being a viable force.
                If it didn’t matter, why not attack Hitler while his attention was focused on the West? In the Summer of 1940? Perfect timing, Hitler’s best troops, most of his armor and the majority of Germany’s Air Force was in the West. Why wait until Germany started pouring troops into Poland?

                Jeff wrote: “Hitler believed that the Germans could trap and annhilate the Red Armies before they retreated into the interior.”

                “Something he was able to achieve to a great extent by NOT capturing Moscow, with his move South before Moscow, what led to the German capture of very numerous Soviet soldiers in 1941.”

                Yet netted him nothing in the end. Taking Kiev meant nothing, it simply diverted Guderian’s tanks South at a crucial point.

                “Jeff wrote: “He failed to account for the distances involved, the poor condition of Soviet roads that slowed his mechanized divisions (even though much of the German army was horse drawn)”

                “He couldn’t start Operation Barbarossa earlier. Since winter played extra time in 1940-1941, Spring ‘Rasputitsa’ prevented any military operation from taking place before late June 1941.”

                Which made sticking to the original attack plan even more vital. There was no room for error, the Germans needed to complete their attack before the Fall rains and the onset of Winter. By meddling Hitler threw the timetable off.

                Jeff wrote: “or take into account the possibility of his armies still fighting in the USSR in the Fall and Winter.”

                “Fighting against the Soviet juggernaut was like fighting against a tiger with a knife. Either you’re able to kill the tiger at one blow, or you’re dead.”

                Very poetic. I didn’t know you had it in you.

                “In the event of a general conflict, only one country can win. That country is the Soviet Union.” – Adolf Hitler, November 1937

                Yet Hitler tried it anyway. Apparently the man couldn’t take his own advice.

                Jeff wrote: ” It also didn’t help that Hitler detached Guderian’s panzers from Bock’s Central Army Group to help take Kiev when Bock was less than 200 miles from Moscow in August of 1941. This cost Bock the opportunity to surround and take Moscow before the Fall rains struck.”

                “Napoleon captured Moscow and was defeated in Russia nevertheless. Academic historians always make a big deal about the German non-capture of Moscow. But the capture of Moscow would have been a quite minor benefit and a very costly victory. The fall of Moscow would only have compelled the Soviet leaders to launch their hordes from another HQ further east. Almost a non-event. No result on the outcome of WW2.”

                You mistake the importance of taking Moscow in 1812 versus taking Moscow in 1941. In 1941 Moscow was an important industrial, communication and transport center. Taking Moscow meant controlling the most important rail hub in the Soviet Union and denying it to the Soviets, limiting their ability to send troops and supplies to needed areas. Taking Moscow in September also meant no counterattack with fresh troops from Siberia in December. If Moscow fell then so would Leningrad. There was an important political factor at work, the fact that Moscow still stood in December of 1941 convinced the US and British to back the Soviets to their fullest extent. It also isn’t out of the realm of possibility that the loss of Moscow would have convinced the Japanese to turn North instead of South, at that point Japanese plans were not fully developed.
                It also likely that the Germans would have captured or killed Stalin. Stalin refused to leave Moscow in October of 1941 in spite of Beria urging him to do so.

                Jeff wrote: “Well, Hitler did invade Poland after the French and British told him this would lead to war. So, the responsibility for the war falls on Hitler.”

                “Yes, France and Britain have always been altruistic countries willing to send millions of their men die for the sole sake of small remote eastern countries resurrected 2 decades earlier, NOT rogue nations building empires by cutting their rivals to pieces on any excuse. (Sarcasm detected?)”

                The French and British recognized a powerful German Empire as a threat to their interests. Countries act in their own interests, like people.

                “if The transparent Polish pretext of France and Britain for a war against Germany in 1939 was no better than Britain’s Belgian pretext for a war on its German rising rival in 1914. Mere fairy tales for gullible kids. Nothing more.”

                Hitler turned the French and British against him by violating the Munich Pact. They warned him against attacking Poland, Hitler refused to listen to their warnings. In the end the responsibility for war is his.

                Jeff wrote: “Nope, it just proves how inefficient the Nazi government was.”

                “So you mean that a regime planning world domination through war took 3 years to switch over to a war economy during the war it had allegedly wanted and started?!? Ha ha ha. Ridiculous beyound everything…”

                Nope, just proves how inefficient the Nazis were.

                Jeff wrote: “I do find it amusing that you and Jim constantly bring up Hitler’s desire for “peace.” Invading other countries and then screaming “I want peace!!!!!! I want peace!!!!! is really contradictory.”

                “Not more contradictory than making peace impossible like FDR and Churchill did and screaming “I want peace!!!! I want peace!!!”…”

                People stop taking you seriously when your words don’t match your actions.

                Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “They stopped it before Himmler could do any more harm. They stopped it because it was a waste.”

                  They stopped it when Germany couldn’t affort any economic losses anymore, when the war was patently going to be a long and exhausting war requiring the use of huge resources.

                  Jeff wrote: “If it didn’t matter, why not attack Hitler while his attention was focused on the West? In the Summer of 1940? Perfect timing, Hitler’s best troops, most of his armor and the majority of Germany’s Air Force was in the West.”

                  Because Stalin’s plan had always been to let the main European powers exhaust each others.

                  Jeff wrote: “Which made sticking to the original attack plan even more vital. There was no room for error, the Germans needed to complete their attack before the Fall rains and the onset of Winter. By meddling Hitler threw the timetable off.”

                  The original plan couldn’t be implemented. Had the preemptive strike began earlier than it did, it would only have begun with a swimming competition in mud. And Hitler couldn’t let Mussolini be defeated in Greece without the risk of a British landing on European soil in late 1941 or in 1942.

                  Jeff wrote: “Very poetic. I didn’t know you had it in you.”

                  Now you know.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “Yet Hitler tried it anyway. Apparently the man couldn’t take his own advice.”

                  He couldn’t avoid it. His intelligence services were not made of clownish democratic historians telling extravagant fairy tales such as “Uncle Joe was a peace-loving grower of flowers not planning to take part in a war patently about to redraw the maps of the world.”

                  Jeff wrote: “You mistake the importance of taking Moscow in 1812 versus taking Moscow in 1941. In 1941 Moscow was an important industrial, communication and transport center.”

                  Less important than the capture of Stalingrad…

                  Jeff wrote: “It also likely that the Germans would have captured or killed Stalin. Stalin refused to leave Moscow in October of 1941 in spite of Beria urging him to do so.”

                  Stalin had ordered to have his private train prepared for his departure from Moscow, but he finally changed his mind at the last minute.

                  Jeff wrote: “The French and British recognized a powerful German Empire as a threat to their interests. Countries act in their own interests, like people.”

                  The French and British governments could be honest and now admit that Poland was just a pretext and that they acted against Germany in 1939 only to obliterate a powerful rival.

                  Jeff wrote: “Hitler turned the French and British against him by violating the Munich Pact.”

                  Mere bamboozlement intended to pave the way to the Polish pretext.

                  Jeff wrote: “They warned him against attacking Poland, Hitler refused to listen to their warnings. In the end the responsibility for war is his.”

                  Just as if the Soviet Union had given Mexico a license to multiply incidents with the US and had also warned the US that any armed conflict with Mexico would lead to a rain of nuclear bombs on America. Who would be responsible for the nuclear holocaust in America in that event? The US? Mexico? The Soviet Union? Mexico and the Soviet Union? Everybody?

                  Jeff wrote: “Nope, just proves how inefficient the Nazis were.”

                  This is why the promoters of the victors’ state lies about WW2 will always be called ‘reality deniers!’

                  Jeff wrote: “People stop taking you seriously when your words don’t match your actions.”

                  If this is a piece of advice for Roosevelt and Churchill, you’re 7 decades too late…😉

                  Comment by hermie — May 26, 2016 @ 2:13 am

          • “Be careful not to catch a cold with your pants so often down…😉”

            Sorry, your mom and your sister bring out the animal in me.

            Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 6:52 am

            • No surprise. They’re hot!!

              Comment by hermie — May 24, 2016 @ 3:19 pm

              • You know, I may not agree with you on most things but on occasion you do make me smile.

                Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 5:54 pm

                • Yes, I’m a funny guy. I know…

                  Comment by hermie — May 26, 2016 @ 2:14 am

  2. What does this portend for the future, that the Scientific American would publish such unscientific drivel. Have the dark forces become so powerful, to subvert the scientific community? We know what happened to the Soviet Union when similar forces supported the likes of Trofim Lysenko and his disastrous ‘scientific’ theories. As happened in the Soviet Union there are European Countries incarcerating those who point out the gross misrepresentations in the Holocaust narrative. As of yet they haven’t followed suit by executing those challenging the pseudo religious dogma.

    Comment by John Mortl — May 22, 2016 @ 12:47 pm

    • “What does this portend for the future, that the Scientific American would publish such unscientific drivel.”

      What is so unscientific about it?

      Comment by Jeff K. — May 22, 2016 @ 7:07 pm

      • Jeff K, it seems that you don’t know the difference between pseudo religious dogma and the scientific method. But then it’s a little unfair of me to expect a devoted believer to see that his dogmatic beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence. That is unless you have a vested interest in maintaining the hoax and are willfully blind as those European courts which steadfastly refuse to allow the defence their legal right to submit the slightest challenge to the dogma. If the defence Counsel persists they are also charged and prosecuted as has happened. What kind of truth is it that needs the force of the judicial system to protect it? Sounds like the Lysenko affair in the Soviet Union to me.

        Comment by John Mortl — May 23, 2016 @ 5:36 am

        • “Jeff K, it seems that you don’t know the difference between pseudo religious dogma and the scientific method.”

          I do. What Stolls is talking about is the height of the scientific method, using advanced technologies to find graves and grave sites without disrupting the soil. It seems to me that you are the one with the pseudo-religious dogma.

          “But then it’s a little unfair of me to expect a devoted believer to see that his dogmatic beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.”

          Really? Digs at the sites are finding a great deal. I don’t have to believe, the proof is already there. Only deniers are scared of what the archeologists are finding. So much for transit camps……..

          “That is unless you have a vested interest in maintaining the hoax”

          Pure nonsense. My only interest is real history, not the pseudo-history that deniers peddle.

          “and are willfully blind as those European courts which steadfastly refuse to allow the defence their legal right to submit the slightest challenge to the dogma. If the defence Counsel persists they are also charged and prosecuted as has happened. What kind of truth is it that needs the force of the judicial system to protect it?”

          It always comes back to laws against deniers. I oppose such laws, frankly the lunatic fringe should be allowed to howl their lunacy at the moon without disrupting the judicial system. Only actual hate speech advocating violence should be prosecuted.

          “Sounds like the Lysenko affair in the Soviet Union to me.”

          Unfortunately Lysenko’s theories cost the USSR’s agricultural system dearly. That was false science, this is real science.

          Comment by Jeff K. — May 23, 2016 @ 11:53 am

          • Jeff K, There was an earlier investigation, by Australian researchers, using the advanced technology to determine whether there were graves there. Not only were there no graves but they found that the sub soil hadn’t been disturbed for eons. Although the Australian study was suppressed, it gave the Hoaxers the idea to simulate their own ‘study’. The question is which one is accurate? The only way to resolve that question is to dig up the site. The Hoaxers will never allow that because they know full well that there is no mass grave there. Having the media suppress revisionist challenges they have a clear path to promote their claims without fear of contradiction.
            Your claim of opposing the laws persecuting the revisionists sidesteps the real issue of what is the reason for the suppression and persecution? It can’t be that there is no substance to their probing questions on the flimsy evidence, which would not stand up in a legitimate court of law. If there was no substance to their questions they would, as you suggest, just let them howl. The real reason is that they can’t back up their fantastic claims with compelling evidence. That’s why the courts refuse, on the pain of prosecution, to entertain any challenge to the bizarre assertions. From the very beginning when the Hoax was created at the Victors court at Nuremberg no evidence was presented. The Kangaroo court slyly took Judicial notice that there was an extermination policy. In effect it happened because the we, the Victor, say it happened. Compelling evidence for the alleged extermination policy has never been presented in a free and open forum allowing challenges. By contrast Revisionists have invited any and all to conferences on the Hoax. Hoaxers weren’t up to the task, begging off with various flimsily excuses.

            Comment by John Mortl — May 23, 2016 @ 4:24 pm

            • “Jeff K, There was an earlier investigation, by Australian researchers, using the advanced technology to determine whether there were graves there. Not only were there no graves but they found that the sub soil hadn’t been disturbed for eons.”

              What was the name of this researcher?
              Mortl, there was a camp there. There are pictures, including one taken in 1944. The ground is obviously disturbed.

              “Although the Australian study was suppressed,”

              Actually, if this is the same person I’m thinking about he never wrote a report about his findings and only released one picture.

              “it gave the Hoaxers the idea to simulate their own ‘study’.”

              The excavations at Belzec predate your “report.”

              “The question is which one is accurate? The only way to resolve that question is to dig up the site. ”

              I actually agree with you. However, this apparently violates Jewish burial traditions.

              “The Hoaxers will never allow that because they know full well that there is no mass grave there.”

              Even the deniers Mattagono and Graf acknowledge that there are mass graves at these sites. They simply try to minimize the number of graves and the amount of people in these graves.

              “Having the media suppress revisionist challenges they have a clear path to promote their claims without fear of contradiction.”

              More grandstanding. Bored.

              “Your claim of opposing the laws persecuting the revisionists sidesteps the real issue of what is the reason for the suppression and persecution?”

              The purpose of these laws is to prevent the spread of hate speech. The problem is the interpretation.

              “It can’t be that there is no substance to their probing questions on the flimsy evidence, which would not stand up in a legitimate court of law.”

              The problem is the evidence you downplay repeatedly stood up in courts of law.

              “If there was no substance to their questions they would, as you suggest, just let them howl. The real reason is that they can’t back up their fantastic claims with compelling evidence.”

              See above. Research consistently upholds the truth of the Holocaust. The agenda of deniers is to rehabilitate both Adolph Hitler and National Socialism, as well legitimizing anti-Semitic attitudes.

              “That’s why the courts refuse, on the pain of prosecution, to entertain any challenge to the bizarre assertions. From the very beginning when the Hoax was created at the Victors court at Nuremberg no evidence was presented.”

              The allies collected tons of documents, films, speeches, diaries, etc. that proved the guilt of the Nazi Government a dozen times over. Later trials gathered even more.

              “The Kangaroo court slyly took Judicial notice that there was an extermination policy. In effect it happened because the we, the Victor, say it happened.”

              Snore. More grandstanding.

              “Compelling evidence for the alleged extermination policy has never been presented in a free and open forum allowing challenges.”

              Honest historical revisionism corrects errors, not the garbage that deniers peddle.

              “By contrast Revisionists have invited any and all to conferences on the Hoax. Hoaxers weren’t up to the task, begging off with various flimsily excuses.”

              Why legitimize garbage?
              Why give credence to nonsense?

              Comment by Jeff K. — May 23, 2016 @ 5:34 pm

              • Jeff, Thank you for clearly demonstrating that all you have is unsubstantiated assertions and feeble rationalizations. You justify censorship and persecution and rationalize the lack of compelling evidence. As they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle! You proved my point that they will not allow the site to be dug up on some phoney pretext because they know there is no mass, I emphasize mass, grave there. The Jewish supremacists have no qualms what so ever in digging up and destroying known Palestinian cemeteries. Unless the site is dug up, all the clever gimmicks that can be conjured up proves nothing. The Nazis had their version of ‘hate laws’. So did the Soviet Union. Do you think that they were acceptable? Hate laws are a political device to suppress inconvenient speech and action. As far as I’m concerned, their employment in effect proves that the atrocity propaganda can’t stand up to scrutiny.

                Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal (IMT) were rigged Victor’s courts setup expressly to cover up and rationalize Allied war crimes and justify the plan to dismember and deindustrialize Germany. The methods employed were far worse than those employed by the present German courts, where challenges to the myth are suppressed and prosecuted. Aside from the one sided rules of evidence at Nuremberg ( too lengthy for this letter) they used torture on defendants and witnesses and threatened to torture and rape family members. Are they the courts you say the elusive evidence for gas chambers was presented? It can’t be the present day German courts because they don’t allow challenges to the myth. They, as at Nuremberg, take the Gas chamber myth as a given. The only court where revisionists were able to challenge the lucrative myth, despite the Judicial Notice enforced by the Judge, was the Zundel trial in Toronto (1985 and 1988) and the hoax was for the first time shown up for the fraud that it is. In the 1985 trial Doug Christie totally demolished the delusional ‘survivor’ testimony, to such an extent that the Crown prosecutor didn’t dare put them on the stand in the 1988 trial. The only real evidence submitted was that which undermined the myth. The prosecution presented the usual unsubstantiated anecdotal hearsay as ‘evidence. Rudolf Vrba was forced to admit that many of the crucial claims in his Auschwitz account were not true. Raul Hilberg conceded that his assertion in his book ‘the Destruction of European Jews’ of Hitler orders for extermination had no evidence to back it up. That trial was so devastating for the hoaxers that they will never willingly submit their alleged evidence to a fair test in anything resembling an objectively open setting. The only thing of substance the holohoax lobby has is the power to intimidate and suppress. When the power dynamics shifts watch out for the deluge of scholars stampeding out of the closet.

                Comment by John Mortl — May 24, 2016 @ 1:44 pm

                • John….you bring up a good point about the Zundel trial in fact the pro Holohoax witnesses that testified during the trial never came back for the next court case because they were so embarrassed by their lack of information and evidence that it would have been an embarrassment for the Holohuxsters case.
                  This is why the Holohucksters make laws to put us in jail because they can’t afford to go to court over any of this they know they will lose so they make laws that bypassed The Rules of Evidence and we all go to jail for standing up for the truth.
                  Have to hand it to them they really did a good job stopping the truth from coming out and then we got the Knuckleheads here that continue with their Holohoax dribble with no proof but plenty of non facts.
                  By the way Krege not sure on spelling was the man I believe that did the examination of Treblinka camp with the ground sonar machine.
                  It is interesting that the Jews will tear up everyone else’s Graves but they won’t touch theirs.
                  They put all those stones at Treblinka to keep everybody out of the area so they wouldnt dig there simple as that.
                  Usually at sites like this they do this to keep people away from finding the truth looks innocent but It really is very devious.

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — May 24, 2016 @ 2:01 pm

                • “Jeff, Thank you for clearly demonstrating that all you have is unsubstantiated assertions and feeble rationalizations.”

                  I did what?
                  Mortl, I asked for the name of the researcher that used GPR at Treblinka. I found him myself. Apparently he never released a full report and he only released one photograph from his time at Treblinka. I then showed you a photograph of Treblinka, taken in 1944. The ground is clearly disturbed.
                  Are we even talking about the same thing?

                  “You justify censorship and persecution and rationalize the lack of compelling evidence.”

                  Um, no, I didn’t.

                  “As they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle!”

                  That’s new. I lived in Texas, I never heard that.

                  “You proved my point that they will not allow the site to be dug up on some phoney pretext because they know there is no mass, I emphasize mass, grave there.”

                  Apparently doing so violates Jewish burial laws.
                  However, there is digging going on at Sobibor and there was digging at Belzec, including using probes to determine where the graves were.
                  Even Mattagono and Graf acknowledge the fact there are mass graves at the sites.

                  “The Jewish supremacists have no qualms what so ever in digging up and destroying known Palestinian cemeteries.”

                  That’s nice but completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

                  “Unless the site is dug up, all the clever gimmicks that can be conjured up proves nothing.”

                  I some how get the feeling that even if the sites were dug up and bodies found you wouldn’t believe it.

                  “The Nazis had their version of ‘hate laws’. So did the Soviet Union. Do you think that they were acceptable? Hate laws are a political device to suppress inconvenient speech and action. As far as I’m concerned, their employment in effect proves that the atrocity propaganda can’t stand up to scrutiny.”

                  Ok. Well, honestly, it wouldn’t matter what anyone proved to you, you would discard it all as propaganda.

                  “Nuremberg and the International Military Tribunal (IMT) were rigged Victor’s courts setup expressly to cover up and rationalize Allied war crimes and justify the plan to dismember and deindustrialize Germany.”

                  Yawn. Wow, I guess that explains why Germany is a depopulated waste land today……oh, wait…….

                  “The methods employed were far worse than those employed by the present German courts, where challenges to the myth are suppressed and prosecuted. Aside from the one sided rules of evidence at Nuremberg ( too lengthy for this letter) they used torture on defendants and witnesses and threatened to torture and rape family members.”

                  You can’t see it but right now but I am giggling hysterically at your silliness.

                  “Are they the courts you say the elusive evidence for gas chambers was presented? It can’t be the present day German courts because they don’t allow challenges to the myth.”

                  No, I’m talking about the trials in the 1960’s.
                  Are you saying the West German courts tortured the defendants and threatened to rape their wives/girlfriends/daughters?
                  (More giggling)

                  “They, as at Nuremberg, take the Gas chamber myth as a given. The only court where revisionists were able to challenge the lucrative myth, despite the Judicial Notice enforced by the Judge, was the Zundel trial in Toronto (1985 and 1988) and the hoax was for the first time shown up for the fraud that it is. In the 1985 trial Doug Christie totally demolished the delusional ‘survivor’ testimony, to such an extent that the Crown prosecutor didn’t dare put them on the stand in the 1988 trial. The only real evidence submitted was that which undermined the myth. The prosecution presented the usual unsubstantiated anecdotal hearsay as ‘evidence. Rudolf Vrba was forced to admit that many of the crucial claims in his Auschwitz account were not true. Raul Hilberg conceded that his assertion in his book ‘the Destruction of European Jews’ of Hitler orders for extermination had no evidence to back it up. That trial was so devastating for the hoaxers that they will never willingly submit their alleged evidence to a fair test in anything resembling an objectively open setting. The only thing of substance the holohoax lobby has is the power to intimidate and suppress. When the power dynamics shifts watch out for the deluge of scholars stampeding out of the closet.”

                  To honest I’ve never really studied the Zundel Trial(s).
                  I won’t hold my breath waiting for the deluge of scholars.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 4:34 pm

                • Jeff ….The Zundel trials blew apart the official Narrative of the Holocaust exposing it as the hoax of the 20- 21st Century.
                  You might want to read a non Jew narrative of it.
                  When Jews tell the story they can’t get the facts straight they don’t know the difference between a crematoria or a fumigation chamber.
                  They’re still talking about the gas Chambers on all German land….what gas chambers?

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — May 24, 2016 @ 6:27 pm

                • “Jeff ….The Zundel trials blew apart the official Narrative of the Holocaust exposing it as the hoax of the 20- 21st Century.”

                  Somehow I don’t think so, Jim. Picking on survivors and bringing up some discrepancies does not destroy history.
                  That’s right, that’s when Leuchter made his appearance. I remember that.

                  “You might want to read a non Jew narrative of it.”

                  Read:
                  Holocaust denier slant.

                  “When Jews tell the story they can’t get the facts straight they don’t know the difference between a crematoria or a fumigation chamber.”

                  The SS didn’t give guided tours to the victims or those chosen to live, Jim. The survivors only know what they saw.

                  “They’re still talking about the gas Chambers on all German land….what gas chambers?”

                  Who’s still talking about it, Jim?
                  Please provide links to articles, TV programs, whatever.
                  Provide proof of what you say.
                  If there were gas chambers at any of the concentration camps on German soil they were probably only used for experimental purposes.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 6:56 pm

                • Ya right….

                  http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-archive.blogspot.com/?m=1

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — May 24, 2016 @ 7:03 pm

                • I know I’m right, Jim.
                  Until you and the other deniers actually prove where the Jews went you simply don’t have a leg to stand on.
                  Sorry.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 7:09 pm

                • No I don’t have an answer I wasn’t there I wasn’t doing the bean counting so now does that mean they were all killed….. then prove it.

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — May 24, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

                • “No I don’t have an answer I wasn’t there I wasn’t doing the bean counting so now does that mean they were all killed….. then prove it.”

                  Well, Jim, the proof that the Jews went to these camps is confirmed by German sources.

                  There is no proof they ever left.

                  Prove they left. Prove where they went.

                  Or, simply admit this is a huge hole in the denier theory. Therefore you don’t have a leg to stand on.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 7:47 pm

                • Jeff you actually prove my point where did they go if they weren’t killed? Where did they go? So you admit they might not of been killed?
                  Then this fits into the mystery of all Mysteries the Ripley’s Believe It or Not.

                  JR

                  Comment by jrizoli — May 24, 2016 @ 8:09 pm

                • “Jeff you actually prove my point where did they go if they weren’t killed? Where did they go? So you admit they might not of been killed?”

                  No, Jim.
                  What I am saying is that we only have those Jews entering those camps, never exiting.
                  We have eyewitnesses stating what happened inside. These eyewitnesses include victims, perpetrators and bystanders. We have what the Poles found after the war. All of these things converge and tell us that these were death camps, not transit camps.
                  However, deniers can prove all of this wrong by providing proof that these people were transited to locations elsewhere. As you lack this proof the idea these were transit camps is nonsense until you prove otherwise.

                  “Then this fits into the mystery of all Mysteries the Ripley’s Believe It or Not.”

                  No, it does not.
                  Let me spell this out for you. Again.
                  Himmler ordered the evacuation and closing of the ghettos in the General Government in July of 1942. Himmler ordered this completed by December 31st, 1942. He allowed some exemptions of valued or skilled Jews and their families, plus some unmarried younger Jewish men and women for labor.
                  Now, we have an order by Gauleiter Kube that halts all Jewish transports from the West into Belorussia on July 31st, 1942. He threatened to eliminate any further transports unless authorized. This was over 1000 healthy Jews sent to Belorussia from Warsaw as labor. Needless to say Kube’s order itself mentions the liquidations of a large number of local Jews.
                  All of this conflicts with Operation Blue, Hitler’s assault on the Caucuses, the Soviet Oil Fields. It also conflicts with the Battle of Stalingrad. If you are transporting large numbers of civilians into an active war zone you have to coordinate this with the military, who probably aren’t going to be thrilled with the sudden presence of unarmed civilians, many of them women, children and the elderly.
                  So, that documentation should exist. You’d need to coordinate train schedules at the very least, plus allot supplies, guards and commanders for these foreign Jews.
                  You are also dealing with famine, partisans and the possibility of organized enemy attacks.
                  So, where’s the actual proof these were transit camps? The Russians opened their archives in the early 90’s. I know Irving, Mattagono and Graf have scoured those archives looking for proof. So, where’s the proof, Jim?

                  Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 10:26 pm

            • http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Treblinka/IHRJ191000.html

              So far this is the only image I can find about Krege’s trip to Treblinka.

              Why are there not more images? Also, there is no context, what part of the camp is this?

              Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 7:15 am

            • The above is an aerial view of Treblinka, taken in 1944.

              The ground is obviously disturbed.

              Comment by Jeff K. — May 24, 2016 @ 7:19 am

  3. DUAL CITIZENSHIP of our Congress with Israel: List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship –
    June 22, 2011 at 7:12am
    Dual Citizenship — Loyal to Whom?

    by Dan Eden

    Someone wrote and asked me, “Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?”

    Well, here’s my take on this. I’d also like your views and opinions.

    Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be “British” but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o’clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60’s my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to “allegiance,” we were all patriotic Americans. Period.

    The word “allegiance” means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology.

    When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their “allegiance” exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to “any and all foreign governments.” That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.

    Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of “dual citizenship,” I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.

    From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!

    In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic’s presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.

    Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it’s OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad — most of them in the United States — will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.

    Security Issues

    Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.

    Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?

    Today’s conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security — the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.

    Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.

    A few classic examples can be cited here.

    Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the “interests of my state” ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by “my state” he meant the state of Israel.

    Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:

    One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a “dual citizen” of America and Israel.

    Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.

    Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem’s most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media.

    Most recently, US Navy Petty Officer, Ariel J. Weinmann, while serving at or near Bahrain, Mexico, and Austria, “with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (Israel), [attempted] to communicate, deliver or transmit classified CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET information relating to the national defense, to a representative, officer, agent or employee of a foreign government.” Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 after being listed as “a deserter by his command,” according to the US Navy. The information he gathered was supplied to Israel.

    The examples of Kahane, Mahonm, Goodman and Weinmann raise the question of when a U.S. citizen ceases to be, or should cease to be, a U.S. citizen. U.S. Law at one time clearly stated that an American citizen owed first allegiance to the United States. A U.S. citizen should not fight in a foreign army or hold high office in a foreign country without risking expatriation. What the heck happened?

    The 1940 Nationality Act

    Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, “shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by…voting in a political election in a foreign state.”

    This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.

    But then something very odd happened.

    In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship — right? Wrong.

    After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act — the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.

    Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson’s former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to “rob” Afroyim of his American citizenship!

    The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown “intent” to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?

    While Washington claims it has a “good neighbor” policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican — you can’t be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship.

    So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes. Consider the following list that I obtained on the web:

    Michael Mukasey
    Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.

    Michael Chertoff
    Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.

    Richard Perle
    One of Bush’s foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson’s office in the 1970’s after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.

    Paul Wolfowitz
    Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle’s Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.

    Douglas Feith
    Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don’t agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm’s own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith “represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer.” Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.

    Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
    The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith’s deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, “to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat” and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

    Franklin will “remain free while the government continues with the wider case” and his “prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting” former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials.” (source: sourcewatch.com).

    Edward Luttwak
    Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.

    Henry Kissinger
    One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger’s evil past, read Seymour Hersch’s book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor’s mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia’s Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic’s Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It’s like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.

    Dov Zakheim
    Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew’s College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York’s Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.

    Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century’s position paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.

    He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11’s rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim’s watch. We can only guess where that cash went.

    Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.

    Judicial Inc’s bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel’s armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.

    Kenneth Adelman
    One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs “anti-Semitic” on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.

    I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
    Vice President Dick Cheney’s ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband’s revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.

    Robert Satloff
    U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby’s “think tank,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby’s “experts” come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.

    Elliott Abrams
    National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based “Think Tank” Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year’s probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration’s State Department.

    Marc Grossman
    Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.

    Richard Haass
    Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    Robert Zoellick
    U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.

    Ari Fleischer
    Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad’s Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.

    James Schlesinger
    One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department’s National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.

    David Frum
    White House speechwriter behind the “Axis of Evil” label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.

    Joshua Bolten
    White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.

    John Bolton
    Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).

    David Wurmser
    Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.

    Eliot Cohen
    Member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.

    Mel Sembler
    President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.

    Steve Goldsmith
    Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush’s Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.

    Adam Goldman
    White House’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.

    Joseph Gildenhorn
    Bush Campaign’s Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.

    Christopher Gersten
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.

    Mark Weinberger
    Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.

    Samuel Bodman
    Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.

    Bonnie Cohen
    Under Secretary of State for Management.

    Ruth Davis
    Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).

    Daniel Kurtzer
    Ambassador to Israel.

    Cliff Sobel
    Ambassador to the Netherlands.

    Stuart Bernstein
    Ambassador to Denmark.

    Nancy Brinker
    Ambassador to Hungary

    Frank Lavin
    Ambassador to Singapore.

    Ron Weiser
    Ambassador to Slovakia.

    Mel Sembler
    Ambassador to Italy.

    Martin Silverstein
    Ambassador to Uruguay.

    Lincoln Bloomfield
    Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.

    Jay Lefkowitz
    Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

    Ken Melman
    White House Political Director.

    Brad Blakeman
    White House Director of Scheduling.

    I don’t know about you, but dual citizenship is fine with me for an ordinary citizen. But if you hold an official position that demands that you put American interests above all else — if you should look transparent and fair to the rest of the world regarding your formation of Middle East foreign policies, then this is a dangerous trend. Even if there were no pro-Israeli agenda, the fact that decision makers have a bias or an allegiance to one of the parties involved in the current conflict should have raised red flags long before now.

    If you think we’re being unfair here, ask yourself: How you would react to the Head of Homeland Security if he or she were a dual national with citizenship in Iran, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia? Ask yourself why you don’t feel the same about Israeli dual citizenship. Then you will understand how powerful the Israeli lobby has been in “adjusting” your acceptance of their special status.

    Hey, I could be way off on this. Let’s hear from you.

    UPDATE: December 4, 2007

    Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff reports that Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz has been rewarded with a new position in the Bush administration which will allow him to oversee classified intelligence and inform policies on WMD issues.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. “We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job,” said one senior official.

    Comment by Diane King — May 21, 2016 @ 1:22 pm

    • DK…. I’m sure you must have left out something in that text…..LOL..
      Good stuff!

      JR

      Comment by jrizoli — May 21, 2016 @ 1:28 pm

  4. Quote;- “…it took less than an hour for camp staff to exterminate them in engine-exhaust gas chambers.”

    So it would appear that the “Scientific American” journal – plus Caroline Sturdy-Colls herself – is sticking to the story of gassing by engine-exhaust. But in recent years some pro-holocaust outlets have quietly dropped the idea of exhaust fumes, because they realise that such a method is utterly absurd. So they coyly suggest that the power from the engines themselves was being harnessed to actually generate carbon-monoxide gas and pump it directly into the chambers.

    Comment by Talbot — May 21, 2016 @ 9:40 am

  5. Another horror Disneyland tour….. the Jews have to have drama in there lives the have to have books written they have to have movies made the have to go the schools to tell horror stories because if they didn’t have these things they wouldn’t be even in the news. The Jews the the most self centered people on this earth in it’s all about them the Holocaust is all about them no one else suffered.
    Why is it that the Jews are the only ones that go and tell their stories, no nationality no ethnic group other than Jews are given the task to spreading their propaganda and lies they have the patent for suffering. Non-jews don’t apply.

    JR

    Comment by jrizoli — May 21, 2016 @ 8:45 am

    • You wrote: “Why is it that the Jews are the only ones that go and tell their stories, no nationality no ethnic group other than Jews are given the task to spreading their propaganda and lies they have the patent for suffering. Non-jews don’t apply.”

      The Jews believe that only Jews are human. The goyim [non-Jews] are not human. I wrote about this on this blog post:

      https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/goyim/

      Comment by furtherglory — May 21, 2016 @ 9:19 am

      • From that link that you posted which was a great link by the way…..

        You know the Holocaust is a big scam when tour guides tell people that the Shaving of the heads was a process to dehumanize the Jews. Hard to believe someone can say something like that when everyone knew that the reason why they had a haircut was because they had to stop the lice problem in the camps so everyone was shaved. Again another Horror Disneyland story to keep the scam going.

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — May 21, 2016 @ 9:32 am

    • jrizoli wrote: “Why is it that the Jews are the only ones that go and tell their stories, no nationality no ethnic group other than Jews are given the task to spreading their propaganda and lies they have the patent for suffering. ”

      Because other nationalities have their own country and nobody disputes that. They don’t need to steal others’ lands through a massive support from the US military-industrial complex. Such a support requires heavy propaganda. Only the fictional Shoah (‘catastrophe’ in Hebrew) is able to effectively conceal the real Nakba (‘catastrophe’ in Arab) and so turn the Zionist brutal colonial enterprise in Palestine into a humanitarian operation in American brains.

      “The main [Zionist] battlefield now is the theater of opinion in the United States.” – [Sixth President of Israel] Chaim Herzog, 1975.


      1978


      1985 (a special order by Israeli officials as recently admitted by Lanzmann)

      Comment by hermie — May 21, 2016 @ 9:56 am

      • Hermie, as you know the Jews have Israel since 1947, but they had to dream up schemes to get Jews to go there. The reason they don’t is because they need Goyim to rip off in order to live the way they were intended to. Just ripping off other Jews is not fun and also is against the rules of the Talmud.

        I think it’s important to point out the Joshua Kaufman, of recent fame, went to Israel but emigrated from there to the US, where he married and had a family. So what caused him to leave the promised land, Israel? His daughter Rachel wrote on Facebook: ” He entered the court proudly with his daughters by his side, self-confident knowing that Israel is our country and we are no longer homeless or hopeless.”

        “Israel is our country.” They are all US citizens, she was born in America, but Israel is their country.

        Comment by Carolyn Yeager — May 21, 2016 @ 12:12 pm

        • I would imagine many Jews are dual citizens but will put Israel over the United States any day of the week because of their religious fanaticism.
          They have a religious fanaticism which is strange considering that most Jews atheists.

          JR

          Comment by jrizoli — May 21, 2016 @ 12:41 pm

        • Carolyn Yeager wrote: “Hermie, as you know the Jews have Israel since 1947, but they had to dream up schemes to get Jews to go there. ”

          Yes, they had to dream up schemes to get Jews to go to Palestine/Israel and their main scheme was the use of anti-Semites as liquidators of Jewish property (as formulated by Herzl himself). That’s the reason why Zionist leaders (mainly Samuel Untermyer and Stephen S. Wise) declared an economic war on Germany as early as March 1933 (knowing very well that the predictable Nazi reaction to their economic war would cause a large mass migration of German Jews to Palestine) and why the ‘King of Zionism’ (Chaim Weizmann) declared war on Germany on the behalf of all Jews (not only the Zionist ones) as early as August 1939, i.e. before a single German soldier had entered Poland (knowing very well that officially turning Europe’s Jewry into an enemy nation of Germany could only assist in the uprooting of Europe’s Jews by German troops in the coming war). Turn a man into a pariah and/or burn his house and you’ll turn him into a migrant and colonizer much more easily and efficiently. This was the aim of the Zionist aggressive policies against Nazi Germany before and during WW2.

          Carolyn Yeager wrote: “The reason they don’t is because they need Goyim to rip off in order to live the way they were intended to. Just ripping off other Jews is not fun and also is against the rules of the Talmud. ”

          Zionism is a parasitic ideology. The goal of Zionism has never been the immigration of all the Jews of the world into Palestine. Zionism needs agents abroad in order to ensure a massive support of foreign superpowers for the Zionist land grabbing enterprise in Palestine. Otherwise over one billion hostile Arabs could easily eat the few Jewish settlers in Palestine within a single night.

          Comment by hermie — May 23, 2016 @ 8:06 am

      • Starting to do some short clips now…..

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — May 23, 2016 @ 12:02 pm

        • Jim, you seriously need to read a real history book.
          Real historians acknowledge the millions of non-Jews that died. Only deniers gloss over it.

          Comment by Jeff K. — May 23, 2016 @ 5:45 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: