NL-Aid provides evidence of Hitler’s suicide from Trevor-Roper (British Intelligence and historian), dentist Blaschke, witness and editor Bezymenski and pathologist Sognnaes.

In 2009, Hitler’s so-called skull was examined by the University of Connecticut and DNA analysis and bone’s identity proved it belonged to a woman, aged 20 to 40. The main question is: was Hitler’s suicide a cover-up or are the researchers deceived as dabblers by a false skull? NL-Aid examined previous evidence from National Archives and Universities all over the world, in particular dental records. As a backup, the collected documents have been examined and analysed by a Dutch dentist (who likes to stay anonymous). I will present all the details of this historical dental and pathological evidence which, for the first time in history, are published all together. These are rare documents from world’s darkest crypts. Hopefully, this will end all hoaxes and conspiracy theories. The conclusion of this article is that not research techniques should be the core, but research methods. I call it ‘The Seduction’, a leghold trap of scientists blind spot. And yes: Hitler committed suicide. Without a doubt. Though, some inconsistent and unexplained assertions are surveyed.

Bellantoni and Strausbaugh

Nicholas Bellantoni and Linda Strausbaugh, dealing with DNA analyses of Hitler’s skull as seen in History Channel’s documentary Hitler’s Escape, concluded that Hitler’s suicide had some loose ends. According to The Guardian ‘the world is still in the dark about what really happened in Hitler’s bunker on 30 April 1945’. There is no correlation between DNA results and Hitler’s escape. The remains of Hitler have been a tug-of-war by the Russians, perhaps causing historical disorder about his whereabouts. So, I asked Bellantoni and Strausbaugh if they could have been deceived with the wrong skull.

BELLANTONI: ”As Dr. Strausbaugh has stated, we are in agreement that Hitler died in the bunker. The cranial vault fragment in question was recovered a full year (May 1946) after the initial discoveries of the bodies (May 1945). As we say in archaeology, “context” is everything. The context had been destroyed in waiting over a year to return to Berlin. The mandible that was sent to Moscow in 1945 is, I believe, that of Hitler. The cranial vault is someone else.”

This is reassuring, but this is not expressed in the content or title of Hitler’s Escape. The documentary ends with:

BELLANTONI: “We’re going to change everybody’s perception, of not only his remains but what maybe happened to Eva, Hitler and others in that bunker. If this is not Hitler, who is it and as a result of that we’ve got a lot more homework to do.”

The fact remains that History Channel made a documentary with a “worthless” piece of skull, resulting in an unnecessary documentary with an embroiled effect. The e-mail I received from Bellantoni very much opposes the documentary. Let me show the hard evidence proving Hitler’s suicide once and for all.

Preamble

Several researchers contributed to the evidence of Hitler’s suicide. They are chronologically discussed. For convenience, I refer to the time-table at the bottom of the article.

Bezymenski

Bezymenskiĭ

Lev Bezymenski’s (or Bezymenskiĭ’s) description of Hitler’s autopsy by the Soviets and Hitler’s remains are published in Der Tod des Adolf Hitler (The death of Adolf Hitler; unknown documents from Soviet archives) (download Here, 62 Mb).

The book is a witness report and therefore worth reading in its entirety. Bezymenski also describes the last days in the bunker, as shown in the movie Der Untergang. Of course, the Soviet perspective is highlighted. The book opens with several witness reports, for example by Harry Mengeshausen at 13^th May 1945 (one of Hitler’s bodyguards). The entire procedure (the carrying out of Hitler’s and Braun’s corpses, their cremation and the burial) was observed from a distance of600 meters on April 30. He also attested that, on April 29, Hitler’s dog also was buried in the crater. On investigating the places, Mengeshausen had indicated, his deposition was found to be correct. There is also a passage about how Hitler’s corpse is found by Ivan Churakov in the presence of Bezymenski. Besides similar witness reports, the book includes several detailed anatomical/pathological determinations, autopsy reports and an extensive cause of death. I’ll limit myself to quoting some significant dental observations.

i. Striking passages (page 44-57)

‘The text of the final and most important autopsy report (documents Nos. 12 and 13) are reproduced verbatim, in the following, either in their entirety or in somewhat abbreviated form.’

(The dental codes are Palmer Notations)

‘In the upper jaw there are nine teeth connected by a bridge of yellow metal (gold). The bridge is anchored by pins on the second left and the second right incisor. This bridge consists of 4 upper incisors (A), 2 canine teeth (B), the first left bicuspid (C), and the first and second right bicuspids (D), as indicated in the sketch. The first left incisor (E) consists of a white platelet, with cracks and a black spot in the porcelain (enamel) at the bottom. This platelet is inset into the visible side of the metal (gold) tooth. The second incisor, the canine tooth, and the left bicuspid, as well as the first and second incisors and the first bicuspid on the right, are the usual porcelain (enamel) dental plates, their posterior parts fastened to the bridge. The right canine tooth is fully capped by yellow metal (gold). The maxillary bridge is vertically sawed off behind the second left bicuspid (F). The lower jawbone lies loose in the singed oral cavity. The alveolar processes are broken in the back and have ragged edges. The front surface and the lower edge of the mandibula are scorched. On the front surface the charred prongs of dental roots are recognizable. The lower jaw consists of fifteen teeth, ten of which are artificial. The incisors (G) and the first right bicuspid (H) are natural, exhibiting considerable wear on the masticating surface and considerably exposed necks. The dental enamel has a bluish shimmer and a dirty yellow coloration around the necks. The teeth to the left (I) are artificial, of yellow metal (gold), and consists of a bridge of gold crowns. The bridge is fastened to the third, the fifth (in the bridge, the sixth tooth), and the eight tooth (in the bridge, the ninth tooth). The second bicuspid to the right (J) is topped by a crown of yellow metal (gold) which is linked to the right canine tooth by an arching plate. Part of the masticating surface and the posterior surface of the right canine tooth is capped by a yellow metal (gold) plate as part of the bridge. The first right molar is artificial, white, and secured by a gold clip connected with the bridge of the second bicuspid and the right incisor.’

‘According to the record of the interrogation of Frau Käthe Heusermann it may be presumed that the teeth as well as the bridge described in the document are those of Chancellor Hitler.’ (see photo of Heusermann’s sketch).

Sketch of Hitler’s teeth, drawn by Frau Dr. Heusermann on May 11, 1945

‘Crucial part of the interrogation of Frau Heusermann on May 10:

• Question: Can you establish from the dental bridges that they belong to Hitler?
• Answer: Yes, there is no doubt of it.
• Question: We have shown you the dental bridge of an upper jaw and a lower jaw with teeth. Do you know to whom these teeth belong?
• Answer: The teeth shown to me belong to the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler. The upper jaw on the left, behind the fourth tooth, exhibits a distinct trace which occurred when the gold bridge was sawed by the dental drill, at the time of the extraction of the sixth tooth. This extraction was performed by Professor Blaschke with my assistance in the Autumn…
  All further evidence that these bridges are Adolf Hitler’s tallies with those named by me before from memory, with the exception on the fourth lower right tooth, which I believed to be an artificial porcelain tooth. But the teeth you have shown me prove that this tooth is a natural one.
• Question: Can you affirm that the teeth shown to you are Adolf Hitler’s teeth?
• Answer: Yes, I affirm that the teeth shown to me are Adolf Hitler’s teeth.’

‘The dental technician Fritz Echtmann confirmed Frau Heusermann’s statement on May 11.’

‘I even started to argue with her, because I had overlooked one detail when examining the teeth and had miscounted the steel pins. She turned out to be right.’

‘Frau Heusermann repeated everything again in detail and declared categorically that the prosthesis I had shown her was in fact Hitler’s dental prosthesis. The picture was clear beyond doubt, for Frau Heusermann as well as for me as forensic expert.’

ii. Striking passage

The following passage does not support my reasoning, but it is too specific to skip: ‘The left testicle could not be found either in the scrotum or on the spermatic cord inside the inguinal canal, nor in the small pelvis.’

Dr. Hugo Blaschke

Blaschke

Hugo Johannes Blaschke (1881-1959), Adolf Hitler’s personal dentist from 1933 to April 1945. Blaschke’s Final Interrogation Report (download full interrogation with more sketches HERE) describes the characteristics of Hitler’s teeth (and of Eva Braun and Martin Bormann). Here are some examples of Hitler’s set of teeth.

‘This is a view of the Upper Jaw, seen frontally, as it would appear if all artificial elements except fillings were removed.’

‘Lower Jaw, seen frontally.’

‘Lower Jaw, seen from the back.’

‘Lower Jaw, seen from above.’

‘This is a view of the Lower Jaw, seen frontally, as it would appear if all artificial elements except fillings were removed.’

The interrogators conclude: ‘Blaschke had furnished a rather hasty and incomplete description of Hitler’s teeth. (…) The description on which the present report is based is the only one he made with the aid of the X-ray photo’s. (…) It can, therefore, be considered authentic and accurate.’

The document also show drawings of dental records of Eva Braun and Martin Bormann. I invite you to study the entire historical and rare document.

Hugh Trevor-Roper

Trevor-Roper

British intelligence officer and Oxford professor Dr. H.R. Trevor-Roper published his book The Last Days of Hitler in 1947. Only the last chapter deals with Hitler’s death and because the book is still sold on a commercial basis (ISBN 0 330 49060 5), this is the only document I haven’t scanned. I will quote some passages instead.

Trevor-Roper wrote a qualitative study by interviewing the last survivor’s of the Führerbunker. He was ordered by the British intelligence to investigate the circumstances of Adolf Hitler’s death in November 1945. He wrote a chronological story, a piece of detective work, rather than writing out the interviews. Unfortunately, this is less scientific but Trevor-Roper gives a good picture of the final days in the Führerbunker. One fine example is a segment about the motives of Hitler’s suicide: ‘Captured by partisans during the general uprising of northern Italy, Mussolini and his mistress Clara Petacci had been executed, and their bodies suspended by the feet in the market place of Milan to be beaten and pelted by the vindictive crowd. If the full details were ever known to them, Hitler and Eva Braun could only have repeated the orders they had already given: their bodies were to be destroyed ‘so that nothing remains’; ‘I will not fall into the hands of an enemy who requires a new spectacle to divert his hysterical masses’. (…) Hitler went into a frenzy, shouting: “This will never happen to me!” ’

Hitler’s personal servant Heinz Linge tried to minimize witnesses of the final scène by ordering most people to leave the Chancellery. From the book, I abstracted the following people who witnessed Hitler’s death firsthand: 

1. Joseph Goebbels; Reich Minister of Propaganda; died on 1 May 1945.
2. Martin Bormann; head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary to Hitler; died on 2 May 1945.
3. Arthur Axmann; head of the Hitler Youth; died on 24 October 1996.
4. Heinz Linge; SS Officer, valet for Hitler; died on 9 March 1980.
5. Otto Guensche; Sturmbannführer (major) in the Waffen-SS and a member of 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler before he became Hitler’s personal adjutant; died on 2 October 2003; Bezymenski and Trevor-Roper both write about Guensche the fact that Guensche put the corpses on fire (respectively page 50-51 and 180 of their own book).
6. Wilhelm Burgdorf; German general; died on 2 May 1945.
7. Erich Kempka; SS-Obersturmbannführer and Hitler’s chauffeur; died on 24 January 1975.

About the cremation of Hitler and Braun: three unauthorized police guards witnessed from which it was intended to exclude them: Erich Mansfeld, Hermann Karnau, Hans Hofbeck. I could not find any details about them. Their stories are briefly described. Bezymenski also wrote about casual bystander Mengeshausen.

It is not clear which of these aforementioned Nazis (only those in bold formatting, because the other ones died in 1945, Mengeshausen was a Soviet witness) have been interviewed by Trevor-Roper. A missed opportunity, though I could trace an indication that he mainly interviewed Erich Kempka.

Trevor-Roper organizes the final developments of Hitler’s last henchmen. There is even a list of people who attended the event in the Bunker (22 April to 1 May); what their duties were and when they left. The book has no pathological evidence and consequently does not support the dental records. But in the context of our quest, only the following passages give details about Hitler’s suicide.

Striking passages (chapter seven)

‘A single shot was heard. After an interval they entered the suite. Hitler was lying on the sofa, which was soaked with blood. He had shot himself through the mounth. Eva Braun was also on the sofa, als dead. A revolver was by her side, but she had not used it; she had swallowed poison. The time was half past three.’

‘Outside, in the bunker, another ceremony was being prepared: the Viking funeral.’

Karnau watched the burning corpses for a moment. They are easily recognizable, though Hitler’s head was smashed. (…) Karnau: “It is sad that none of the officers seems to worry about the Fuehrer’s body. I am proud that I alone know where he is.”

‘These bones have never been found.’ (In 1947 Trevor-Ropes had no knowledge of Bezymenski’s report, NL-Aid).

Reidar Fauske Sognnaes

Sognnaes

Reidar Fauske Sognnaes (1911-1984), Dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine Boston. Sognnaes was a forensic scientist and credited because he disproved the theory that President George Washington had wooden teeth. Sognnaes published two research reports about Hitler’s remains through examinating classified files from USA and Russia.

1. The odontological identification of Adolf Hitler. Definitive documentation by x-rays, interrogations and autopsy findings (1973). (download HERE)
2. Dental evidence in the postmortem identification of Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, and Martin Bormann (1976). (download HERE)

Sognnaes did a literary detective with the existing files of Bezymenski and Blaschke in 1977. Sognnaes classifies and organizes these facts in a clear manner. The Russians destroyed Hitler’s body in 1970.

ad 1. Striking passages

‘X-rays of Hitler were taken during late 1944 and uncovered in early 1972.’

‘In 1968 the Russian writer Lev Bezymenski published in West Germany a book entitled Der Tod des Adolf Hitler (The Death of Adolf Hitler). Bezumenski’s book carried the subtitle Unknown documents from Soviet archives. Thus, twenty-three years after the event, Soviet sources finally permitted disclosure of details of the autopsy with various dental and medical data on the death of Adolf Hitler as well as Eva Braun, Goebbels and his family.’ (details are outlined in attached document)

‘Heuserman, the chair-side dental assistance of Hitler’s dentist, Blaschke was interrogated in a talk with the Soviet Chief Expert of Forensic Medicine, Lieutenant Colonel Shkaravski on May 11 1945, in the Office of CAFS No. 496. Frau Heuserman described the state of Hitler’s teeth in every detail.’

‘One of the most important exhibits recovered from Soviet Archives concerns the objective photographic evidence illustrating the remains of the dentition of the corpse described in autopsy document Bo. 12. Included were photographs of a fixed dental prosthesis, namely, a 9-unit bridge, and the charred fragment of a mandible, the latter with several intact anterior teeth and two bridges, one on the right and one on the left side.’

Photo: Nine-unit maxillary bridge reproduced from Soviet autopsy report by Bezymenski. (More photographs and pathologist’s sketches in attached document, page 49, 51.)

‘The Final Interrogation Report of Blaschke: As a preamble to the interrogation report regarding Hitler’s dentistry, there is said to be three reasons for the report, namely, to provide (a) data useful in the identification of Hitler or his remains, (b) information to expose what might be future fraud, and (c) research material for the historian, the doctor and the scientist.’

‘The five X-ray plates attached are copies of originals found among Dr. Morell’s records. They have been positively identified by him as well as by Dr. Giesing as X-ray taken from Hitler. (…) This was during the period when Dr. Giesing was treating Hitler for ear injuring suffered at the time of the assassination attempt on 20 Jul 44.’ (All five X-ray plates are shown in the attached document with explanations and conclusions (page 60-63))

‘In comparing the five X-ray plates located in the U.S. National Archives, several principal observations emerge, which are considered of major significance in correlating subjective and objective evidence regarding the odontological identification of Hitler. Firstly, it became clear that Hitler had only four remaining teeth which were not involved in either bridging a gap or supporting a bridge between adjacent teeth. (…) Secondly, the X-rays indicate that the maxillary right central incisor and left lateral incisor, while completely opaque to the X-ray beam, do show short metallic posts for insertion into the root canals. (…) Thirdly, the X-rays show a very peculiar and very unusual dental bridge construction on the right lingual aspect of the mandible. (…) Fourthly, the X-rays show that the left maxillary incisor has the very characteristic feature of a partially opaque or metallic crown, typical of the now outmoded, but in times past, not infrequently uses, window-crown.’

‘After careful study of the various types of descriptive, diagrammatic and photographic evidence had been prepared with a view to summarizing what, in our judgment, represented the dental status of Adolf Hitler.’

‘From the overall comparison of the odontological evidence (Tables 1A and B, page 67-68) we conclude that the individual identified by means of the 1945 Hitler files located in the U.S. National Archives in 1972, is the same person as that whose 1945 autopsy report was published in 1968 on the basis of the previously unknown documents from Soviet Archives of 1945.’

ad 2. Striking passages

This document is an extensive repetition of document i, with the same evidence and conclusions. On page 199-200 Sognnaes writes: ‘Reappraisal of all documentary data – discounting legends, myths and speculations – now provides definite odontologic proof that Hitler did indeed die during the Berlin collapse of the Nazi dictatorship in 1945, and that the Russians did in fact recover and autopsy the body of the real Hitler.’

Independent comparison by a Dutch dentist

The documents of Bezymenski, Blaschke and Sognnaes are brought to the attention of an independent Dutch dentist with modern knowledge and technical insight of the world today (2012). The dentist writes:

“Hitler was a slob. He brushed his teeth insufficiently, causing bad teeth and bad breath. He had periodontal gum disease and as a result, he had many typical reconstructions.

Some things in Bezymenski’s research (and therefore also in Sognnaes’s work) are wrong and these arise from sloppy work. This can be explained by the fact that during the actual autopsy no dentist was present. We also have to put the whole story in a post war context: total social disorder and consequently hasty work of destroyed remains. Dentist Blaschke drew the teeth by heart in 1946. However, there are plenty of features from both documents which have a strong match.

Unusual is the metal arch in the right lower jaw (mentioned in Blaschke’s and Bezymenski’s/Sognnaes’ articles). Another parallel is the ‘cut’ surface in the left maxillary, indicating the cutting of a bridge portion (the element is then removed). A considerable bridge construction in the maxilla used to be normal, in particular with gold. Left below, there is a long bridge with three pillars, the middle pillar migrated backwards. There are some inconsistencies on this last fact.

The key features are:
* mandible: deviant feature of the metal arch bridge and the large bridge left below;
* upper jaw: main distinct feature of the cut bridge left. This is more common, but in combination with the (types of) crowns, this is really typical.

As a whole, it is plausible to assume that Blaschke and Bezymenski are talking about the same remains. Sognnaes confirms these findings. About Heusermann’s sketch: the amount of elements which are complemented by crown/bridge, are correct. ”

Findings and conclusions

The reason I did research on Hitler’s death was my article ‘Suicide Hitler not proven (inductive logic)’. According to the inductive theory (see article), I had to prove the possible fact that Hitler had committed suicide. The evidence was more or less lost to the world. This is demonstrated by the fact, that there is not one organisation in the world who has presented all the documents together. I turned to the National Archives in the UK, in Germany, in Nuremburg, in Russia and in the USA. Several Universities in the Netherlands and USA were approached and of course Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC). Hardly any of them had even one document, let alone all of them. I was surprised, that the German Bundesarchiv and the Nuremburg City Archives had no legacy of Hitler’s suicide. Not even copies. The National Archives in Washington were very cooperative in sending Blaschke’s Final Interrogation Report but they gave radio silence on the subject of Sognnaes’ documents, despite frequent reminders. The Blaschke’s Final Interrogation Report refers to X-rays but the American National Archives did not share it with me. The Soviet Archives did not respond. I see no profit in these kind of bureaucratic acts.

SWC did not have any proof but they just assumed that Hitler committed suicide. SWC: “I don’t know of any reputable historian who claims differently (…) Other than that, I have nothing new to report.” SWC has lost the awareness of asking questions about so-called general knowledge. They assumed. I do not want criticize SWC because they are doing incredibly important work, but the inductive theory must constantly be present in our daily work, as gravy poured on meat. Scientific research and historical facts cannot simply be assumed like people breathing air. We have to be awake, aware and focused.

Obtaining evidence must be neutral and transparent. ‘Neutral’ means that you have to prove every statement and each document. ‘Transparent’ means that you have to reveal your findings to everyone. Opinions of others will lead to fine-tuning so the boundaries of truth get nearer and become more valid. Researchers are often too focused on rapid publication of a Eureka effect, the sudden, unexpected realisation of the solution to a certain problem. This is anything but being neutral and transparent.

I conclude that, despite hoaxes and conspiracy theories, Hitler indeed committed suicide. This was also reported by German witnesses. However, the last of Hitler’s henchmen were the most fanatic Nazis. Not a reliable source. Hitler’s skull does or did exist, but the Russian Archives simply gave the researches of the University of Connecticuta a different one. The Seduction was born. Formal errors sometimes lead to cardinal differences in outcomes. This is the power of The Seduction.

One fact is still unclear to me: where in Russia are the remains of Hitler? The official story goes that everything was burned. If this is true, the Russians destroyed the body without any explanation. This was not just a crime investigation, it was in fact the most important historical crime evidence of the last 2000 years. The study of Sognnaes is somewhat messy and the Russians should have known that some of the crucial components would become important. What for? In 1944, the purpose of DNA was discovered by Oswald Avery. He describes personal characteristics by storing information in cells. Yet 100 years earlier, DNA was discovered by Friedrich Meis Cher, a Swiss chemist. He labelled phosphorus-rich compound in cells (later called deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA). At that time, it was not known what it did. In 1953, the so-called spiral staircase was described by Watson and Crick. Sognnaes did his research in 1977. By that time, scientists could read DNA. The question remains: why did the Russians not preserve any of the crucial evidence from crime scene number 1 of the last two thousand years?

I could find one missing link. Sognnaes claims ‘Then, in 1972, archives in Washington released five X-rays of Hitler’s head, taken on July 20, 1944.’ But Bezymenski writes in 1968 about the morning on May 9 1945: ‘Wasting no time in the clinic, we drove to the Chancellery, taking Käthe Heusermann along. Here we went down to the basement, found Professor Blaschke’s dental office, and with Käthe Heusermann’s assistance soon discovered X-ray photographs of the Führer’s teeth and a few gold crowns that had been prepared, but time to put them to use run out on dentist and patient (page 54)’. They contradict each other.

Recommendations

I recommend worldwide archives to be more careful (read: transparent) with our most essential historical events and its evidence. If they handle it without care, hide it behind closed doors and only share it through tough cooperation, I foresee that people will deny these facts because of missing documents and misleading counterproof. National Archives and University Libraries should put crucial microfilms, documents, interrogations and audio interviews of historical issues on the Word Wide Web. These facts make us aware of our past and consequently of our future. The remains of Hitler should be accessible (if there is anything left). Viscous cooperation does not benefit any awareness. If I had missed any of the documents in this article by bureaucracy or politics, I might have come to a different conclusion. This is not desirable at all because it encourages alienation of historical facts.

Finally, I thank editor Martin Kooistra and the dentist who analysed all documents.

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n   t i m e   t a b l e

(*) documents presented by NL-Aid

• 30 April 1945: Hitler committed suicide
• 4 May 1945: (official 5 May 1945) the Soviet Army discovered the bodies of Hitler and Braun.
• 8 May 1945: Chief Forensic Pathologist Dr Faust Sherovsky and Russian Anatomical Pathologist Major Anna Marantz, performed and autopsy on Hitler’s body. The outcome has been published by Bezymenski in 1968. (*)
• 10 May 1945: Blaschke’s assistant, Kaethe Heusemann, and his dental technician, Fritz Echtmann are captured by the Soviets. Heusemann affirmed that the teeth were Hitler’s. (*)
• July 1945: Blaschke turned up in an American camp.
• 5 February 1946: During an interrogation Blaschke drew Hitler’s dental records from memory. (*)
• February 21, 1946: the Soviet Red Army buried the bodies of Hitler, Eva Braun and the Goebbels family in a unpaved area at 30-32 Klausenerstrasse, Magdeburg.
• 1947: book by Oxford professor Dr. H.R. Trevor-Roper about the first exhaustive investigation of the last days of Hitler. (*)
• 1968: book by Lev Bezymenski containing a description of how Hitler is found by the Sovjets and his autopsy. Also mentioned are the investigations about Hitler’s dog, Eva Braun and the Goebbels family: Joseph and Magda, 5 daughters and 1 son. Although the book is published in 1968, the witness reports cover a period starting in the bunker when Hitler is still alive, the findings of his remains on May 4 and the following autopsy. (*)
• 1970: Hitler’s remains are completely incinerated and disposed of so that no parts or portions could be used to raise Hitler to the status of martyrdom.
• 1972: archives in Washington released five X-rays of Hitler’s head, taken on July 20, 1944 because he suffered his ear after the bomb attack on his life. (*)
• 1977: book by Reidar Fauske Sognnaes in which he identified the match between Bezymenski and Blaschke, with the help of the X-rays. (*)
• 16 September 2009: Documentary Hitler’s Escape with Nicholas Bellantoni and Linda Strausbaugh at History Channel. (*)
• 2012: NL-Aid and undersigned: Suicide Hitler proven (The Seduction), a complete reference of previous research bundled together for first time in history. (*)

R e f e r e n c e

1. Bezymenski: Born in 1920 in Kazan. Studied philosophy in Moscow and entered the Soviet Armed Forces in 1941, first as a private and later as an officer in Stalingrad, Kursk and Berlin. An excellent scholar of German, he served as interpreter at the hearings of General Paulus, the German field marschal who surrended to the Russians after the Battle of Stalingrad. As a member of Marschall Zhukov’s staff, he participated in the Battle of Berlin. In 1946 he became co-editor of Novoe Vremia, a journal on foreign affairs. In this capacity he made various trips abroad, producing numerous articles on current events which were published throughout the Eastern countries. In 1968 the Russians finally admitted having the remains of Hitler. They permitted disclosure of details of the autopsy with various dental and medical data on the death of Hitler, Braun, Goebbels, Krebs and two dogs.

• Bezymenskiĭ, L. (Lev), 1920-. Der Tod des Adolf Hitler (The death of Adolf Hitler; unknown documents from Soviet archives) [by] Lev Bezymenski. [1st ed.] New York, Harcourt, Brace & World [1968]  (download HERE, 62 Mb)

2. Hugo Johannes Blaschke (1881-1959): He was interrogated by the Americans after the war about Hitler’s dental treatment in the hope that this would lead to the identification of his remains. He stated that he fitted a large dental bridge to Hitler’s upper jaw in 1933 and that on 10 November 1944 he carried out surgery to cut off part of the bridge due to a gum infection that was causing Hitler severe toothache. In May 1945 Soviet officers showed a dental bridge to Blaschke’s technician Fritz Echtmann and his dental assistant Käthe Heusermann and they both identified it as being Hitler’s. Blaschke also reconstructed the dental records of Martin Bormann from memory and these were later used to identify his skeletal remains which were discovered in Berlin in 1972. After his release from captivity in 1948 Blaschke continued to practise as a dentist in Nuremberg and died there aged 78. (Source: Wikipedia)

• Blaschke’s Final Interrogation Report in Record Group 238 (Microfilm Publication 1270). National Archives and Records Administration, Washington (download HERE)

3. Trevor-Roper. The first exhaustive investigation of the last days of Hitler was undertaken by the Oxford professor Dr. H.R. Trevor-Roper in 1945. The British Intelligence authorities in Germany in September of that year had given him the task to collect all available evidence on the last days of Hitler and to determine, if possible, the truth about his appearance or demise.

• Trevor-Roper. The Last Days of Hitler. 1945. (revised editions followed, until the last in 1995). (ISBN 0 330 49060 5)

4. Reidar Fauske Sognnaes (1911-1984): Dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, founding Dean of the UCLA School of Dentistry and scholar in the field of oral pathology. He is credited with identifying the remains of Adolf Hitler and Martin Bormann, through examination of classified American and Soviet dental record. Sognnaes also disproved the theory that President George Washington had wooden teeth. (Source: Wikipedia)

• Sognnaes RF, Strom F. The odontological identification of Adolf Hitler. Definitive documentation by x-rays, interrogations and autopsy findings. Acta odontologica Scandinavica. 1973 (download HERE)
• Sognnaes RF. Dental evidence in the postmortem identification of Adolf Hitler, Eva Braun, and Martin Bormann. Legal medicine annual. 1977;1976:173-235 (download HERE)

Bellantoni

5. Nicholas Bellantoni (Ph.D. UConn 1987; Associate Professor and State Archaeologist). Northeastern prehistory, faunal analyses, human osteological analysis. Professor Linda D. Strausbaugh, University of Connecticut, Molecular & Cell Biology. Bellantoni and Strausbaugh were both dealing with DNA analyses of Hitler’s skull, leading to a History Channel documentary: Hitler’s Escape (watch full broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZKF3bvHnY).

Hitler’s skull according Nicholas Bellantoni and Professor Linda D. Strausbaugh

6. The Guardian: Tests on skull fragment cast doubt on Adolf Hitler suicide story

Unknown to the world, Hitler’s corpse was interred at a Smersh centre in Magdeburg, East Germany. There it remained long after Stalin’s death in 1953. Finally, in 1970, the KGB dug up the corpse, cremated it and secretly scattered the ashes in a river. Only the jawbone, the skull fragment and the bloodstained sofa segments were preserved in the deep archives of Soviet intelligence. The bunker was destroyed in 1947 and eventually paved over. Then, in 2000, the Russian State Archive in Moscow staged an exhibition, The Agony of the Third Reich. The skull fragment was displayed, but only photographs of Hitler’s jawbone were on view. The head of the archive, Sergei Mironenko, said he had no doubt the skull fragment was authentic. “It is not just some bone we found in the street, but a fragment of a skull that was found in a hole where Hitler’s body had been buried,” he said.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/27/adolf-hitler-suicide-skull-fragment

7. Further research

For further research and deeper investigation you might want to read the following documents:

• Sognnaes, Eva Braun Hitler’s Odontological Identification-A Forensic Enigma, J. Forensic Sci, April 1974, Vol. 19, No. 2
• Smith, Giordan. Nexus Magazine: Fabricating the Death of Adolf Hitler part 1, Fabricating the Death of Adolf Hitler part 2, Fabricating the Death of Adolf Hitler part 3.

C o p y r i g h t

This article is copyrighted and may only be copied, duplicated or quoted, including the attached documents, provided that you use the author as the source of information.
Suicide Hitler Proven (The Seduction) by Hans Sluijter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

AUTHOR: Hans Sluijter
URL: www.NL-Aid.org
E-MAIL: info [at] www.NL-Aid.org

IS NEO-NAZISM ‘GANG ACTIVITY’ OR A POLITICAL MOVEMENT?

In a recent article, THE GUARDIAN noted that the Greek political party represented in parliament is more like a criminal organization than a party. This is the sort of hollow analysis that some writers engaged in about Italy’s Fascist Party and of Germany’s Nazi party before they took power, given that Nazis and Fascists had paramilitary operations that were the core of their political movement. The mere presence of paramilitary organization does not necessarily mean that the sponsoring political party is any less political.

Such analysis underestimates the mass appeal of neo-Fascism and neo-Nazism not just in Greece in 2012, but throughout the West. I have written as much in an article where I suggested that the return of Fascism/Nazism are possible against a global political economy that engenders capital concentration and downward social mobility, and against the background of a Western clash with Islam at a time that the world’s economic center will be shifting from West (EU and US) to East (China, India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia). In short, the downward social mobility of the middle class make it feel suffocated and without any prospects for its own and their children’s future.

It entirely possible that pluralistic society generally tolerant of disparate groups of people may remain vibrant, but more likely is the dilution of such a societal model. Greece is not exactly a good example of what may follow in the West, but it is a manifestation of how the combination of political, economic and cultural developments in the West as well as domestic developments and historical traditions account for the rise of neo-Naziism.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENT FOR NEO-NAZISM IN GREECE
When I published a short book entitled Authoritarianism in Greece (New York, 1983), about the pro-Nazi John Metaxas dictatorship of 1936-40, more than a decade had passed since the military junta (1967-1974) that modeled itself after the 1930s dictatorship. In fact, when I published that book, both the dictatorships in Portugal and Spain were gone, replaced by Socialist parties were as strong as in Greece, so I never imagined a resurgence of neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist parties in the early 21st century.

Just as in the case of the Great Depression that weakened democracy in many countries and eliminated it in others, similarly, the current deep economic contraction is causing similar sociopolitical conditions of polarization, sweeping the middle class and segments of the working class to its camp. And this is not about isolated incidents of anti-Islam neo-Nazi groups in every country from Norway to Greece, but about a genuine grassroots political movement with momentum to carry it into the mainstream.

‘GOLDEN DAWN’ AND MAINSTREAM SOCIETY
In June 2012, a new political party (Chrysi Augi) Golden Dawn was elected to office representing roughly half a million voters, a party that openly proclaims to follow a neo-Nazi/neo-fascist ideology. Founded in 1980 as a movement, it registered as a political party in 1993 when Greece experienced a wave of Balkan, Eastern European, as well as some African and Asian emigrants coming in as cheap day laborers in construction and farms, household workers caring for the elderly, or street vendors.

Although the neo-Nazi movement was and remains essentially a street-gang organization whose target is street fights and property destruction against any progressive organization, either it is extraordinarily superficial analysis or deliberate distortion to dismiss it as ‘just another criminal organization’. While the neo-Nazi gangs have been well known to the police for many years, while their members have been in prison for criminal activity, police almost always turn a blind eye and often collaborate with the neo-Nazis because ideologically the police are in agreement and also because neo-Nazi targets are either aliens or progressives that the police oppose and their superiors want crushed.

Moreover, the two mainstream political parties, PASOK, once center-left-now neo-liberal, and New Democracy, the conservative party now in power, have turned a blind eye to neo-Nazis along with the judicial system because Golden Dawn gangs’ violent activity instills fear in many people wanting to support the progressive and leftists from staging demonstrations and protests. Neo-Nazis are just another tool for sociopolitical conformity, but also a counterweight to the rising leftist popularity.Clearly, the leftists are using the neo-Nazi rising popularity to mobilize voter support. However, this raises the question of a growing gap in centrist parties and growing political polarization that actually helps the right even more than it does the left, for the latter has always been part of the institutional mainstream.

Interestingly, the ruling parties, PASOK and New Democracy, along with the mainstream media, insist that there is no difference between neo-Nazi gangs beating up foreigners, destroying their property and terrorizing them so they can create a ‘pure Hellenic society’ (a vague and meaningless concept), on the one hand, and leftist workers demonstrating because their wages have been cut sharply or they have lost their jobs. In short, the neo-Nazis are the ideal cover for the ruling parties representing the EU that wants continuance with the austerity measures intended to hasten downward social mobility.

The Golden Dawn party received 5% of the vote in local Athens elections, mostly from urban neighborhoods with large population of immigrants. In June 2012, the neo-Nazis managed to have 18 members of parliament, of the total 300 elected from seven different parties. The most recent public opinion polls indicate that 22% of the voters trust the neo-Nazi leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos who has been in prison for extreme political activity resulting in beatings and explosives possession.

IDEOLOGY
What is the ideological orientation of the neo-Nazis? There is no coherent ideology, but a string of incoherent ideas based on history and tradition, and underlying prejudices. Strong support of nationalism and Orthodox faith, which means adamant opposition to Islam and Judaism is at the core of Golden Dawn’s ideas. Of course, it is difficult for any of the Golden Dawn officials to articulate their own beliefs, because they lack not just the educational level, but the capacity for rational thought. In fact, just as NAZI and Fascist ideologies were rooted in the irrational, thought and action, so is neo-Nazism.

Another neo-Nazi belief rests in conspiracy theories, namely, that the world operates as a result of conspiracies caused mostly by Zionists, backed by Americans who want to control the world. Xenophobia to the extreme degree means that Greek neo-Nazis have no qualms about using force to eliminate foreigners they see as ‘polluting’ the purity that is Greece, a nebulous concept they link to classical, Byzantine, as well as modern from the era of Independence in the 1820s.

Adamant opposition to gypsies, Communists, varieties of leftists, Liberals, traditional conservatives, feminists, social progressives advocating human rights, and intellectuals who advocate peace, social justice and human equality. While the neo-Nazis use symbols such as Hitler’s photograph and the swastika, and writings from the German Nazi era, they are against modern Germany, for they want to return to the 1930s, instead of moving forward with corporate-directed globalization. Finally, like classical Fascism and Nazism, neo-Nazism dismisses dialogue of differing ideas and believes in action rooted on violence.

NEO-NAZI POPULAR BASE
Who are the supporters of the neo-Nazis? Financing comes from wealthy individuals, as does media support, given that at least one media organization is led by a tycoon who became wealthy transporting contraband items. That financing comes from wealthy individuals is not a surprise, nor is it a surprise that many lower middle class people pushed down to working class living standards are turning to neo-Naziism. It is true that there are also some workers who believe that the reason for the economic hardships, crime, neighborhood deterioration, and all societal evils must be attributed to foreigners. If foreigners, the same foreigners who work the fields, construct buildings, work as domestic servants, and do other menial jobs for wages far less than Greeks earn, if these foreigners were to return to their countries, Greece would become Switzerland.

NEO-NAZIS and MUSLIMS
Given that roughly ten percent of the population in Greece is from another country, most of them as ‘economic emigrants’, primarily using Greece to cross over to Italy and beyond, the neo-Nazis have used this issue to scapegoat these people no differently than European Catholics scapegoated the Jews during the Black Death, or the Germans blamed the Jews and Communists for all the calamities of their country in the interwar era. Of course, we must keep in mind, the the cultural foundations as much for Nazism in the 1930s and for neo-Nazism in the 21st century already existed in society, just below the surface of ‘democratic civility’. The Western World’s distorted political economy and the anti-Islam political-cultural campaign of the last two decades has actually provided the pretext for the rise of neo-Nazis.

Entry point for many Muslims, most recently Syrian refugees, is Turkey. Those wishing to cross over into Greece pay anywhere from a few hundred euros to several thousands. Once they reach Greece, their goal is to make it into the West, but many are unable to do so, forced to work for 10-30 per day in the worst possible jobs that very few Greeks would take. Greek slumlords rent filthy cramped apartments to legal and illegal foreign nationals, mostly from Pakistan. As many as 30 may live in an apartment intended for two people, while the landlord charges between 100 and 180 per month per person. Not that the situation is dissimilar in many Western countries, but it is important to remember that the legal and illegal aliens are exploited not only by the employers who may or may not pay them the low wages, but from the landlord as well, without any legal recourse. Yet, it is precisely these people, mostly Muslims, that neo-Nazi Gold Dawn, including its elected officials target for beatings, some resulting in the occasional murder.

Amnesty International as well as other organizations have repeatedly warned about abuses of human rights, police brutality, xenophobia and racism in Greece. However, the result is a rise in racist tendencies, as the economy deteriorates and people that would never even consider supporting a disreputable neo-Nazi party are now strong advocates; a situation not much different that Germany in the early 1930s under the Weimar Republic. Otherwise respectable middle class people want blood, preferably foreign blood, though it is these same people who use cheap foreign labor in their homes, farms and workplace. Hence the prevalence of the irrational in human nature when the institutions precipitate major shifts in peoples’ lives. Which brings me to the role of the IMF, EU and the banks in the rise of neo-Nazism.

NEO-NAZISM AND GERMANY
Germany, which has been behind austerity more than any other nation or entity in the West and which has benefited to the tune of an estimated 30 to 60 billion euros, has been strongly condemnatory of Golden Dawn. Considering that many analysts regard austerity as a form of dictatorship and a catalyst to diluting democracy, the fear on the part of many Germans is that their policies may be contributing to the rise of neo-Nazism in Greece and perhaps elsewhere. Germany may try to control neo-Nazi activity in its own soil to contain anti-Western responses throughout the Muslim World, but the monetary, fiscal, trade, labor and social policies it is imposing on the rest of EU are strengthening neo-Nazism.

CONCLUSIONS
In some respects, it is useful to view historical epochs as a mirror, and not to assume that the future is a line of upward progress, leaving the past behind without a trace. It is useful to reflect on what accounts for the dominant irrational tendencies in human and institutional behavior, even when such behavior leads to destruction of others, and by extension to ourselves. When I ask people why they support neo-Nazi movements, they almost always reply that they have no choice, as though it is their religion. Given that the mainstream political parties, moderate right, center and left have worn each other out to such a degree that a third force emerges to fill a gap that people believe will be their salvation, the messiah solution is to be expected not in the main, but in the extremes. Civil society has never had messiah solutions, for it is difficult enough trying to keep it civil, respectful of all people’s basic human rights, and of social justice. The final lesson here to the faithful of neo-Nazism is that today’s abuser may become tomorrow’s victim; for neo-Nazi violence knows no boundaries.

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com

After pressure from BDS activists, several Danish clients have terminated contracts with British-Danish security company G4S for the company’s role in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the UK Home Affairs Committee last week published a damning report about the failure of G4S to deliver on a contract to secure the London Olympics. The committee recommends the government “establish a register of high-risk companies that have failed in the delivery of public services.”

Such blacklisting will have serious consequences for G4S, a major service provider to British government bodies.

Danish G4S clients end contracts for role in Israeli occupation

After sustained media attention on G4S’s role in the Israeli occupation, several Danish charities and a bank have decided to end security service contracts with the company.

The latest such BDS success dates from two months ago, when Danish Merkur Bank decided to terminate its contract with G4S. Spokesperson Karl Johnsen told me that the bank had canceled the contract “because of G4S’s involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Merkur Bank is an ethical bank committed to social justice.

On 18 July, Henrik Stubkjær, general director of Danish Church Aid (DCA) told Danish newspaper Berlingske Business that his organization had not renewed its contract with G4S. DCA had engaged with G4S in a dialogue about its activities in the West Bank. But DCA was unhappy at G4S for its continuing activity in Israeli settlements there.

Earlier this year, Amnesty International Denmark terminated its contract with G4S, after initially trying to influence their policies. “We do not want to work with G4S because the company’s global activities do not live up to Amnesty International’s requirements for corporate action in relation to human rights,” commented Amnesty secretary Lars Normann Jørgensen to Berlingske Business (translated from Danish).

The same article mentions that  the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims (RCT) also ended its contract with G4S. Pat Nissen, RCT’s project manager for the Middle East said in November 2010 that “G4S as a company is helping to facilitate torture.”

Danish activists and trade unionists turn G4S headquarters into a prison to protest the security company’s role in the Israeli occupation. (Boykot G4S Denmark)

Boycot G4S Denmark intensifies campaign

Earlier this month, Palestine solidarity activists in Denmark took to the streets to campaign against G4S for its role in the Israeli occupation of Palestine. As seen in this video, Boykot G4S Denmark, a network of solidarity groups and individuals, distributed stickers and pamphlets with information about G4S activities in the West Bank and ideas to take action.

In a creative action, trade unionists from the scaffolding industry joined activists to transform G4S headquarters into a prison, locking up the staff in their offices. Two activists portraying Palestinian political prisoners under administrative detention were on the scene and banners read “G4S protects Israeli prisons of torture.”

In an open letter that was sent to all 100 municipalities in Denmark, Boykot G4S Denmark calls on local authorities to do no business with G4S.

G4S solely responsible for London Olympics fiasco

Meanwhile, the UK parliament’s Home Affairs Committee investigated Olympics security and concludes in its damning report: “The blame for G4S’s failure to deliver on its contract rests firmly and solely with the company. All our witnesses, including those from G4S, were in agreement on this point,” concludes the committee.

The committee is tasked to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office, a ministerial department of the government.

In a press release, committee chair Keith Vaz calls G4S’s performance “a fiasco.”

The data the company provided to the Olympic Security Board was at best unreliable, at worst downright misleading. 24 hours before they admitted their failure, [G4S chief executive] Nick Buckles met with the Home Secretary and did not bother to inform her that they were unable to deliver on their contract, even though he knew about the shortfall a week before.”

The committee recommends the government establish a register of high-risk providers, who have a track-record of failure in the delivery of public services.

The government should not be in the business of rewarding failure with taxpayers’ money. As private sector providers play an increasingly important role in the delivery of police and criminal justice services, it is vital that those commissioning services look at the track-records of prospective providers.

G4S’s London Olympics fiasco comes on top of severe criticism for the company’s operations in the occupied Palestinian territories and in prisons and detention centers in Israel. It should be sufficient to convince governments, local authorities, state institutions and other public contractors not to do business with G4S.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

G4S, the firm at the center of the debacle over security for the London 2012 Olympics, is helping Israel secure facilities where Palestinian children are imprisoned and severly abused.

Defence for Children-Palestine (DCI-Palestine) has released an urgent appeal to end the practice of holding Palestinian children from the West Bank in solitary confinement in facilities in Israel. The organization has documented 53 such cases since 2008.

The children have been held in solitary confinement mainly in Al Jalame and Petah Tikva interrogation centers. The security systems for Al Jalame detention facilities were provided by G4S Israel, according to a March 2011 report on the firm by Who Profits.

G4S Israel is a subsidiary of British-Danish security firm G4S and it is deeply involved in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, as well as in Israeli prisons and detention centers.

Meanwhile, G4S has lost its credibility because its incapacity to deliver on the contract to secure the London Olympics. The UK government stepped in and mobilized 3,500 military personnel to fill in the gap. Nick Bukcles, G4S’s CEO, was interrogated by members of parliament about the failure of his company. Buckles admitted that G4S’s reputation is in tatters.

DCI-Palestine documents the cases of 19 boys held solitary confinement
In its urgent appeal, DCI-Palestine has documented the cases of 19 boys who were held in solitary confinement by Israel. The boys were aged between 15 and 17 years. DCI-Palestine writes:

In most cases the children are arrested from their homes in the occupied West Bank by Israeli soldiers in the middle of the night. After being tied and blindfolded, the children are transferred to an interrogation centre inside Israel, most commonly to the Al Jalame facility, near Haifa. The children report being held in solitary confinement at these facilities for an average of 10 days. Whilst detained in these facilities, the children are questioned by ISA interrogators and are generally denied access to their parents and a lawyer. No education is provided to children at these facilities. 

The children taken to Al Jalame describe being held in solitary confinement in a small cell (commonly referred to as “Cell 36”) measuring approximately 2×3 metres. The children report either sleeping on a concrete bed, on the floor, or on a thin mattress which is often described as “dirty” and “foul smelling.” Meals are passed to the children through a flap in the door, thus depriving them of human contact. The walls of these cells are reported to be grey in colour with sharp protrusions which are painful to lean against. There are no windows and the only source of illumination comes from a dim yellow light that is reported to be kept on 24 hours-a-day. Some children complain of suffering pain behind their eyes and adverse psychological effects after being detained in these cells.

It appears from the testimonies provided by the children that the dominant purpose for detaining them in these conditions is to break their spirit in order to extract a confession. Many children report being kept in solitary confinement between lengthy interrogation sessions in which prohibited techniques are frequently used, such as excessive shackling of the legs and hands, as well as position abuse, physical violence and threatening behaviour. Most children detained and questioned in these facilities end up providing a confession, which in some cases, is written in Hebrew. Once the children confess, they are prosecuted in a military court and transferred to a regular prison.

DCI-Palestine recommends to send urgent appeals to members of parliament and Israeli embassies in your country. DCI suggest to call in your appeal for an immediate end to the practice of solitary confinement of children, and that Israel should amend its laws to prohibit the practice. In addition, every detention facility, including Al Jalame, must be opened up to unbiased external inspection.

First published at The Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

For more information or to register click here.

AUTHOR: Richard Matthews
URL: http://thegreenmarket.blogspot.com/
E-MAIL: smallbusinessconsultants [at] gmail.com

Simon Natas

Simon Natas is a London-based lawyer specializing in criminal defense law and human rights. Natas is involved with the organization Jews for Justice for Palestinians and has defended a number of Palestine solidarity activists, including four who blockaded the cosmetics retailer Ahava’s London flagship store in Covent Garden on two occasions in 2009. Ahava closed the store last September; this decision followed a long series of protests outside the store, which led its landlord to refuse to renew the lease.

The Electronic Intifada contributor Adri Nieuwhof interviewed Natas about the protesters’ case and the role of G4S Israel, a subsidiary of British-Danish security firm G4S, in Israel’s occupation and repression of Palestinians. Meanwhile, G4S won a massive security contract with the London 2012 Summer Olympics worth £200 million ($312.7 million) (“100,000 eye Olympics security jobs with G4S,” The Independent, 15 May 2012).

Adri Nieuwhof: Can you talk about the case against the activists who blockaded Ahava’s shop in London?

Simon Natas: In 2009, I defended a number of activists who carried out a peaceful blockade of the Ahava shop in Covent Garden. That case was discontinued. There were further blockades in 2010 which resulted in a trial that summer. That trial — again — collapsed and all the defendants were acquitted. Then there were further blockades which resulted in a trial in which there were convictions. Two of those we successfully appealed last month in the High Court. The two remaining convictions were upheld. We are now seeking to appeal in the Supreme Court.

AN: What was your main line of defense in the case against the Ahava protestors?

SN: My clients were charged with an offense known as aggravated trespass. It makes it a criminal offense to trespass on somebody else’s property and in doing so, obstruct lawful activity. So it is part of the prosecution’s case that the activity that you obstruct or intend to obstruct is lawful. You cannot be guilty of the offense if you are obstructing activity that is itself criminal.

Now, the defense that my clients relied on was that the activity they had obstructed was unlawful on a number of different grounds. All arose from the fact that the Ahava products were manufactured in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank called Mitzpe Shalem.

We relied on a number of different allegations of illegality, one of them was the labeling of those products. They were labeled “manufactured by Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories Ltd, Dead Sea, Israel.”

It is quite clear that anybody reading that label would assume that the products were manufactured in Israel, but of course they are not. They are manufactured in the West Bank, which is not recognized by the international community as being part of Israel. Throughout Europe we have laws designed to ensure that consumers are not misled by people who market products.

In the UK, they have been incorporated into our domestic law and are known as the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations of 2008. They make it a criminal offense to engage in a misleading omission or misleading action that would cause consumers to buy goods that they might not otherwise buy had they known the true facts or had they not been misled as to the true facts. My clients argued that the labeling of Ahava’s products were clearly misleading, because there are many people out there who would not want to buy products from an illegal Israeli settlement.

There were other allegations of illegality as well. One of the things that my clients argued was that it was potentially illegal to market any product which was the proceeds of a crime in international law. They argued that the establishment of an illegal settlement and a factory on that settlement breached international law and that all the goods that were produced on it were the proceeds of crime. It followed that anyone dealing in those goods was also dealing in the proceeds of crime.

The district judge accepted that my clients had adduced a considerable body of evidence to back up their argument and also that the argument had considerable force, but he did not feel able to rule that Ahava’s trade was unlawful in the context of proceedings in which the company was not itself a party.

AN: G4S is involved in the provision of services to Israeli checkpoints, the police and Israeli prisons. How do you assess G4S’s role in Israel’s violations of international law?

SN: The first thing we need to establish is that we are talking here about G4S Israel, or Hashmira. The shares in this company are held overwhelmingly [91%] by the parent company, which is the British Danish company G4S. But it is G4S Israel operating the contracts in Israel and the occupied territories [the West Bank and Gaza Strip].

The background to this is that in 2002, G4S took over the Israeli security company Hashmira. That company had been engaged in activities in the occupied territories that included providing security services, security guards for settlements in the West Bank and also for businesses and prisons in the West Bank and prisons for Palestinian prisoners in Israel.

Over the years, the parent company G4S has faced considerable criticism from NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], particularly in Denmark, for the activities of its Israeli subsidiary. G4S says it has given up a number of contracts. They say they no longer provide security contracts for settlements themselves. They do still provide services to some businesses and also a police station in the West Bank.

One of the most problematic services they operate is the provision of technical equipment and maintenance for checkpoints. Those include checkpoints in the wall, known by many as the apartheid wall, although the Israeli authorities describe it as the separation barrier.

The wall cuts deep into Palestinian territory, encompassing most of the area of major Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, and cuts through Palestinian towns such as Qalqiliya. It prevents Palestinians from getting to their land and blocks Palestinian access to East Jerusalem.

The building of this wall was determined by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion of 2004 as being illegal, not just because the UN Security Council had said Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was illegal and determined that Israel should leave the occupied Palestinian territory but also because through the construction of this wall Israel was pursuing conduct which they found in breach of Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This provision makes it a crime for an occupying country to transfer its own population into the territory that it occupies. So the transfer of Israeli civilians into the settlements in the West Bank is a grave breach of the convention.

The court said that the wall had become an integral part of this crime because it was part of a policy of de facto annexation. What they saw was that Israel had created settlements in the West Bank and it had then constructed this wall which was designed ultimately to enable Israel to annex that territory. The court also observed that the wall had a serious impact on Palestinians’ right to access their land, water, education, health care. So it has a significant humanitarian impact as well.

The court talked not only about the wall, but about the wall and its associated regime. It considered that “the construction of the wall and its associated regime create a fait accompli on the ground that could well become permanent in which case and notwithstanding the formal characterization of the wall by Israel it would be tantamount to de facto annexation.”

When one talks about the associated regime of the wall, one certainly talks about the checkpoints, because the wall cannot operate without checkpoints. The checkpoints enable Israeli settlers and indeed Israeli citizens who are not necessarily settlers but may be visiting the settlements, to pass through that wall and access other parts of the West Bank, such as the Jordan Valley, which is subject to a considerable amount of economic exploitation by Israel. Much of the settlement produce which comes out from the [occupied West Bank] comes from the Jordan Valley.

So the checkpoints are necessary in order to allow Israelis access to the West Bank [and] to prevent Palestinians from passing the other way. If you are providing the technical facilities like the scanners and other equipment, and you also have a contract to look after them, to fix them when they go wrong, to ensure that they are working properly, then you are assisting in that process by ensuring that the checkpoints can effectively regulate the movement of people through the wall. That is one area in which G4S Israel may be assisting in something which the International Court of Justice has condemned as a breach of the Geneva conventions.

AN: And how do you assess G4S Israel’s involvement in prisons in Israel?

SN: One of the main areas of criticism from NGOs in Europe and far more significantly, from within Palestine, is the fact that G4S provides electronic security systems to prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held. These include both prisons and detention and interrogation centers.

It is well-established that Israel’s detention of Palestinian political prisoners breaches human rights norms routinely. Administrative detention has been much in the news as a result of the recent hunger strike, but it is a very longstanding issue. Criticism of G4S Israel has evolved around its involvement in providing security equipment to those prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held. Whether in doing that they are assisting in Israel’s breaches of international law is matter of argument, but it seems to me something that one would not easily be able to exclude.

As a result, it seems to me something G4S should not be doing. Clearly on moral grounds, but it may be legally problematic as well. G4S Israel is participant in the UN Global Compact which has ten principles for businesses. Principle one is that business should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights. Principle two is that they must not be complicit in human rights abuses.

Activists and members of NGOs which are concerned about what Western corporations are doing in other parts of the world can look at these legal principles and the norms that they attempt to establish and protect, and then one can look at what these companies are involving themselves in when they provide services to regimes which routinely breach human rights as Israel does in the occupied Palestinian territories.

AN: Do you think companies or its staff can be held accountable for breaches of international law?

SN: Companies themselves cannot be prosecuted in international courts. In domestic jurisdictions there are various crimes that corporations can commit, for example, corporate manslaughter or bribery. Not so for breaches of international law.

It is in theory possible for individuals who are responsible for the behavior of companies to be personally liable. There have been successful prosecutions of directors of companies. There was a well-known case in the Netherlands, the Van Anraat case, in which the director of a company was convicted of selling chemicals to the Saddam Hussein regime, knowing that they would be used to make mustard gas which then be used against civilians. He had no other involvement with the Saddam Hussein regime and no involvement in planning or organizing the attacks. Van Anraat was prosecuted on the basis that he was personally liable for the actions of his company. So it is possible to hold corporate officials responsible for the actions of a company, but every case will turn on its own facts, for example, who was responsible for the decisions and what their state of knowledge was.

AN: Palestine solidarity activists have campaigned to exclude the transportation giant Veolia from bidding for public contracts because of the company’s role in several Israeli projects in the occupied West Bank. They argue that this involvement can be qualified as grave professional misconduct. Do you think the same would apply for G4S?

SN: I think the same arguments made about Veolia can also be made about G4S Israel. I don’t know if the corporate structures of Veolia and G4S are similar, but I think the general point that is made about Veolia is that this is a company which operates in the occupied Palestinian territory through its involvement in building and operating the Jerusalem light railway.

There is a strong argument that the Jerusalem light railway breaches article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a similar criticism to that which can be made about G4S’s involvement in checkpoints for the wall. The Jerusalem light rail connects West Jerusalem with settlements in the [occupied West Bank] and appears designed to achieve the same goal that the International Court of Justice condemned in relation to the building of the wall, i.e. a policy which leads to the de facto annexation of territory in the West Bank and particularly territory around East Jerusalem. So in my opinion the same criticism can be made about G4S’s involvement in the wall. There is a clear analogy there.

First published at the Electronic Intifada.

AUTHOR: Adri Nieuwhof
URL: http://www.samora.org
E-MAIL: a.nieuwhof [at] samora.org

The ozone layer contributes to life and stability on earth but is threatened by ozone depleting substances (ODSs) even though an international agreement, the Montreal Protocol forbids their use. ODSs are class of gases given off in some substances used by man. On escape to the ozone layer, they react with ozone gas and render it useless for its UV-protection cause.

The ozone layer is a layer of gas, present in an upper part of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, about 20 – 48 km above sea level. The ozone layer contains mostly ozone gas, but oxygen and atomic oxygen gas are also present. These gases are involved in dissociation and combination reactions that help the ozone layer stop harmful UV rays from reaching us.

Ozone gas is lost in reaction with ODSs, and the atmosphere over Antarctica show the most loss. Arctic too, in 2011 was reported with a major depletion in the ozone layer over its atmosphere.  The ozone layer is expected to fully recover around mid-century when all ODSs there would diminish and ozone gases will be evenly distributed again.

However, the ozone layer and its ODS issue have been linked to global warming, making its depletion effects and recovery more complicated. CO₂, a major cause of global warming if it makes it way to the stratosphere, can drive heat away, contrasting what it does in the troposphere, to retain heat. This action reduces the heating effect, important, for reactions in the ozone layer for UV protection.

This possibility and growth in the amount CO₂ in the atmosphere because of human activities, leaves the ozone layer on the edge, even as polar vortex remains a key threat.  Scientists have been seeking ways to fight global warming and new problems countering ozone layer recovery.

Geoengineering, or climate engineering, an artificial approach to the earth climate system, that inputs things into it to have factors responsible for global warming reduced, is considered as a solution. Though, curbing emission as a way to stop global warming is preferred.

Geoengineering is also laid as a possible solution to repair the ozone layer in the case of extreme eventualities. Ozone Layer Geoengineering (OLG), a developing research work, appears to be workable and safe amongst the long list of geoengineering procedures. It submits that oxygen gas, a major component of reactions in the ozone layer is discharged there to join in reactions to replace lost ozone molecules.

Oxygen will be carried as liquid from planet earth, with an airship or unmanned aircraft and will be discharged as gas to the ozone layer. It will be discharged at points where eat-up by ODSs are unlikely and to points that will be effective in broader protection.

The research presentation of the OLG states in clear details of how the procedure will be carried and gave assurances of expected safety of the process, and its overall effect on the system. It is not as risky, as expensive and as complicated, as most space-based geoengineering procedures.

Geoengineering the ozone layer when the need arises and its solution can have the world understand that geoengineering is not an alternative introduced to further harm the world, but to mitigate the harm, some of our activities have triggered.

AUTHOR: David Stephen
URL: http://www.trpns.com
E-MAIL: Stephen [at] trpns.com

Baroness Catherine Ashton

Baroness Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union

Dear High Representative,

I write to you regarding recent developments in Burma and the forthcoming EU foreign ministers debate on reviewing the Common Position on Burma on April 23.

The EU has made positive gestures to support the nascent reforms in Burma, including pledging of €150 million for humanitarian assistance, and high-level visits by a number of EU foreign ministers. At this critical juncture, the EU will need to decide which sanctions should be suspended, such as visa bans on select individuals and restrictions on development assistance, while others should for now be maintained, including sanctions on sectors where the military maintains control, such as on gems, timber, and named enterprises.

The results of April 1 by-elections in Burma show just how much the Burmese people want reform and respect for human rights, and the depth of their support for democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD). It is a very positive step that they have been given the right to express their aspirations in this way, a step that should be recognized by the European Union.

While the NLD’s victory at the by-elections will make it harder for reactionary forces in Burma to pull the country backwards, they do not guarantee that Burma will move forward. The political opposition may have a monopoly on legitimacy in Burma, but the military still has something close to a monopoly on power – it runs the key ministries, does not answer to parliament or the courts, and can veto constitutional changes. The constitution still gives the military the right to appoint 25 percent of the seats in parliament. The commander in chief of the army continues to have the constitutional right to appoint and dismiss the president. The military continues to monopolize vast sectors of Burma’s economy and controls resources Burma earns from exporting natural resources. Even if reformers in the government are serious about tackling these problems, it will take time for them to do so and overcome potential resistance from the military itself.

The government still hasn’t made most of the legal, political and economic reforms necessary for Burma to move from dictatorship to democracy – reforms that may threaten some of the military’s core interests. Everything that has been granted in recent months, largely thanks to the good will of the president, can be taken away. It’s not clear that the military will eventually allow a real transfer of power to a government led by those elected by the free will of the people. The elections that really count are in 2015.

Sanctions have played a role in getting Burma to the hopeful point that it is today. While most of the pressure for change has come from within, the government now wants international legitimacy and greater economic engagement with the West. In this critical period, sanctions have given the democratic opposition negotiating leverage with the government, allowing it to bargain for entry into parliament, and the start of a reform process, as a condition for asking that sanctions be eased. It is essential to send some positive signals to the leadership now that they have taken initial steps. But the EU and the domestic opposition will need to maintain some leverage to influence the much harder decisions to come.

It is also important to ease sanctions, in a way that favors the forces of progress towards human rights and rule of law in the country, while continuing to disadvantage those holding progress back – including military leaders still engaged in human rights abuses in conflict areas and military owned companies.

In light of this, the EU should now consider several positive steps – for example, further easing of visa bans, and increases in humanitarian and development assistance. Visa bans and asset freezes against named individuals in Burma that are not high-ranking military officials or their close associates could potentially be lifted, subject to a careful review to determine that they do not bear responsibility for abuses, while sanctions against key uniformed leaders of the armed forces should be maintained.

The EU should also maintain restrictive measures against sectors of the economy like gems, timber and mining. These and other natural resource industries are monopolized by the military, managed in a way that fuels corruption, and have the effect of increasing the autonomy and impunity of the military vis-à-vis civilian officials. These sectors are also concentrated in areas of the country still beset by conflict, where the military continues to commit grave human rights abuses against the civilian population.

Lifting sanctions on gems and timber, for example, would not advance reform in Burma – to the contrary, it could reinforce economic practices that empower reactionary forces and diminish incentives for reform. It would also be a breach of faith with the ethnic minority communities, given that Burmese army abuses against ethnic minorities continue with impunity, and these minorities have little say in how the government pursues development in their parts of the country. For instance, fighting has been ongoing since June 2011 in Kachin State, with 75,000 people displaced as a result. Human Rights Watch has reported, “‘Untold Miseries:’ Wartime Abuses and Forced Displacement in Burma’s Kachin State,” that documents has noted serious abuses by the Burmese army against ethnic Kachin civilians, including forced labor, targeting of civilians, torture, and ill-treatment. I urge that the EU’s arms embargo against Burma should not be subject to review or removal, in light of ongoing abuses in conflict areas, will human rights and humanitarian law violations continue with impunity.

Sanctions should be lifted step by step, over a period of perhaps three years, in response to significant and specific steps towards reform and greater respect for human rights by the Burmese government. The easing or suspension of sanctions should proceed in a manner that recognizes progress but preserves the leverage of the EU and of Burma’s opposition and civil society, in the lead-up to the most important test of the government’s commitment to change, the 2015 elections.

Burmese government actions that could trigger positive responses include, for example:

Releasing all remaining political prisoners;
Instituting a credible process to review cases in which there is a disagreement about whether the person is imprisoned for political reasons;
Allowing international and local humanitarian organizations and independent human rights monitors unhindered access to conflict areas and the delivery of adequate amounts and kinds of humanitarian aid;
Invoking a zero tolerance of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations in Burma’s conflict areas, investigate allegations of crimes, discipline and prosecute perpetrators and compensate victims;
Reforming laws that criminalize free expression and allow censorship of the media;
Bringing Burmese law and practice into conformity with international standards on fundamental freedoms, including expression, association, and assembly;
Altering constitutional provisions that give the military powers over the civilian government and that prevent it from being accountable to civilian control;
Creating a climate conducive to free and fair elections in 2015; and affirming that the government is prepared to transfer power to whoever wins those elections;
Fulfilling all of the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry on Forced Labor in Burma.
I do not advocate that the EU or other actors develop or endorse a precise roadmap or matrix to ease or lift sanctions, in which they promise specific rewards in exchange for specific steps such as those listed above. I recognize that significant actions by the Burmese government should trigger positive responses but pre-arranged inducements could be counter-productive, including if the international community is forced to reward a step forward in one area while the Burmese government is stepping back in another. The international community should maintain the flexibility to respond appropriately if progress in one area in Burma is accompanied by setbacks in another. At every stage, it should consult with opposition leaders, civil society groups (including trade unions), and reformers in the government before moving forward.

When conditions in Burma warrant the EU moving to permit investment and trade in mining, timber and gem sectors and with the Burmese partners that are subject to sanctions, new rules should be put in place setting out core requirements for responsible, rights-respecting trade and investment in Burma. In preparation for that time, the EU should begin now to consult with civil society to develop strong accountability and transparency measures for businesses active in Burma.

AUTHOR: William Nicholas Gomes
URL: www.williamgomes.org
E-MAIL: williamgomes.org [at] gmail.com

The British government is central to these efforts and their views have been laid our rather well in this blog post from Philip Barton, who is the Deputy Head of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Washington. I was particularly pleased with this excerpt:

Ultimately decisions on Somalia’s future rest with the Somali people. The role of the international community is to facilitate Somalia’s progress and development: our strength is in unity and coordinated support to Somalia. As Foreign Secretary Hague said;

“A more stable Somalia is vital to our national security here in Britain; it is essential to the stability of the Horn of Africa; and it is long overdue for the people of Somalia who have endured twenty years of desperate suffering.”

Our goals are ambitious, but realistic. We know they can’t be achieved overnight and certainly not without international cooperation. We are pleased the United States is standing with us at this important moment, as we have stood together so many times in the past. Coordinated leadership is vital to making a reality of our shared vision of a more stable Somalia.

The United States appears to be putting its money where its mouth is. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today announced at the conference that the United States is committing an extra $64 million in humanitarian aid to Horn countries as part of a larger vision for the region’s future stability. The money is a pittance relative to both the problems of the area and the United States’ budget, but it along with Clinton’s larger remarks reveals a clear sign of American engagement in the region.

All involved in these discussions know that no advancements will come easily in Somalia and the rest of the Horn. There is no magic bullet. But recent weeks have see a few positive advancements and maybe, just maybe, within the next decade we will see progress in a region that has not moved forward in a long, long time.

AUTHOR: Derek Charles Catsam
URL: http://africa.foreignpolicyblogs.com
E-MAIL: derekcatsam [at] hotmail.com

It is now obvious even to the most casual observer that the IMF-EU austerity measures have reduced Greece from a semi-developed to an underdeveloped country, given that under austerity in the past two years GDP declined by an astonishing 13%, and it is expected to drop an additional 5-8% in 2012, for a combined three-year total of more than 20%. Portugal will follow the footsteps of Greece, and considering that the rating agencies Moody’s Fitch and Standard and Poor’s have either downgraded or about to downgrade Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Malta, Belgium, Slovenia, Poland, UK, France, and Austria, Europe is in for a very rough year.

No one should be surprised that uprisings will erupt across Europe this spring and summer, unless there is a shift in the existing policy of impoverishing the debtor EU members, so that Germany may enjoy an easy ride toward regional hegemony. There are of course economists, politicians, journalists and university professors acting as apologists for neo-liberal capitalism that is creating wretchedness across Europe, and not just in southern Europe but across most of the continent. A close examination as the IMF-EU package for Greece exposes the criminal policies of the IMF-EU led by Germany as completely non-functioning policies that have the exact opposite result of what the IMF and Germany proclaim is the goal.

1. As a result of IMF-EU austerity, Greece has official unemployment rate at 21% in January 2012 (unofficially at 25%), or double what it was before the IMF-EU imposed austerity.

2. Poverty is officially at 27.7% (unofficially at one-third of the population), of ten percentage points higher than it was before the IMF-EU austerity.

3. Wages, benefits, and social security have dropped by 40%, including the cuts now imminent, and living standards have dropped by 50% owing to compensation cuts and higher taxes.

4. Public debt has risen from 120% of GDP before the IMF-EU austerity to 160% today and expected to rise at roughly 200% if austerity without economic development continues.

5. The three leftist political parties enjoyed around 15% of the vote before the IMF-EU austerity, while according to public opinion polls those parties now enjoy 40% of popular support.

6. Small businesses, which employ the vast majority of the labor force, will be closing at a rate of 5000 per month this year, on top of roughly 100,000 small businesses, employing 250,000 people, going bankrupt since the IMF-EU came in the country. This has resulted in everything from loan-sharking operations targeting businesspeople to skyrocketing mental illnesses and suicides.

7. Inflation rate was about 5% before IMF-EU austerity and despite massive cuts in wages, benefits, and social security, inflation remains at roughly 3.3% after two years of a sharp drop in GDP and living standards.

8. While tax collection has improved, the tax burden since IMF-EU austerity has fallen on the salaried sector and social security recipients, not on the tax evaders, especially the millionaires who owe billions to the government. Tax evasion continues unabated while tax receipts have dropped owing to the sharp drop in GDP, which went from $350 billion in 2008 to under $300 billion in 2011, and expected to drop an additional 5% to 8% in 2012, bring GDP to between $285 and $275 billion.

9. Greece currently ranks 170th in the world in terms of investment, and dropping, considering that the few thousand wealthy families and individuals have taken out of the country most of the capital estimated at around $800 billion. New investment is at a standstill, because investors are waiting for more sharp downturn in asset values and for greater incentives by the government to invest.

10. Budgetary deficit continues to remain at double-digit figures, hovering at just under 10% in 2011, despite the infamous “Greek statistics” manufactured to make the budget appear better than it is. The budgetary deficit will remain very high in 2012 as productivity remains low and horizontal taxes increase while taxes on those who owe and the wealthy remain an elusive goal.

11. Despite the austerity measures that are intended to achieve balance of payments equilibrium, Greek exports increased by $4 billion in 2011 over the previous year, but imports increased by $5 billion, thus adding to the balance of payments deficit.

12. Of the 130 billion euros in new loans, in addition to the previous 160 billion euros, roughly 80% goes back to creditors to service past debts, 15% for Greek banks, and 5% to pay existing government obligations to domestic and foreign creditors for purchases of everything from defense equipment to pharmaceuticals. Not one euro of the roughly 300 billion in bailout has gone for economic development or social programs.

13. Although IMF and EU promised that their policies were intended to lower costs, the exact opposite has taken place. The IMF-EU conditionality has entailed that Greece accept a minimum wage of roughly 400 euros and social security benefits averaging about 500 euros. Part of the reason is that asset values, including the telephone, electric, water, waste, oil, airport, off-track betting and lottery, and other public assets become much cheaper by lowering wages and benefits once foreign investors purchase them, as it is mandatory that they must be sold to private investors.

The above 13 points illustrate how the IMF and EU have underdeveloped Greece, depriving it of capital to develop its natural resources and take advantage of its highly-educated human labor resources. Greece was semi-developed, living off borrowed money, and enjoying the expansion of a middle class economy under the liberal credit system of the past three decades.

Failing to invest assets productively, the utterly corrupt Greek political class in collaboration with the Greek capitalists and middle class diverted resources from production to consumption and parasitic investments. Taking advantage of the considerable wealth in the Greek middle class, foreign financial institutions, mostly German and French, sought to absorb the capital from the Greek middle class to strengthen the core economies, a strategy that has been around for more than two centuries of imperialism.

The lessons learned here are not whether Greece remains or leaves the eurozone, for that is not significant, as is the reality that capital has been drained by the domestic and foreign capitalists, leaving the country roughly at the same underdeveloped status as it was in the 1960s. The lesson here is that Greece is the canary in the mine, and that other countries should fly as far away from austerity as they can to save their people.

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com