-Caveat Lector-
Howard Davis wrote:
>
> So now I do not have the single question of whether or not it
>happened, but now I have two questions, first: Why did the allies do
>nothing about it?
> After the above was released I expected a lot of discussion on the
>above question. I did not see any on the major news web sites. Then last
>fall I went by the Holocaust Museum in Washington. I went by the library
>there to see what they had on this. The librarian knew nothing about it
>and even questioned if I might be mistaken. And, I could find nothing in
>any of the Journals they carried about this revelation. The second
>question, of course, is why not? Something is very fishy about this
>whole thing. You would think that there would have been a lot more about
>it in the news then, for instance, the Nazi gold in Switzerland. Also,
>the documents should set the total number killed much more accurately
>then was possible previously. Any ideas?
>
>Howard Davis
Do you know any popular history that isn't simplified to a
few basic points? Any that doesn't have clearly delineated
good guys and bad guys? And it seems that the main defence
against Holocaust deniers is to simplify further and focus
all of the blame on those who committed the genocide and
none on those who may have been complicit through acts of
omission. The whole effect is to turn the Holocaust into
an historical icon which has no meaning outside of itself;
all those resolutions of "Never again" are as firm as a
blade of grass in a hurricane.
Anyway, I'm not convinced that this information is as
suppressed as you imply (although it is surprising that
the Holocaust museum professes to have no knowledge of it).
I recall hearing Allied excuses years ago and I believe that
there were a few posts on this list some weeks ago about
whether or not the train tracks to Auschwitz should have been
bombed.
Nevertheless your concerns have some resonance with a
current scandal that made a blip in the news and then
disappeared: who knew what, and when, and failed to act on
that information to prevent the genocide in Rwanda.
Put Dallaire+Rwanda into a search engine to get the dirty
details, but here are some of the highlights:
-- General Dallaire asks for authorization to confiscate an
arms cache. Not only is permission refused but Dallaire is
instructed to relay his informant's intelligence and the
U.N. decision not to act to the Rwandan president and his
political party, even though they were the very people who
were planning the massacre. (btw that's Gen. ROMEO Dallaire,
an apt name for a peacekeeper: see Romeo &Juliet Act 3, Sc. 1)
-- Dallaire faxed the U.N. quoting a senior Rwandan security
official as saying he had been ordered to register all Tutsis
in Kigali for the purpose, he suspected, of "their extermination"
Kofi Annan is head of peacekeeping operations at this time.
-- Dallaire comes up with a plan to break the momentum of the
slaughter. The U.N. Security Council dithers and the idea is
finally scotched when Bill Clinton refuses to allow the use
of American planes to transport troops from Nigeria and Ghana
to Rwanda. (The Ghanaians probably come out best in the whole
affair. The general in charge of their meagre forces already
in Rwanda disobeys a direct order from the U.N. to evacuate,
saving 5-10,000 Rwandans.) Later analysis of Dallaire's plan
by Gen. Schroeder of the Carnegie Corp. suggests that it had a
good chance of working and certainly could have been no worse
than the U.N.'s (in)action.
-- Dallaire and other U.N. officials are refused permission to
testify at a Belgian inquiry. Annan cites "diplomatic immunity"
and claims that all necessary information had already been
furnished by the U.N. Coverup? (the Belgians are pissed at
Dallaire because he dawdled while their soldiers were killed;
Dallaire had been negotiating for the safety of the Rwandan
prime minister, but she was probably already dead at the time)
Annan later waives diplomatic immunity to allow Dallaire to
testify at the trial of the Rwandan massacrists. Apparently his
testimony regarding the insanity of the situation is to be
used to mitigate the sentences of the killers.
And so on. About a year ago a black Congresswoman from Georgia
was pressing to find out what Clinton knew, and when he knew it,
but apparently there's something about black Congresswomen that
makes their voices inaudible to the media. But blaming Clinton
won't help, especially with analysis from the Carnegie Corp.:
"The line-up forms at the right" will be the response, "Wait your
turn." Kofi Annan is now Secretary-General of the U.N. and
Dallaire's immediate superior at the U.N., Gen. Maurice Baril,
is now head of the Canadian Armed Forces (it's pretty pathetic
to read Dallaire's enthusiastic communiques with his colleague,
knowing that his friend will do nothing to help).
I used to think that NWO scenarios involving the extermination
of all blacks was a bit extreme, but with these revelations
about the Rwandan genocide I'm not so sure. Consider it as an
experiment in alchemy and see how it registers on the meter of
public opinion:
Pre-Rwanda: Oh! Those poor Bosnians.
Rwanda: What savages!
Post-Rwanda: Oh! Those poor Bosnians.
In a hard NWO (martial rule) I don't see much likelihood for the
survival of blacks (in Africa, at least). But I'm not convinced
that the elites don't prefer a soft NWO (managed chaos). Rwanda
fits into that too, as it has been instrumental in the rebellion(s)
in Zaire/Congo.
Back to your original point about the fishy smell of Holocaust
investigations. I think the Allies have a lot more to keep
quiet than their lack of action with regard to the concentration
camps. The German Army planned a coup to overthrow Hitler and
intended to use the mobilization for the invasion of Czechoslovakia
to disguise their actions; the British were informed of this
but conceded Czechoslovakia nevertheless, short-circuiting the
coup. After the invasion of Poland the British wanted to send
an expeditionary force through Scandinavia to invade the Soviet
Union. And of course with George Bush Jr. as a potential
presidential candidate nobody wants any questions raised about
what his grandaddy did in WWII.
I think the investigation of Nazi gold in Swiss (and other) banks
was considered to be quite a revelation. Edgar Bronfman was
quoted in the Globe and Mail at the time as saying that next he
was going after the Vatican. Haven't heard anything about that
since. And I very much doubt there will be any investigation into
who robbed the Reichsbank although tracing *that* money would be
more important in tracking down Nazis than checking the provenance
of gold in various central banks.
There are many fishy things in this area but you may find people
reluctant to discuss them. You weren't on the list when we had
the Nazi infestation; that put a real chill on the subject. Don't
be surprised if no one wants to thaw it out.
Gerry
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
