Justice at the service of family secrecy

Excerpts from Volume 7 of the Great Lie of the 20th Century Series On sale at:

A very, very “blind” justice

Everyone knows by what means, the State, and its great deputy Justice, were able to enforce the omerta on military treason until the beginning of the 21st century, since, on July 23, 1945, when the trial opened of Marshal Pétain, if the indictment had correctly retained:

“Crime of attack against the internal security of the State and intelligence with the enemy with a view to favoring his enterprises in correlation with his.”

The first accusation made at the beginning of the trial by the Prosecutor was dismissed: “Military treason”

Result: As in Riom, the slightest allusion to military treason and the Cagoulard plot against the Republic was banned from the debates.
A sad reality recalled by the trial archives for August 6, 1945: On that day, an officer who had the misfortune to mention the case of General Huntziger by declaring at the outset: “The hooded General Huntziger, affected at the opening of Sedan on May 12, 1940 to the Wehrmacht”, was retorted outright by President Montgibaux, who had taken the oath to Pétain in 1941 and eagerly applied the laws of Vichy against the Resistance fighters and opponents: “He It is not, at present, about the Cagoule, but about the responsibility of Marshal Pétain in the policy which was practiced especially after the armistice. »

Couldn’t be clearer! Thus the military witnesses of the prosecution could not ignore that during this trial led by the henchmen of Vichy against their former boss, only the facts of collaboration would be judged.

Or how to throw for the second time into the overflowing dustbins of History, but by the Republic this time, the hooded special sections and the phantom tanks of Bulson, the desertions of officers, the betrayals of generals and all that risked harm the good arrangement of the tale so well proposed by the good Marshal Pétain.

Thus, according to the good principle that one should not awaken old wounds and ask questions likely to harm the authority of the State, – universal excuse – the consensus was reached, and the witnesses were silent on pain of see condemned for “contempt” and their remarks censored again.
This made it possible to quickly forget the fate of Marx Dormoy, Minister of the Interior of the Popular Front who led the hunt for the Cagoulards and was assassinated by the militia under Vichy. From Georges Mandel MP and Minister of the Popular Front, resistance fighter from the start and assassinated in July 1944, again by the Militia. De Jean Zay also deputy and minister assassinated in June of the same year, but also the dozens of deputies placed under house arrest after their unfortunate attempt to reach Algiers aboard the Massilia to form a Republican Government in exile.
Others “forgotten” by history, those who, since the end of the war, have never ceased to question the fable of the State, such as Mr. Pierre Chenevier, President of the Federation of Friends of Fighting France who , in 1973 during the presentation of the insignia of Commander of the Legion of Honor to Mr. Pierre Mondanel, resistant and deported, head of the general control of the Judicial Police who resumed with stubbornness and in spite of pressure from Vichy the investigation into the Cagoule after the assassination of Marx Dormoy, recalled: “The most active Cagoulards were prosecuted, a certain number arrested by the services of the General Security, but you found them in 1940, in Vichy, in the forefront of the revolution. national. They held the levers of control in the government. It should be noted that the Third Reich was quick to release from prison all those who had been arrested. »

And Mr. Baudier, mayor of Vouziers and president of the Ardennes association, those who fought, pointed out to us in his work entitled: that: “Strangely, we note the disappearance of the Memoirs of Pierre Mondanel, the policeman who dismantled the Cagoule, manuscript deposited after his death by his family at the National Library. »
End of quote (Baudier Doors open at Sedan)

Decidedly, it seems that the archives of France during this period were very much the prey of the “rats” of the Ministry of Defense, without this disturbing our Governments much…

Another subject of “no astonishment”: Inspector General Pierre Mondanel who was placed on leave with pay by Vichy until November 1943, then dismissed after his arrest as a leader of a resistance network and deported to Buchenwald, Lindau and Dachau, was expelled from the police at the Liberation!

And we better understand the logic of the magistrates of the purge who, at the Liberation, dismissed Pierre Mondanel from his duties as Inspector General of the Police, when everything pointed to him to become its chief. Glad we didn’t throw him in jail for his participation in the anti-fascist struggle!

And how can we still be surprised that elected officials, such as Mr. Baudier, are still today demanding justice for these men and for all the victims of this betrayal, therefore of this century:

“Convinced Republican, I hope that we apply the motto of our homeland: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Where is freedom when you cannot access the truth because it is deliberately camouflaged? Where is the equality in choosing among the dead those to honor and those to forget? Where is the brotherhood vis-à-vis ALL the civilian and military victims of this atrocious war where the industry of death was invented?

The blood that permeates our land demands that the truth come out of the well!!
It also demands that young people be informed not of filmed nonsense, a source of colossal profits, but of what their families have experienced and what may happen to them tomorrow.
Information is one of the essential needs of citizens! There’s still much to do ! »
End of quote (Harness Doors open at Sedan page 6)

Finally, we have also discarded the fact, very opportunely recalled by Mrs. Lacroix Riz, a leading revisionist historian, that there was no more “purging” in France than in Germany or anywhere else in Europe, and that most of the senior civil and military officials who had led the fight against the Resistance and the allied forces on all fronts had either been condemned and pardoned quickly, or not worried at all, and found themselves very shortly after the Liberation again to the highest places in the state. The Maurice Papon case was far, and even very, very far, from being exceptional! In fact, it was rather the rule.

The French State, major organizer, judge and executioner

As for all the witnesses who would have spoken anyway, because for them it was a question of defending their lives, they were executed after a sham trial that any banana dictatorship would not have denied, during the so-called period of “Purification” – meaning by this, elimination of troublesome witnesses.

Such as that of Pierre Laval, which General Jauneaud comments as follows: “The investigation of the Laval trial ended on September 12, 1945, after six interrogations. The 18 parliamentary jurors are chosen and not drawn by lot. The trial takes place in the absence of the lawyers, who are unable to defend their client.

On October 6, 1945, faced with the partiality of the declarations, the insults and the threats of his judges, Pierre Laval declared: “a judicial crime is going to be accomplished. I want to be the victim. I do not agree to be an accomplice! His lawyers withdrew: “The honor and prestige of our order forbid us to associate ourselves with debates which are only judicial in name! »

On October 9, Laval was sentenced to death. He was shot five days later, on October 15.

Thus disappeared the statesman who was most conscious of the dangers posed to France by the stifling of the truth concerning the international conspiracy, and the treason which brought about the defeat and slavery of our country. (emphasis mine)

Then Jauneaud quotes a few sentences that Laval said to him, including: “France is not liberated because we don’t want her to know the truth!! »

End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain page 570)

Knowing that Pierre Laval was the man of the French cartels, in close contact throughout the war with the Americans through his son-in-law, Count René de Chambrun, descendant of Lafayette, possessing dual Franco-American nationality, nephew by marriage of Theodore Roosevelt (president from 1901 to 1909) therefore cousin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and darling of Pétain who nicknamed him “rabbit”. But above all that, well beyond these family considerations, he was a business lawyer in close contact with the great interests of Wall Street that we know, therefore with Charles Bedaux and of course a certain Jean Monnet, the main architect of what will be the new European Union brought in the luggage of the American “Liberators”.

Wasn’t there actually every interest in silencing this embarrassing witness, the essential political pivot of this combination between Big Black French international capital and Wall Street, as quickly as possible?

“Tell me my dear that when there’s a bad deal brewing, there’s always a Republic to save!”

The President (film by Henri Verneuil, dialogues Michel Audiard)

And since we are talking about the victims of “Justice” in the way of purifying the Republicans, why not mention General Jauneaud, a convinced Republican, one of the main architects of the restoration of the Air Force under the Popular Front , of which it is established today that he was the victim of what is agreed to call an “unfortunate miscarriage of justice” at the Liberation, which described very well the political context which was to preside over his trial:

“General De Gaulle is dangerously weakened by the civil war situation in which we find ourselves, while Roosevelt and Churchill are undermining the authority of the provisional government, in order to be able to develop their actions hostile to our overseas empire.

Moreover, the American and British secret services are based in Paris. They exert a strong pressure on the personalities of the Resistance of which they were the financiers. There is every reason to think that will particularly go after those who have shown their desire to defend our empire. »

Everyone at this stage of our investigation, if they take care to read these lines carefully, will understand why I underlined such a long passage. Each word, each sentence, contains in substance all the hidden stakes of this betrayal, therefore of this terrible world conflict of five years.
“On October 27, 1944, I was arrested and imprisoned in Fresnes. I take as defender Master Combescure, who tells me: “You are dangerously threatened. The violence and relentlessness of the attacks directed against you are out of proportion to the facts with which you are charged! »

Jauneaud then asked for the summons of several witnesses: including the former Air Minister of the Popular Front Pierre Cot, Joxe, Litvinov, etc. and the disclosure of its note on the existence of the

“Document Vuillemin”, bearing on the responsibilities of General Vuillemin Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, in the defections of the hunt and the bombardment during the battle in May-June 1940.

But: “On January 8, 1945, Maître Berry came to tell me that the Minister of Justice refused to summon the witnesses cited. “Since the beginning of my career, he adds, this is the first time that I have recorded such a decision. »

And on February 27, I was told that I was summoned to appear before the court of justice of the department of the Seine on March 3, 1945 at 3 p.m. I am charged with having maintained, in time of war, intelligence with the enemy, a crime provided for by articles 75 and 76 of the penal code. The indictment considers me to be “blinded by the pecuniary temptations of Laval”. (-) The charges against me are both ridiculous and serious. They are obviously intended to send me to the execution post… Moreover, the refusal to hear the defense witnesses transforms the judgment into a judicial crime. Indeed I am considered by some secret services as an embarrassing witness. The Pétainists, the Germans, the English and the Americans have, for different reasons, an interest in preventing the revelation of the truth concerning the treason, as well as the international conspiracy directed against France and its overseas empire. When a witness becomes a little too embarrassing, we delete it…”

Either a perfect summary of what we think we have established…

Let us now see what price he will have to pay for his contribution to historical truth: “After the pleadings, and the indictment which asks the jurors to pronounce my death sentence, I take the floor: “the tree must not hide the forest ! There are no Jauneaud cases. On the other hand, the Vuillemin affair seems to me as serious as the Dreyfus affair. It reveals the circumstances under which we capitulated in Munich, the opening of the “Sedan Gate” to Hitler, the assassination of the Third Republic, and Vichy’s collaboration with the enemy!…”

I am sentenced to forced labor for life. I don’t want to quibble. »

This is how we treated the generals who had devoted themselves to serving the Republic by trying to rearm in time, then clearly denouncing the members of the plot! When the French state failed to murder them in rigged trials, it sentenced them to forced labor for life!

General Jauneaud, another victim of ministers of worship

In the long section of dismissed witnesses, General Jauneaud, director of the cabinet and main collaborator of Pierre Cot, holds a place of choice, since as an embarrassing witness he will find himself at the Liberation falsely accused of “collaboration” with the occupier, this with the active complicity of the French Government of the Fourth Republic, then properly placed on the index of History, as evidenced by Gérard Watelet, director of Éditions Pygmalion (now bought by Flammarion), who dared to publish the general’s book in 1977:
Warning: The author of this book, hero of the 1914-1918 war, airman general, was sentenced to forced labor for life on March 15, 1945 by the High Court of Justice of the Seine. Released by decision of President Vincent Auriol on January 3, 1951, he was granted amnesty on February 18, 1954. With hindsight and also thanks to the examination of the various documents that we had in hand, it now seems established that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice. In fact Jauneaud was considered, both by his detractors and by Pétain himself, as an embarrassing witness who had to be silenced at all costs… Also, the author, in the last thirty-one years of his life , he persisted in dismantling the mechanism of the injustice of which he had been the victim. He was accumulating military evidence of what he denounced as an anti-republican plot fomented by the Pétainist clan between 1934 and 1940, very notably shedding light on the drama of our Air Force. This is why it seemed important and fair to us to allow General Jauneaud, now deceased, to add his testimony to the file of contemporary history. Signed: The publisher. »
End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain Warning page 5)

Many historians who were among the first revisionists, such as Henri Guillemin, author of The Truth About the Pétain Affair and of so many books of primary importance, also recognized the importance of Jauneaud.

Here is the preface of this excellent author: “This is an important book, a considerable testimony. It is possible that, in detail, statements that are a little too categorical remain, which I do not say are contrary to the truth, but only that they still lack formal proof to support them and make the deposition invulnerable. These proofs will undoubtedly see the light of day (-)

But the essential remains, and untouched. And where is this essential?

He bears the responsibility, discreet but infinitely heavy, of Marshal Pétain for the disaster of 1940. (-)

General Jauneaud’s work will take its place in the “subject’s bibliography” among the least insignificant sources of information. »

Finally, General Jauneaud received the support of Colonel Goutard, whose outspokenness is legendary among historians: “Air Corps General Henri Jauneaud deserves to be read with as much more attention as his views future, between the two wars, were extraordinarily lucid and even prophetic. He was, in fact, for the large air units, the same precursor that were, for the large armored units, the de Gaulle, Liddell Hart, Fuller and Guderian. (-)

Trainee at the war school from 1920 to 1922, he submitted a conclusive report on the “need to provide France with large air bombing and fighter units” which would act in conjunction with large tank-based shock units, towed artillery and mounted infantry. Assigned to the general staff of the army, on leaving the war school, he had the honor of serving under the orders of General Buat, one of the best military brains in our history. The latter approved his project and decided to provide France with a real air force. He therefore instructed him to write an Instruction on the tactical employment of large air units, which he signed on October 9, 1923.
This instruction, which provided for the creation of 186 squadrons – including 38 for heavy and very heavy bombardment, grouped into a mixed brigade and air division – placed in the hands of the commander-in-chief in time of war an “air reserve”, ready to intervene massively. in the battle, at the crucial point, and to create, with terrifying suddenness, the “event” of which Napoleon spoke.(-)

On December 22, 1923, General Buat disappeared, suddenly taken away by a crushing illness, his “doctrine”, in May, disappeared with him. His training was forgotten, and a few months later his technical adviser, Commander Jauneaud, was assigned to Rio de Janeiro where, for eight years from 1924 to 1932, he was able to teach his aerial doctrine… To the Brazilians!
And in September 1939, when the Second World War broke out, we would have neither the armored divisions demanded by Charles De Gaulle, nor the aerial divisions which had been provided for by the Buat-Jauneaud instruction of 1923. (-)

Was the Sedan Gate, in fact, opened to panzers and the Luftwaffe, and for some reason other than military?

Let the author, who has such a clear vision of the future, answer this agonizing question of the past. »

End of quote (preface by Colonel Goutard)

Invitation to which the witness responded as best he could with a sincerity that has guided us more than once in our long investigation into military treason and the plot that presided over it.

And all of this brings us to the admonition of General Gamelin who reminded future generations that they would have to shed light on this betrayal: “For our country to truly become a great power again, the high moral and intellectual force necessary humanity, which it was and must remain, it must both rebuild its union and condemn irremissibly those who have led it to worse than defeat, at the risk of shame. »

End of quote (Gamelin Servir volume 1 Introduction page XV)

But were they heard? Do we have proof today that the States concerned have done anything other than maintain the “family secret”?

The question is therefore: What higher interests did the successive governments of France, as of all the States concerned, want to defend?

A question that Pierre Laval or General Jeaunaud could probably have answered, at least if we judge by the conclusion that the latter gave in his indictment:

And I add this: the presence at the three hearings of my trial of two English officers is not accidental in the precincts of a court assembled to condemn to silence the one who was the youngest general of the army. French, the one who knew too much…” (emphasis mine)

End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain pages 158, 160, 166)


We have seen this throughout our investigation:

Everything, absolutely everything, is FALSE in this “incomprehensible” version. NOTHING stands up in this fairy tale as soon as it is confronted with the archives and the most elementary logic.

Whether on a purely military, political or economic level, the lies pile up and their coherence is only apparent.

Thus this systematic dam to the truth has made the history of the Second World War a bottomless quagmire, where today we find everything and anything. And this without control of the Peoples, since each adept of the “theory of illogicality” having developed his religion according to the policy he serves, and the whole having been taken up and mixed at leisure by the most diverse media, more no one is there!

Result: These “forces of evil” presented in a Manichaean way can at choice, and according to the political convictions of the author, apply to fascism, communism, liberalism, the ideology of evil, or the divine will. , for the proposition is true in every sense…

This is why the official fairy tale, in that it offers the unequaled advantage of satisfying everyone, by allowing anything to be said without a clearly defined reality being opposed to it, and because it makes this instrumentalization of history possible for anyone, was, is, and will remain if it continues, a real danger for any democracy!

State secrecy, an attack on the rights of peoples

It is therefore appropriate to violently denounce this perversion, reminding these improvised moral censors that History is waiting at any moment to be able to be revised:

“The writing of history consists of an endless revision of the past. The actual reality of history demands to be considered along with its possibilities” John Lukaks

“Any truth is good for the historian to say, even and especially that which upsets prejudices, clashes with received ideas, or partisan interests.” Raymond Aron

“As Academician Jean d’Ormesson wrote: ‘If you deny freedom to those who make mistakes, there is no more freedom. To defend freedom is to defend these abuses. What I interpret as follows:“ we must not deny freedom to those who, according to you, are wrong. Because then you will only know if it is not you who are mistaken.”  Nerin E. Gun

This is the true duty of historians!

And not, as at the time of the Inquisition, to ensure orthodoxy, using any pretext to excommunicate anyone!

Because this is what awaits the revisionist researcher, if he dares to challenge the “incomprehensible” thesis. If he dares to question the imposed dogma!

Moreover, we all know in France to live it daily, that certain words have become likely to condemn, at first sight, those who would use them.

This is why all historians, without exception, have never dared to use the term “treason”, but preferred those of “strange” victory or defeat, varying at will and playing on words! I mentioned in the introduction, a “suspicion of good quality”…

In truth, we are here within the framework of propaganda: It was a question for certain “experts” and accredited media of establishing a new dictionary, based on political correctness, in order to manipulate underhandedly by the incessant repetition of arguments lies, opinions and consciences.

Consider the “factory of consent” invented in 1917 by Edward Berneys, father of modern advertising and state propaganda, in order to convince the American people to go to war, and so violently denounced by Mr. Noam Chomsky.

Revisionism is not Holocaust denial  

And I am thinking here just as much of the amalgam systematically proposed to the widest public by certain media, between historians quite rightly qualified as “negationists”, because they question the Shoa and other massacres organized by the Nazis, and the “revisionists since, playing on the imprecision of the formulas and a certain consonance of the words, these censors of all political persuasions will immediately attack, or boycott, a researcher who would question the thesis of the mythical Blitzkrieg and its string of miracles, by qualifying it of “negationist”!

By an incredible intellectual pirouette, in their mouths the word “revisionist” becomes offensive, and this even if the archives presented by the historian are irrefutable!

The unfortunate will then be seen as a henchman of Nazism, eager to contest the victory of the “forces of Good against that of Evil”, as soon as he pronounces the word “treason”.

And if, supreme offence, he dared to question the dogma of the industrial and military power of the Reich, or to evoke the contributions of Big International Capital, he would be accused of sacrificing to conspiracy theses!

Finally, if he takes too close an interest in Hitler’s true personality, or in the “miracles” that allowed him to cross the Ardennes and the Meuse, he is undermining the very foundations of religion!

And we cry anathema!

This is why it is never in vain to remind these so-called servants of “democracy” of the principles of our Republic:

“The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen can therefore speak, write, print freely, except to answer for the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by law.”

Article 11 of the 1993 Declaration of Human Rights

Or this sentence from Condorcet’s speech when he presented to the Assembly his project for a secular and free “School of the Republic”:

“Since this is a matter of public instruction, to tolerate an error would be to become an accomplice to it; not to consecrate truth highly would be to betray it. And even if it were true that political consideration should still, for some time, sully the laws of a free nation; when this insidious or weak doctrine would find an excuse in this stupidity, which one likes to suppose in the people to have a pretext to deceive or oppress them; at least, the instruction which must bring the time when these consideration will be useless, can belong only to the truth alone, and must belong to it entirely.”

Nicolas de Condorcet speech on The general organization of public instruction (April 20 and 21, 1792)

“The Truth alone must belong to him entirely. »

A truth undoubtedly much less comfortable than the “family secret”. But you have to choose which world you want to live in!

The law, ultimate instrument of Omerta

Especially since the official dogma is imposed by many States with extreme violence, since in addition to their alleged legitimacy to hide certain disturbing truths in order not to impose on the Peoples “for their good” certain shocking truths, we find the tools of this condemnation to “silence for life” in their laws.

Another instrument of authority, and how effective, because any historian likely to denounce certain historical lies thus exposes himself to the vagaries of lawsuits for defamation.

Lawsuits brought either by the defendant or by his descendants, and the outcome of which is generally not in doubt since the judges, having no means of apprehending for themselves the quality of the protester’s writings, appoint “experts in the matter.

Experts who are of course authoritative at the highest level of the Army and the State, and recognized by all those who granted them the distinctions and prebends guaranteeing the “quality” of their judgment.

And the circle is complete. Here is the accused delivered to the appreciation of “experts”, who are none other than those he implicates!

The real question, and the only solution to this dilemma, is therefore to ask the Peoples to rule on the legitimacy of these civil courts. For is there, outside the Gayssot law relating to the crime of denial of the Holocaust and other theses denying war crimes, a single article of law allowing any civil judge to rule on the validity of a thesis history on an aspect of this conflict?

Whether military or economic?

And the answer is known to all lawyers: None.
So where is the rule of law in this case?

Of the spirit of Laws

And since we are talking about intimidation, let’s go back for a moment to this famous Gayssot law which, in France, claims to impose a historical truth concerning the Shoa. In this regard, even if obviously I do not question this evidence of the holocaust, I wonder about the merits of a law capable of regulating historical research, and about the existence of a repressive arsenal that can lead a researcher, whoever he is, to prison.

Indeed, Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire, republican philosopher, historian, statesman, wrote in 1849 that: “The citizen owes the fatherland the fruit of his meditations.” This little treatise, published by the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, establishes the democratic principles:

Laws are made to serve, not to oppress. Except, of course, if the purpose of the author is to harm common morality and “the very peace of the city and the existence of the State”.

But how could the Truth harm the City? In nothing. A proposition that is not necessarily true for the state…

In short, we do not impose a historical thesis by the stick!

The Gayssot law in that its application prohibits, under penalty of judicial condemnation, any dialogue on certain subjects, limits in practice any controversy, therefore consequently the field of research, since in the historical field, EVERYTHING is linked.
I am well aware that the legislator seems to have sought to do justice for the victims of the Holocaust, and he was right in his intentions, but the danger is that in wanting to establish a moral order he has, in fact, limited the search by putting limits to the confrontations of ideas, therefore of archives, between those who are wrong and those who are right.

And this is not tolerable since History is not a field of religious, timeless reflection, there is no question of faith, it is not immutable, but remains alive, current and influential. , present in our everyday life, at least as long as it remains revisable…
The trap into which this law has led French society is thus obvious: By freezing part of its history, the State ratifies, voluntarily or not, the fairy tale, and this regardless of the validity of the moral pretext put forward by the legislator.
To be sure, let’s take a simple example: IG Farben, a chemical manufacturer whose capital and real leaders, following various financial arrangements perfectly recognized by researchers around the world, were mostly Americans. This multinational employed thousands of deportees in its factory located in the heart of the Dachau concentration camp causing the death of many of them and, as a result, shamefully enriched the American State, Wall Street and the small shareholders of this country, even after the United States entered the war.

This is an indisputable and undisputed reality, moreover one of the countless scandals of this war. What is less known is that, under the pretext of protecting the general public from any negationist influence, we avoid talking about this kind of subject!

The argument thus makes it possible to avoid any confrontation of ideas and figures and to evacuate not only the subject, but its corollaries. Thus the unlimited exploitation and the death of tens of thousands of deportees becomes an excellent argument for insidiously “forgetting” to see where a reflection freely carried out on this burning subject of profits, and other political and financial issues, could lead us.
The Gayssot law is therefore, in fact, yet another screen in that it serves, by relying on the reality of the Holocaust, to conceal this disturbing aspect, whereas, as I have said and repeat, while waiting to demonstrate it as surely as this military betrayal: This war, like all those that followed, was not only that of democracies against totalitarianism, this was only the tip of the iceberg. In reality, these hundreds of millions of deaths were sacrificed on the altar of profit!

This is why I oppose this law which could be used tomorrow to protect the real culprits whom I denounce. Because how far will the state be able to extend it? How far will the maneuvers of the self-righteous go, to continue to impose the only “politically correct” versions?

Which brings us back to the will of the Peoples. Because the question of course arises: Will they want to open their eyes?

Or will they prefer to continue to let overly curious historians be muzzled, and condemn innocent people such as General Gamelin or General Jauneaud, “for their greater good”?

Democracy in question

Questions that the revisionists will undoubtedly soon have to ask them, because these judges are demanding tens of thousands of euros in fines from these myth busters and whistleblowers!

And we unfortunately understand why, faced with this concrete threat brandished by a “democracy” using without limits what it calls “state secrecy”, and capable of ruining a career, a reputation and even a life, all historians did not have the same taste for risk, and why the most “reasonable” have continued to consider that the three volumes of General Gamelin’s Souvenirs were nothing but a vulgar partisan plea without the slightest historical value. Why NONE of those who have established their reputation for so many years by publishing numerous works often rewarded by so many academies, considered it essential to look into the new archives of the battle opened in the year 2000. Finally, why no one , neither in France nor elsewhere, has denounced loud and clear the theft of the Journal de Marche du Cabinet Gamelin and the other essential documents on which all the major witnesses were no doubt counting to shed light on the whole affair in good time. Flight yet perfectly known to all.

Omerta on the archives coupled with constant propaganda, as recalled by Noam Chomsky, considered by his peers to be the most brilliant intellectual of the century:
“Propaganda is to democracy what the truncheon is to dictatorship. (-) Indoctrination is in no way incompatible with democracy. Rather, it is, as some have noted, its very essence. (-) If the State loses its baton and if force no longer operates and if the people raise their voice, then this problem appears. People become so arrogant that they refuse civil authority. You have to control their thoughts. To do so, we resort to propaganda, to the fabrication of the necessary consensus of illusions. »
Noam Chomsky, American Focus Student Radio Interview

Countless obstacles accumulated by the highest academic, political and military authorities of ALL democracies, which have been denounced for nearly sixty years by revisionist historians, without their complaints ever being heard by the media.

So the question is: What other shameful secrets are they all protecting?

Secrets of such importance that it is necessary to deprive the citizen of his most basic right: The freedom to choose his future in full knowledge of the real issues.