[Marxism] RE: Jim Yarker - modern Holocaust revisionist

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[forwarded from Jim Yarker...]


The fact that you find my arguments "shriek of Zionism" and that I've been
transformed into an apologist for Israeli policies in occupied Palestine in
your reply just about tells us everything we need to know about your
intellectual honesty and tactics of debate.  And it doesn't surprise, coming
from a hack who throws around apocryphal and long-discredited figures about
200,000 killed in the Bosnian war (and *all* 200,000 of them Muslims!) in
the pages of your rag GreenLeft, about 10,000 "Muslim men and boys"
slaughtered at Srebrenica, etc.  (I guess that explains why Serbs lost by
far the most land in the war, and why, according to the notoriously
pro-Milosevic and Serbophile US Information Agency, Serbs report the most
lost family members of any group in Bosnia, etc).

But fwiw, I happen to believe, as did Lenin - and as documented by Lenni
Brenner - that Zionism is a reactionary, exclusionist blood and soil
ideology (like Ustashism, which the nazis didn't invent as some mere
quisling banner, nor whose planned and conscious and amply documented
holocaust against the Serbs did the nazis plan or direct) which both
profited from and helped to fuel fascism and anti-semitism, in Europe
especially, that it served to weaken and disempower the working class by
dividing Jewish from non-Jewish workers and drawing people and energy away
from cross-ethnic revolutionary socialist politics.  And this would explain
why the Zionist leadership was supported by British imperialism (including
British ruling class anti-semites who wanted a "little Jewish Ulster" as a
springboard) and why the Zionist leadership supported the White forces in
the Russian Civil War, who included some of Europe's most notorious
pogromists.

My point - and I'll spell it out again since you're such a slow learner - is
that while it would *not* be fair game on the "left" (or the "Marxism" list,
I'll wager) to engage in minimizing or mendacious transferring of
responsibility for the Holocaust as it occurred elsewhere in Europe and
particularly where Jews were its principle victims, or the lowering of the
victims to the same moral footing as the perpetrators, it obviously *is* on
the left with respect to the equally conscious and very well documented
holocaust which claimed Serbs as its principle and by far majoritarian
victims in NDH.  Such is the point to which large sections of the left,
abetted by rotten, opportunistic and irresponsible journalism like yours,
have gone along with the defamation and dehumanizing of Serbs.  Your more
than decade-long apologetics for the neo-Ustashe forces painted you into
this box - I didn't.  *Anyone* should be able to see that when you wrote in
GreenLeft that Belgrade was the first city in Europe declared Judenrein,
without providing a scintilla of context or elaboration, and given what
you'd written in the preceding paragraphs, that you were *trying to convey
to your readership* that the Serbs bore responsibility for this.  It was
*obvious* that that was your intention, so don't bullshit me cuz I've read
enough of your bullshit already.  And what you were trying to imply was a
*lie*, and a conscious attempt to transfer responsibility for the Final
Solution in Serbia.  And *that's* holocaust revisionism, that *that's*
shameful, and it completely betrays your motives and agenda, just as does
your use of that clown Philip Cohen as a "serious" source for your articles.
Should I enlighten "Marxmail" about Cohen's "credentials" or will I leave
that to you?  Let's see, *zero* training as a historian, a dentist by
profession (Philip who?), habitué of reactionary Croatian émigré circles,
etc.  You're willing to stoop *that* low?  I wouldn't have thought GreenLeft
gigs paid that well.  Is John Pilger throwing money at you guys or what?

But your bilious rhetorical diversions about Palestine aside, maybe we can
just settle something right now for the record, since you fancy yourself a
"public" figure, unlike "Jim who".   Forgetting for a moment the creation
and sustenance of a "little Jewish Ulster" in Palestine by imperialism, do
you *agree* that the German state and *people* have a responsibility to
European Jewry for the Holocaust, even though it happened over a 1/2 century
ago, in terms of recognition and recompense - being that it was a conscious
and state-directed program of genocide in which countless Germans
participated - and following either the Claims Conference or other models?
And if *yes*, do you agree that the Serbs, as victims of an equally
conscious and devastating holocaust, a genocide, on the territory of NDH
Croatia, are entitled to the *same* principles of recognition and
recompense, and that they (*and* others) are entitled to take the same
umbrage at mendacious re-assigning or minimizing of responsibility and
historical sleight of hand in the treatment of their holocaust, and at the
reviving and rehabilitation of symbols, institutions and *individuals* who
represent *realistically* and *historically* the same to them as do the
nazis to Jews?  Yes or no?  And if *yes*, *who* should be bearing the
responsibility, given that - as German, Italian, and many other sources
attest (I notice you like German sources when they seem to suit your
purposes) - this genocide was formulated, planned, and executed by Croatia's
ruling fascists?  And pls do me a favour and leave your Palestine stuff out
of this - I already know how Sharon et consorts and a long line of Israeli
politicians before them pimp off the Holocaust to justify their policies.
So you can just put that away somewhere and stop whipping it out
gratuitously like a rapist does his dick.  I'm 1000's of miles away; you're
not going to dick me into silence, Big Man.

Maybe your cheap throwaway guilt-by-association devices carry along some of
the slow-witted on the 'net and the "Marxism" list, but don't expect me to
be impressed by them.  I knew that by opposing the Nato bombing of
Yugoslavia *and* the U.S. attack on Iraq, I was in "objective" agreement
with some pretty unsavoury characters with some pretty unsavoury wacko
politics.  But then, *so were you*, since you at least *claim* to have been
opposed to these imperial aggressions also.  LePen opposed the Nato bombing
of Yugoslavia.  So did I, but then, you *claim* to have too.  So what does
that tell us?  Somehow the expression "big fucking deal" comes to mind.
There is a difference between taking a prise de position on a *specific*
issue which puts you in objective "agreement" with someone whose ideology
you find repugnant and who's assuming that position for their own perverse
motives, and someone being an apologist for purveyors of the repugnant
ideology in question.  And so there's a difference between

1) me (and *you*) opposing Nato's aggression against Yugo, "along with"
LePen, and

2) *you* presenting a neo-fascist movement and government - who are
*arming* fascist killers, protecting them from justice, bringing them out of
exile and rehabilitating them and their ideology and institutions and giving
them plum jobs and better pensions than antifascists, importing neo-nazis
and white power militants and skinheads to fight with them,
self-interestedly rewriting the Holocaust and so on - as "anti-fascists"
worthy of Western "left" support.  (and there's lots of dreck in GreenLeft
where you do just that, as well as on Marxmail).

Can you see the difference between (1) and (2)?  And if you *can't* see the
difference between (1) and (2), how are you managing dressing and feeding
yourself?

Practically everywhere in Europe we find cases of cowardly, reactionary
bourgeois notables who made their modus vivendi with the occupying Germans.
Did it happen in Serbia?  Sure, but the question here is whether the German
occupiers - who obviously had more smarts than Michael Karadjis - judged
that these brown-nosers spoke for a popular base in the Serbian population,
to whom could be entrusted the holocaust project, and the conclusion the
Germans came to - after a popular groundswell against the Tripartite pact
and mass demonstrations in support of the officers' coup - was *no,* and I
refer to anti-communist and anti-Milosevic historian John Lampe who states
that the local fascists "never operated independently" under German
occupation and that "according to recent scholarship, Wehrmacht instructions
and a largely Austrian contingent of local German commanders bore that
responsibility", viz. for the implementation of the Final Solution, thus
corroborating Berenbaum, whose "shit" you're not fit to wipe.

Tito's socialist era was your gold standard in your earlier posts (don't
make me find examples, there's shitloads of them, just "google yourself" on
the archive), but you try to dismiss documentation and findings from that
era when it doesn't suit your purposes, which is another one for the "Quelle
surprise!" Dept.  You've never sourced your "German estimates" for there
being 2% support for NDH among the population or whatever.  And even if you
do, is this the fruit of scientific polling?  It's known (not by your stupid
Designer Left readership, but by people who've read books) that the Germans
held Pavelic in contempt and until the 11th hr held out to get Macek (who'd
made sympathetic noises) and the Peasant Party to be the caretakers of an
Axis "independent" régime.  Could this have coloured the reporting in any
way?  How is the figure parsed?  Are they talking about total support over
the territory of NDH, which included millions of non-Croats?  In prewar
Bosnia (most of whose territory was incorporated into NDH), Serbs were a
majority, and their support for NDH can be considered nil for statistical
purposes.  Support among Muslims was low, but not insignificant, as the
facts on the ground about the Handjars' and the descendants of Muslim
landlords' atrocities against Serbs attest, and which you, typically,
airbrush from your commentary. (ex. Lampe, "Yugoslavia as History": "the
first active opposition to the Ustasa régime came, not surprisingly, from
the rural Serbs of the Krajina, Dalmatia, and Bosnia-Hercegovina.  The
initial uprising began spontaneously in eastern Hercegovina in June 1941.
Confronting the region's two-thirds Serb majority were a *murderous new
government* and their *local agents* [my emphasis - jy].  Most of the latter
were drawn from Muslims who made up the other third of the population and
whose ancestors had been landlords to Serb sharecroppers until 1919.
Uncoordinated groups of rebel Serbs spread from there."  Etc etc.  Thus
laying the seeds for a cycle of counter-attacks and vengeance.  This is
what's called "context" Karadjis).

You've yet to explain why you consider your unnamed German sources - which
you've alluded to repeatedly - as more credible than the electoral
commissions of a post-Liberation socialist government which you've held up
as a model. Were these voter list determinations based on individual
dossiers of wartime activity?  In what way were they inferior to the German
analysts' determinations, *specifically*, and *for the record*, Mr Big Name
Journalist and "Marxist" Intello? I could cite you German sources who claim
that on the orders of Croatian NDH death camp commander Luburic, 800,000
people were killed in the death camps alone.  Are you prepared to swear by
that? And I don't give a rat's ass whether un-named people among "non-Serb
nationalities" take exception to the determinations of the 1945 electoral
commission, I'd just like to know from *you*, Mr. Expert - as in "yes" or
"no" - whether they're *true* and if not, *why* not?  I don't care if 90% of
people believe that refined sugar is good for you - it doesn't make it
*true*.  The truth isn't determined by selective "voting" or "focus groups"
Karadjis, and I could find you lots of people of "Serb nationality" who'd
take issue with some other aspects of the post-war socialist order also,
such as the trial of Mihailovic, which many characterize as a "show trial"
in the spirit of  "High Stalinism" or the refusal to re-admit to Kosovo most
of the Serbs driven from there during the war by Albanian Axis-sponsored
pogroms.  You wouldn't treat *their* objections with the same credence,
which just points up your endlessly selective reasoning.  It means nothing
what the Ustashas did 50 yrs ago, but it means loads what the "Cetniks" did,
and if you think otherwise you're a "Zionist."  It means nothing to you if a
street in Zagreb is renamed after the Ustasha war criminal Budak under
Tudjman's auspices, but if there was one shopping complex in Serbia renamed
after Nedic or Arkan, we'd never be hearing the fucking end of it at
GreenLeft would we?

Oh and btw, I saw your cowardly, meretricious "addendum" to your slanderous
reply to me on "marxmail" where you "agree" with the list moderator's
insistence that "we" "move on", an insistence which he belied by his
subsequent transmission of your garbage, which by your own admission seemed
to issue from your bile ducts rather than your brain.  The "debate" on the
issue which you conceded as useful was exactly what I was pursuing of
course.  This is a cute gambit at getting the last word in as you slander me
as an apologist for Israel, and it may work, but if you're any kind of man,
as opposed to the cowardly mouse you've shown yourself to date, you'll
forward *this* reply on to the list in the interests of fair debate and
equal time, cuz I've said a fuck of a lot less there than you have. You see,
I don't subscribe to the list "Activists and scholars in the Marxists
tradition," because I don't want *my* very different "Marxist tradition" to
be keeping company with holocaust revisionists like you.













-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Karadjis [mailto:mkaradjis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:57 PM
To: Jim Yarker; Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
Subject: Jim Yarker - modern Holocaust revisionist

Jim who?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Yarker" <jim.yarker@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <mkaradjis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:10 AM
Subject: Michael Karadjis - Holocaust revisionist


> More recently, in your reflections at the "marxism" list, you inform us
that
> Franjo Tudjman's HDZ régime in Croatia was "anti-Ustashe"

I did nothing of the sort, and the fact that you've got the very first thing
you write wrong says a lot about the rest of your stupid diatribe since it
is based on this non-fact

and to support
> this risible claim you refer to the assassination of neo-Ustashe leader
Ante
> Paradzik in Sept. 1991.

Thatb was to support the claim that the HDZ, led by oprominent ex-Communists
and ex-partisans was not the same thing as the ustashe, not that it was
anti-Ustashe. I also pointed out that Milosevic's SPS was not the same as
the Chetniks but I certainly never sugested it was anti-Chetnik.

> You explain to readers of "marxmail" how the pro-nazi holocaust in NDH
> Croatia in 1941-45 was merely the work of a tiny handful, that Croatian
> fascism had no mass base or mass involvement,

I quoted 2 percent. You can mobilise a lot of fascists with an active 2
percent. Lets say 10 percent. What's your point? tens of thousands of Croats
took part part in the resistance and laid down their lives fighting fascism.
Why do you have some psychological need to demonstate that a larger
percentage of the ordinary people in Croatia were fascists than elsewhere?
What should follow from this? Should they be held collectively guilty
forever because you think a large percentage of this particualr nationality
than others were fascists? Don't you think Tito's policy of welcoming a new
Yugoslavia based on national equality, recognising the sacrifices of all
nationalities, amore socialist one than the one based on singling out one
natuion for collective revenge that you advocate (or perhaps youa dvocate it
not just for Croats but for all nations except Serbs).

 contrary to Serb "myth" so
> naively accepted on the "left." And you explained to the readers of your
> party rag Greenleft a while back about how Belgrade was the first city in
> Europe to be declared Judenrein, viz. free of Jews.   It was indeed,
though
> it wasn't *made* Judenrein by the Serbs but by the German Nazi occupiers,

> Historians like Michael Berembaum have shown that in fact in the countries
> where there *wasn't* any mass base of support for the nazis' Holocaust
> project, the Germans had to take on practically *all* the work of it
> themselves, with occupied Serbia being one of the clearest examples.

What shit. The collaborationist regime of Nedic contained within it the core
of the prewar Serb monarchial state. When the Nazis invaded, 545 prominent
Serb leaders, businesspeople and bourgeois intellectuals issued an 'Appeal
to the Serbian Nation' (sounds familiar?) calling for collaboration with the
Nazis to fight the nations' real enemy, Communism. 'the duty of each tru
serb patriot is to thwart the infernal intentions of the communist criminals
with all their might".

 > How is it that 100's of catholic clerics got recruited into the
> killing machine, and even became death camp commanders, helping in the
> primitive slaughter of inmates with mallets and knives, while the Catholic
> primate accepted appointment to be vicar of the NDH armed forces?

How is it?? Is uppose it might be because the catholic Church, like the
orthodox and most churches I know of, is a reactionary institution, so it
was liable to support fascism. What's your point? That thatb indicts the
rest of the Croat nation too?

Why did
> the Croatian Peasant Party leader and then-Yugoslav vice-president Macek
> hail the appearance of the "Independent State of Croatia" whose Ustashe
> leadership were escorted into Zagreb by Axis troops (and which would not
be
> the last time that a Croatian politician would hail the destruction of
> Yugoslavia while being a member of the Yugoslav presidency)?

Probably had something to do with the appalling repression of everything
non-Serb over the previous 20 years by the reactionary Serbian monarchy.
These reactions occur, as they did for example in the Ukraine. But initial
reactions wear off, and the scholarship seems to show thatb it wore off
rapidly for the Croats as  Croatia rapidly became the region with by far the
largest partisan force, including both serbs and Croats , the majority the
latter.

Why is that in the 1945
> Constituent Assembly elections held *after* the Liberation thoughout the
> Yugoslav federation, "huge" numbers of voters had their names struck from
> the voter lists in Croatia for "wartime Ustasa activity," as
anti-communist
> historian John Lampe complains? In Slavonia the figure was 40% (should
> that inform us at all about events in Slavonia in the 90's, like Kir's
> assassination?).  In Serbia as a whole the figure was under 5%.  These
were
> determinations made early in the Communist period under Tito (your paragon
> and gold standard, remember?).

Tito was certainly a cut well above all the chauvinist filth that succeeded
him who seem to look up to. That does not make him perfect. You obviously do
not realise that what you have pointe dto is something that many from
non-Serb nationalities have complained about. The tailers of serb
nationalism are so gung-hoin their belief that Tito was some kind of
anti-Serb monster that it simply does not occur to them that there were also
opposite pictures drawn, and they can conveniently ignore aspects such as
the overwhelming Serb dominance of federal bureaucracy and the miliatry
officialdom in Tito's Yugoslavia. So regarding what you just said, one
wonders when the number of partisans in serbia jumped from around 22,000 in
late 1943 to hundreds of thousands within a year, if that had something to
do with the two amnesties that Tito gave to the Chetniks in 1944 after
taking Belgrade. he obviously would have needed them to crush to kosovars in
1944-45 in rivers of blood to keep them from joining Albania. Other evidence
that you might be pointing to something which in fact weakens your own case
is that of the 545 Serbian signatories advocating collaboration in 1941, 73
were later honoured in Tito's Yugoslavia, 28 became members of the infamous
Serbian cademy that released the 'memorandum' in 1986 and 12 received high
state honours.
>
> No-one disputes that there was an anti-fascist resistance in Croatia too,
> but the debate isn't served well by just pretending that no mass base for
> clerical fascism existed there then, nor in the 90's.  It's like
pretending
> that jingoism has no real hold on people's political psyche in America.

Wow. No-one disputes that Croats could also be partisans and communists. A
true revolution in 'left' thought. You are actually more advanced than many
on the left, despite the grudging nature of this concession and the rest of
the nonsense you write. Yes there was a 'mass base' just as other forms of
fascists have had a 'mass base', whether the Chetniks, the Spanish Falange
etc etc. But one does not hear that any manifestation of the right of Spain,
or Italy, or germany, to have an independent state is thereefore by
definition a fascist state that should not be allowed, nor is it heard about
any other state which had a quisling regime in WWII, it is only the Croats
who are condemned to forever be denied a state because of the quiskings that
ruled them. And this is a "leftist" opinion.
>
> It's just Holocaust revisionism to claim that the Ustashe movement had no
> mass base or extensive collaboration in Croatia and that the Serbs - alone
> among the peoples decimated in the Holocaust - should just forget what
> happened in NDH Croatia and move on since it has no relevance to the
> situation in the 90's.  It's *only* the Serbs who are supposed to renounce
> their victimhood in the Holocaust, and it's a measure of the degeneration
of
> the "left" that a discourse like this - which would be considered
completely
> out of line with respect to *any* other people and country touched by the
> Holocaust and even be prosecutable as hate literature and Holocaust denial
> in some countries - is considered even remotely acceptable.

I'm not sure who said anything about the serbs having to 'forget' and 'move
on' but your argument shrieks with Zionism here. Because we suffered a
holocaust 50 years ago, how dare you criticise us for our continuing
genocide against the palestinian people? We are entitled to forever do what
we like to others people as a result. Because we suffered a holocaust 50
years ago, how dare you criticise our levelling of Croatian cities now, our
ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Croats, our destruction of 40
percent of Croatia's factories, our seizure of one third of Croatia's
territory, most of which had no serb majority, and that's before we even get
to the genocide against Bosnia's Muslims which we carried out, incidentally,
in alliance with the same HDZ and Croatian chauvinists and fascists whose 50
year old deeds we now use to justify our deeds today? We are entitled to do
forever to others what we like.

> But then you extended this Holocaust revisionism, drawing an explicit
equal
> sign between the Cetniki and the Ustashe.  Someone had posted on the
Ustashe
> revival and rehabilitation and nostalgia going on in Croatia in the 90's
and
> you wrote, and I'm virtually quoting verbatim, "the same thing is going on
> in Serbia with Cetnik symbols and memorabilia." So? The Cetniki *fought*
the
> nazis and the Ustashe and perished doing so, as did the Partizans in
greater
> numbers, and the large majority of *both* resistance movements were Serbs.

The Chetniks began fighting the nazis and ended up collaborating with them.
The Chetniks had an open program which called for the forced removal of all
the Muslims from Sanjak and Bosnia, and Croats from Bosnia, to create a
clear path from serbia to Slovenia. In the process of carrying this out they
murdered tens of thousands of Muslim villagers. the fact that the Ustashe
killed a great many more people is undeniable and I make no atempt to deny
it, but the essential similarity in their political nature is simply
indisputable, and is somewhat more relevant to the 1990's.
>
> And the "marxist" Karadjis is equating the NDH holocaust with the Cetniki?
> And the paying of pensions to these nazi Ustashe murderers and the
honouring
> of their leaders and bringing them out of exile and appointing them to
gov't
> sinecures in the 90's is no different than the reappearance of Cetnik
> symbols in Serbia?

This simply shows your fixation on the past and inability to comprehend the
present. 'The appearance of Chetnik symbols" indeed. What actually occurred
was the appearance of mass based Chetnik parties and militias who carried
out years of appalling genocide against Bosnia's Muslims while a significant
part of the "left" such as yourself stood around issuing disgusting
apologetics about tis genocide, and the stock in trade apologia was 'so
what, look what happened to the serbs in the 1940's. It is your modern
holocaust revisionism that is absolutely despicable, and to cover it you
want to accuse me of being an apologist for the Ustashe, when yu know very
well it is the Serb, Croat, Muslim etc Partisans that I support, and Is till
support their ideals now against the blood-drenched fascist butchers of
today who you defend.

Who voted the neo-Ustashe
> HDZ into power, with its secessionist racist program in 1990?  The
Croatian
> Serbs whom you sleazily broadbrush as "Cetniks" voted overwhelmingly in
that
> election for the Croatian section of the League of Yugoslav Communists,
viz
> for a left party who opposed secession.

How dare you accuse me of calling Craotan Serbs Chetniks and then call me
sleazy. You are the biggest sleaze-bucket of a polemicist I've seen, though
it is quite possible you don't mean to be sleazy, perhaps you simply do not
have much of a grasp on politics. Fair enough. In that case, let me explain
some to you.

'Croatian Serbs' are a national group. 'Chetniks' are a rightwing poitical
force. You are correct (for once) in stating that the majority of Croatian
Serbs voted for the Communist Party, though of course you are wrong in
claiming it was against Croatian independence. Of course they were not
'Chetniks' they were leftists. Since serbs voted for a left party, why did
Milosevic's "Socialist" Party in Serbia facilitate the growth of a
right-wing, pro-Chetnik, organisation, the Serb Democratic Party, to take
votes away from the left-wing Croat Communists (later Social Democrats)?

>
>
Would've been nice to hear
> from him and you on this subject when a Croatian diplomat on the payroll
of
> Tudjman's "anti-Ustashe" HDZ gov't was touring around the U.S. speaking at
> meetings of Holocaust-deniers, white supremacists and neo-nazis as part of
> his *salaried functions.*

I would not be at all surprised if someone from Tudjman's reactionary regime
was doing that, it si only in yur warped political imagination that I am an
apologhist for Tudjman. I think the logic goes like this: You don't accept
the need to be an aplologist for Milosevic, karadzic and Seselj, so ipso
facto you must be an apologist for Tudjman and the Ustashe. And this on a
"Marxism" list.

Perhaps you could have a look at Michael Sells excellent articles on the
very real connections between Serbian chauvinists, the Republican right,
neo-confederacy and other ultra-right and racist organisations in the US, up
to and including the offer by the head of the KKK to go to kosova to help
the Christian Serbs fight the heathen Albanian infidels. These articles are
available at Balkan Witness, if you can't find them, let me know and I'll
pass trhem on. But I'm sure they make no difference to you, you'll find a
way to weasel out of that, itis only the conenctions of the Croat far right
that have any relevance to your politics.

> Perhaps the Zionist Irgun's proposal to enter the war on the side of the
> Nazis would be a serviceable canard for "showing" that Eastern European
> Jewry didn't resist, had as much responsibility as the Germans, etc.

Perhaps not, but I wonder if you think WWII gives the Zionist Irgun's modern
thinkers such as menachim Begin the same right to continue with its
Palestinian holocaust as you obviously thinkn it gives the modern day
Chetniks to carry out the Bosnian holocaust.
>
> Up until the 1980's, we had mainly powerful Western institutions, the
> Vatican, and fascist Balkan émigrés and revanchists to thank for the
> occultation of the Serb holocaust, and for the denial of relief and
> recognition to its victims (a denial which has been facilitated by the
> German gov't claim that their nazi troops and administrators didn't set up
> or run the camps - *Croatians did*).  Since the 90's, we have legions of
> "lefts" to thank as well, as you sadly remind us.  The only difference
> between you and the David Irving's and Robert Faurisson's is how nicely
you'
> re being treated by Western "marxists." What a disgrace, but - I repeat -
an
> education as well.
>
To say the feeling is mutual would be an understatement, but of course it is
your sick ilk that is engaged in active modern holocaust denial, denial of
what was carried out in fron tof your eyes in the 1990's. Given the stinking
disgrace into which some of western left sunk during the Bosnian genocide,
it is no wonder it was left to the Iranians to help fill the gap. You could
have hepled stop them - you had everyone from the KKK to Le Pen to the South
African Boer Resistance Movement justb itching to get in there with you to
fight the infidel.

Michael Karadjis



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism