New York Times: The Stolen Legacy of Anne Frank – Meyer Levin, Lillian Hellman, and the Staging of the Diary


Yale University Press

 Read the Review

With My Own EyesMeyer Levin’s search for an authentic Holocaust voice began shortly after he entered the first of the many Nazi death camps to which he would bear witness as a war correspondent in the final days of the killing. Among them was Bergen-Belsen, the camp in which Anne Frank had been murdered. The mere hint of the camps’ existence had left him “haunted by the need to go forward, to learn the whole truth” of those horror-filled days. Five years later, in 1950 he wrote in his “book about being a Jew,” In Search, that “of all the commandments, I feel this to be the only one that was eternally applicable in the same form in which it had been issued … the commandment of truth, the commandment against bearing false witness.”

It was a revelation that had first come to him while returning a Torah to a decimated Jewish community in Germany in the early days after the killing had stopped. “For me, this was the essence of our fate…. This then was my inmost behest.” And though he knew that “the practice of absolute truth must be crippling in an imperfect world,” he had persisted, writing not the falsely “hopeful story … of the indestructibility of the Jewish community” that others would insist upon in the decades ahead, but “of the Jews of Europe as they were: broken, finished.”

Thomas Mann later praised Meyer’s memoir In Search as “a human document of high order, written by a witness of our fantastic epoch whose gaze remained both clear and steady, notwithstanding the shocking turmoil about him.” It would serve the future, Mann added, “as a source of enlightenment and as a living image of all that we had to experience,” for here was a book “bent on preserving what humanity is only too ready to forget.”

“It was not for me to bear false witness,” Meyer would affirm again and again, for the visions had remained as sharply drawn as when he had first brought them to his readers in America, Jew and non-Jew alike:

    Buchenwald, May 2 [1945]–All week I have been talking to Jews who survived the greatest mass murder in the history of mankind. Each one owes his continued existence to a succession of miracles, accidents, oversights. My mind has become in the faintest way like their minds; I am beginning to understand how they feel. No one who has not been through their experience can ever understand them, for these people have gone through a sieve of death four years, five years, six years continuously. Tons of ashes, the ashes of seven million of their people have gone through the sieve, and these few are the last bits of cinder and stone somehow adhering to the mesh. My mind, after this week, faintly reflects their minds. It is a composite image of trains running three-tracked into smoking crematoriums, of remote Polish villages whose mud ruts were filled with human bodies, of a German officer, playfully lining up a group of Jewish children until they were precisely one head behind the other and then putting a single bullet through the line, of a woman holding her baby aloft over her head while savage police dogs ripped her apart, and through every image I see the brown, earnest undeniable eyes of a survivor who tells me this, and over each image is stamped the ever-recurring line, “I saw it, I saw it with my own eyes.”

It was Meyer’s wife, Tereska Torres, who passed along the recent French translation of Anne Frank’s Diary to her husband in the late summer of 1950. Tereska, a member of the Free French Army whose first husband had died in combat while she carried their child, had grown increasingly aware of the survivor’s guilt afflicting Meyer, in part because of the marginal role he had played in the struggle to stop the slaughter. “This is the guilt of the living,” he would write after returning home from the war, “a guilt that has invaded all humanity.” Yet for all the Holocaust’s universality of meaning, it was the Jews who had “sense[d] this guilt more painfully because they were closer to the center … yes, even … the Jews of America … who escaped because their forebears made the journey from Europe in steerage.” And if Jews everywhere questioned why they had survived, few did so with greater intensity than Meyer. “Isn’t there something we must do to pay for being alive?”

The answer came for Meyer in the words of an adolescent, clearly and powerfully spoken, thoughts that he could not adequately express himself. “How could he know, how could anyone here know, what was real?” he had written three years earlier in a novel of Holocaust victimization and survival. Here, at last, was “the voice from the mass grave” for which he had long been searching, and the means by which he could repay the debt owed for his own survival. Perhaps the Diary could provide some release from a part of his own suffering, if only he could share Anne’s book with those whose lives had remained largely untouched by the revelatory event out of which it had come. At work on a film adaptation of an earlier novel based on his life as a young Zionist on a kibbutz in the 1920s, Meyer at once put the script aside and finished reading the Diary. “From the first page the seizure was complete,” he wrote in his 1973 account of The Obsession that had captured his soul. “As I read on, I became certain–this was the needed document. For here, instead of a remote story-book journey, was an urban family with which every American reader could feel empathy.”

On September 8, 1950, Levin wrote the Diary’s French publisher, Calmann-Levy, asking for the agent handling the work in France and for the address of Anne’s father, Otto. Meyer was determined to see that an English-language edition appeared as soon as possible. “So I began a campaign to find a publisher,” he later wrote of the events that were to lead him “into a trouble that was to grip, occupy, haunt, and all but devour me, these twenty years.” On the nineteenth, Otto politely thanked Meyer for his interest, explaining that his “Paris agent Maison D. Clairouin are busy at present to place the English and American rights of Anne’s Diary, so that I cannot give you an option at present.”

Meyer was pleased to have established contact with Otto and sent him a copy of In Search two days later, “so that you may have some notion of my work.” He wished to assure Otto that his interest in the Diary was not commercial but “one of sympathy” with the experiences and ideas expressed throughout. It was his wish to translate the work and to “suggest … to my contacts in these fields” that it contained “the material for a very touching play or film.” While he believed that the likelihood of finding a commercial producer for such a project was “remote,” he hoped that with Otto’s consent, he could “feel free” to approach those whom he knew.

Otto had not yet begun to read In Search when he sent a long, detailed answer to Meyer’s several requests. Had Otto read his book, he might have responded with less enthusiasm, given its emphasis on Jewish themes and identity. He had, however, seen Meyer’s film on the Yishuv, the Jewish settlement in Palestine, and had been favorably impressed. Otto said that his friend of several decades, Nathan Straus, the president of New York’s WMCA Radio and scion of the influential Straus family, was at the moment discussing with Random House the possibility of British copublication. But he wanted Meyer to know that “in case you should have some ideas on the direction of the film, you are absolutely free.” And though he gladly placed himself at Meyer’s “disposal” should he need “any assistance,” he found it difficult to see how Anne’s book, whose “value … is laying in her thoughts,” could be transferred to the screen.

Perhaps Otto’s disavowal was sincere, but he had nonetheless included dramatic, radio, film, and television rights in his 1947 contract with Ernest Kuhn, a New York attorney who continued to represent him in any negotiations with American and Canadian publishers. Otto could hardly have been as surprised by the idea of dramatization for screen or other medium as he must have appeared to Meyer. Although nothing had come of a Twentieth Century Fox reading of the Diary a few years earlier, Otto had some hope that it could be sold now that he had witnessed the interest of a major film company. Without offering a firm commitment, Otto encouraged Meyer to do all that he could to secure a producer, aware not only of the role of an agent, but of the difference between one under contract and another who worked without a binding agreement. If dramatized, the film would in all likelihood be the first of its kind, Otto noted six days after his first letter to Meyer, “the situation of a hiding family … not yet worked out in a film as far as I know.” He hoped to hear from Meyer again, even if a film of Anne’s work would ultimately “be rather different from the real contents of her book,” a prospect seemingly of less concern to him than one might otherwise have expected.

Meyer assured Otto that no such compromise was necessary, that given “a sensitive and daring producer, a very wonderful film could be made, staying very close to the book,” even filming in the house to give it “the fidelity of a record … if the thought does not shock you.” Meyer must have wondered at Otto’s willingness to compromise his daughter’s work for the sake of a cinematic treatment, and assured him that “such a film could do a great deal toward bettering human understanding” without “the thoughts and ideas of the book … [being] changed or lost.” He would soon be going to New York for several months and, with Otto’s permission, would raise the possibilities of publication and a film, “if after reading my book you feel I am the right person.” Meyer believed that his ideas resonated in Anne’s and that Otto’s consent to this search would be acknowledgment of this fact. It was a reasonable expectation, given Meyer’s repeated request that Otto consider his thoughts on Jewish identity and Zionism before agreeing to such an arrangement. So convinced was Meyer of this spiritual bond between himself and Anne that he further offered to undertake, as a “mitzvah” (a morally sanctioned religious act), the translation of the Diary. Together with his help in securing a publisher and a producer, he was offering Otto “a combination in which I may be of use … with no commitment on your part.”

“I want to answer your kind letter of Sept. 26 immediately and thank you for it,” began Otto’s encouraging response. Although an English translation was already under way (ultimately to be replaced by another), he encouraged Meyer to “find the right connection or person,” as long as it was not “an unknown house.” Otto confided to Meyer: “I rather prefer to wait” than give the book to an obscure publisher, though he was soon to receive a rejection from Random House, the book’s sixteenth from an English or American press. Victor Gollancz, Albert Heinemann, Allen and Unwin, Macmillan, Scribner’s, Sedgewick and Jackson, Doubleday Doran, Viking, Vanguard, Warendorf, Simon and Schuster, Appleton Century, Knopf, Schocken, and Hutchinson had all previously rejected the Diary. Otto was far more encouraging to Meyer concerning the prospect of a him, for no other agent in Europe or America was now actively at work on this possibility. Thanking Meyer again for his interest “in Anne’s book and my person,” he supported the suggestion of using the actual hiding place (“I would try my best to overwin my inner feelings”) and expressed new confidence that “a good solution to bring out the thoughts and ideas” of the Diary might be found, rather than seeing “the exciting and thrilling actions … prevail to please the public.” Otto’s favorable impression of Meyer’s Zionist film, My Father’s House, had convinced him of the seriousness with which Meyer was likely to undertake the project and promised that “if you see it in another way you just go on and I shall not interfere.”

Even before receiving Meyer’s response, Otto essentially granted him the role of American agent. Clairouin had been told that no decision regarding English-language publication would be taken “before I heard from this gentleman.” Meyer was to meet in New York with Random House and “to let me know your opinion about the chances as soon as possible.” Should they decline or offer an unacceptable arrangement, he was to send Otto his further “suggestions.”

Without a contract, and acting solely on good faith, Meyer had already made preliminary inquiries with the British Jewish publisher Valentine Mitchell, which, as Meyer immediately wrote Otto, was “eager to have Anne’s Diary.” Meyer, however, was reluctant to assume the position offered by Otto, having learned from him that others were already engaged in this role on both sides of the Atlantic. “I feel a little like an unnecessary intermediary,” he commented to Otto, though he promised to do what he could with the publishers. More important, he was pleased to report that his conversation with a film producer had resulted in “at least a preliminary interest in the project.”

Otto wrote again on October 9 concerning Random House and thanked Meyer “for all you are doing!” But Meyer thought it best for Otto to deal directly with the publisher and to allow his Paris agent to pursue the progress already made with Valentine Mitchell. Meyer would, of course, be willing to help with publication of the Diary if a problem developed. Two weeks later, Meyer wrote Otto from New York of the interest shown by two film producers, for whom Otto then sent copies of the French translation. With Random House awaiting “further word” concerning publication arrangements with Valentine Mitchell, Meyer advised Otto to sign with the British house so that an American contract could at last be negotiated.

On November 13, Meyer published a brief summary of the Diary in the American Jewish publication Congress Weekly as a part of the larger discussion of “the restricted market” for “too special” Jewish material. He wrote of the ease with which the prominent non-Jewish writer John Hersey had found a publisher for The Wall, a fictionalized account of the Warsaw Ghetto with a universal message of human triumph over evil, and compared it with the difficulty in placing Anne’s Diary, “a real document” of specifically Jewish suffering. To date it had been rejected by many of the same publishers who had recently declined to bring out In Search (as they had other Jewish works he had proposed over the previous two decades). Was Anne’s book, like his, “too Jewish”? Was it merely a commercial decision, as some insisted, pointing to The Wall’s marketable author? Or was there an overriding reluctance to speak to the particularity of the Jewish condition, to its uniqueness and to the moral questions and imperatives evoked and imposed by that uniqueness? “I bring this out to emphasize that work in our field continues to suffer a handicap, based upon obscure and sometimes not-so-obscure desires to be relieved of the continuous confrontation of the conscious problems evoked by the Jew.” Whatever the personal cost, he had no intention of removing himself from this struggle. “For myself, I believe that we must keep up the fight for attention, even if it sometimes makes us appear to be disagreeable characters.”

Otto’s search for an American or British publication arrangement continued to involve Meyer in the weeks that followed. Otto sought Meyer’s opinions regarding the best house, the proper tone of translation, and the intricacies of negotiating simultaneous contracts separated by three thousand miles. “What do you think?” and “Thanks for everything” became repeated refrains in his correspondence with Meyer. The high level of assistance rendered by Meyer was acknowledged by Otto in a letter to Nathan Straus, with whom Otto continued to discuss the possibility of Random House, though he had himself begun to encourage Little, Brown. “I am writing to another man too,” he told Straus, “Mr. Meyer Levin, an American writer who is very interested in Anne’s book. It was he who advised [me] to take up the matter with Valentine Mitchell. He spoke to Random House about it [a] short time ago.”

Otto similarly credited Meyer’s ongoing efforts in letters to him on November 23 and 24, though by now Little, Brown had made a solid offer, which Otto was inclined to accept. (The publisher may have been influenced by Janet Flanner’s “Letter from Paris” in the New Yorker of November 11, praising it as the work of “a precocious, talented little Frankfurt Jewess … [who] rightly aimed to be a writer when she grew up.”) “I hope that I do not bother you too much with my affairs,” Otto wrote Meyer, “but I know how interested you are in this book. I want you to know all steps taken.” Meyer responded immediately, unaware that Otto had already cabled Little, Brown with an acceptance of its offer, together with his suggestion that “details regarding translation” be discussed with Valentine Mitchell, whom he had decided upon as the Diary’s British publisher. Meyer spoke of Little, Brown as a “first class” house but advised going with whomever demonstrated the greater “enthusiasm and decisiveness.” He further urged Otto to retain all rights beyond simple publication, “particularly drama and film,” and to offer only a small percentage to whichever house he went with. “As the book is already known, anything you allow would be generous,” he wrote. “Convinced that the journal has stage and film possibilities,” he concluded with his “hope that in these matters you will refer to me, should any offers arise.”

Meyer continued to offer his assistance with the translation to assure its “literary flow” and to prevent the incursion of “Americanisms … providing the publishers and translator consent.” He was hesitant to tread on another’s territory but wanted the Diary to retain its authentic voice and not sound as if it had been written by an adolescent from the States. Meyer added news of his ongoing search for a producer, that he was “continually trying to interest friends of mine in the theater here, and also film people.” Certain that “the appearance of the book [would] undoubtedly stimulate interest in these fields,” he was concerned that the right person be found, not merely the best commercial arrangement. “It is here that it would be necessary for true sympathy in order that the material can be transferred from one medium to another without loss of fidelity.” Having witnessed Otto’s quick turnarounds regarding publishers and translators, Meyer worried that a compromise might be reached that would sacrifice Anne’s thoughts and vision. (Otto had already consented to two English translations, both of which he was now willing to reject for a third in order to sign with Little, Brown. Neither translator would ever receive compensation, though Otto thought the work of one “a good base for another translation.”)

From the start, Meyer’s emphasis on the critical importance of “fidelity” to the text was tied to his belief in the consonance between his own ideas and Anne’s. It was for this reason that he had sent Otto a copy of In Search, which Otto had begun to read by mid-November (“It will take some time to get through,” he commented), and why he was now forwarding a copy of his Congress Weekly article concerning the fate of publications considered to be “too Jewish.”

Otto responded twice to Meyer’s latest appeal, informing him of the arrangements with the two publishers and of his having “warned Little, Brown to have it translated by someone who is not in school in [the] USA as the charm of the book could be spoiled.” He then reassured Meyer that he would not grant film or theater rights to either house but that “if I get inquiries … I shall let you know and do nothing.”

When a dispute arose with Little, Brown, Otto wrote Meyer detailing his concern that a contract with them might force him to concede these rights. To protect himself, he asked Meyer to inform the translator and publisher that he was “busy in this matter already and … that the American publishers (or the English and others) had no [dramatic] rights as the book is known already.” Whether sincere or merely following his business sense, Otto assured Meyer that “it is self-understood that I refer to you in case someone else would write me about these rights.” Although Meyer would not participate in this questionable scheme (“I didn’t feel that I should further interject myself,” he wrote Otto upon his return to Paris on December 29), he was pleased to receive Otto’s confirmation that he would indeed play a prominent role as a writer in any future dramatization of the Diary.

Having heard from Meyer that efforts “to interest people in the film and stage possibilities” were continuing, Otto again promised that “about film and stage rights we will stay in contact.” It is curious that Otto made no comment on Meyer’s “Restricted Market” Congress Weekly other than to thank him for the “fine article.” He continued to read In Search, but being “pretty nervous” and unable to “find yet rest,” he still had not finished the book. (When Meyer later raised the issue of Otto’s emotional state at this time, Otto denied ever having experienced such agitation.) Negotiations between Little, Brown and Valentine Mitchell over Canadian rights were in the meantime delaying publication. “It is their fault,” Otto told Meyer, as Little, Brown had initially asked only for “U.S. rights”; Canada was a Commonwealth nation and rightly Valentine Mitchell’s.

While Meyer independently continued his search for a producer over the next two months, little occurred beyond negotiations with Little, Brown concerning film and theater rights. Then, on March 14, 1951, Francis Price, Doubleday’s European agent, wrote Otto for the second time of their interest in the Diary. Having failed to receive a response to his first inquiry some months earlier, he repeated Doubleday’s firm offer of terms financially similar to Little, Brown’s.

More than twenty years later, Price responded to the claim of a former Doubleday editor, Barbara Zimmerman, of a central role in the book’s publication and success, by sketching the sequence of events that had led to the publisher’s offer:

    The facts of the matter are this: In September of 1949 I was sent to Paris to open Doubleday’s first editorial and sales office in Europe, and the very first book for which I contracted for American publication was Manes Sperber’s “The Burned Bramble.” Manes was then (and still is) an editorial consultant for the Paris publishing house of Calmann-Levy, and in this capacity he had come across “The Diary of Anne Frank,” which at that time had been published only in Amsterdam. He immediately recognized the unique quality of the diary and arranged for its translation and publication in France. And as soon as the French translation was completed, he brought it to me. I sent it on to Donald Elder, the senior editor at Doubleday who was in charge of liaison with the Paris office, with the strongest possible recommendation for its acceptance. A month later I was authorized to offer an advance and a contract to Anne’s father, Otto Frank.

Although Zimmerman was “present at the creation,” Price denied any legitimacy to her “truthfully claiming to be the mother.” Rather, the Diary’s “success came about primarily as a result of something over which they had no control–Meyer Levin’s memorable front-page review … in the New York Times Book Review.” Zimmerman’s otherwise crucial role in the Diary’s postpublication history, however, remained forever unknown to Price.

The arrival of Price’s letter even as Little, Brown continued to demand a significantly larger percentage of the sale of the book for film, radio, television, and theater settled the matter for Otto. Little, Brown maintained that its offer had been based on this assumption of “special rights.” No matter how lucrative the book might prove, the publisher insisted that such additional revenues were necessary to offset the “high operating costs in publishing now” and it had taken the liberty of restoring this “special rights” clause, which Otto had crossed out when signing the contract several days earlier.

On March 21, Otto informed Price that he was willing to discuss the Doubleday offer now that negotiations with Little, Brown had foundered, though “the question of moving picture and dramatic rights” was “more a matter of sentiment on my side than a financial one.” Perhaps a film or play might never be made, but if one were, it had to be done from a particular perspective. “I do not want a film to be made based on terror, bombardment and Nazis spoiling the ideal base of the diary and therefore want to keep these rights under control,” including the “right to interfere” so that Anne would be seen as he wished to portray her according to these ideals. The “decision depends on it to a great extent,” he carefully stated, promising to discuss contract possibilities “as soon as I know your standpoint about the film question.”

Having edited the Diary, Otto insisted upon the right to determine Anne’s theatrical portrait as well. It is clear, however, that in selecting material from her original text, he had altered not only her growing sense of terror and the seriousness with which she regarded her situation, but, more significantly, her search for peace both in a comforting God and in a deepening awareness of herself as a Jew. Although she disdainfully recorded her mother’s efforts to make her read prayers during their opening weeks in hiding, Anne wrote after a year in the Annex, “My fear vanished, I looked up in the sky and trusted in God.” Two months later she added: “I know that I have God … and that’s what keeps me going. Without the voice that keeps holding out comfort and goodness to me I should have lost all hope long ago, without God I should long ago have collapsed. I know I am not safe, I am afraid of prison cells and concentration camps, but I feel I’ve grown more courageous and that I am in God’s hands!” Otto chose to delete all of this, together with numerous other entries expressing similar thoughts, thereby offering a distorted portrait of Anne. Thirty years later, he still insisted that “she didn’t show any feeling for religion,” though privately, to the second Mrs. Frank, he had admitted as early as 1945 to being profoundly astonished at discovering her deep faith. Fritzi Frank related after his death that it had taken Otto a long time to read the Diary, “as he found it such an overwhelming emotional experience. When he finished it he told us that he had discovered that he had not really known his daughter. Although, of course, he was on good terms with her, he had never known anything about her innermost thoughts, her high ideals, her belief in God and her progressive ideas which had surprised him greatly.”

Otto similarly removed many of the passages that reflected Anne’s deepening awareness of herself as a Jew. “This morning Miep told us that last night they were dragging Jews from house after house again,” Anne had recorded during their early weeks in hiding. “If I just think of how we live here, I usually come to the conclusion that it is a paradise compared with how other Jews who are not hiding must be living,” she noted some time later. After only three months in the Annex, Anne wrote, “Yesterday it was Yom Kippur, and there can’t be many people who will have kept it as quietly as we did.” More than a year later, she further noted the passage of Jewish time by recording how the group had “skipped Chanuka” in their second year of hiding, an event unparalleled in the life of her family. Each of these references, and others, Otto would delete, denying Anne her own voice as she grew. In “the second half of 1943,” she noted in a similarly excised passage, “I became a young woman, an adult in body and my mind underwent a very great change, I came to know God!” Having so carefully molded the Anne he wished the world to see, an Anne reflective of his own background–secular, uneducated in Judaism, and anti-Zionist–Otto could not allow others to reshape his daughter’s portrait in her own image.

Price, of course, was excited by the possibility of acquiring the Diary for Doubleday, and he responded immediately upon receipt of Otto’s answer, feeling “quite sure there would be no difficulty with Doubleday about leaving all of the motion picture, dramatic, and television rights in your control.” All of this would be in a letter from Clairouin. He asked only that Otto inform him of his decision so that he and Clairouin might settle the details of their contract. On March 27, Otto notified Little, Brown that because of its insistence upon unfavorable terms concerning dramatization rights, “it would not serve any useful purpose to continue our correspondence.”

Before leaving for Amsterdam, Otto fulfilled a long-standing promise to visit with Meyer and his family. The contents of their conversation on March 30 were later the subject of much dispute. For the moment, it was a chance for all to meet. Meyer and Tereska repeated their interest and thoughts concerning Anne’s Diary and the young woman they had come to know through it, while Otto thanked them for the kindnesses they had shown over the past half year toward him and his efforts to bring Anne’s work to an ever-greater audience. Just how much discussion took place at this time regarding Meyer’s efforts to secure a film or theater producer ultimately became the basis for an extended legal battle.

From Amsterdam, Otto wrote Clairouin on April 3 that he had begun to negotiate with Doubleday on his own and that despite the agency’s having made initial contact with Price, it was no longer needed. He promised, however, to keep the agency informed of developments. Clairouin’s Madame Tschebeko responded three days later and wrote again after another three weeks, arguing that the agency was entitled to a standard commission for all its work over the last year or more and for a continuing role in the negotiations. But by that time, Otto’s contract with Doubleday had been signed.

Price had sailed to New York immediately after his meeting with Otto in Paris and had secured a contract for him with the unusual stipulation that “the ultimate decision” concerning all nonprint use of the Diary would “remain entirely in your hands.” Receipt of this contract had allowed Otto to send his final note of refusal to Little, Brown on April 18. “I suppose that it is useless to go further into the matter,” he wrote, without mentioning that he had reached an agreement with another publisher.

Otto’s signing with Doubleday on April 27 brought him great relief. Within days, word of the Diary’s future publication in English prompted the first request to reprint portions of it. Otto was pleased to refer the leading American Jewish journal Commentary to Doubleday as proof to himself that the search begun four years earlier had been happily concluded. There were, however, significant costs to others that Otto felt free to disregard. Clairouin had opened several doors for him, including Doubleday’s, and was entitled to a full commission by all standards of fairness. Otto’s direct negotiation with Price had not been an amateur’s oversight. In a letter to Nathan Straus the previous August 11, Otto had already discussed the possibility of bypassing Clairouin in his negotiations with Random House. “If I would have asked Clairouin to write … I would have to pay agents fees for something they did not work for,” he wrote Straus with self-justification. On the other hand, “if they bring a firm [offer], this is without discussion.” (Little wonder that he had been so eager to have Meyer, who asked for no compensation, negotiate with Random while in New York.) Yet, when the contract with Doubleday was signed, following Clairouin’s initial contact and several conversations with Price, Otto saw himself as free of all monetary obligations toward the agency. (Had Otto neglected to encourage Price’s first approach in order to avoid this fee?) Price, unaware of Clairouin’s extensive work on the project in the years before his involvement, agreed with Otto when he sought advice on the matter. Only after a rancorous exchange of letters did Otto agree to pay a third of the customary agents’ fee “pour les efforts que vous avez fait en generale.”

Equally questionable, in light of Otto’s encouragement of Meyer’s efforts on his behalf, were the actual terms of the media clause with Doubleday. Promising to make no decision without Meyer’s involvement, he had negotiated terms with Doubleday that clearly could jeopardize Meyer’s interests. There is no evidence that Otto had ever mentioned Meyer to Price, whose understanding “after our discussion” in Paris was that Otto would want Doubleday “to handle any approach … from a film or radio concern, should there be interest in the dramatization in one form or another.” As yet unaware that Otto had signed a contract, Meyer wrote him three weeks later of new interest in the Diary by an American film producer. “And what finally came of the American negotiations?” Meyer asked, still believing himself to be an important part of the process of bringing Anne’s message to the world. “Is Doubleday going to do it?”

Meyer requested a copy of the Diary’s English translation to give to this potential producer for consideration. Otto advised Meyer that although Valentine Mitchell’s retranslation was only partially completed, the earlier English version was available and would be sent. It was the translation whose rendering he had encouraged but for which, because it would not be published, he had refused to make payment. Still not mentioning his Doubleday contract, Otto asked Meyer what he knew of the Italian film producers who had shown some interest (a question he also had recently put to Price).

Meyer advised Otto on May 12 that the best Italian producers had focused exclusively on “Italian life” and that with finances being an essential question everywhere, it would be best to continue looking in England and America, where “one would [not] have to ‘sell’ one of the producers on doing the film.” Otto again thanked Meyer and, without mentioning the Doubleday contract, continued to encourage representation in these matters. “I have enough confidence in you and your wife [whose ongoing interests had begun with her letter to Otto a day before Meyer’s first] to leave the film question to your judgment, knowing that you will not start any binding arrangements and keep things in hand.” By spring 1951, Otto had managed to secure the services of two agents in his search for wider exposure for Anne’s Diary. But to one, he had made no binding commitment of his own.

(C) 1997 Yale University All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-300-06907-3

A Memorial for Margot and Anne Frank shows a Star of David and the full names, birthdates, and year of death of each of the sisters, in white lettering on a large black stone. The stone sits alone in a grassy field, and the ground beneath the stone is covered with floral tributes and photographs of Anne Frank

Memorial for Margot and Anne Frank at the former Bergen-Belsen site

Anne Frank Hoax Exposed

Clever Jew Made Millions from Dead Daughter
by Dr. William L. Pierce (1980)

Tucked away on pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war.

The significance of Der Spiegel’s revelation of this fraud is twofold. First, the printing of the story in a mass-circulation publication constitutes a major break with past treatments of similar news. The German news media, though not under the Jewish monopoly control which blights the media in this country, generally follow a pro-Jewish line, a heritage from the immediate postwar years when the Allied occupation forces gave publishing licenses only to those Germans who had proved their disloyalty to their country during the war. Consequently, most news tending to cast doubt on Jewish stories about gas chambers and the like from the World War II era has either been blacked out altogether or downplayed and given very unsympathetic treatment. The present article, though accompanied by copious apologies and held back for six months after it became news, would not have been printed at all a year or two ago.

Beyond this, the exposure of the Anne Frank forgery is important because of the sheer magnitude of the fraud and the key role it has played in underpinning the entire Jewish scenario of the war. What is known as a fact is that one Otto Frank, a Jewish merchant, formerly of Frankfurt, who had been arrested in the Netherlands and interned in the Auschwitz concentration camp during the war, began visiting publishers in 1946 with what he claimed was a diary written by his young daughter during the time the Frank family was hiding from the German police in occupied Holland. The girl later perished at Auschwitz, Frank said.

The diary, filled with touching adolescent reveries and homely little anecdotes, was exactly what the Jewish “Holocaust” propagandists were looking for: a highly effective piece of ammunition to generate a maudlin, emotion-laden sympathy for the poor, persecuted Jews — as typified by Anne Frank — and generate hatred against the wicked Germans, who had killed her and six million other Jews.

Otto Frank cashed in on the diary in a big way. Not only did he find a publisher, but he found people hot to buy stage and film rights as well. Shortly after its appearance in book form, the diary had been translated into a score of languages and printed in millions of copies, from all of which Frank received royalties. The English version alone, under the title Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl, has sold more than 4,000,000 copies to date. A television dramatization based on the diary was aired in this country last month, accompanied by the usual ballyhoo.

Almost from the beginning there were charges that the diary was a hoax. Some of these charges were based on the gross inconsistencies between various translations and editions of the diary in book form; it was clear that the text had been heavily edited to help it sell well in different markets. Other charges were based on internal inconsistencies and credulity-straining elements in the diary itself.

And then there was the matter of the script for the film version of the diary: Otto Frank was sued by a New York scriptwriter, Meyer Levin, who claimed that Frank had taken large portions of a script he, Levin, had written and had not paid Levin for his work. The court ordered Frank to pay Levin $50,000. One can easily understand why some observers began to wonder how much, if any, of the content of the various Anne Frank books, films, and plays in circulation was actually written by a little Jewish girl named Anne Frank.

Otto Frank, father of Anne, displays what he says is his daughter’s diary, written in 1942–1944 while hiding from the Gestapo. Recent scientific tests have proved the alleged diary could not have been written before 1951. Frank made millions from his forgery before his death this year.

In Germany, however, it was not wise to speculate about such matters publicly. The line laid down by the government and the media is that Anne Frank is gospel, and anyone who suggests otherwise leaves himself open to criminal charges (“defaming the victims of Nazi persecution”) as well as to civil suits. Otto Frank himself made a regular habit of hauling Anne Frank detractors into German courts, which invariably decided in his favor — until recently, that is.

When Hamburg pensioner Ernst Roemer, 76, began spreading the accusation that Otto Frank had himself written what he was passing off as his dead daughter’s diary, Frank sued him. As usual, the court upheld the authenticity of the diary. Handwriting experts testified that the entire diary, including loose notes and insertions, had been written by the same hand, and that hand was Anne Frank’s.

Roemer appealed the court’s decision against him, and more handwriting experts were called in. Their conclusion was the same: Everything in the diary was in the same handwriting; there was no forgery.

Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.

The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!

Were it not for the previous testimony of the handwriting experts that the entire diary, including the portions written with ballpoint pen, is in the same hand, the father might have claimed that he only “edited” his daughter’s work, “clarifying” passages here and there. But the evidence was quite unambiguous.

For example, the testimony of Hamburg graphologist Minna Bekker in an earlier trial was: “The handwriting of the diary in the three bound volumes — including all notes and additions on the glued-in pages as well as the 338 pages of loose material — including all corrections and insertions is identical . . .”

Otto should have been more careful in his choice of writing instruments. It is now quite clear that he finished hoking up the “original” of the diary after he had found a publisher for what, in 1946, was nothing more than some rough notes and an idea in his head which seemed to have prospects for making him a lot of money with little effort. First a typescript for the publisher, and then, as sales of the book began to mount, a completed handwritten “original” to show to doubters.

Just after the report of the Federal Criminal Office was given to the court, Otto Frank conveniently died — before he could be asked a number of very interesting questions. Meanwhile, the worldwide Jewish propaganda apparatus has continued its promotion of the Anne Frank myth as if nothing had happened. Der Spiegel seems to be the only mass-circulation news periodical to have exposed the fraud to date.

From Attack! No. 79, 1980, transcribed by Anthony Collins and edited by Vanessa Neubauer

John McCain and the POW Cover-Up

The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.

Eighteen months ago, TAC publisher Ron Unz discovered an astonishing account of the role the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, had played in suppressing information about what happened to American soldiers missing in action in Vietnam. Below, we present in full Sydney Schanberg’s explosive story.

TAC-McCainPOWsJohn McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero who people would logically imagine as a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as the Republican Party has made McCain’s military service the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

The sum of the secrets McCain has sought to hide is not small. There exists a telling mass of official documents, radio intercepts, witness depositions, satellite photos of rescue symbols that pilots were trained to use, electronic messages from the ground containing the individual code numbers given to airmen, a rescue mission by a special forces unit that was aborted twice by Washington—and even sworn testimony by two Defense secretaries that “men were left behind.” This imposing body of evidence suggests that a large number—the documents indicate probably hundreds—of the U.S. prisoners held by Vietnam were not returned when the peace treaty was signed in January 1973 and Hanoi released 591 men, among them Navy combat pilot John S. McCain.

Mass of Evidence

The Pentagon had been withholding significant information from POW families for years. What’s more, the Pentagon’s POW/MIA operation had been publicly shamed by internal whistleblowers and POW families for holding back documents as part of a policy of “debunking” POW intelligence even when the information was obviously credible.

The pressure from the families and Vietnam veterans finally forced the creation, in late 1991, of a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs. The chairman was John Kerry. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member. In the end, the committee became part of the debunking machine.

One of the sharpest critics of the Pentagon’s performance was an insider, Air Force Lt. Gen. Eugene Tighe, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) during the 1970s. He openly challenged the Pentagon’s position that no live prisoners existed, saying that the evidence proved otherwise. McCain was a bitter opponent of Tighe, who was eventually pushed into retirement.

Included in the evidence that McCain and his government allies suppressed or sought to discredit is a transcript of a senior North Vietnamese general’s briefing of the Hanoi politburo, discovered in Soviet archives by an American scholar in 1993. The briefing took place only four months before the 1973 peace accords. The general, Tran Van Quang, told the politburo members that Hanoi was holding 1,205 American prisoners but would keep many of them at war’s end as leverage to ensure getting war reparations from Washington.

Throughout the Paris negotiations, the North Vietnamese tied the prisoner issue tightly to the issue of reparations. They were adamant in refusing to deal with them separately. Finally, in a Feb. 2, 1973 formal letter to Hanoi’s premier, Pham Van Dong, Nixon pledged $3.25 billion in “postwar reconstruction” aid “without any political conditions.” But he also attached to the letter a codicil that said the aid would be implemented by each party “in accordance with its own constitutional provisions.” That meant Congress would have to approve the appropriation, and Nixon and Kissinger knew well that Congress was in no mood to do so. The North Vietnamese, whether or not they immediately understood the double-talk in the letter, remained skeptical about the reparations promise being honored—and it never was. Hanoi thus appears to have held back prisoners—just as it had done when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and withdrew their forces from Vietnam. In that case, France paid ransoms for prisoners and brought them home.

In a private briefing in 1992, high-level CIA officials told me that as the years passed and the ransom never came, it became more and more difficult for either government to admit that it knew from the start about the unacknowledged prisoners. Those prisoners had not only become useless as bargaining chips but also posed a risk to Hanoi’s desire to be accepted into the international community. The CIA officials said their intelligence indicated strongly that the remaining men—those who had not died from illness or hard labor or torture—were eventually executed.

My own research, detailed below, has convinced me that it is not likely that more than a few—if any—are alive in captivity today. (That CIA briefing at the Agency’s Langley, Virginia, headquarters was conducted “off the record,” but because the evidence from my own reporting since then has brought me to the same conclusion, I felt there was no longer any point in not writing about the meeting.)

For many reasons, including the absence of a political constituency for the missing men other than their families and some veterans’ groups, very few Americans are aware of the POW story and of McCain’s role in keeping it out of public view and denying the existence of abandoned POWs. That is because McCain has hardly been alone in his campaign to hide the scandal.

The Arizona senator, now the Republican candidate for president, has actually been following the lead of every White House since Richard Nixon’s, and thus of every CIA director, Pentagon chief, and national security adviser, not to mention Dick Cheney, who was George H.W. Bush’s Defense secretary. Their biggest accomplice has been an indolent press, particularly in Washington.

McCain’s Role

An early and critical McCain secrecy move involved 1990 legislation that started in the House of Representatives. A brief and simple document, it was called “the Truth Bill” and would have compelled complete transparency about prisoners and missing men. Its core sentence reads: “[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.”

Bitterly opposed by the Pentagon (and thus McCain), the bill went nowhere. Reintroduced the following year, it again disappeared. But a few months later, a new measure, known as “the McCain Bill,” suddenly appeared. By creating a bureaucratic maze from which only a fraction of the documents could emerge—only records that revealed no POW secrets—it turned the Truth Bill on its head. The McCain bill became law in 1991 and remains so today. So crushing to transparency are its provisions that it actually spells out for the Pentagon and other agencies several rationales, scenarios, and justifications for not releasing any information at all—even about prisoners discovered alive in captivity. Later that year, the Senate Select Committee was created, where Kerry and McCain ultimately worked together to bury evidence.

McCain was also instrumental in amending the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been strengthened in 1995 by POW advocates to include criminal penalties, saying, “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, McCain, at the behest of the Pentagon, attached a crippling amendment to the act, stripping out its only enforcement teeth, the criminal penalties, and reducing the obligations of commanders in the field to speedily search for missing men and to report the incidents to the Pentagon.

About the relaxation of POW/MIA obligations on commanders in the field, a public McCain memo said, “This transfers the bureaucracy involved out of the [battle] field to Washington.” He wrote that the original legislation, if left intact, “would accomplish nothing but create new jobs for lawyers and turn military commanders into clerks.”

McCain argued that keeping the criminal penalties would have made it impossible for the Pentagon to find staffers willing to work on POW/MIA matters. That’s an odd argument to make. Were staffers only “willing to work” if they were allowed to conceal POW records? By eviscerating the law, McCain gave his stamp of approval to the government policy of debunking the existence of live POWs.

McCain has insisted again and again that all the evidence—documents, witnesses, satellite photos, two Pentagon chiefs’ sworn testimony, aborted rescue missions, ransom offers apparently scorned—has been woven together by unscrupulous deceivers to create an insidious and unpatriotic myth. He calls it the “bizarre rantings of the MIA hobbyists.” He has regularly vilified those who keep trying to pry out classified documents as “hoaxers,” “charlatans,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “dime-store Rambos.”

Some of McCain’s fellow captives at Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi didn’t share his views about prisoners left behind. Before he died of leukemia in 1999, retired Col. Ted Guy, a highly admired POW and one of the most dogged resisters in the camps, wrote an angry open letter to the senator in an MIA newsletter—a response to McCain’s stream of insults hurled at MIA activists. Guy wrote, “John, does this [the insults] include Senator Bob Smith [a New Hampshire Republican and activist on POW issues] and other concerned elected officials? Does this include the families of the missing where there is overwhelming evidence that their loved ones were ‘last known alive’? Does this include some of your fellow POWs?”

It’s not clear whether the taped confession McCain gave to his captors to avoid further torture has played a role in his postwar behavior in the Senate. That confession was played endlessly over the prison loudspeaker system at Hoa Lo—to try to break down other prisoners—and was broadcast over Hanoi’s state radio. Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain.

All humans have breaking points. Many men undergoing torture give confessions, often telling huge lies so their fakery will be understood by their comrades and their country. Few will fault them. But it was McCain who apparently felt he had disgraced himself and his military family. His father, John S. McCain II, was a highly regarded rear admiral then serving as commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. His grandfather was also a rear admiral.

In his bestselling 1999 autobiography, Faith of My Fathers, McCain says he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value. Other prisoners at Hoa Lo say his captors considered him a prize catch and called him the “Crown Prince,” something McCain acknowledges in the book.

Also in this memoir, McCain expresses guilt at having broken under torture and given the confession. “I felt faithless and couldn’t control my despair,” he writes, revealing that he made two “feeble” attempts at suicide. (In later years, he said he tried to hang himself with his shirt and guards intervened.) Tellingly, he says he lived in “dread” that his father would find out about the confession. “I still wince,” he writes, “when I recall wondering if my father had heard of my disgrace.”

He says that when he returned home, he told his father about the confession, but “never discussed it at length”—and the admiral, who died in 1981, didn’t indicate he had heard anything about it before. But he had. In the 1999 memoir, the senator writes, “I only recently learned that the tape … had been broadcast outside the prison and had come to the attention of my father.”

Is McCain haunted by these memories? Does he suppress POW information because its surfacing would rekindle his feelings of shame? On this subject, all I have are questions.

Many stories have been written about McCain’s explosive temper, so volcanic that colleagues are loath to speak openly about it. One veteran congressman who has observed him over the years asked for confidentiality and made this brief comment: “This is a man not at peace with himself.”

He was certainly far from calm on the Senate POW committee. He browbeat expert witnesses who came with information about unreturned POWs. Family members who have personally faced McCain and pressed him to end the secrecy also have been treated to his legendary temper. He has screamed at them, insulted them, brought women to tears. Mostly his responses to them have been versions of: How dare you question my patriotism? In 1996, he roughly pushed aside a group of POW family members who had waited outside a hearing room to appeal to him, including a mother in a wheelchair.

But even without answers to what may be hidden in the recesses of McCain’s mind, one thing about the POW story is clear: if American prisoners were dishonored by being written off and left to die, that’s something the American public ought to know about.

10 Key Pieces of Evidence That Men Were Left Behind

1. In Paris, where the Vietnam peace treaty was negotiated, the United States asked Hanoi for the list of American prisoners to be returned, fearing that Hanoi would hold some prisoners back. The North Vietnamese refused, saying they would produce the list only after the treaty was signed. Nixon agreed with Kissinger that they had no leverage left, and Kissinger signed the accord on Jan. 27, 1973 without the prisoner list. When Hanoi produced its list of 591 prisoners the next day, U.S. intelligence agencies expressed shock at the low number. Their number was hundreds higher. The New York Times published a long, page-one story on Feb. 2, 1973 about the discrepancy, especially raising questions about the number of prisoners held in Laos, only nine of whom were being returned. The headline read, in part, “Laos POW List Shows 9 from U.S.—Document Disappointing to Washington as 311 Were Believed Missing.” And the story, by John Finney, said that other Washington officials “believe the number of prisoners [in Laos] is probably substantially higher.” The paper never followed up with any serious investigative reporting—nor did any other mainstream news organization.

2. Two Defense secretaries who served during the Vietnam War testified to the Senate POW committee in September 1992 that prisoners were not returned. James Schlesinger and Melvin Laird, both speaking at a public session and under oath, said they based their conclusions on strong intelligence data—letters, eyewitness reports, even direct radio contacts. Under questioning, Schlesinger chose his words carefully, understanding clearly the volatility of the issue: “I think that as of now that I can come to no other conclusion … some were left behind.” This ran counter to what President Nixon told the public in a nationally televised speech on March 29, 1973, when the repatriation of the 591 was in motion: “Tonight,” Nixon said, “the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come. For the first time in 12 years, no American military forces are in Vietnam. All our American POWs are on their way home.” Documents unearthed since then show that aides had already briefed Nixon about the contrary evidence.

Schlesinger was asked by the Senate committee for his explanation of why President Nixon would have made such a statement when he knew Hanoi was still holding prisoners. He replied, “One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States … was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops out and we were not going to roil the waters…” This testimony struck me as a bombshell. The New York Times appropriately reported it on page one but again there was no sustained follow-up by the Times or any other major paper or national news outlet.

3. Over the years, the DIA received more than 1,600 first-hand sightings of live American prisoners and nearly 14,000 second-hand reports. Many witnesses interrogated by CIA or Pentagon intelligence agents were deemed “credible” in the agents’ reports. Some of the witnesses were given lie-detector tests and passed. Sources provided me with copies of these witness reports, which are impressive in their detail. A lot of the sightings described a secondary tier of prison camps many miles from Hanoi. Yet the DIA, after reviewing all these reports, concluded that they “do not constitute evidence” that men were alive.

4. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, listening stations picked up messages in which Laotian military personnel spoke about moving American prisoners from one labor camp to another. These listening posts were manned by Thai communications officers trained by the National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors signals worldwide. The NSA teams had moved out after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and passed the job to the Thai allies. But when the Thais turned these messages over to Washington, the intelligence community ruled that since the intercepts were made by a “third party”—namely Thailand—they could not be regarded as authentic. That’s some Catch-22: the U.S. trained a third party to take over its role in monitoring signals about POWs, but because that third party did the monitoring, the messages weren’t valid.

Here, from CIA files, is an example that clearly exposes the farce. On Dec. 27, 1980, a Thai military signal team picked up a message saying that prisoners were being moved out of Attopeu (in southern Laos) by aircraft “at 1230 hours.” Three days later a message was sent from the CIA station in Bangkok to the CIA director’s office in Langley. It read, in part: “The prisoners … are now in the valley in permanent location (a prison camp at Nhommarath in Central Laos). They were transferred from Attopeu to work in various places … POWs were formerly kept in caves and are very thin, dark and starving.” Apparently the prisoners were real. But the transmission was declared “invalid” by Washington because the information came from a “third party” and thus could not be deemed credible.

5. A series of what appeared to be distress signals from Vietnam and Laos were captured by the government’s satellite system in the late 1980s and early ’90s. (Before that period, no search for such signals had been put in place.) Not a single one of these markings was ever deemed credible. To the layman’s eye, the satellite photos, some of which I’ve seen, show markings on the ground that are identical to the signals that American pilots had been specifically trained to use in their survival courses—such as certain letters, like X or K, drawn in a special way. Other markings were the secret four-digit authenticator numbers given to individual pilots. But time and again, the Pentagon, backed by the CIA, insisted that humans had not made these markings. What were they, then? “Shadows and vegetation,” the government said, insisting that the markings were merely normal topographical contours like saw-grass or rice-paddy divider walls. It was the automatic response—shadows and vegetation. On one occasion, a Pentagon photo expert refused to go along. It was a missing man’s name gouged into a field, he said, not trampled grass or paddy berms. His bosses responded by bringing in an outside contractor who found instead, yes, shadows and vegetation. This refrain led Bob Taylor, a highly regarded investigator on the Senate committee staff who had examined the photographic evidence, to comment to me: “If grass can spell out people’s names and secret digit codes, then I have a newfound respect for grass.”

6. On Nov. 11, 1992, Dolores Alfond, the sister of missing airman Capt. Victor Apodaca and chair of the National Alliance of Families, an organization of relatives of POW/MIAs, testified at one of the Senate committee’s public hearings. She asked for information about data the government had gathered from electronic devices used in a classified program known as PAVE SPIKE.

The devices were motion sensors, dropped by air, designed to pick up enemy troop movements. Shaped on one end like a spike with an electronic pod and antenna on top, they were designed to stick in the ground as they fell. Air Force planes would drop them along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other supply routes. The devices, though primarily sensors, also had rescue capabilities. Someone on the ground—a downed airman or a prisoner on a labor gang —could manually enter data into the sensor. All data were regularly collected electronically by U.S. planes flying overhead. Alfond stated, without any challenge or contradiction by the committee, that in 1974, a year after the supposedly complete return of prisoners, the gathered data showed that a person or people had manually entered into the sensors—as U.S. pilots had been trained to do—no less than 20 authenticator numbers that corresponded exactly to the classified authenticator numbers of 20 U.S. POWs who were lost in Laos. Alfond added, according to the transcript, “This PAVE SPIKE intelligence is seamless, but the committee has not discussed it or released what it knows about PAVE SPIKE.”

McCain attended that committee hearing specifically to confront Alfond because of her criticism of the panel’s work. He bellowed and berated her for quite a while. His face turning anger-pink, he accused her of “denigrating” his “patriotism.” The bullying had its effect—she began to cry.

After a pause Alfond recovered and tried to respond to his scorching tirade, but McCain simply turned away and stormed out of the room. The PAVE SPIKE file has never been declassified. We still don’t know anything about those 20 POWs.

7. As previously mentioned, in April 1993 in a Moscow archive, a researcher from Harvard, Stephen Morris, unearthed and made public the transcript of a briefing that General Tran Van Quang gave to the Hanoi politburo four months before the signing of the Paris peace accords in 1973.

In the transcript, General Quang told the Hanoi politburo that 1,205 U.S. prisoners were being held. Quang said that many of the prisoners would be held back from Washington after the accords as bargaining chips for war reparations. General Quang’s report added: “This is a big number. Officially, until now, we published a list of only 368 prisoners of war. The rest we have not revealed. The government of the USA knows this well, but it does not know the exact number … and can only make guesses based on its losses. That is why we are keeping the number of prisoners of war secret, in accordance with the politburo’s instructions.” The report then went on to explain in clear and specific language that a large number would be kept back to ensure reparations.

The reaction to the document was immediate. After two decades of denying it had kept any prisoners, Hanoi responded to the revelation by calling the transcript a fabrication.

Similarly, Washington—which had over the same two decades refused to recant Nixon’s declaration that all the prisoners had been returned—also shifted into denial mode. The Pentagon issued a statement saying the document “is replete with errors, omissions and propaganda that seriously damage its credibility,” and that the numbers were “inconsistent with our own accounting.”

Neither American nor Vietnamese officials offered any rationale for who would plant a forged document in the Soviet archives and why they would do so. Certainly neither Washington nor Moscow—closely allied with Hanoi—would have any motive, since the contents were embarrassing to all parties, and since both the United States and Vietnam had consistently denied the existence of unreturned prisoners. The Russian archivists simply said the document was “authentic.”

8. In his 2002 book, Inside Delta Force, retired Command Sgt. Maj. Eric Haney described how in 1981 his special forces unit, after rigorous training for a POW rescue mission, had the mission suddenly aborted, revived a year later, and again abruptly aborted. Haney writes that this abandonment of captured soldiers ate at him for years and left him disillusioned about his government’s vows to leave no men behind. “Years later, I spoke at length with a former highly placed member of the North Vietnamese diplomatic corps, and this person asked me point-blank: ‘Why did the Americans never attempt to recover their remaining POWs after the conclusion of the war?’” Haney writes. He continued, saying that he came to believe senior government officials had called off those missions in 1981 and 1982. (His account is on pages 314 to 321 of my paperback copy of the book.)

9. There is also evidence that in the first months of Ronald Reagan’s presidency in 1981, the White House received a ransom proposal for a number of POWs being held by Hanoi in Indochina. The offer, which was passed to Washington from an official of a third country, was apparently discussed at a meeting in the Roosevelt Room attended by Reagan, Vice President Bush, CIA director William Casey, and National Security Adviser Richard Allen. Allen confirmed the offer in sworn testimony to the Senate POW committee on June 23, 1992.

Allen was allowed to testify behind closed doors and no information was released. But a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter, Robert Caldwell, obtained the portion relating to the ransom offer and reported on it. The ransom request was for $4 billion, Allen testified. He said he told Reagan that “it would be worth the president’s going along and let’s have the negotiation.” When his testimony appeared in the Union-Tribune, Allen quickly wrote a letter to the panel, this time not under oath, recanting the ransom story and claiming his memory had played tricks on him. His new version was that some POW activists had asked him about such an offer in a meeting that took place in 1986, when he was no longer in government. “It appears,” he said in the letter, “that there never was a 1981 meeting about the return of POW/MIAs for $4 billion.”

But the episode didn’t end there. A Treasury agent on Secret Service duty in the White House, John Syphrit, came forward to say he had overheard part of the ransom conversation in the Roosevelt Room in 1981, when the offer was discussed by Reagan, Bush, Casey, Allen, and other cabinet officials.

Syphrit, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told the committee he was willing to testify, but they would have to subpoena him. Treasury opposed his appearance, arguing that voluntary testimony would violate the trust between the Secret Service and those it protects. It was clear that coming in on his own could cost Syphrit his career. The committee voted 7 to 4 not to subpoena him.

In the committee’s final report, dated Jan. 13, 1993 (on page 284), the panel not only chastised Syphrit for his failure to testify without a subpoena (“The committee regrets that the Secret Service agent was unwilling …”), but noted that since Allen had recanted his testimony about the Roosevelt Room briefing, Syphrit’s testimony would have been “at best, uncorroborated by the testimony of any other witness.” The committee omitted any mention that it had made a decision not to ask the other two surviving witnesses, Bush and Reagan, to give testimony under oath. (Casey had died.)

10. In 1990, Col. Millard Peck, a decorated infantry veteran of Vietnam then working at the DIA as chief of the Asia Division for Current Intelligence, asked for the job of chief of the DIA’s Special Office for Prisoners of War and Missing in Action. His reason for seeking the transfer, which was not a promotion, was that he had heard from officials throughout the Pentagon that the POW/MIA office had been turned into a waste-disposal unit for getting rid of unwanted evidence about live prisoners—a “black hole,” these officials called it.

Peck explained all this in his telling resignation letter of Feb. 12, 1991, eight months after he had taken the job. He said he viewed it as “sort of a holy crusade” to restore the integrity of the office but was defeated by the Pentagon machine. The four-page, single-spaced letter was scathing, describing the putative search for missing men as “a cover-up.”

Peck charged that, at its top echelons, the Pentagon had embraced a “mind-set to debunk” all evidence of prisoners left behind. “That national leaders continue to address the prisoner of war and missing in action issue as the ‘highest national priority,’ is a travesty,” he wrote. “The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort, and may never have been. … Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source. Rarely has there been any effective, active follow through on any of the sightings, nor is there a responsive ‘action arm’ to routinely and aggressively pursue leads.”

“I became painfully aware,” his letter continued, “that I was not really in charge of my own office, but was merely a figurehead or whipping boy for a larger and totally Machiavellian group of players outside of DIA … I feel strongly that this issue is being manipulated and controlled at a higher level, not with the goal of resolving it, but more to obfuscate the question of live prisoners and give the illusion of progress through hyperactivity.” He named no names but said these players are “unscrupulous people in the Government or associated with the Government” who “have maintained their distance and remained hidden in the shadows, while using the [POW] Office as a ‘toxic waste dump’ to bury the whole ‘mess’ out of sight.” Peck added that “military officers … who in some manner have ‘rocked the boat’ [have] quickly come to grief.”

Peck concluded, “From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was, in fact, abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain done with ‘smoke and mirrors’ to stall the issue until it dies a natural death.”

The disillusioned colonel not only resigned but asked to be retired immediately from active military service. The press never followed up.

My Pursuit of the Story

I covered the war in Cambodia and Vietnam, but came to the POW information only slowly afterward, when military officers I knew from that conflict began coming to me with maps and POW sightings and depositions by Vietnamese witnesses.

I was then city editor of the New York Times, no longer involved in foreign or national stories, so I took the data to the appropriate desks and suggested it was material worth pursuing. There were no takers. Some years later, in 1991, when I was an op-ed columnist at Newsday, the aforementioned special Senate committee was formed to probe the POW issue. I saw this as an opening and immersed myself in the reporting.

At Newsday, I wrote 36 columns over a two-year period, as well as a four-part series on a trip I took to North Vietnam to report on what happened to one missing pilot who was shot down over the Ho Chi Minh trail and captured when he parachuted down. After Newsday, I wrote thousands more words on the subject for other outlets. Some of the pieces were about McCain’s key role.

Though I wrote on many subjects for Life, Vanity Fair, and Washington Monthly, my POW articles appeared in Penthouse, the Village Voice, and publications just weren’t interested. Their disinterest was part of what motivated me, and I became one of a very short list of journalists who considered the story important.

Serving in the Army in Germany during the Cold War and witnessing combat firsthand as a reporter in India and Indochina led me to have great respect for those who fight for their country. To my mind, we dishonored U.S. troops when our government failed to bring them home from Vietnam after the 591 others were released—and then claimed they didn’t exist. And politicians dishonor themselves when they pay lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of soldiers only to leave untold numbers behind, rationalizing to themselves that it’s merely one of the unfortunate costs of war.

John McCain—now campaigning for the White House as a war hero, maverick, and straight shooter—owes the voters some explanations. The press were long ago wooed and won by McCain’s seeming openness, Lone Ranger pose, and self-deprecating humor, which may partly explain their ignoring his record on POWs. In the numerous, lengthy McCain profiles that have appeared of late in papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, I may have missed a clause or a sentence along the way, but I have not found a single mention of his role in burying information about POWs. Television and radio news programs have been similarly silent.

Reporters simply never ask him about it. They didn’t when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination in 2000. They haven’t now, despite the fact that we’re in the midst of another war—a war he supports and one that has echoes of Vietnam. The only explanation McCain has ever offered for his leadership on legislation that seals POW files is that he believes the release of such information would only stir up fresh grief for the families of those who were never accounted for in Vietnam. Of the scores of POW families I’ve met over the years, only a few have said they want the books closed without knowing what happened to their men. All the rest say that not knowing is exactly what grieves them.

Isn’t it possible that what really worries those intent on keeping the POW documents buried is the public disgust that the contents of those files would generate?

How the Senate Committee Perpetuated the Debunking

In its early months, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs gave the appearance of being committed to finding out the truth about the MIAs. As time went on, however, it became clear that they were cooperating in every way with the Pentagon and CIA, who often seemed to be calling the shots, even setting the agendas for certain key hearings. Both agencies held back the most important POW files. Dick Cheney was the Pentagon chief then; Robert Gates, now the Pentagon chief, was the CIA director.

Further, the committee failed to question any living president. Reagan declined to answer questions; the committee didn’t contest his refusal. Nixon was given a pass. George H.W. Bush, the sitting president, whose prints were all over this issue from his days as CIA chief in the 1970s, was never even approached. Troubled by these signs, several committee staffers began asking why the agencies they should be probing had been turned into committee partners and decision makers. Memos to that effect were circulated. The staff made the following finding, using intelligence reports marked “credible” that covered POW sightings through 1989: “There can be no doubt that POWs were alive … as late as 1989.” That finding was never released. Eventually, much of the staff was in rebellion.

This internecine struggle continued right up to the committee’s last official act—the issuance of its final report. The Executive Summary, which comprised the first 43 pages, was essentially a whitewash, saying that only “a small number” of POWs could have been left behind in 1973 and that there was little likelihood that any prisoners could still be alive. The Washington press corps, judging from its coverage, seems to have read only this air-brushed summary, which had been closely controlled.

But the rest of the 1,221-page Report on POW/MIAs was quite different. Sprinkled throughout are pieces of hard evidence that directly contradict the summary’s conclusions. This documentation established that a significant number of prisoners were left behind—and that top government officials knew this from the start. These candid findings were inserted by committee staffers who had unearthed the evidence and were determined not to allow the truth to be sugar-coated.

If the Washington press corps did actually read the body of the report and then failed to report its contents, that would be a scandal of its own. The press would then have knowingly ignored the steady stream of findings in the body of the report that refuted the summary and indicated that the number of abandoned men was not small but considerable. The report gave no figures but estimates from various branches of the intelligence community ranged up to 600. The lowest estimate was 150.

Highlights of the report that undermine the benign conclusions of the Executive Summary:

• Pages 207-209These three pages contain revelations of what appear to be either massive intelligence failures or bad intentions—or both. The report says that until the committee brought up the subject in 1992, no branch of the intelligence community that dealt with analysis of satellite and lower-altitude photos had ever been informed of the specific distress signals U.S. personnel were trained to use in the Vietnam War, nor had they ever been tasked to look for any such signals at all from possible prisoners on the ground.

The committee decided, however, not to seek a review of old photography, saying it “would cause the expenditure of large amounts of manpower and money with no expectation of success.” It might also have turned up lots of distress-signal numbers that nobody in the government was looking for from 1973 to 1991, when the committee opened shop. That would have made it impossible for the committee to write the Executive Summary it seemed determined to write.

The failure gets worse. The committee also discovered that the DIA, which kept the lists of authenticator numbers for pilots and other personnel, could not “locate” the lists of these codes for Army, Navy, or Marine pilots. They had lost or destroyed the records. The Air Force list was the only one intact, as it had been preserved by a different intelligence branch.

The report concluded, “In theory, therefore, if a POW still living in captivity [today], were to attempt to communicate by ground signal, smuggling out a note or by whatever means possible, and he used his personal authenticator number to confirm his identity, the U.S. government would be unable to provide such confirmation, if his number happened to be among those numbers DIA cannot locate.”

It’s worth remembering that throughout the period when this intelligence disaster occurred—from the moment the treaty was signed in 1973 until 1991—the White House told the public that it had given the search for POWs and POW information the “highest national priority.”

• Page 13: Even in the Executive Summary, the report acknowledges the existence of clear intelligence, made known to government officials early on, that important numbers of captured U.S. POWs were not on Hanoi’s repatriation list. After Hanoi released its list (showing only ten names from Laos—nine military men and one civilian), President Nixon sent a message on Feb. 2, 1973 to Hanoi’s Prime Minister Pham Van Dong saying, “U.S. records show there are 317 American military men unaccounted for in Laos and it is inconceivable that only ten of these men would be held prisoner in Laos.”

Nixon was right. It was inconceivable. Then why did the president, less than two months later, on March 29, 1973, announce on national television that “all of our American POWs are on their way home”?

On April 13, 1973, just after all 591 men on Hanoi’s official list had returned to American soil, the Pentagon got into step with the president and announced that there was no evidence of any further live prisoners in Indochina (this is on page 248).

• Page 91: A lengthy footnote provides more confirmation of the White House’s knowledge of abandoned POWs. The footnote reads, “In a telephone conversation with Select Committee Vice-Chairman Bob Smith on December 29, 1992, Dr. Kissinger said that he had informed President Nixon during the 60-day period after the peace agreement was signed that U.S. intelligence officials believed that the list of prisoners captured in Laos was incomplete. According to Dr. Kissinger, the President responded by directing that the exchange of prisoners on the lists go forward, but added that a failure to account for the additional prisoners after Operation Homecoming would lead to a resumption of bombing. Dr. Kissinger said that the President was later unwilling to carry through on this threat.”

When Kissinger learned of the footnote while the final editing of the committee report was in progress,he and his lawyers lobbied fiercely through two Republican allies on the panel—one of them was John McCain—to get the footnote expunged. The effort failed. The footnote stayed intact.

• Pages 85-86: The committee report quotes Kissinger from his memoirs, writing solely in reference to prisoners in Laos: “We knew of at least 80 instances in which an American serviceman had been captured alive and subsequently disappeared. The evidence consisted either of voice communications from the ground in advance of capture or photographs and names published by the Communists. Yet none of these men was on the list of POWs handed over after the Agreement.”

Then why did he swear under oath to the committee in 1992 that he never had any information that specific, named soldiers were captured alive and hadn’t been returned by Vietnam?

• Page 89: In the middle of the prisoner repatriation and U.S. troop-withdrawal process agreed to in the treaty, when it became clear that Hanoi was not releasing everyone it held, a furious chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Thomas Moorer, issued an order halting the troop withdrawal until Hanoi complied with the agreement. He cited in particular the known prisoners in Laos. The order was retracted by President Nixon the next day. In 1992, Moorer, by then retired, testified under oath to the committee that his order had received the approval of the president, the national security adviser, and the secretary of Defense. Nixon, however, in a letter to the committee, wrote, “I do not recall directing Admiral Moorer to send this cable.”

The report did not include the following information: behind closed doors, a senior intelligence officer had testified to the POW committee that when Moorer’s order was rescinded, the angry admiral sent a “back-channel” message to other key military commanders telling them that Washington was abandoning known live prisoners. “Nixon and Kissinger are at it again,” he wrote. “SecDef and SecState have been cut out of the loop.” In 1973, the witness was working in the office that processed this message. His name and his testimony are still classified. A source present for the testimony provided me with this information and also reported that in that same time period, Moorer had stormed into Defense Secretary Schlesinger’s office and, pounding on his desk, yelled: “The bastards have still got our men.” Schlesinger, in his own testimony to the committee a few months later, was asked about—and corroborated—this account.

• Pages 95-96In early April 1973, Deputy Defense Secretary William Clements “summoned” Dr. Roger Shields, then head of the Pentagon’s POW/MIA Task Force, to his office to work out “a new public formulation” of the POW issue; now that the White House had declared all prisoners to have been returned, a new spin was needed. Shields, under oath, described the meeting to the committee. He said Clements told him, “All the American POWs are dead.” Shields said he replied: “You can’t say that.” Clements shot back: “You didn’t hear me. They are all dead.” Shields testified that at that moment he thought he was going to be fired, but he escaped from his boss’s office still holding his job.

• Pages 97-98: A couple of days later, on April 11, 1973, a day before Shields was to hold a Pentagon press conference on POWs, he and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, then the deputy national security adviser, went to the Oval Office to discuss the “new public formulation” and its presentation with President Nixon.

The next day, reporters right off asked Shields about missing POWs. Shields fudged his answers. He said, “We have no indications at this time that there are any Americans alive in Indochina.” But he went on to say that there had not been “a complete accounting” of those lost in Laos and that the Pentagon would press on to account for the missing—a seeming acknowledgement that some Americans were still alive and unaccounted for.

The press, however, seized on Shields’s denials. One headline read, “POW Unit Boss: No Living GIs Left in Indochina.”

• Page 97: The POW committee, knowing that Nixon taped all his meetings in the Oval Office, sought the tape of that April 11, 1973 Nixon-Shields-Scowcroft meeting to find out what Nixon had been told and what he had said about the evidence of POWs still in Indochina. The committee also knew there had been other White House meetings that centered on intelligence about live POWs. A footnote on page 97 states that Nixon’s lawyers said they would provide access to the April 11 tape “only if the Committee agreed not to seek any other White House recordings from this time period.” The footnote says that the committee rejected these terms and got nothing. The committee never made public this request for Nixon tapes until the brief footnote in its 1993 report.

McCain’s Catch-22

None of this compelling evidence in the committee’s full report dislodged McCain from his contention that the whole POW issue was a concoction by deluded purveyors of a “conspiracy theory.” But an honest review of the full report, combined with the other documentary evidence, tells the story of a frustrated and angry president, and his national security adviser, furious at being thwarted at the peace table by a small, much less powerful country that refused to bow to Washington’s terms. That president seems to have swallowed hard and accepted a treaty that left probably hundreds of American prisoners in Hanoi’s hands, to be used as bargaining chips for reparations.

Maybe Nixon and Kissinger told themselves that they could get the prisoners home after some time had passed. But perhaps it proved too hard to undo a lie as big as this one. Washington said no prisoners were left behind, and Hanoi swore it had returned all of them. How could either side later admit it had lied? Time went by and as neither side budged, telling the truth became even more difficult and remote. The public would realize that Washington knew of the abandoned men all along. The truth, after men had been languishing in foul prison cells, could get people impeached or thrown in jail.

Which brings us to today, when the Republican candidate for president is the contemporary politician most responsible for keeping the truth about this matter hidden. Yet he says he’s the right man to be the commander in chief, and his credibility in making this claim is largely based on his image as a POW hero.

On page 468 of the 1,221-page report, McCain parsed his POW position oddly, “We found no compelling evidence to prove that Americans are alive in captivity today. There is some evidence—though no proof—to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America’s military involvement in Vietnam.”

“Evidence though no proof.” Clearly, no one could meet McCain’s standard of proof as long as he is leading a government crusade to keep the truth buried.

To this reporter, this sounds like a significant story and a long overdue opportunity for the press to finally dig into the archives to set the historical record straight—and even pose some direct questions to the candidate.

Sydney Schanberg has been a journalist for nearly 50 years. The 1984 movie “The Killing Fields,” which won several Academy Awards, was based on his book The Death and Life of Dith Pran. In 1975, Schanberg was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting “at great risk.” He is also the recipient of two George Polk awards, two Overseas Press Club awards, and the Sigma Delta Chi prize for distinguished journalism. His latest book is Beyond the Killing Fields ( This piece is reprinted with permission from The Nation Institute.

Beyond the Killing Fields: War Writings 1st Edition

This first-ever anthology of the war reporting and commentary of Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Sydney Schanberg is drawn from more than four decades of reporting at home and abroad for the New York Times, Newsday, the Village Voice, and various magazines. The centerpiece of the collection is his signature work, “The Death and Life of Dith Pran,” which appeared in the New York Times Magazine. This became the foundation of Roland Joffé’s acclaimed film The Killing Fields (1984), which explored the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia during the late 1970s.

Although Schanberg may be best known for his work on Cambodia, he also reported on the India-Pakistan war that ended Pakistan’s brutal attempt to crush the Bangladesh freedom movement in the 1970s. His striking coverage of the Vietnam conflict recounts Hanoi’s fierce offensive in 1972 that almost succeeded. Years later, citing official documents and other hard evidence that a large number of American POWs were never returned by Hanoi, Schanberg criticized the national press for ignoring these facts and called for Washington to release documents that had been covered up since 1973. As the media critic for the Village Voice, Schanberg offered a unique and searing viewpoint on Iraq, which he called America’s “strangest war.” His criticism of the Bush administration’s secrecy brings his war reportage into the present and presents a vigorous critique of what he considers a devious and destructive presidency. Beyond the Killing Fields is an important work by one of America’s foremost journalists.

ISBN-13: 978-1597975056
ISBN-10: 1597975052

Corbyn Is Being Destroyed – Like Blowing Up a Bridge to Stop an Advancing Army




The latest “scandal” gripping Britain – or to be more accurate, British elites – is over the use of the term “Zionist” by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country’s next prime minister.

Yet again, Corbyn has found himself ensnared in what a small group of Jewish leadership organisations, which claim improbably to represent Britain’s “Jewish community”, and a small group of corporate journalists, who improbably claim to represent British public opinion, like to call Labour’s “anti-semitism problem”.

I won’t get into the patently ridiculous notion that “Zionist” is a code word for “Jew”, at least not now. There are lots of existing articles explaining why that is nonsense.

I wish to deal with a different aspect of the long-running row over Labour’s so-called “anti-semitism crisis”. It exemplifies, I believe, a much more profound and wider crisis in our societies: over the issue of trust.

We now have two large camps, pitted against each other, who have starkly different conceptions of what their societies are and where they need to head. In a very real sense, these two camps no longer speak the same language. There has been a rupture, and they can find no common ground.

I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow.

First, let us outline the growing ideological and linguistic chasm opening up between these two camps: a mapping of the divisions that, given space constraints, will necessarily deal in generalisations.

The trusting camp

The first camp invests its trust, with minor reservations, in those who run our societies. The left and the right segments of this camp are divided primarily over the degree to which they believe that those at the bottom of society’s pile need a helping hand to get them further up the social ladder.

Otherwise, the first camp is united in its assumptions.

They admit that among our elected politicians there is the odd bad apple. And, of course, they understand that there are necessary debates about political and social values. But they agree that politicians rise chiefly through ability and talent, that they are accountable to their political constituencies, and that they are people who want what is best for society as a whole.

While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market – the need to sell papers and audiences – guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers.

Both politicians and the media serve – if not always entirely successfully – as a constraint on corruption and the abuse of power by other powerful actors, such as the business community.

This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust – rather uncomfortably – into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage “good wars” to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen.

Russian conspiracies

Once upon a time – when this camp’s worldview was rarely, if ever, challenged – its favoured response to anything difficult to reconcile with its core beliefs, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crash, was: “Cock-up, not conspiracy!”. Now that there are ever more issues threatening to undermine its most cherished verities, the camp’s response is – paradoxically – “Putin did it!” or “Fake news!”.

The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage.

This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within.

This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power.

These structures are no longer primarily national, but global. They are not immutable but as fabricated, as man-made and replaceable, as the structures that once made incontestable the rule of a landed aristocracy over feudal serfs. The current aristocracy, this camp argues, are globalised corporations that are so unaccountable that even the biggest nation-states can no longer contain or constrain them.

Illusions of pluralism

For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies.

For the second camp, this fact was well illustrated in 2008 when the political class did not – and could not – punish the banks responsible for the near-collapse of western economies after decades of reckless speculation on which a financial elite had grown fat. Those banks, in the words of the politicians themselves, were “too big to fail” and so were bailed out with money from the very same publics who had been scammed by the banks in the first place. Rather than use the bank failures as an opportunity to drive through reform of the broken banking system, or nationalise parts of it, the politicians let the banking casino system continue, even intensify.

Likewise, the media – supposed watchdogs on power – are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse – and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse.

This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations’ public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism.

Manufactured enemies

These domestic structures are subservient to a still-bigger agenda: the accumulation of wealth by a global elite through the asset-stripping of the planet’s resources and the rationalisation of permanent war. That, this camp concludes, requires the manufacturing of “enemies” – such as Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea – to justify the expansion of a military-industrial machine.

These “enemies” are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home.

The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western “humanitarian interventions” abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Syria’s Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world’s ills.

The second camp argues that it is none of these things: it is anti-imperialist. It does not excuse the crimes of Putin or Assad, it treats them as secondary and largely reactive to the vastly greater power a western elite with global reach can project. It believes the western media’s obsession with crafting narratives about evil enemies – bad men and madmen – is designed to deflect attention from the structures of far greater violence the west deploys around the world, through a web of US military bases and Nato.

Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia’s crimes without first admitting the west’s greater crimes, our crimes.

While the whole US political class obsess over “Russian interference” in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia’s borders.

Different languages

Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.

These camps may be divided, but it would seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.

One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media. Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.

The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt – social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.

This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost.

That is not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.

The two most significant disrupters of the first camp’s narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point.

It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth’s climate is already turning against humankind.

Out of the darkness

Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.

It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.

We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt.

The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don’t choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we can build something better from the ruins.

We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their power.

They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we – the 99 per cent – have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning.

No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political, social and spiritual growth.

And what the elite don’t own or control, they fear.

Putting the genie back

The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.

Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.

Corbyn’s significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.

That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army.

It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment; that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.

And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn’s decades spent as an anti-racism activist.

The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears and assassination – they have in their armoury.

The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us – the 99 per cent – are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.

The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is



They follow the Kol Nidre from the Talmud, which allows them to lie to any goyim for whatever reason. They are allowed to steal from the goyim. Do whatever they like to the goyim that is to their benefit

La Kosher Nostra Flame Chrone


Are Multiple “Failed Coups” Leading To The Engineered Fall Of America

The only things that the coup seems to have accomplished are cementing Erdogen as the center of political dominance for years to come.

The Duran





Authored by Brandon Smith via

There has been a lot of talk about “coups” the past two years, not just in the U.S. but around the globe. As I have noted in recent articles, failed coups in particular have been very popular as a way for certain governments to solidify power and assert dictatorial changes. In some cases, there has been no concrete evidence presented that the coup ever really existed.

In Turkey in 2016, Recep Erdogan claimed “success” in stopping a potential coup involving numerous government employees and military personnel which included active combat around major government sites such as the presidential palace and Turkish parliament. Erdogen argues that the coup was a part of the “Gulen Movement,” a political opposition movement surrounding Fethullah Gulen, a former ally of Erdogen who has resided in the U.S. since 1999 and had a falling out with the Turkish president in 2013 after criticisms of Erdogen’s corruption.

So far, evidence of actual “combat” with coup forces is thin to the point that it is questionable whether a coup ever really happened. Most reports cite fire from tanks and planes, as well as nearly 300 people killed. Video footage shows random firing, some explosions in civilian areas as well as Turkish citizens mobbing aimlessly around tanks. With tens of thousands of government employees imprisoned or dismissed after the event, the amount of kinetic conflict seems rather limited and tame.

Two years later, Turkey has yet to produce any hard proof of a coup, let alone proof that the “Gulen Movement” was involved. In July of this year, Erdogen submitted “evidence” which he says is grounds for extradition of Fethullah Gulen. This evidence appears to revolve around alleged visits made to Gulen’s FETO compound in Pennsylvania by accused members of the coup, but does not provide any clarification on evidence of the coup itself.

The chaotic event lasted mere hours and smells of a “wag the dog” scenario; a completely fabricated “Reichstag Fire” attack which could have been easily scripted by Erdogen himself as an excuse to assert totalitarian controls in Turkey and to remove pesky political critics and people within government and the military that held contrary views to Erdogen. Erdogen pointed a finger at the Gulen Movement before the smoke even cleared on the coup attempt, which suggests a predetermined scapegoat. Erdogen controls the Turkish media (including access to social media) and the judiciary, which means he also controls the narrative leaving the country in terms of facts and evidence.

The only things that the coup seems to have accomplished are cementing Erdogen as the center of political dominance for years to come, and causing considerable division between the U.S. and Turkey, threatening the breakup of NATO. Turkey is now moving toward bilateral agreements with Russia, which may have been the plan all along.

As I have noted in my articles on the false East/West paradigm, financial elites are getting ready to initiate what they call the “global economic reset,” and this reset will shift economic power (and thus geopolitical power) away from the U.S. and parts of the West into the hands of Eastern nations as well as institutions like the IMF and BIS. Turkey is a key component of geostrategic dominance for the U.S. and NATO. The nation’s realignment to the East will change the center of power for the globe.

A “failed coup” or what some analysts might call a “self-coup” also took place this year for another key U.S. ally — Saudi Arabia. Rumors of attempts on the life of Saudi Prince Mohammad Bin Salman as well as calls for a coup by exiled crown prince Khaled bin Farhan culminated in the arrest and detainment of numerous Saudi officials by MBS. No evidence of an actual coup against the Prince has been presented so far.

Salman proceeded in the wake of the crisis to consolidate his power as the successor to the king, as well as extorting billions of dollars from his captives in exchange for their freedom. He has retained the most vital positions in the Saudi government for himself, including the positions of Defense Minister, Interior Minister and head of the National Guard.  His only obstacle now is to wait for the king to officially abdicate or die.

MBS is best known in the economic world for his “Vision For 2030,” which is designed to end Saudi reliance on oil revenues, but also appears to seek alternatives to the petrodollar in terms of trade as the nation strengthens ties to China and Russia. If Saudi Arabia breaks from the U.S. dollar as the primary means of oil trade, this will inevitably kill the dollar’s world reserve currency status.  The Vision For 2030 also appears to align exactly with the “sustainable development goals” of the IMF’s 2030 Agenda.

Salman is supported in his 2030 endeavor through his Public Investment Fund (which in ironic globalist style is not actually a public fund).  The fund is heavily financed by major globalist donors including The Carlyle Group, Goldman Sachs, as well as Blackstone and Blackrock. This support for a decoupled Saudi Arabia by international corporations suggests yet again that the globalist goal is to kill the dollar’s world reserve status, rather than protect it.

As the “failed coup” narrative continues to escalate, I have noticed a disturbing trend in America which matches certain elements of the coups in Turkey and Saudi Arabia. That is to say, it is possible that another “failed coup” is pending for the U.S, opening the path for Donald Trump to initiate martial law-like measures.

I warned of this possibility months before the election in my article ‘Clinton Versus Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement‘, which partially explains the reasons why I predicted that Trump would win and ascend to the Oval Office.

At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency, more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering.  Now it appears that he is both.

Trump’s history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross, which saved him from embarrassment and possibly saved his entire fortune. This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the benefit of the doubt in my view.

Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.

Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of Trump’s associations. “What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn’t this indicate he’s not controlled?” they say. I say, not really.

If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets.  This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche.

This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as “Left vs. Right.” Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become.

Meaning the globalists are hoping that through the exploitation of useful idiots on the left they can infuriate conservatives to the point of abandoning their constitutional principles. For example, the use of social media censorship of conservative views is clearly designed to lure conservatives into turning to big government to force companies like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube into the role of “public utilities.” In other words, conservatives would be abandoning their principles on private property by nationalizing social media much like communists would do.

Of course, a simpler solution would be for conservatives to launch their OWN social media platforms and offer a better alternative. We should be reducing government influence in these sectors and ending protections for corporations, not increasing the influence of government even further. But this solution is never offered within the narrative, thus, the public discourse is completely controlled.

As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent ideas of “Russian collusion.”

To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law. They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn’t suit them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a “coup,” but it would inevitably be a failed coup.

Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional “safeguards.” And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.

I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the globalists are well aware of this strategy.

Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is quoted in his address ‘Dissent: Do We Need It‘:

“They say, “The Congress is corrupt.” I ask them, “What do you know about the Congress? Do you know your own Congressman’s name?” Usually they don’t. It’s almost a reflex with them, like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions, and then work within the system. But most of them just won’t buy that. They insist the system is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.

For example, I’ve talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are pretty generally in this group.”

Is a “failed coup” being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very “fascists” the left accuses us of being?  The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this is the game plan.

Russian Flag

Hyping the anti-Russia hysteria: ‘Vital’ US moles in the Kremlin go missing!


© Ria Novosti
The Kremlin

According to New York Times, intel leakers, “informants close to” Putin have “gone silent.” What can it all mean?

For nearly two years, mostly vacuous (though malignant) Russiagate allegations have drowned out truly significant news directly affecting America’s place in the world. In recent days, for example. French President Emmanuel Macron declared “Europe can no longer rely on the United States to provide its security,” calling for instead a broader kind of security “and particularly doing it in cooperation with Russia.”About the same time, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin met to expand and solidify an essential energy partnership by agreeing to complete the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia, despite US attempts to abort it. Earlier, on August 22, the Afghan Taliban announced it would attend its first ever major peace conference – in Moscow, without US participation.

Thus does the world turn, and not to the wishes of Washington. Such news would, one might think, elicit extensive reporting and analysis in the American mainstream media. But amid all this, on August 25, the ever-eager New York Times published yet another front-page Russiagate story – one that if true would be sensational, though hardly anyone seemed to notice. According to the Times‘ regular Intel leakers, US intelligence agencies, presumably the CIA, has had multiple “informants close to… Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial details” about Russiagate for two yearsNow, however, “the vital Kremlin informants have largely gone silent.” The Times laces the story with misdeeds questionably attributed to Putin and equally untrustworthy commentators, as well as a mistranslated Putin statement that incorrectly has him saying all “traitors” should be killed. Standard US media fare these days when fact-checkers seem not to be required for Russia coverage. But the sensation of the article is that the US had moles in Putin’s office.

Skeptical or credulous readers will react to the Times story as they might. Actually, an initial, lesser version of it first appeared in The Washington Post, an equally hospitable Intel platform, on December 15, 2017. I found it implausible for much the same reasons I had previously found Christopher Steele’s “dossier,” also purportedly based on “Kremlin sources,” implausible. But the Times‘ new, expanded version of the mole story raises more and larger questions.

If US intelligence really had such a priceless asset in Putin’s office – the Post report implied only one, the Times writes of more than one – imagine what they could reveal about Enemy No. 1 Putin’s intentions abroad and at home, perhaps daily – why would any American Intel official disclose this information to any media at the risk of being charged with a treasonous capital offense? And now more than once? Or, since “the Kremlin” closely monitors US media, at the risk of having the no less treasonous Russian informants identified and severely punished? Presumably this why the Times‘ leakers insist that the “silent” moles are still alive, though how they know we are not told. All of this is even more implausible. Certainly, the Times article asks no critical questions.

But why leak the mole story again, and now? Stripped of extraneous financial improprieties, failures to register as foreign lobbyists, tacky lifestyles, and sex having nothing to do with Russia, the gravamen of the Russiagate narrative remains what it has always been: Putin ordered Russian operatives to “meddle” in the US 2016 presidential election in order to put Donald Trump in the White House, and Putin is now plotting to “attack” the November congressional elections in order to get a Congress he wants. The more Robert Mueller and his supporting media investigates, the less evidence actually turns up, and when it seemingly does, it has to be considerably massaged or misrepresented.

Nor are “meddling” and “interfering” in the other’s domestic policy new in Russian-American relations. Tsar Aleksandr II intervened militarily on the side of the Union in the American Civil War.

President Woodrow Wilson sent troops to fight the Reds in the Russian Civil War. The Communist International, founded in Moscow in 1919, and its successor organizations financed American activists, electoral candidates, ideological schools, and pro-Soviet bookstores for decades in the United States. With the support of the Clinton administration, American electoral advisers encamped in Moscow to help rig Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s reelection in 1996. And that’s the bigger “meddling” apart from the decades-long “propaganda and disinformation” churned out by both sides, often via forbidden short-wave radio. Unless some conclusive evidence appears, Russian social media and other meddling in the 2016 presidential election was little more than old habits in modern-day forms. (Not incidentally, the Times story suggests that US Intel had been hacking the Kremlin, or trying to, for many years. This too should not shock us.)

Comment: US hacking of Russian systems is commonplace: Putin: ‘Russia stopped nearly 25 million cyber attacks during World Cup’

The real novelty of Russiagate is the allegation that a Kremlin leader, Putin, personally gave orders to affect the outcome of an American presidential election. In this regard, Russiagaters have produced even less evidence, only suppositions without facts or much logic. With the Russiagate narrative being frayed by time and fruitless investigations, the “mole in the Kremlin” may have seemed a ploy needed to keep the conspiracy theory moving forward, presumably toward Trump’s removal from office by whatever means. And hence the temptation to play the mole card again, now, as yet more investigations generate smoke but no smoking gun.

The pretext of the Times story is that Putin is preparing an attack on the upcoming November elections, but the once-“vital,” now-silent moles are not providing the “crucial details.” Even if the story is entirely bogus, consider the damage it is doing. Russiagate allegations have already delegitimized a presidential election, and a presidency, in the minds of many Americans. The Times‘ updated, expanded version may do the same to congressional elections and the next Congress. If so, there is an “attack on American democracy” – not by Putin or Trump but by whoever godfathered and repeatedly inflated Russiagate.

As I have argued previouslysuch evidence that exists points to John Brennan and James Clapper, President Obama’s head of the CIA and director of national intelligence respectively, even though attention has been focused on the FBI. Indeed, the Times story reminds us of how central “intelligence” actors have been in this saga. Arguably, Russiagate has brought us to the worst American political crisis since the Civil War and the most dangerous relations with Russia in history. Until Brennan, Clapper, and their closest collaborators are required to testify under oath about the real origins of Russiagate, these crises will grow.

About the author

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation.



Professor Roman Yushkov is the First Russian On Trial for ‘Holocaust® Denial’

In May 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a draconian law that makes any “denial” of the official story of “Nazi crimes” a criminal offense. The law also includes “wittingly spreading false information about the activity of the USSR during the years of World War Two” or portraying the Third Reich in a positive light.

While many people within the alternative media worship Putin as a great White savior, some of us having been paying close attention to many indicators that the former Soviet Union has become increasingly repressive and totalitarian.

Putin has an army of jewish billionaires at his side, was voted Israel’s Man of the Year in 2015, married his daughter off to Kirill Shamalov (a jewish tycoon, like Jared Kushner), passed anti-gentile laws (like outlawing ‘anti-semitic’ Biblical criticism), is intimately tied to the Chabad mafia (along with Trump), and much more. Yet we are told by Putin apologists that these moves were symbolic and that we should not worry since Vladimir is a master 4D chess player and he is on our side. Some have put forth the theory that Putin only needed laws such as the one that forbids “Holocaust denial” in order to deal with fake “neo-Nazis” in Russia who are being funded by the evil Western powers. 

Now Roman Yushkov, a Perm University Professor, has been fired from his position and his social media and videos of his presentations thrown into Russia’s giant memory hole.

In “Trump and Corbyn And the Russian Warning Over Syria” by Israel Shamir, the news is reported:

The first ever trial of a Holocaust Denier in Russia is taking place now in Perm, the Doctor Zhivago city. Roman Yushkov, a Perm University Professor, had been sacked; his social accounts erased, his YouTube presentations removed; there is practically no publicity at all. He reposted an article expressing doubt of the amount of Jewish dead, and a local resident of Habad Chassid House reported him to authorities. There is no law forbidding H denial in Russia, but there is a law forbidding to cause interethnic wrangle. The verdict is expected on September 4.

From a Russian source (translated):

Note also that there was a case commenced in August against Perm journalist and activist Roman Yushkov according to part 1 article 282 of Criminal Code and part 1 article 354.1 of Criminal Code. The case was commenced for re-publication of a link to an article in Facebook of nationalist Anton Blagin «Jews! Return the Germans money for fraud with Holocaust six millions jews!». This case has become the third case against Yushkov during the year, and in October the fourth case according to article 282 was commenced against him, and all four cases were united into one. The reason for commencing each of these cases was publication of xenophobic materials, but only in the above-mentioned case there was an anti-Semitism motive.

We are able to hear from Professor Yushkov himself in a translation of his blog post “What I would say to a jury in my case, if I had not been shut up“:

To Englishmen and Americans, to be exact, influential Jews over them, it was extremely important to shove the basis of mythology and the Holocaust industry into the Nuremberg verdict. That then, in subsequent decades, deploy them on an industrial scale in the form of payments to Israel reparations from Germany and receive other and other financial and political benefits. Therefore, the German officers summoned to the court as witnesses ruthlessly tortured and broke, providing the necessary testimony. This is convincingly shown by the studies of many scientists, in particular, Professor Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyons.

It is well known that they tortured the defendants Julius Streicher and Hans Fritsche and witnesses Oswald Paul, Franz Qirais and Joseph Kramer. And especially cruelly – the commandant of the labor camp Auschwitz (Auschwitz) Rudolf Höß. As a result, he confessed to those wild phantasmagoric horror stories that the prosecutor frightened you by reading out excerpts from the Nuremberg verdict: gas chambers, fat burning from dead Jews, mattresses from women’s hair … Most of this Nuremberg mythology has been abandoned even today by the most furious Zionist propagandists Israel. Nobody prefers not to remember about the resulting fat and collected by the Germans fat from the bodies piled in a heap and set on fire (!), Because the absurdity and technical impossibility of this is too obvious. But for the gas chambers uncovered by scientists in Auschwitz with gas from insects cyclone-B, the merchants from the Holocaust are still holding on, because something quite fantastic, the uniquely awful thing in this mythology must certainly be.

And, of course, incredible figures … Tortured to death and psychologically crushed RudolphHöß said to the man who was transported with him in one car to the Nuremberg trial Moritz von Schirmaister that “there are methods by which any confession can be achieved” and that he would sign any figures. But they demanded from him 6 million, mystically significant for the Jews from biblical times. [read the whole translation here]

The man speaks the truth, but truth is the new hate speech. As we learned from the Zundel trials, “truth is no defense.” This is the Orwellian world in which we live, and yet people really seem to think the grass is greener in Eurasia just because Oceania’s Big Brother is so noxious.

At least here in America I cannot be sent to the gulag just for calling the 6 million number a lie… at least not yet.

US, Israel form new joint task force to take on Iran

Wed Aug 29, 2018 08:10PM
Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (File photo)
Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (File photo)

The United States is teaming up with the Israeli regime to enforce economic sanctions against Iran in the wake of Washington’s withdrawal from the internationally backed nuclear deal with Tehran.

Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin agreed to set up a joint team for that purpose after meeting in Washington Tuesday.

This was the fourth time Mnuchin, also a Jew, was meeting with Kahlon in the past 12 months.

“The meeting with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is intended to deepen our strategic-economic ties with the US. The joint task force which we established will be crucial in tightening sanctions on Iran,” said the Israeli minister, further claiming that “The economic sanctions that the US imposed on Iran are proving themselves.”

‘Israel thankful to US’

The administration of US President Donald Trump illegally re-imposed sanctions on Iran earlier this month after pulling the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May despite Tehran’s compliance with the agreement, which is still supported by the UK, Russia, Germany, China and France.

Kahlon cited “Israel’s security,” asserting that “we should be thankful to the US” for reintroduction of the illegal sanctions.

With an estimated 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, the TEl Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections of its military nuclear facilities or sign the international nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

On February 22, 2012, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said that Iran considers the pursuit and possession of nuclear weapons “a grave sin” from every logical, religious and theoretical standpoint.

Washington’s recent attempts to pile up economic pressure will face defeat, according to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

“We need to tell the Iranian nation that we will not allow the United States’ plots to succeed. The nation should be sure that we will not allow a bunch of anti-Iranians, who have gathered at the White House today, to plot against us,” Rouhani said during his comments to Iranian lawmakers on Tuesday.


Sam Samvor 22 Stunden
Two Zio Jews…One rulling US and the other working for the Zio/Nazi Isreli regime…
US, Israel form new joint task force to take on Iran.
take on Iran???????????????????WOW.
USA is FUNDING ISIS and ISRAELI TERRORISTS also supplying Arms and Ammunition to ISIS and ISRAELI TERRORISTS.
Trump and Iran MUST BE FRIENDS.
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.”
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”
JEW Netanyahu Lies, Lies, Lies and more LIES.
hbgestern um 14:54
It is very strange to see a group of harmful Zionist to have so much influence on some countries, in US they seem controlling every thing even though some might disagree.
Iranians with all obstacles of their own seem like chosen the right path for the good of humanity to confront them! Enemy is hurting, it will do anything to hurt Iran. Iran is in good hand, the leadership proved to be capable to lead the nation victoriously through much stronger storm, Yes Iran is in a very good hand.
iranigestern um 12:41
they are really running out of ideas…
sosgestern um 12:03

PARASITE OCCUPATION ENTITY Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon (L) and United States Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin OF THE PRIVATELY ZIONIST ROTHSCHILD-OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE

“The meeting with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is intended to deepen our strategic-economic ties with the US.

‘Israel thankful to US’

thank you us people for helping us in our PALESTINE occupation and genociding PALESTINIAN PEOPLE

our zionist khazarian settlers greatly appreciate it.

What is awaiting Israel in the next war?

The video explains the history of Israel’s wars and their outcomes, But what really will happen to Israel in case of any new war?


Iran vs Israel: Who should India ally with?

Neti, King Salman, nukeface

MINT PRESS: Brothers in Nukes


Suppressed: David Irving and the Manipulation of History (Videos)


By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

Irving as a person can be both irritating and exasperating but as a historian, he is the foremost authority on World War II.  He exposed the Dresden bombing of 1945 as a part of a very real holocaust against the Germans and was persecuted for it.  This is now “mainstream” history only because he wrote of it when it had been censored.

Then he explored the other holocaust involving Hitler and the Jews and published on that.

They sent him to jail.  Read his Wikipedia if you want to know how dangerous he is.

For those of you who are still Trump supporters, David Irving is Trump’s “go to” guy for debunking fake history.


History Never Happened, Who is David Irving?

Who put the hit on Julius Caesar?

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

November 2, 2010

Editor’s note:  Yes, the date is right, this article is 7 years old.  Why then has it upset people today, and it has?  Over the past few years, author and historian David Irving has slowed down a bit and moved into the shadows.

At one time, the greatest WW2 researcher of all time, Irving was a pop star type celeb, first historian to ever get that far.  Then he began destroying the fictional historical narratives that our dark overlords depend on so much.  Watch the videos, and read my tired, nearly decade old prose. .. Gordon Duff

Editor’s Note Two: I had the pleasure of video taping four of Irving’s visits to Atlanta, one of them where C-Span was taping, which the AIPAC Lobby nixed the show by backing out, giving C-Span a way out of being tagged for censoring because they claime could not show just Irving’s part of the story without  AIPAC’s.

Of course they could have had a number of stand ins play the Israeli position role, but the goal was to not let Americans see what a solid lecturer that Irving was at the time. This is the same reason why VT has a corporate media blackout in the US, and is rarely publicly attacked. They do not want us to be able to respond and be heard.

My footage is still sitting on the archive shelves waiting to be edited someday, while the David Irving story continues to be a moving one. What he has accomplished through his writing was a gift to us all, and any who have seen him lecture in person will never forget it. He is a walking billboard as to why historical truth is hated so much… Jim W. Dean ]

Was it Osama bin Laden or the Mossad?  Was it the Illuminati or the Council on Foreign Relations?  Did they do it together?  Where was Marc Anthony after 9/11 when we really needed him? 

A sad thing, perhaps beyond comprehension, is that we know more about Julius Caesar than we know about or own recent history.  A few days ago someone sent me a link to a video by David Irving, the British author who professionally debunks everything.

Irving, famous of late for taking on the holocaust, is the “go to guy” on World War II and Germany in particular.  His research is, hands down, the best out there and he loves humiliating others for being duped by writing academic garbage based on secondary sources, too often proven, not just unreliable, but utter fiction.

Irving takes on a lot of targets but his best debunking is Winston Churchill.  Sitting through his book tour lecture from the 1980s, a grainy video, was surprisingly painless.  With the rise of cable television, the new networks have made a cottage industry out of debunking our phony history, shows on military secrets, scandals and cover-ups run for hours each day.  These are humiliating for historians who made their reputations writing “definitive” works based on what we now know to be forgeries, propaganda and disinformation. (optional full length Google Video below)

Irving’s case against Churchill is shocking and, worst of all, nobody has been able to debate him face to face.  His sources are impeccable and his research beyond anything yet seen.  This is a guy who will spend years reading letters, bank statements or travel around the world to get primary documents.  Irving paints Churchill as a villain as great as Hitler, nearly as great as Stalin.

Was World War II started by Churchill, a brilliant but immoral drunk, art forger and scoundrel who took payoffs from foreign intelligence services, banking cabals and anyone else willing to shove an envelope in his pocket?

If so, then everything we know of World War II, of Hitler, of events of the 20th century is, not just a little bit wrong, but outrageously false.

Most damning, to me at least, is learning that Churchill’s History of the Second World Warwas largely fabricated, ghost written by his American editors who made sure the truth never got out.  Though Irving finds Churchill an easy target, it goes much further.  Embarrassingly, the Goebbel’s wartime attacks on Churchill were far more fact and far less propaganda than our “history” teaches.  A nasty thought, “What if Goebbels” was simply telling the truth?”

If the truth seems like outrageous propaganda, what have we allowed to happen to us?  How can there be honest discussion on any subject, politics, religion or where to get decent Chinese food if all research is either “secondary source recycling” or, even worse, simply invented as we are now beginning to learn.

Irving questions the nature of the holocaust, the gas chambers, the “soap and lampshade” stories  and has made some major enemies in the process.  What is particularly dangerous is his detailed analysis of Adolf Hitler as a masterful military strategist and pragmatic political leader.  The immediate response is to stand up screaming, “What the hell is he talking about?”

I can think of dozens of instances that absolutely prove Hitler was an incompetent, insane, brutal and…

Come to think of it, if I go on the internet, I can prove anything.  I can even prove Hitler was Jewish.  The accepted realities, our history as written in books, the history that defined Hitler, Irving implies, was as much history as today’s network news is, well, “fair and balanced.”  What if every “fact” we use to refute Irving’s ideas came from Stalin?

We know so much of what happened.  I am reading the battle diaries from D-Day.  I know there were landings, I know men died, but we don’t know why, only what we were told.

Everything we believe is based on one known fact, that Germans are brutal and insane, a race of criminals, vicious monsters with an inbred need to destroy.  40% of Americans are of German ancestry, of course.

It doesn’t take much research to learn that, in the 19th century, Germany became, not only powerful but the most advanced society on earth, science, philosophy, the arts, public welfare and education, Germany entered the 20th century as the leader of the world.  German colonial policies, when compared to Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal, were typified by decency and humanitarian values.  German citizens had more human rights, by a mile, than their British counterparts.

A century later, Germany is a virtual mirror of mainstream “Midwest” America.  Though politically castrated, Germany is what Americans wish their country was, in many ways at least.  Germany has almost no military, almost no debt and relative freedom with one glaring exception.  German’s have taken “political correctness” to a point that no American could imagine.  Things heard on American television daily are crimes in Germany.

If we aren’t willing to take the leap of faith that history demands, that Germans are monsters, then we are faced with something else.  If Germans are who we know them to be, then we are a nation of liars and cowards, fools willing to follow any road, eat anything put on a plate in front of us.  America could, very possibly, be a country scammed into war in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan or, just maybe, into two wars with Germany.

But again we leap to our feet, and scream.  Many Americans are willing to consider that World War I was a “Vietnam” experience, phony atrocities and manipulation by a vast international conspiracy.  That information has been “out there” for awhile and more and more are willing to consider it.

However, the “sacred cow” of all time has been World War II.  We aren’t talking Japan.  No question, they attacked the United States.  Germany, on the other hand, was that something else?  We got used to lying to ourselves about the Civil War.  Ask any American, we went to war to free the slaves.  Problem is, the North only freed the slaves years later, when they were losing the war and only slaves in the South.  The Civil War was over economics and bad government, “States Rights,” not slavery.

How different is the truth about World War II?  Should we have never gone to war with Germany and let them destroy Russia?  How many Americans know that Hitler was willing to end the war in 1940 and withdraw his troops?  How many Americans know that World War I could have ended in 1916 with an honorable peace but was pushed on by Balfour and Rothschild?  Oh, you never heard that?

World War II would never have happened, there would have never been communism, no Korea, no Vietnam, no Cold War, no potential for nuclear holocaust.  Whose game are we playing then?

Books By David Irving

Ms. Lipstadt Given Million$ & a Legal Army to put History via David Irving on Trial

By John Wear

Lipstadt wrote: Virtually all the claims by Holocaust deniers prior to the spring of 2000 had been demolished.”[26] Lipstadt failed to explain how a decision by a British judge in a case not involving a Holocaust revisionist historian demolished Holocaust revisionist claims.

History on Trial

Background to David Irving’s Lawsuit

David Irving was viciously smeared by the media after his testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial. Irving’s books disappeared from many bookshops, he sustained huge financial losses, and he was ultimately labeled as a “Holocaust denier”.[1]

The harassment campaign against David Irving included numerous arrests in various countries. These arrests do not seem to bother British historian Sir Richard J. Evans. Evans writes:

One would not have expected a reputable historian to have run into such trouble, and indeed it was impossible to think of any historian of any standing at all who had been subjected to so many adverse legal judgments…”[2]

Richard Evans does not seem to be concerned that David Irving’s arrests were attributable to the fact that numerous countries make it a felony to dispute the so-called Holocaust. This reflects poorly on the countries Irving was arrested in rather than on Irving’s abilities as a historian. The question is:

What kind of historical truth needs criminal sanctions to protect it?”

The Holocaust story would not need criminal sanctions to protect it if it was historically accurate.

Deborah Lipstadt wrote in her book Denying the Holocaust that “on some level Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.” Lipstadt described Irving as a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers” who “distort[ed] evidence…manipulate[ed] documents, [and] skew[ed]…and misrepresent[ed] data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.”[3] David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd. in British courts to attempt to end these and other similar statements.

Financing Deborah Lipstadt’s Defense

Critics of David Irving emphasize that Irving’s libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt put Lipstadt in great financial peril. However, Deborah Lipstadt’s book History on Trial reveals how easy it was for her to raise money for her defense. The President of Emory University and the Board of Trustees allocated $25,000 for Deborah Lipstadt’s defense.[4] Leslie Wexner, a wealthy Jewish retailer, told Deborah Lipstadt that he would give whatever it takes for her defense. Wexner’s only prerequisite was that Lipstadt must hire the best defense counsel possible. Wexner committed $200,000 to Lipstadt’s defense after determining she was hiring top-notch attorneys who would mount an aggressive defense.[5]

Deborah Lipstadt writes that a massive outpouring of funds were contributed by wealthy Jewish donors:

Soon a collaboration developed between Wexner and Steven Spielberg, whose own Shoah Foundation was deeply engaged in taking survivors’ testimonies. This collaboration resulted in the effective solicitation of a number of $100,000 dollar contributors. Bill Lowenberg, a survivor who lived in San Francisco, whose daughter—a participant in the Wexner programs—had briefed him on the case, called [Rabbi Herbert] Friedman. He said he would raise 20% of the costs and began to contact members of the Bay Area Jewish community. Ernie Michel, a survivor who lived in New York, took out his Rolodex and began to call other survivors. Other people pitched in to help. All of this was done quietly and without any publicity or fanfare…[6]

Friedman asked David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), to house a defense fund. The committee’s board agreed and then voted to make a major contribution to the fund. The Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center stepped forward to contribute. The AJC’s Harris assigned Ken Stern—the organization’s specialist on antisemitism and extremism—to assist me in any way he could. Ken, a lawyer, immediately established contact with Anthony and James. In an unprecedented display of organizational restraint, none of these organizations publicized what they were doing. Within weeks other contributions began to arrive. One person quietly called another. Some of the donations were substantial; many were quite small. Most came from Jews. Some came from non-Jews. I did not solicit funds. Wexner had stressed in no uncertain terms, “Our job is to ensure that you have the means to fight. Your job is to fight.” When someone called the Wexners to suggest that I follow a particular strategy, they were told in no uncertain terms, “It’s between Deborah and her lawyers. She has the best. Let them do their job.”[7]

So within a few weeks, without publicity or any significant work on her part, Deborah Lipstadt had the millions of dollars needed to hire a top-notch defense team. Lipstadt adds the names Michael Berenbaum, Phyllis Cook, Robert Goodkind, Miles Lehrman and Bruce Soll as additional people who helped in the drive to create a fund for her defense.[8]

After pouring millions of dollars into Lipstadt’s defense case, certain Jewish backers had another $10,000,000 avaliable to pour into the movie euphemistically titled  ‘Denial’. It almost grossed $94,000 in its U.S. opening weekend.

Lipstadt seamlessly transitions from legal fiction to Hollywood “Blockbuster” fiction as she promotes the movie with is celebrities. Can you spot the real Deborah?

Deborah Lipstadt writes that her defense team included the following attorneys:

  1. Anthony Julius and James Libson of Mishcon de Reya;
  2. These two attorneys were skillfully assisted by Mishcon’s Juliet Loudon, Laura Tyler, Veronica Byrne, Harriet Benson, Michala Barham, and Pippa Marshall;
  3. Mishcon’s Danny Davis was a source of wise counsel after the trial;
  4. Richard Rampton, who Lipstadt describes as “one of England’s leading barristers in the field of defamation and libel,” was hired to present her case. She also describes him as “not only a uniquely gifted barrister, but the quintessential mench”;
  5. Heather Rogers, Penguin’s junior barrister, showed great legal acumen and an uncanny ability to retrieve a document at precisely the right moment;
  6. Penguin’s legal representatives, Mark Bateman and Kevin Bayes of Davenport Lyons, were important members of Lipstadt’s legal team;
  7. On the American side of the Atlantic, Joe Beck of Kilpatrick Stockton “offered his services with his typical giving spirit”;
  8. Lawyers David Minkin and Steve Sidman of Greenberg Traurig were also zealous in protecting Lipstadt’s interests.[9]

So Deborah Lipstadt acknowledges that she had at least 16 attorneys who worked on her case. All of these attorneys are described by her as some of the best money can buy. Penguin also had a team of in-house lawyers, headed by Cecily Engle, a former libel lawyer, and Helena Peacock, who were at the trial most days.[10]

Lipstadt’s team of paid expert witnesses includes Dr. Richard J. Evans, Dr. Christopher Browning, Dr. Peter Longerich, Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, and Dr. Hajo Funke. Lipstadt writes that these people “constituted the historian’s ultimate dream team.” Nikolaus Wachsmann, Thomas Skelton-Robinson and Tobias Jersak were also “critically important components of our research team.”[11]

Lipstadt also mentions Jamie McCarthy, Harry Mazal, Danny Kerem, Richard Green and the other members of The Holocaust History Project as “exceptionally forthcoming with their time and expertise.” There are also numerous other people Lipstadt mentions in her book as providing assistance.[12]

Richard Evans was apparently not aware of the financial backing Lipstadt received from mostly wealthy Jewish donors when he wrote his book Lying About Hitler. Evans writes:

Throughout the trial and long afterwards, Irving continually claimed on his website that the defense was being bankrolled by Jews, both wealthy individuals and organized groups, across the world. In fact, of course, there was no secret about the fact that the bulk of the funds came from Penguin Books Ltd., and Penguin’s insurers. “Despite Irving’s assertion to the contrary,” noted Mark Bateman, Penguin’s solicitor, “it was Penguin that paid the fees of the experts, leading counsel, junior counsel and my firm.” They had also paid the fees of all the researchers. Mishcon de Reya, Anthony Julius’s firm of solicitors, had indeed worked for the first two years of the case, in 1996 and 1997, pro bono, for no fee at all. They had only started to charge fees when the final preparations for and conduct of the case began to consume major resources within the firm (at one time, nearly 40 people were working on the case, many of them full-time). It was solely for these costs that Deborah Lipstadt was obliged to pay, and for which she received financial backing from supporters such as Steven Spielberg, amounting in total to no more than a fraction of the overall costs.[13]

Neither Deborah Lipstadt nor Richard Evans detail the total costs incurred to defend against David Irving’s libel suit. Lipstadt writes that a large envelope presented to her from Anthony Julius before the trial showed a bill of $1.6 million payable to Anthony Julius’s law firm.[14] This amount is “more than a fraction of the overall costs” of her trial as represented by Richard Evans. David Irving is clearly correct that a substantial portion of Lipstadt’s defense was bankrolled by wealthy Jews across the world.

The Trial 

David Irving in his opening address at the trial claimed that his career had been torpedoed by the defendants. Irving stated:

By virtue of the activities of the Defendants, in particular of the second Defendant, and of those who funded her and guided her hand, I have since 1996 seen one fearful publisher after another falling away from me, declining to reprint my works, refusing to accept new commissions and turning their back on me when I approach.”

Irving claimed this had been done as “part of an organized international endeavor.”[15]

Deborah Lipstadt’s attorney Richard Rampton opened with the defense’s bottom line: “My Lord, Mr. Irving calls himself an historian. The truth is, however, that he is not an historian at all but a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.” Rampton stated that the case was not about competing versions of history, but about truth and lies.[16]

David Irving’s biggest mistake in his case was choosing to be his own lawyer. Germar Rudolf wrote: “Those who choose to be their own lawyer choose a fool.”[17] Irving was at a major disadvantage in his case because he was up against a huge and experienced legal team with only himself as his attorney. Even though Irving testified that he was not a Holocaust historian,[18] much of the testimony in the trial involved the Holocaust story.

Judge Charles Gray’s adverse judgement against Irving in the case was based on ludicrous conclusions. For example, Judge Gray found the Sonderkommando testimony presented in the case to be highly credible. Gray remarked:

The account of, for example, [Sonderkommando Henryk] Tauber, is so clear and detailed that, in my judgment, no objective historian would dismiss it as invention unless there were powerful reasons for doing so. Tauber’s account is corroborated by and corroborative of the accounts given by others such as Jankowski and Dragon.”[19]

However, as I have previously written, there are numerous and powerful reasons for rejecting the Sonderkommando testimony as pure invention.[20]

Judge Gray in his decision concluded that “no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt” the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.[21] However, even with Gray’s dismissal of the Leuchter Report, the reports and testimony of Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz and other scientists were never refutedat the trial. Deborah Lipstadt and her team of experts were also not able to show how a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz actually operated.

Judge Gray also concluded that Irving’s treatment of the historical evidence “fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian” and that his estimate of “100,000 and more deaths [in Dresden]…lacked any evidential basis and were such as no responsible historian would have made.”[22] Gray based his conclusion primarily on the testimony of Richard Evans. However, as I have discussed in a previous article, the death toll at Dresden could have easily been as high as 250,000 people.[23]

Aftermath of Trial

After the trial, in front of numerous cameras and reporters in a hotel ballroom, Lipstadt described Judge Gray’s decision as a victory for all those who fight hatred and prejudice. She paid tribute to Penguin for “doing the right thing” and to her magnificent legal team. Lipstadt said she had no pity for David Irving, as it had been her life and work that had been disrupted by the trial. Lipstadt said that what she would write now would be far harsher than what she originally wrote in her book.[24]

The trial was the lead headline the next day in every single British daily as well as many foreign papers. A sample of these headlines reads:


Irving: Confined to History as a Racist Liar”


Racist. Antisemite. Holocaust Denier. How History Will Judge David Irving”

David Irving lost his case—and we celebrate a victory for free speech”


Racist who twisted the truth”

David Irving’s reputation as an historian is demolished”

Numerous editorials in the papers also hailed the verdict.[25]

Of course, even though David Irving never claimed to be a Holocaust historian, Lipstadt wrote: “Virtually all the claims by Holocaust deniers prior to the spring of 2000 had been demolished.”[26] Lipstadt failed to explain how a decision by a British judge in a case not involving a Holocaust revisionist historian demolished Holocaust revisionist claims.

In regard to David Irving, the harassment campaign against him continued after he lost his libel suit. For example, Irving spent over a year in jail in Austria from 2005-2006 for his views on the so-called Holocaust. Publishers and bookstore owners are still afraid to publish and sell his books for fear of the backlash from Zionist organizations. Of course, some people will still call you an anti-Semite for mentioning these facts; they claim that Zionist groups and organizations could not possibly have such power. Unfortunately, as David Irving made clear in his lawsuit, Zionist groups and organizations do in fact have such power.[27]


Further reading suggestions:

Wear’s War Movie Review: “Mr Death” An Epic Propoganda Stuff Up & The Jewish Panic To Remedy It

Why The Holocaust Story Was Invented

The Greatest Holocaust Trial: Using Adolf Eichmann To Falsify History

Do The Sonderkommandos Prove A Holocaust Or Holohoax?



[2] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 14.

[3] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. xviii; see also Lipstadt, Deborah E., Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, New York: The Free Press, 1993, p. 161.

[4] Ibid., p. 30.

[5] Ibid., p. 38.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., p. 39.

[8] Ibid., p. 308.

[9] Ibid., pp. 51, 307.

[10] Guttenplan, D. D., The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, p. 85.

[11] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 307-308.

[12] Ibid., pp. 309-310.

[13] Evans, Richard J., Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 230.

[14] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. 37.

[15] Ibid., p. 80.

[16] Ibid., p. 82.

[17] Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002, p. 496.

[18] Ibid., p. 137.

[19] Guttenplan, D. D., The Holocaust on Trial, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001, pp. 279-280.

[20] Wear, John, “Sonderkommandos in Auschwitz”, The Barnes Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 1, Jan. /Feb. 2017, pp. 28-32.

[21] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. 274.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Wear, John, “The Dresden Debate”, The Barnes Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1, Jan. /Feb. 2016, pp. 50-56.

[24] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 277-278.

[25] Ibid., p. 283.

[26] Ibid., p. 298.


‘Guardian’ Op-Ed Defends View That Israel Has No Right to Exist

AUGUST 30, 2018 8:33 AM

avatarby Adam Levick

UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn outside his London home. Photo: Reuters/Toby Melville.

The headline of a Guardian op-ed by Ahmad Samih Khalidi (“Siding with the Palestinian struggle is not antisemitic”) is of course a straw man, as nobody claims that merely “siding with the Palestinians” is antisemitic. Khalidi, a former adviser to both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, has a broader goal: to defend those who object to the continued existence of a Jewish state, based on the “profound injustice” at the root of Zionism.

In an effort to legitimize his anti-Zionism, Khalidi grossly misleads readers by claiming that “Jewish opposition to Zionism has a long and distinguished history.” In fact, whilst there was a lively debate before Israel declared independence on the question of Zionism, today, Jewish opposition to the living, breathing state of Israel represents a minuscule, politically irrelevant fringe.

Khalidi further charges that the “insidious goal of the ‘anti-anti-Zionist’ campaign is to silence the Palestinians and their supporters,” which would only hold true if you characterize attempts to delegitimize extremists who wish to wipe the world’s only Jewish state off the map as “silencing.”

AUGUST 30, 2018 10:25 AM

Is a Historic Decision on UNRWA Imminent?

The next few weeks could be remembered in the annals of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as historic. The US administration is…

Following a brief moral throat-clearing on the legitimacy of fighting “real” antisemitism, Khalidi then suggests that Jews are only “pretending to be offended” by expressions of hostility towards Israel’s existence by Jeremy Corbyn and his defenders.

In an attempt to justify his anti-Zionist stance, Khalidi then cites a laundry list of so-called Israeli “massacres” since 1948. This includes an “Israeli massacre” in Lydda in 1948 that never actually occurred, and an equally fictitious “massacre” of Egyptian prisoners during the Six Day War in 1967. Likewise, Khalidi charges Israel with “shooting down a Libyan civilian aircraft in 1973,” without mentioning that the incident was widely understood to have been caused by Libyan pilot error and miscommunication, and that it actually elicited very little international criticism.

However, the broader problem with Khalidi’s allegations — as is the case with so many rhetorical assaults on Israel’s legitimacy in The Guardian — is that, in his condemnation of Israeli violence, he completely erases the context of Arab warfare, terrorism, and rejectionism. In his myopic tale of Israeli villainy, it’s as if Arabs and Palestinians don’t exist at all, at least not in any meaningful sense that would suggest they posses moral agency, or that the decisions they’ve made over the last 70 years have had a profound impact on their current predicament.

Finally, let’s remember what exactly Zionism is, and what anti-Zionism is.

Zionism is the simple recognition that Israel has a right to exist. Anti-Zionism is the belief that Israel doesn’t have a right to exist, and should not exist. Anti-Zionism not a theoretical argument, but a radical campaign that seeks the destruction of an actually existing nation-state. Anti-Zionists such as Khalidi don’t say nation-states shouldn’t exist. They say that only the Jewish state shouldn’t exist.

Anti-Zionism also necessarily disregards, and is hostile to, the values and aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Jews in the UK and around the world.

As Khalidi argues, siding with the Palestinian struggle is not inherently antisemitic, but the struggle against the continued existence of the world’s only Jewish state most certainly is.

Adam Levick covers the British media for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.


Ex-Jew Benjamin H Freedman The Balfour Declaration


Robert David Steele, a former CIA clandestine operations officer, has said that “Zionism is a subversive force that includes global state-sponsored terrorism and global organized crime.”

In an interview with Shia Followers, Steele, who was recommended in 2017 for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: Only in the past year has it become clear to a majority of the U.S. public that Zionism is a subversive movement that has been destroying the U.S. economy, misdirecting the U.S. Government, and undermining U.S. society.

He emphasized that Zionism “cannot and should not be confused with Judaism, the religion. Zionism is dominated by the Chabad Supremacist cult within Judaism, and Orthodox Jews as its useful idiots.”

“Most Jews – and particularly Reform and Progressive Jews, want nothing to do with Zionism and understand that Zionist atrocities within Palestine – and Zionist bribery, blackmail, espionage, and financial crime all over the world but especially in the United States of America and the United Kingdom – are not the same as Judaism the religion. Zionism is bad but Judaism is good.”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, “Israel is an invented state with absolutely no historically valid claim to Palestine. As Gandhi has stated so famously, ‘Palestine is to the Palestinians as France is to the French.’ It has been clearly established that there was no ‘up-rooting’ of the so-called Jewish people. Judaism is not Semitic – this is part of the Zionist myth – but to the extent it can be said to have roots, those roots are in Eastern Europe, among the Khazars.”

He also compared Israel with the Apartheid state of South Africa, saying, “Israel is an apartheid state – by definition – and in this I totally agree with Professor Richard Falk, the most distinguished UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories who equates the insistence on being a ‘Jewish state’ with the apartheid structure used to subjugate and displace the Palestinian people. The persistent definition of Israel as a ‘Jewish state’ is in total contradiction to all authorizing documents and totally delegitimizes that state – it makes Israel an apartheid state meriting an absolute boycott by all citizens of the world who believe in human rights.”

He also said he believes that Zionism is over. “While most do not understand this yet, the Zionists have overplayed their hand and are about to lose their control of the U.S. economy, government, and society.”

“The Zionists cannot be defeated by direct diplomatic, financial, or militarily means. They can only be defeated by cutting them off from their sole major enabler, the U.S. treasury and this will only happen if the U.S. public is deeply educated with the truth about Zionism,” he stressed.

“Hence the only way to shut down the Zionists is to communicate Zionist atrocities and subversion to the U.S. public in such compelling terms that the U.S. ends all funding for Zionist Israel and Saudi Arabia, closes all its military bases around the world including the forty four around Iran, and begins demanding a two state solution that reduces the Zionist state of Israel to a small demilitarized enclave stretching from Tel Aviv to the sea, while restoring full Palestinian sovereignty over the rest of Palestine, and particularly from Gaza to Jericho.”

The Zionists must be removed from the Negev and Galilee, and the Golan Heights returned to Syria, Steele said, adding that Zionist theft of water from the Jordanian aquifers “must stop at the same time that a regional energy and water authority creates hundreds of water desalination plants along the coast.”

He also said Jerusalem must be an international city with no Zionist official presence, and a massive Palestinian repatriation movement must be funded, fully equal to the mass migration of Jews that the Zionists organized on the basis of lies in the past seventy-five years.

To achieve these righteous ends, he added, it will be necessary to confront both past Zionist lies – particularly their lies about their rights to all of Palestine and their lies about the holocaust – and present Zionist lies – particularly their lies about Iran and their lies about Syria.

“There are three elements that must be integrated if one is to create truth in depth and breadth sufficient to defeat the Zionists where it really matters: in the hearts and minds of Americans particularly and Europeans generally,” he stressed.

Read more at:


Robert David Steele is the Chief Enabling Officer (CeO) of Earth Intelligence Network. A former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer as well as Adjutant, and a clandestine operations officer (spy) for the Central Intelligence Agency, he was recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize in January 2017. He is the top Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, reading in 98 categories, and a prolific author on citizen-centered intelligence (decision-support) and evidence-based governance. In 2017 he founded the project #UNRIG with the intent of enabling an ethical non-violent revolution by the 99% against the 1%, first in the USA, then anywhere else that individuals desire to take back the power and end the looting of the Earth by the 1%.

“Britain to blame for Israeli-Palestinian conflict” – George Galloway