Recently, my name has been associated with the above Master's Degree thesis awarded in 1994 to Daniel Eaton by the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand.
This association has been posted on the Internet by certain people within a group known as the New Zealand Jewish Council [NZJC] and with commentary by certain people not members of this NZJC, but apparently sympathetic to its ideological goals and destructive methods. In addition, my name has been associated with the Eaton Thesis [=ET] in a rather disparaging and character assassination manner, so that I now believe I ought to make a somewhat formal response, even though I do not believe for a moment that my professional reputation will be elevated among the NZJC and its sympathizers in so doing.
There are all too often in historical eras small minded people and organizations with both hidden and also not so hidden agendas and these people behave badly both privately and publicly in order to entice or threaten scholars so as to achieve the agendas of narrow minded and ethno-centrically readily identifiable racist groups.
Based upon my readings and personal experience, the NZJC is one of these harmful groups and its agendas are nothing short of evil, because they seek control rather than cordial influence of the New Zealand academic community and taxpayer funded institutions of higher learning. During the National Socialist era of 1933-45, similar control of German universities was achieved by political ideologues and government interference -- a state of affairs still true for post-War Germany even until this very day. Meaningful dissent was generally ruled out and persistent dissenters were dismissed from their posts by the Nationalist Socialist State.
The New Zealand Jewish Council is, sadly, emulating the National Socialist Party's model for higher education and the recent attack on Dr. Joel Hayward and his Master's thesis of 1993, also at University of Canterbury, by the NZJC in and before 2000 resulted not only in an enormous financial cost to the taxpayers of New Zealand but enormous damage to New Zealand itself as a modern Western liberal democracy with a putative commitment to strong defense of academic freedom in the marketplace of ideas. Of course, enormous damage physically, financially, emotionally, and professionally, was inflicted on Dr. Hayward in having to defend himself against the vitriol and spirit of hate exuded by the NZJC and its fellow travelers.
Unashamedly, the NZJC attempted to turn back the historical clock in its brazen effort to have Dr. Hayward's Master's thesis annulled and his degree rescinded. Again, one need only refer to the National Socialist analogue wherein by law [RGBI, I, 985] a university degree could be revoked for being judged as "Unwürdigkeit " [unworthiness] and based upon a Hitlerian law.
Living as I do in the United States, I am confident that most academics in the USA would find both the Hitlerian law and the NZJC efforts to rescind Dr. Hayward's highly graded and esteemed thesis to be both woven out of the same oppressive fabric and thus to be condemned. The New Zealand Jewish Council has, therefore, bedded down under the blankets of Hitlerian accouterments.
As if the blatant attack on academic freedom at Canterbury University -- and the Council's highly publicized victory against that academic freedom -- were not enough to satisfy an average appetite for devouring intellectual freedom, the NZJC has now discovered at the Christchurch university two additional threats to the NZJC's narrowly racist goals These " threats " are Professor Vincent Orange and Daniel Eaton's Masters Thesis. As of mid-2002, the NZJC has mounted a new attack and seeks, it appears, nothing less than two more heads on the guillotine of the Council's circumcised chopping block.
If the citizens and Parliament and university governors of New Zealand allow this additional destruction of traditional Western academic life, then one may well conclude that New Zealand has moved itself intellectually back toward the dark age that descended on Eastern Europe from 1917 on, a horrible period when some of the New Zealand Jewish Council's forefathers led the 1917 revolution in raping, murdering, genociding, holocausting and " Gulagging " tens of millions Christian Slavs, thus ushering in a Judeo-Marxist Dark Age that lasted until 1989. Thus, I see the gradualist evolving of a ruthless academic suppression and repression in New Zealand by anti-intellectual types enshrined in the NZJC and this shameless effort ought to be seen as a red alert danger signal to New Zealanders and I wish them the greatest success in turning back this single agendum onslaught. If not turned back -- as the Bolshevist onslaught was not turned back -- the NZJC will celebrate its complete control of the Humanities in the universities of New Zealand, with those of neighboring Australia similarly targeted for control by the NZJC's brotherhood there.
The NZJC seems hellbent on bringing to New Zealand some of the intellectual darkness and intimidating tactics and ethnic-cleansing spirit of " the Mother Country " -- that is, the State of Israel. In that nation, a law from the 1980s, I am told, exists that can imprison a person for up to five years for what is popularly called " Holocaust Denial. "
To those of us with Western minds instead of an Asiatic mindset, the making a person liable to prison for a scholarly dissent from orthodoxy in historiography is plainly fanatical and a mock ery of the Western and European -- that is, a non-Asiatic -- tradition. The Jewish State of Israel functions under its own vers ion of fanatical, self-serving shari'a and dissenters there can expect to be treated as ruthlessly as under Moslem shari'a in Taliban Afghanistan or ayatollah run Iran or Saudi Arabia.
W hat I see exhibited by the NZJC is history denial and the NZJC fanatics as history deniers. However, I do not suggest that these deniers be persecuted or prosecuted or even dismissed from their positions in tax funded schools. I believe both the National Socialists and the NZJC-nazis were/are both wrong conceptually and programmatically in their persecution of dissenters.
Unfortunately, the popular term " Holocaust Denial " seems to stem from the ruthless academic religious fanatic at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia -- a racist Jewess by the name of Deborah Lipstadt . Her academic speciality is a narrowly circumscribed and rather recondite sub-category of Jewish Studies, namely the Jewish Holocaust Story [= JHS].
Her book Denying the Holocaust not only enriched her bank account greatly, it enabled her to become " the Grande Dame " of what the Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein calls "the Holocaust Industry " -- with his book by the same title.
Any ably trained historiographer can quickly recognize after only a few pages of Lipstadt diatribes against dissenters such as I am --that is, dissenting from the " fixed in concrete " dogmas of the Jewish Holocaust Story -- that Ms. Lipstadt has no profound grasp of serious historiography and the problems of writing seriously about accuracy in the recent past.
For her, there is no dissent other than some scholars arguing over whether 5.1M. Jews died or 5.9M. or 6M.; or whether Jews really walked passively to their deaths into assembly line like homicidal gassing chambers or fought to the very last breath to avoid extermination. Also, for her and her fellow greedy-for-Mammon gain cohorts, she will allow for dissent as to how many billions of dollars or euros or rubles ought to be shelled out by the guilty Goyim still breathing on Planet Earth and their children in perpetuity into Jewish bank accounts.
I will quickly concede that Ms. Lipstadt is an expert in Holocaustology that Jewish speciality wherein Jewish misbehavior and crimes are omitted, but wherein Gentile misbehavior and crimes are absolutized into eternity. Her strengths are in literature and poetry and novels and Jewish religious mysticism, but she is a stranger to a rigorous investigative approach to the terribly complex factors of the 1939-45 conflagration wherein two titanic States -- Germany and the Soviet Union -- were engaged in a life-and-death battle for the survival of people and ideas.
She enjoys, in addition, a Jewish-bought position -- the Dorot Chair -- at a Christian university, an amazing contradiction in and of itself!
For Lipstadt and her superficially trained and maintained ilk, " history " is seemingly a univocal term -- that is, the opposite of the philosophical term equivocal . Univocal means that the term is clear in its referent; equivocal means that the term used is unclear and that explanation is required . It is tragic that a Lipstadt has never studied deeply enough to learn that " History " is equivocal.
Recently, while teaching in a European graduate school, I explained this briefly to my students and they all quickly grasped it when I demonstrated the following:
Now indeed, the Jewish Holocaust Story is an examp le of works that can be called H-5 and, as such, is open to dissent and revision by those both competent and not competent to speak convincingly about their new evidence and interpretations of past events such as H-1-4. But, sadly, for people such as Ms. Lipstadt and the NZJC and intellectual featherweights like Elie Wiesel [with his long list of honorary doctorates], there is only the orthodox, Hollywood, Israeli point of view about the events and results of World War Two.
So, when at Canterbury University, the world's first ever Master's thesis  displayed dissent from the dogmas of Lipstadt's H-5, the NZJC resorted to pressures and intimidation and legal tactics and threats to silence Hayward's dissent. The shameful tale of his apology from a bent over position has largely become part of the public record. Students of European history may recall Roman Emperor, King Henry IV in 1077 at Canossa, Italy when Pope Gregory VII forced Henry to stand three days in the snow to show his total submission to the Roman Pontif. Hence, the phrase " going to Canossa " bespeaks pain and embarrassment of someone with dignity who sacrifices it to retain his position of limited authority.
Thus, I speak of Joel Hayward as being forced by the NZJC " to go to Canossa " to satisfy this Council's lust for power.
This fine scholar, courageous thinker, decent human being, faithful husband, compassionate father and efficient breadwinner, as well as confessing Christian Presbyterian, has been silenced, smeared, pilloried, hounded, pained, and embarrassed by a shameless gaggle of hatemongering Jews who so disdain, for example, the place name " Christchurch " that they pronounce it, I am told, " Chi-chi. " NZJC anti-Christian-ism knows few restraints!
Having resigned in June, 2002
from his university, Dr. Hayward is picking up the pieces of his
most promising professional life, and people of good will everywhere
wish him the very best future in spite of the McCarthyist smear
attacks of the NZJC and its ilk. I most certainly wish him the
very best future.
The Eaton Thesis
A certain NZJC sympathizing wag named, I believe, Zimmerman [or is it, Carpenter?] alleging himself to be an academic of some sort at a US tax payer funded Nevada university, wrote against me with typical " Lipstadtian " bile that my Theses & Dissertations Press has become one of the leading publishers for " Holocaust denial. " Although this hack has no obvious grasp of the H-5 problem, and although he certainly did not mean to make a compliment, he did in fact bring to prominent light that TADP has become, in only three years, the primary publisher of scientific-historiographical books on the Jewish Holocaust Story [see tadp.org and the thematic statement that " Internet macht frei! " ].
One might even state with no fear of contradiction that TADP is without peer in this field in terms of the quality and quantity of first class books, along with a sister journal, the Vierteljahreshefte fuer freie Geschichtsforschung [or, VffG -- "the Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Research" edited by the internationally known expert, Doktorand Germar Rudolf, widely recognized for his expertise in a certain branch of physical chemistry and who was at the Max Planck Institute of Stuttgart until the same types who comprise the NZJC " crimethink " nazis forced him out of the Institute]. In addition, Doktorand Rudolf is now Editor of an English language quarterly due to appear in 2003, The Revisionist, and likely to become the leading Historical Revisionist journal.
Again, I do sincerely thank the Carpenter or Zimmer-Mann for bringing this to the world's attention and I am more than enough pleased to have conceived of TADP as a publisher of otherwise unpublished master's and doctoral theses and to have founded it with the collegial support of Doktorand Rudolf.
Historical Background. Very briefly, I learned of the Eaton thesis from his Canterbury fellow student, Joel Hayward. And when the latter visited Alabama in January of 1994 to do research at the USAF Archives in Montgomery, he came to Huntsville -- " the Space Capital of the World, " some have called it -- some three hours drive by car. He brought me a copy of his own thesis and allowed me to make a copy for the Berlin Professor Ernst Nolte -- an esteemed acquaintance of mine since 1989 when first meeting him at the Freie Universität Berlin. Dr. Nolte was, as I recall, rather impressed with the content and scope and size of the Hayward thesis and, when I suggested that German university students ought to be engaged in similar research and writing, I remember Germany's greatest historian of Contemporary History remarking that " It is not possible. " And, of course, Nolte was right. The Hitlerian mentality for suppressing punishing dissenting views about the Jewish Holocaust Story is alive and well and is also the law in the modern German nation of our day.
Professor Nolte is well known for his Intentionalist position on the JHS wherein he explained to me one time in logical progression that 1.) Hitler wanted to achieve a physical annihilation of Jews; 2.) Hitler had the power to do so; and 3.) Therefore, Hitler succeeded in exterminating millions of Jews. The esteemed Berlin professor's early training was in Classics but he moved successfully into modern European History. However, I must emphasize that his method in deducting the JHS from a Hitlerian animosity toward Jews and then moving into an actual extermination of millions is faulty logic in a field of study where the physical sciences must be given priority. Dr. Nolte is what Professor Faurisson calls " a paper historian " -- or what others might call " an ivory tower historian. " Nolte has not taken the time to visit the various SS camps and to study the scientific problems entailed in the Jewish Holocaust Story. For him -- as honorable and brilliant and successful as he is as a scholar and a great human being -- the rigorous questions of physics, chemistry, architecture, building construction, ground water table problems, and the like are not as central to his stance as is deductive logic.
Interested in my concept of a Theses & Dissertations Press for the purpose of publishing academic works not normally put into print, Hayward and I discussed an eventual publication of his own Masters Thesis, but written permission was never actually gran ted to me for several reasons. My desire today is, of course, that TADP yet publish his original work in all of its 360 pages and title of The Development and Significance of Holocaust Revisionism. Along with it would go the two pages by Professor Vincent Orange in which he assessed the thesis, its method of approach, and author. If I were to be authorized to publish it, I would invite Dr. Hayward to compose a Foreword to the Published Edition and set forth the circumstances created by the NZJC that forced upon him his " Canossa " apology of 1999-2000 wherein Dr. Hayward asked for forgiveness from the NZ Jewish Community for pain etcetera ad nauseam for writing the thesis from a " so insensitive-to-Jewish-sensibilities " perspective.
I would add, as a Publisher, my own evaluation of the squalid state of affairs in New Zealand, an otherwise beautiful land with large numbers of decent human beings. In that evaluation, a sort of Publisher's Preface, I would point out that Dr. Hayward did not owe anyone an apology about anything unless convincing evidence of error in data and error in logical deduction or induction based on the evidence were to be brought forth for public examination.
I would point out that Dr. Hayward's " Conclusion " chapter's twelve concluding observation, based as they were, on evidence, were not really new conclusions but were simply placed in the context of a Graduate School's academic framework and were guided in part, at least, by his major Professor, the esteemed historian Vincent Orange -- who also needs neither now or in future to make apologiy or defense to the scholarly world and certainly never to the Jewish racists who comprise the New Zealand Jewish Council.
These twelve conclusions were/are supportable by physical evidence and logical analysis; plus, author Hayward made crystal clear his disapproval of Nazism and its treatment of Jews within i ts extent of physical control. What more could the scholarly world ask for?
My advice to Dr. Hayward during his " trial by fire " created by the NZJC was that he ought not to apologize for anything, but that instead he should publicly declare that the NZJC must bring forth hard evidence and strong logical analysis to demonstrate that he had erred in one or more or all of his twelve conclusions. I still hold the view that if he had taken that advice, he would have won a major victory on behalf of New Zealand scholarship and would have earned enormous respect by careful scholars worldwide and would still be teaching at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand, to students who came to know and appreciate and respect his talents.
Alas, he did not take my advice and today he lives in pariah status in the minds of many Kiwis.
With Daniel Eaton's thesis completed by early 1994, I received both a hard copy and a computer disc of it. In a fax dated 25 October 1994, he gave written permission for TADP to publish.
Simply put, Mr. Eaton's thesis, Judgement on Nuremberg, comprises 267 pages with Endnotes and Bibliography. In his " A cknowledgements" he begins with a tribute to Joel Hayward " to whom I owe my enthusiasm for the subject. I also owe him thanks for his scrupulous proof reading and criticism of this text. " [ p .i] Then follows a tribute to Professor Vincent Orange as his mentor.
Outside observers must, of course, be grateful that so enlightened a scholar of Twentieth Century European History as Dr. Orange ostensibly is, was a model at Christchurch's University of Canterbury for young students to emulate. What greater tribute to academic greatness than for Master's students to pen such accolades as are found both the Hayward and Eaton theses?
In his " A bstract" [p . ii], Mr. Eaton states his conclusion that " Despite Allied claims to the contrary, the disposal of the major Nazi war criminals was indeed an `arbitrary exercise of power.' As such, it had historical precedents which include the imprisonment of Napoleon in 1815 and the planned political trial of the Kaiser in 1919. "
On page 2 he wrote that " This thesis will argue that no law existed in 1945 to give the victorious Allies the legal right to punish the Nazis for the full extent of their misdeeds. " Eaton argues, logically and historically, that nulla lex, nulla poena [= Where there is no law, there is no transgression since a crime cannot be committed logically where there is no law prohibiting that crime (my paraphrase of this hallowed principle)]. Thus, he wrote that " In anything other than a purely subjective moral sense, a crime, by definition, is an act punishable by law. Criminal law, by nature, requires a prescribed jurisdiction and punishment. "
In view of this clearly stated thesis problem, thoughtful outside observers must be scratching their heads as to what it is that motivates the New Zealand Jewish Council to make a public attack on the Eaton Thesis [= ET] and his thesis mentor. One must ask if Mr. Eaton displayed in the body of ET some wanton disregard for scholarly discipline and some flagrant dismissal for history of International Law.
One thing is crystal clear for citizens of the USA with regard to nulla lex, nulla poena, and that is that in accordance with Section 9 of The Constitution of the United States of America, the Congress can pass " ex post facto law. " US citizens are constitutionally provided the guarantee that whatever activity they engage in today cannot tomorrow be declared illegal and thus punishable by congressional law passed and enacted AFTER the fact of the activity itself.
The thesis by Mr. Eaton focused precisely upon whether or not the jurisprudence of the International Military Tribunal as embodied in the London Agreement signed by the victorious Allies on August 8, 1945 -- the USA, Great Britain, the USSR, and France. The principles of this document provided the juridical basis for the trials that followed and the punishments. Article 6 declared that the Tribunal would be concerned not only with " violations of the traditional laws and customs of war, defined as `war crimes', but also [with] `crimes against peace' and `crimes against humanity'. " [ p .13]
In his "Conclusion" beginning on page 192, Eaton draws together all the historical data he considered relevant at the time of his research and his simple conclusion follows the colon: " THE STRONGEST HAS THE RIGHT " .
Hence, Eaton argued on pages 223-4 that " By May 1945, the Allies had proved themselves to be the strongest. Four months after victory they drew up the London Agreement and Charter. It must be granted that the Allied aim, in trying the enemy at the end of the war, may legitimately have been political, while at the same time the process by which individuals are brought to `justice' may be legal. Also, all law necessarily relies on a measure of might for implementation. However, when the process by which the enemy is brought to `justice' is not governed by predetermined law [,] then it becomes political, reliant solely on the might and whim of the victor... In so far as the Nuremberg trial of 1945-1946 was a political act [,] it was simply an extension of the war, the last battle in a clash of political ideologies, a battle which, although not fought with the traditional machinery of war, proved for Germany's Nazi leaders far more deadly. "
University of Canterbury's own Professor Alex Conte, an expert on International Law, has been quoted as saying that Daniel Eaton's thesis is only one of numerous works to question the legal basis adopted by the Allies for the Nuremberg proceedings.
In addition, University of Canterbury Chancellor, Dame Phyllis Guthardt is quoted in response to the ET: " There is no suggestion of an investigation into the Eaton thesis. There is no evidence of fraud or dishonesty; there had been no criticism of it, and it had never been embargoed or withheld. "
What more could the New Zealand Jewish Council ask for? Answer: the head of Daniel Eaton on a platter, it would seem!
Having had this thesis in my possession for some eight years and having read it from the historian's vantage point rather than from that of someone trained in Civil or Criminal or International Law, but as one who had worked with Master's level students on their theses at Tennessee State University [during 1972-3], I can well understand why Professor Vincent Orange approved Daniel Eaton's work and why the University of Canterbury graduated Daniel Eaton in 1994.
At the same time, in order to put into practice my advice to Dr. Hayward, I shall declare in December of the year of our Lord 2002, that if the New Zealand Jewish Council has new data and better logical analysis to bring forth for public, scholarly scrutiny to demonstrate that Daniel Eaton erred in any major historical datum or deliberately falsified any document or misused human logical analysis in any fundamental manner, I shall return to the research sources the NZJC adduces and, if I conclude that Daniel Eaton erred significantly, I shall submit a revised but negative conclusion of his thesis. Thereupon, I would submit to Professor Vincent Orange that he would also have erred in failing to guide the young scholar under his charge.
But until the NZJC provides convincing evidence to the contrary, I shall hold the Eaton Thesis in high esteem and I shall oppose all attempts at degrading it by the NZJC and its sympathizers for what they are: small minded, vicious, envious, hate filled, racist, anti-intellectual ideologues in service of " the Holocaust Industry " and on the emotional payroll of the Jewish State of Israel.
Newspapers such as The New Zealand Herald and reporters such as Ms.Amanda Warren should be ashamed of themselves of printing such shallow hit-pieces against Daniel Eaton, Dr. Vincent Orange, and the University of Canterbury as has been done in recent months. Now is the time for this print media outlet to issue an apology to Mr. Eaton, Dr. Orange, and, of course, to Dr. Joel Hayward for printing such superficial articles by journalists with no minimal grasp of the historiographical problems encountered by scholars in the routine pursuit of their daily obligations.
Signed: Robert H. Countess, Ph.D.
Date: 14 December 2002
BACK TO EATON'S THESIS
This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is <aaarghinternational-at-hotmail.com. Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:
ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.