John Thames may well be a pseudonym. He seems to be an American academic who is very knowledgeable about the history of Jews circa 1880 to 1950. This makes him unpopular with aforesaid Jews, especially Zionist ditto.
The Formative Years Of The Israeli Labour Party The Organization Of Power 1919 - 1930
The story of Ahdut Ha'avodah-its origins in Russian political culture, its ideology, leadership, and factional struggles-up to the formation of Mapai in 1930. Essential background to the politics of independent Israel.
Sergio Minerbi’s excellent study, “Zionism and the Vatican” was not found. Minerbi is a Jew and a propagandist - see Pope John Paul II and the Jews: An Evaluation - Sergio I. Minerbi or the next one.
Sacrificing the Jews for Christianity
Sacrificing the Jews for Christianity
The Catholic Church's decisions regarding the beatification of its saints should not concern the Jews. One exception to this rule is the case of Pope Pius XII, who headed the Church while the Holocaust was ravaging World War II Europe.
What is at stake here is the Catholic perception of the Shoah - the worst nightmare in Jewish history, during which six million of our people were murdered. For Catholics, according to Pius XII (who reigned 1939-1958), it was a period during which the Church was a victim of Nazism. In a blatant effort to Christianize the Holocaust, Pope John Paul II used the symbol of the "six million" to represent the number of Polish people allegedly killed during the war. Edith Stein, although killed in Auschwitz as a Jew, was canonized by the Church as one of its martyrs. Auschwitz was defined by the same pope as "the Golgotha of the modern world," yet another expression of the Church's appropriation of the Shoah.
Sergio I. Minerbi, a former Israeli ambassador, has been a visiting professor of political sciences at the University of Haifa.
This is propaganda from a Jew.
5. Sergio Minerbi - The Vatican and the basilica of nativity
Minerbi, “The Treaty
with the Vatican; achieved objectives and problems still open”, Gesher, N.
130, Winter 5755, pp. 42-52, (in Hebrew). ..."
Churchill and the Jews, 1900-1948 by Michael Cohen
Churchill's exalted position in the pantheon of Jewish and Zionist heroes has been almost taken for granted. This book looks beyond the myth and makes a sober reappraisal of the British statesman's attitudes and policies towards the Jews and to Zionism. Professor Cohen answers some challenging questions: Was Churchill ever really committed to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, and why did the notorious White Paper of 1939 remain the law of the land throughout the entire term of Churchill's historic war ministry? And above all, could Prime Minister Churchill have done more to save the Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust? Using primarily public archives, and Churchill's own published speeches and writings, Cohen concludes that Churchill never subscribed to the Zionists' ideology, but supported their cause, sporadically, for so long as he judged it to serve British interest.
When Churchill's affairs turned sour in 1929(?) a Jew dug him out. Support was intended as a bribe or not as the case may be. It worked presumably.
Sir Winston write that infamous newspaper
article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald for February 8, 1920, entitled
“Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For The Soul Of The Jewish People”?
Yes. It is in the newspaper library at Colindale.
The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur Butz
This book is a must read for anyone wanting to know 'the other side' of the story. Keeping clear of racial polemics, this book is written in a calm and most factual manner and presents clear and objective evidence that at least forces one to reconsider the classic historical arguments about a policy of deliberate extermination on the part of the Third Reich. There is no hate here. No so-called anti-Semitism. No pro-Nazi rhetoric. Anyone claiming so is either lying blatantly or simply hasn't read the book.
Some holocaust authors claim they will not argue with revisionists like Butz! Of course! Because they simply cannot explain away or refute many of the arguments presented by the so-called 'other side'. Raul Hilberg is a classic example of a holocaust 'scholar' unable to successfully defend his case when skillfully probed by revisionists. His cross-examination at the Toronto trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was, in fact, a complete farce. He could not explain away many of the ambiguities in his book 'Destruction of the European Jews' and ended up making a very sorry spectacle of himself. Rudolf Vrba (I Cannot Forgive) was another who, when confronted on the witness stand, hemmed and hawed and finally cited, incredibly enough, 'poetic license' as the reason for many of the questionable claims recorded in his book.
To the average person, I say, do your own research. Don't be afraid to consider other facts and points of view especially when they can be substantiated enough to claim some degree of credibility. This book by Arthur Butz is a big and important step in that direction. There are many footnotes and sources cited and the work is written in a very scholarly manner.
One word of caution.
Possession of works like this in some countries is considered a crime. For this reason alone, this book is a must read!!
Sounds pretty good to me.
Doenitz at Nuremberg: A Reappraisal
I believe many people heard of the Nuremberg Trial, but I doubt many people know much of the details of the Trial. Nor the debate about the Trial ensued for decades after the Trial. Frankly I have to admit that I myself did not have any idea of it until recently when this book happened to cross me. I wish people read this book with an open-mind. And I wish this still be a country where Free Speech still prevails. I highly recommend this important book which should not escape the sight of any history-lover and professional historians. The power and merit of this book rest on the brave challenge, the sharp criticism on the sensitive subject--the Nuremberg Trial--that have made by those four hundred leading personalities in the military, law, arts, diplomacy, philosophy, history and religion all around the world (on Allied side) who were armed with richly embroidered knowledge of international law and equipped with the historical truth according to their own experience in the Second World War.
The main points of their challenge and criticism lay in the followings:
First, the Trial was a gross travesty on
justice and illegal as far as international law concerned, because, in the
first place, `according to the principles of international law universally
recognized up to 1945 and explicitly admitted by the Allied and Associated
Powers after the First World War, the Allies had no jurisdiction over the
citizens of anther sovereign state for acts done in the service of that
state'. In the second place, the law on the Trial was based on ex post facto
law. They argued that that the definition of the crime and its punishment
were fixed only after commission of the acts imputed alone radically has
contravened the ancient principle of jurisprudence: `Nulla poena sine lege,
nullum crimen sine lege.'(`No punishment without a law, no crime without a
law.'); that the Resolution On Human Rights of the League of Nations was
founded on this basic principle, which Article 11 of this resolution states:
`No one may be punished for an act if at the time of this act a punishment
for it was not pre-established in international law or in the laws of the
county concerned.' In the third place, the trial violated one of the basic
principles of law that `he who judges in his own case is not only a suspect
and therefore a challengeable judge; he is simply not a judge. If he sits as
judge, the illegality of the process and the nullity of the sentence are
absolute and incurable'. In the forth place, the Charter of the Tribunal
abolished the rules of evidence which in every civilized country have been
introduced for the protection of accused persons against prejudiced and
A Customer reads as an honest man. The Chief Justice of America referred to it as a high class lynching party.
Justice Radhabinod Pal (27 January 1886 – 10 January 1967) was an Indian jurist. He was the Indian member appointed to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East's trials of Japanese war crimes committed during the second World War.
JT quotes him thus:-
Justice Rahobinade Pal’s classic definition of a war crime as “an act perpetrated by both sides in a war, which can safely be blamed on the losing side without undue embarrassment to the winning side”?
As to the charge that anti-Semites “hate” Jews for no reason, Ron might try reading the works of professor Kevin MacDonald. Jews have done a lot of “hating” of the non-Jewish world. Anyone who reads the Talmudic scriptures quickly realizes this. The treatment of the Palestinians might qualify as “hate”. Ditto with the behaviour of the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia. And, of course, there may be a great deal of very justifiable “hatred” when this hoax of “six million” is finally exposed.
Made in Russia: The Holocaust (9780939484300): Carlos
Western Civilization should be indebted to Mr. Porter for his very correct study of the Soviets phony 'war crimes' "evidence" that got many innocent people hung at the UN's Nuremberg 'hang-fest' following the secession of hostilities in ETO following WWII! The Soviets, as young Jewish Revisionist Dave Cole in his Auschwitz video, didn't even teach that the fabled 'six million' dead Khazars, in 'the holacau$t', happened. The Commies taught that the Slavs [the original slaves!] were the ones that the Nutzis were 'exterminating'. "The 'holacau$t' was indeed manufactured in the Soviet Union, which was created by Rockefeller and the Wall Street boys back in Oct. 1917, by V.I. Lenin, based also on the money he made from the 'Protocols of Zion that he penned in 1904-05, at the be-hest of Rocky and his agent, Jacob Schiff!
Mr. Porter's book should be on the same shelf in all Patriotic Amer-I-cans home libraries as David Irving's Nuremberg, the Final Battle book!
Bravo, Carlos Whitlock Porter!
Another sound source.