Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #286 Update on Germany

Lis­ten: Side 1 | Side 2

1. As the title indi­cates, this broad­cast cov­ers recent polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic mat­ters affect­ing Ger­many, the dom­i­nant nation in Europe. The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of a pro­posed plan to take DNA sam­ples from all males in Ger­many, osten­si­bly to com­bat crime. (“DNA Data­base Sought to Solve Crimes” by Geir Moul­son; San Jose Mer­cury News; 3/14/2001; p. 2A.)

2. “As Ger­many con­fronts the hor­ror of a 12-year-old girl’s rape and stran­gu­la­tion, some politi­cians are propos­ing a rad­i­cal approach to solv­ing the crime: col­lect­ing genet­ic mate­r­i­al from the entire adult male pop­u­la­tion of 41 mil­lion.” (Idem.) Opposed by civ­il lib­er­tar­i­ans, this pro­pos­al could have grave impli­ca­tions, if enact­ed. His­tor­i­cal­ly, genet­ics and total­i­tar­i­an pol­i­tics have been asso­ci­at­ed, through the pseu­do-sci­ence of genet­ics. In the con­text of the girl’s mur­der and the dire pro­pos­als it engen­dered, it should be not­ed that a Ger­man ser­i­al killer named Fritz Har­mann ter­ror­ized the city of Hanover dur­ing the days of the Weimar Repub­lic. A paid infor­mant for the Hanover police depart­ment, Har­man­n’s mur­ders fright­ened the Ger­man peo­ple and, in some ways, helped to cre­ate the psy­cho-social con­di­tions nec­es­sary for the rise of fas­cism. It should be not­ed that the head of the Hanover police depart­ment at the time that Har­mann worked for it was Gus­tav Noske, the for­mer defense min­is­ter for Ger­many. Noske set up the para­mil­i­tary for­ma­tions that spawned the so-called “Black Reich­swehr.” The lat­ter paved the way for the rise of Hitler through a wave of polit­i­cal mur­ders.

3. Next, the pro­gram high­lights the grow­ing fric­tion between the U.S. and Ger­man nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ments. “The Ger­man for­eign office and Bun­deswehr are pulling the plugs on Microsoft soft­ware, cit­ing secu­ri­ty con­cerns, accord­ing to the Ger­man news mag­a­zine Der Spiegel. Spiegel claims that Ger­man secu­ri­ty author­i­ties sus­pect that the U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency (NSA) has ‘back door’ access to Microsoft source code, and can there­fore eas­i­ly read the Fed­er­al Repub­lic’s deep­est secrets.” (“Ger­man Armed Forces Ban MS Soft­ware, Cit­ing NSA Snoop­ing” by John Let­tice; The Reg­is­ter; 3/17/2001.)

4. In addi­tion, video con­fer­enc­ing between Ger­man diplo­mat­ic sta­tions is also being restruc­tured. “The Ger­man for­eign office has mean­while put plans for video­con­fer­enc­ing with its over­seas embassies on hold, for sim­i­lar rea­sons. Under sec­re­tary of state Gunter Pleuger is said by Spiegel to have dis­cov­ered that ‘for tech­ni­cal rea­sons’ the satel­lite ser­vice that was to be used was rout­ed via Den­ver, Col­orado. Accord­ing to a col­league of Pleuger’s this meant that the Ger­man for­eign ser­vices ‘might as well hold our con­fer­ences direct­ly in Lan­g­ley.’ ” (Idem.)

5. The arti­cle cit­ed above also notes that “. . . Deutsche Telekom. . . along with Siemens. . . picked up the gig. The two com­pa­nies have sup­plant­ed Microsoft (and any­thing else Amer­i­can) and will be pro­duc­ing a secure, home-grown sys­tem that the Ger­man mil­i­tary can be con­fi­dent in.” (Idem.)

6. Past dis­cus­sion of com­mu­ni­ca­tions secu­ri­ty in the Unit­ed States has involved the pro­posed pur­chase of Amer­i­can mobile phone com­pa­nies Voic­eS­tream and Pow­er­tel by Deutsche Telekom, con­trolled by the Ger­man gov­ern­ment. There had been con­cern that the Ger­man gov­ern­men­tal con­trol over Deutsche Telekom might con­sti­tute a nation­al secu­ri­ty threat to the Unit­ed States. FTR-245 high­light­ed the fact that the DT acqui­si­tions of Voic­eS­tream and Pow­er­tel were to be accom­plished through “equi­ty” purchases—the cap­i­tal ten­dered was to be in the form of DT stock. FTR-245 also under­scored the fact that DT’s stock was sig­nif­i­cant­ly over­val­ued. This pro­gram fur­ther doc­u­ments that over­val­u­a­tion.

7. “A for­mer senior exec­u­tive at Deutsche Telekom AG alleges that man­age­ment at Ger­many’s biggest telecom­mu­ni­ca­tion com­pa­ny knew as ear­ly as 1995 that its real-estate assets were vast­ly over­val­ued on the bal­ance sheet. . . . Mr. [Frerich] Goerts alleged that when Telekom was cre­at­ed out of the Ger­man postal min­istry on Jan­u­ary 1, 1995, its first bal­ance sheet inflat­ed val­ues for the com­pa­ny’s real estate at 36 bil­lion marks ($17 bil­lion). Mr. Goerts said an inter­nal audit lat­er in 1995 deter­mined the val­u­a­tion was at least 10 bil­lion marks too high.” (“Deutsche Telekom’s Stance on Real Estate Is Dis­put­ed” by William Boston; 3/19/2001; p. A14.)

8. Fol­low­ing dis­cus­sion of Deutsche Telekom, the pro­gram revis­its the issue of law­suits seek­ing com­pen­sa­tion for crimes com­mit­ted by Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions dur­ing the Third Reich. “A foun­da­tion set up by Ger­man indus­try announced on Tues­day that it had raised near­ly $2.5 bil­lion to com­pen­sate for­mer slave work­ers in the third Reich. But exec­u­tives of the com­pa­nies said today that they would not release the mon­ey until all suits pend­ing in the Unit­ed States had been dis­missed. The ambigu­ous mes­sage means that the aging sur­vivors of World War II con­cen­tra­tion camps may have to wait for sev­er­al months or even longer before receiv­ing pay­ments. . . . [Ger­man Chan­cel­lor Ger­hard] Schroder, speak­ing to reporters today in Berlin after meet­ing with indus­tri­al lead­ers expressed a vague sym­pa­thy with the indus­tri­al view and placed respon­si­bil­i­ty on Amer­i­can lawyers and Amer­i­can courts in dis­miss­ing the pend­ing cas­es. ‘We—German indus­try and the government—are inter­est­ed in a speedy pay­out,’ he said. ‘How­ev­er, we are in no posi­tion to bring about the con­di­tions that are still need­ed.’ A spokes­woman for the Amer­i­can Jew­ish com­mit­tee in Berlin, Dei­dre Aberg­er, said the Ger­man com­pa­nies were demand­ing a high lev­el of legal secu­ri­ty that just did not exist in real­i­ty.” (“Ger­mans, Cit­ing Suits, Say They’re Hold­ing War Slaves’ Fund” by Edmund L. Andrews; New York Times; 3/15/2001; p. A11.)

9. A recent rul­ing by an appeals court judge had led to fur­ther legal maneu­ver­ing. “Judge [Shirley Wohl] Kram expressed her ‘sym­pa­thy and gen­uine, seri­ous con­cern for elder­ly vic­tims.’ But she placed the blame for con­tin­u­ing delays on the Ger­man side, urg­ing the com­pen­sa­tion foun­da­tion to begin imme­di­ate inter­im pay­ments to sur­vivors. Both the U.S. and Ger­man gov­ern­ments plan to join the legal moves to appeal against Judge Kram’s deci­sion and estab­lish legal clo­sure in the three-year old dis­pute. The Ger­man foun­da­tion refus­es to begin pay­ments until the lit­i­ga­tion is end­ed and it has achieved ‘legal peace’ with the US.” (“Judge’s Stand on Holo­caust Deal Spurs Appeal” by Richard Wolffe and John Authers; Finan­cial Times; 3/21/2001; p.6.)

10. Anoth­er devel­op­ment on the Ger­man cor­po­rate front con­cerns Ger­many’s draft­ing of new rules that would impede hos­tile takeovers by for­eign cor­po­ra­tions. “Ger­many’s cen­tre-left gov­ern­ment declared yes­ter­day it would press ahead with its own plans to cre­ate a clear legal basis for hos­tile cor­po­rate bat­tles after the fail­ure to agree on com­mon rules at the Euro­pean Union lev­el. Berlin’s ini­tia­tive under­lines the deter­mi­na­tion of Chan­cel­lor Ger­hard Schroder’s admin­is­tra­tion to cor­rect defi­cien­cies in exist­ing, large­ly vol­un­tary, rules which were exposed by Voda­fone Air­Touch’s suc­cess­ful hos­tile takeover bid for Ger­many’s Man­nes­mann last year. . . . there are spe­cif­ic exemp­tions allow­ing tar­get com­pa­nies, for instance, to solic­it a com­pet­ing bid from a ‘white knight.’ ” (“Ger­many to Draw up Own Takeover Rules” by Ralph Atkins; Finan­cial Times; 3/13/2001; p.2.)

11. Fol­low­ing dis­cus­sion of the new takeover pro­pos­als, the pro­gram sets forth the Ger­man gov­ern­men­t’s request to join an inves­ti­ga­tion into the French acqui­si­tion of the Leu­na oil refin­ery in the for­mer East Ger­many. A for­mer I.G. Far­ben facil­i­ty, the Leu­na instal­la­tion was acquired by Elf Aquitaine.

12. “The Ger­man gov­ern­ment con­firmed yes­ter­day it had for­mal­ly applied to join legal pro­ceed­ings in three coun­tries as part of its inves­ti­ga­tion into the pri­va­ti­za­tion sale in 1992 of the for­mer East Ger­man Leu­na petro-chem­i­cals group to France’s Elf Aquitaine, now part of Total­Fi­na Elf. . . . The pur­chase, accom­pa­nied by big com­mis­sion pay­ments to third par­ties, has been cen­tral to spec­u­la­tion that the for­mer Chris­t­ian Demo­c­rat-led gov­ern­ment under ex-chan­cel­lor Hel­mut Kohl may have received ille­gal polit­i­cal con­tri­bu­tions.” (“Berlin Applies to Join Leu­na Action” by Haig Simon­ian; Finan­cial Times; 3/21/2001; p. 3.)

13. One of the many con­sid­er­a­tions loom­ing in the back­ground of the Elf Aquitaine scan­dal con­cerns the poten­tial impact that the rev­e­la­tions of one Alfred Sir­ven might have on the inves­ti­ga­tion. Sir­ven threat­ened to dis­close dev­as­tat­ing infor­ma­tion in the event that he was brought to jus­tice in con­nec­tion with the case.

14. Recent­ly, Sir­ven proved more ret­i­cent than he appeared to be at first. “He had bragged in the past that he knew enough about cor­rupt offi­cials ‘to bring down the Repub­lic 20 times.’ But in the end he refused to tes­ti­fy after his requests for a new tri­al were turned down. ‘My pres­ence here is not nec­es­sary here for any­body,’ he said last week, insist­ing that he be returned to La Sante prison in Paris.” (“Tes­ti­mo­ny Comes to an End in French Cor­rup­tion Tri­al” by Suzanne Daley; New York Times; 3/22/2001; p. A10.)

15. It is not clear what caused Sir­ven’s appar­ent change of heart in this mat­ter. In FTR #‘s 276 and 278, Sir­ven’s poten­tial dis­clo­sures were eval­u­at­ed in terms of the poten­tial dam­age it might do to the French polit­i­cal estab­lish­ment, in par­tic­u­lar, the pos­si­ble rev­e­la­tions con­cern­ing the degree of col­lab­o­ra­tion between the post­war French elite and the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal orga­ni­za­tion. The eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal com­po­nent of a Third Reich gone under­ground, the Bor­mann group is a pri­ma­ry ele­ment of the analy­sis pre­sent­ed in the For the Record pro­grams.

16. Mr. Sir­ven’s arrest came at a key time for the evo­lu­tion of the Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed Euro­pean Union. Ger­man chan­cel­lor Ger­hard Schroder has been pres­sur­ing France (and the Unit­ed King­dom) to cede greater fed­er­al pow­ers to the EU. “Ger­many’s bold new pos­tur­ing at the week­end was summed up by the coun­try’s influ­en­tial Frank­furter All­ge­meine news­pa­per which said: ‘there was one thing peo­ple there had not heard before; the clar­i­ty with which Ger­many intends to draw the lines of future devel­op­ment, there­by inci­den­tal­ly lay­ing down direc­tion, pace and con­tent for its French neigh­bor.’ His com­ments will send a shud­der through his part­ners in Lon­don and Paris.” (“Schroder Launch­es Brus­sels Offen­sive” by Allan Hall; The Scots­man; 1/26/2001.)

17. Ger­many has also moved to fun­da­men­tal­ly alter EU agri­cul­tur­al pol­i­cy in the wake of the out­breaks of mad-cow and foot-and-mouth dis­eases in Europe. (For a longer dis­cus­sion of these dis­eases, see FTR-287.) “To date France has indi­cat­ed no enthu­si­asm for change. But last week in the UK, where the out­break of foot-and-mouth dis­ease has brought much of the agri­cul­tur­al indus­try to a stand­still, prime min­is­ter Tony Blair echoed [Ger­man leg­is­la­tor Renate] Kunast’s sen­ti­ments. . . . Many observers are con­vinced the mad cow cri­sis has trig­gered a gen­uine reassess­ment of farm pol­i­cy in Berlin. But Mr. Schroder has stopped notice­ably short of demand­ing the re-open­ing of the long-term farm reform he failed to impose com­plete­ly in 1999, when Ger­many held the EU’s rotat­ing pres­i­den­cy. Progress appeared to have been made on the prin­ci­ple of co-financing—under which EU expen­di­ture would have been cut by shift­ing part of the farm spend­ing bur­den to mem­ber states. But in the end, the then still inex­pe­ri­enced chan­cel­lor ran up against the unyield­ing oppo­si­tion of France’s Pres­i­dent Jacques Chirac at the March 1999 Berlin sum­mit.” (“Ger­many Sig­nals the Euro­pean Union Agri­cul­tur­al Pol­i­cy has to Change” by Haig Simon­ian; Finan­cial Times; 3/5/2001; p.2.)

18. EU fed­er­al­iza­tion appears to have received some­thing of a boost with a recent legal deci­sion. “The Euro­pean Court of Jus­tice ruled yes­ter­day that the Euro­pean Union can law­ful­ly sup­press polit­i­cal crit­i­cism of its insti­tu­tions and of lead­ing fig­ures, sweep­ing aside Eng­lish Com­mon Law and 50 years of Euro­pean prece­dents on civ­il lib­er­ties. The EU’s top court found that the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion was enti­tled to sack Bernard Con­nol­ly, a British econ­o­mist dis­missed in 1995 for writ­ing a cri­tique of mon­e­tary inte­gra­tion enti­tled The Rot­ten Heart of Europe. The rul­ing stat­ed that the com­mis­sion could restrict dis­sent in order to ‘pro­tect the rights of oth­ers’ and pun­ish indi­vid­u­als who ‘dam­aged the insti­tu­tion’s image and rep­u­ta­tion.’ The case has wider impli­ca­tions for free speech that could extend to EU cit­i­zens who do not work for the Brus­sels bureau­cra­cy. . . . Mr. Colom­er wrote in his opin­ion last Novem­ber that a land­mark British case on free speech had ‘no foun­da­tion or rel­e­vance’ in Euro­pean law, sug­gest­ing that the Euro­pean Court was unwill­ing to give much con­sid­er­a­tion to British legal tra­di­tion.” (“Euro-Court Out­laws Crit­i­cism of EU” by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard; The Dai­ly Tele­graph, July 5, 2001.)

19. Dis­cussing the Euro­pean Mon­e­tary Union, FTR-286 high­lights the the­o­ret­i­cal basis for that insti­tu­tion. Pan-Ger­man the­o­reti­cian Friedrich List set forth a plan for a Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed Euro­pean eco­nom­ic fed­er­a­tion as a vehi­cle for real­iz­ing Ger­man impe­r­i­al ambi­tions. “Many of the major ele­ments of eco­nom­ic impe­ri­al­ism were enun­ci­at­ed in the 1840’s by the ubiq­ui­tous Friedrich List. . . . He fore­saw an eco­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion with an indus­tri­al­ized Ger­many as its cen­ter and a periph­ery of oth­er cen­tral and east­ern Euro­pean states that would sup­ply food and raw mate­ri­als for Ger­man indus­try and would pur­chase Ger­man indus­tri­al prod­ucts. A semi-autar­kic struc­ture would thus be cre­at­ed; it would have the advan­tage of per­mit­ting con­trol, or even exclu­sion, of British com­pe­ti­tion. . . .” (The Ide­o­log­i­cal Ori­gins of Nazi Impe­ri­al­ism by Woodruff D. Smith; Copy­right 1986; Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press [SC]; ISBN 0–19-504741–9; p.30.)

20. Next, the pro­gram excerpts FTR-102, high­light­ing the Nazi “cor­po­ratist” strat­e­gy of con­quest that con­sti­tutes the foun­da­tion of the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion. “. . . much of the bank­ing and indus­tri­al elite of Ger­many favored a more tra­di­tion­al, impe­r­i­al approach to acquir­ing a new empire in Europe. . . .Their strat­e­gy favored inte­grat­ing busi­ness­es in coun­tries occu­pied by the Ger­mans into pri­vate indus­tri­al syn­di­cates coor­di­nat­ed through Ger­man-based car­tels and through pri­vate insti­tu­tions such as Deutsche Bank. The pri­vate com­pa­nies in turn pledged their loy­al­ty to Hitler’s gov­ern­ment. Ger­man mil­i­tary con­quest should be used to cre­ate con­di­tions through which Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions could buy up the key enter­pris­es in new­ly sub­ju­gat­ed coun­ties at very favor­able prices, this fac­tion con­tend­ed. But only in rare instances should the state take direct com­mand of indus­try. Much of the senior lead­er­ship of the Deutsche Bank, IG Far­ben, the Siemens group of com­pa­nies, and oth­er Ger­man-based car­tels main­tained that Ger­many should reen­ter the world mar­ket­place rather than attempt to build up the ortho­dox Nazi dream of a self-suf­fi­cient Ger­man empire in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe.” (The Splen­did Blond Beast: Mon­ey, Law and Geno­cide in the 20th Cen­tu­ry; by Christo­pher Simp­son; Copy­right 1995; Com­mon Courage Press [SC]; ISBN 1–56751-062–0; p. 71.)

21. As Ger­many pre­pared to face mil­i­tary defeat and planned for the post­war, under­ground sur­vival of the Third Reich through the Bor­mann orga­ni­za­tion, this “cor­po­ratist” fac­tion car­ried the day. FTR-278 (among oth­er broad­casts) ana­lyzes the ‘Himm­lerkreis” that financed the work­ings of the SS.

22. The dis­cus­sion turns to Himm­lerkreis in con­nec­tion with the post-war con­tin­gency plans. “. . . as the war turned against the Third Reich, a num­ber of busi­ness lead­ers in the Himm­lerkreis began to coop­er­ate in clan­des­tine and semi­clan­des­tine con­tin­gency plan­ning for the post­war peri­od. Two of the best known of these groups, the Arbeit­skreis fur aussen­wirtschaftliche Fra­gen (Work­ing Group for For­eign Eco­nom­ic Ques­tions and the Kleine Arbeit­skreis (Small Work­ing Group), were nom­i­nal­ly spon­sored by the Reichs­gruppe Indus­trie asso­ci­a­tion of major indus­tri­al and finan­cial com­pa­nies. They brought togeth­er Bless­ing, Rasche Kurt von Schroed­er, Lin­de­mann, and oth­ers from the Himm­lerkreis with oth­er busi­ness peo­ple such as. . . Lud­wig Erhard (then an econ­o­mist with the Reichs­gruppe Indus­trie and lat­er Kon­rad Ade­nauer’s most impor­tant eco­nom­ic advi­sor. . . . with Nazi busi­ness spe­cial­ists such as Otto Ohlen­dorf (the for­mer com­man­der of the Ein­satz­gruppe D mur­der troops) and Hans Kehrl (SS busi­ness spe­cial­ist). A half-dozen sim­i­lar busi­ness forums emerged dur­ing the last years of the Third Reich. Most of these over­lapped in mem­ber­ship, and all of them favored some vari­a­tion of the ‘cor­po­ratist’ strat­e­gy for empire artic­u­lat­ed by Hjal­mar Schacht, Abs and oth­ers. . . .” (Ibid.; pp. 155–6.) (Lud­wig Erhard suc­ceed­ed Ade­nauer as chan­cel­lor.)

23. Next, the pro­gram revis­its the sub­ject of the res­ur­rec­tion of fas­cism in post­war Ger­many. “On Novem­ber 10, the Ger­man par­lia­men­t’s upper house vot­ed to sup­port Schroed­er’s ini­tia­tive to out­law the NPD. But on the same day, Ger­many’s high­est state medal, the Bun­desver­di­en­stkreuz, (Fed­er­al Cross of Mer­it) was award­ed to Heinz Eck­hoff, 77, a Waf­fen SS vet­er­an who had joined the neo-nazi NPD when it was formed in the mid-1960’s. Eck­hoff sub­se­quent­ly grav­i­tat­ed toward the con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian Demo­c­ra­t­ic Union, which dom­i­nat­ed West Ger­man pol­i­tics for many years while func­tion­ing as a catch-basin for var­i­ous right-wing inter­est groups, includ­ing some that cling to the mem­o­ry of the Third Reich.” (“Neo-nazism: It’s Not Just in Ger­many’s Beer Halls Any­more” by Mar­tin A. Lee; Los Ange­les Times; 12/31/2001; p. M2.)

24. The Ger­man NPD has strong con­nec­tions with the Nation­al Alliance, arguably the most impor­tant of the Amer­i­can Nazi groups. “The NPD’s clos­est U.S. ally is Dr. William Pierce, head of the neo-nazi nation­al Alliance and author of the noto­ri­ous hate nov­el, The Turn­er Diaries, which the FBI has called ‘the blue­print for the Okla­homa City bomb­ing.’ In 1998, Pierce trav­eled to Ger­many to attend the NPD’s nation­al con­ven­tion. The leader of the NPD’s youth wing, Alexan­der von Webe­nau, sub­se­quent­ly vis­it­ed Pierce at his remote, rur­al encamp­ment in West Vir­ginia. While there Webe­nau spoke at an invi­ta­tion-only con­fer­ence host­ed by the Nation­al Alliance. Pierce also pub­lished an inter­view with NDP chief Udo Voigt.” (“Far Right Vio­lence Soars in Ger­many” by Mar­tin A. Lee; San Fran­cis­co Bay Guardian; 3/19/2001.)

25. Last­ly, the pro­gram touch­es on the search to recov­er the Amber Room, a price­less work of art that dis­ap­peared from Rus­sia dur­ing World War II.  “One of the most endur­ing but futile post­war trea­sure hunts—the search for the so-called amber room, loot­ed by the nazis from a Russ­ian palace in 1941—has wound its way to this remote fron­tier vil­lage, where a sub­ter­ranean race has begun between rival Ger­man and Czech teams. The com­pet­ing Raiders of the Lost Amber are equal­ly cer­tain that this fabled piece of plun­der lies hid­den in a large and long-aban­doned sil­ver mine that runs beneath the bor­der.” (“Race to Recov­er Rus­si­a’s Fabled Amber Room” by Peter Finn [Wash­ing­ton Post]; San Jose Mer­cury News; 2/2/2001; p. 2A.)

26. The broad­cast ends with an excerpt from one of the sources uti­lized in FTR-234. “ ‘The Bor­mann group,’ [Georg] Stein said, ‘I know there are such—groups. Pow­er­ful groups. Groups of old, and new Nazis. They, too, want to find the Amber Room, the finan­cial bonan­za to them would be immense. . . . ‘Do not take my warn­ing light­ly,’ Stein cau­tioned him. ‘The mat­ter in which you have involved your­self, the strug­gle to find the miss­ing Amber Room, is a dan­ger­ous mat­ter. I myself have often been warned. Every­one knows of the dan­gers’. . . . A year lat­er, Georg Stein was found mur­dered in a for­est near Munich, naked, stabbed to death with two table knives that were still stuck in his body.” (Quest: Search­ing for the Truth of Ger­many’s Nazi Past; by Ib Mel­chior and Frank Bran­den­burg; Copy­right 1990; Pre­sidio Press [SC]; ISBN 0–89141-532–1; pp. 303–306.)


No comments for “FTR #286 Update on Germany”

Post a comment