We cite here an extract from the open letter that the Antinazi Initiative addressed to the democrats in Greece and Europe in April 2009, following the acquittal of the nazi from the Athens Appeal Court. This extract describes only some of the positions that the judges expressed and for which Antinazi Initiative is prosecuted now from the public prosecutor’s office of the Athens Appeal Court because of denouncing them as anti-Semitic. The public prosecutor’s office has called as witness for the prosecution and for the defense of the credibility of justice, the nazi K. Plevris!



The anti-Semitic positions from judges and the mistrial


We will limit our reference here only in the most evident cases of judicial infringement of the spirit and of the letter of the antiracist law within a long procedure of 18 months, a procedure full of postponements, and during which the composition of the court changed four times (twice at the first degree and twice at the second degree).

The first and most crucial act of violation of the legitimacy of the procedure was the court’s decision to oust the counsels for the complainants!!! The ousting of the counsels of the complainants was confirmed by new rulings from all different subsequent court’s compositions in all the trials that followed in the first and in the second degree.

The irony is that the ousting of counsels of the complainants was decided on the grounds that the state, in specific the court, could defend the injured part, that is the Jews against any kind of racist speech that placed them under threat. Therefore the Jews, supposedly, did not need to be represented by their own counsels in the trial.

Nevertheless in the first phase of the trial, the public prosecutor who suggested the ousting of the counsels for the complainants1 passionately defended this racist book, as “a scientific writing”. At the same time during the hearing he made an unconscionable attack to the witnesses for the prosecution of the Antinazi Initiative (ANI). At a point the public prosecutor defending the freedom of expression asked the witness of ANI: «Would you like to be judged and convicted by a nazi court;» thus recognizing that such a court could make justice (!!!). Finally he threatened to arrest her, saying to her «The court tolerates you. I cannot tolerate you. If you go on like this I will have you arrested…».

At the same trial the witness referred to a phrase of the book interpreting it as a call for new extermination of the Jews, that is the phrase “they do well and they keep Auschwitch in good condition because no one knows what could happen in the future”. At that the presiding judge replied ironically “So what, they can build a new one, can’t they?”

(We note that Antinazi Initiative denounced the above mentioned public prosecutor to the competent judicial bodies submitting a detailed report but until this day no reply has been received).


The result was that the witnesses for the prosecution, Jews and non-Jews, were examined in each trial under the constant persistent attacks of the nazi defendant and his counsels who were trying, often tolerated by the bench, to demean them with political even personal accusations irrelative to the indictment. At the same time, during the judicial proceedings the religion of Jewish witnesses for the prosecution was targeted as criminal and put on trial in front of the bench that was either tolerant or participating, while they were asked to define their relation with the state of Israel. In other words the witnesses for the prosecution found themselves in the place of defendants who nevertheless had no right to have their own counsels in the courtroom for their defense as happens in any other trial.

The trials did not evolve as a political and legal monologue of one side, only because the witnesses for the prosecution showed strength and determination demolishing the arguments of the nazi’s defense

Besides the procedure, it was the content of a series of critical judicial positions which signaled the negative atmosphere that prevailed in the courtroom. These judicial positions not only were left unchallenged since there were not any contrary positions from other judges and prosecutors – with an exception or two -  but also the witnesses of ANI received a fierce attack from the bench during the last Appeals Court trial because they dared to denounce the above positions in the press. 


In the meantime, a disciplinary preliminary investigation (!) was ordered against the public prosecutor who brought charges against K. Plevris2, following a legal recourse made by the nazi who alleged that the prosecutor brought him to trial without legal reasons. The competent prosecutor of the Appeals Court3 held this preliminary investigation. In his concluding report, he explained in length why his colleague should not have brought the nazi to trial and rebutted almost all the major charges included in the indictment.

Among others this prosecutor mentioned the following in his report: «From the study of the writing in question (of Plevris book) it is concluded that the unfavorable opinions stated for the Jews are mostly result of historical research (underlined by us) with detailed reference to relative historical facts and opinions of third historical personalities specifically against a certain category of Jews, those called in the writing as Jew-Zionists… It is obvious that the generalization of the application of Law 927/79 (the antiracist law) abolishes the articles 14 and 16 of the constitution in force that establish the freedom of expression, of science and research (underlined by us) and specifically the same generalization forbids the historical research abolishing the provisions of the corresponding article of European Convention for Human Rights (ECHR)».

In other words, the Appeals Court public prosecutor of a European country considers the most monstrous text of Holocaust denial as «the result of historical research» and its legalization as a demand of “science and research”. As for the term of Jew-Zionism, this is used from the nazi in the book in order to escape the blame that he propagandizes violence against the Jews in general. Each judicial text, and each closing statement of the public prosecutors through the whole judicial procedure, aiming to exculpate the nazi from the charge that he propagandizes violence against the Jews, included the argument that whenever the word Jew appears in the book, the true meaning is «Jew-Zionist», an argument that is directly against the letter and spirit of the book.

There are even more horrifying references: In the «writing» of Plevris there is a caption included also in the indictment, below a photo of little children in Auschwitz. In this caption the nazi mocking the children facing death he writes: «Jewish kids: We can see that they are very fat». The same prosecutor acknowledges this sarcasm with the following remark: «here it is simply commented that the Jewish kids are in a good physical condition». Elsewhere he remarks that, among others, one of the so-called “objects of historical research” of Plevris, is considered to be «the international purposes of the Jew-Zionists as they appear in various of their own texts (like the Old Testament, the Talmud, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion» (underlined by us). What concerns us at this point is not that the prosecutor characterizes the Christian Old Testament as a text of “Jew-Zionists”, but that he considers as an existent and historical text of the “Jew-Zionists” the basic ideological tool of the nazi extermination, namely the czarist fabrication of the «Protocols of the Elders of Zion».


Along the exact same lines with the above Public Prosecution of the Appeals Court but on a much more advanced and systematic basis, the Appeals Court Judge who was outvoted in the first-degree decision wrote her reasoning 4 (with this decision K. Plevris was condemned to 14 months imprisonment on December 2007). There, she also insists against any grammar and logical rule and against the spirit and connotations of the whole book, that whenever Plevris turns against the Jews, he turns against the «Jew-Zionists» and finally against the policy of the state of Israel and not against the Jews.

Let us see how the judgeacquitsthe writer for the following extract of the book:

 «I mostly challenge you, my readers, to discuss about Talmud and the Jewish religion. It is you that I challenge the most, for you are the victims. Wake up, the treacherous Jews are digging a pit for the Nations. Wake up and throw them in, for they deserve it... () The study of Talmud leads us as per logical and moral necessity to the conclusion that the Jews should be dealt with as enemies of the humankind. Therefore, I accuse the German Nazis of not clearing our Europe of the Jew-Zionism, even though they could. The answer to the question, on whether it was right that the Germans concentrated the Jews to transport them to Madagascar, is obvious: Considering what the Jews teach and seek, what the Germans did wasn’t right. They shouldn’t have sent them to Madagascar, but to their Jehovah to read the Talmud all together standing up”.

This extract is commented by the Appeals Court judge as follows:

«In this extract the writer based on the unquestionably intolerant and antichristian references of Talmud (holy books of the Jews), (underlined by us) for which he claims that until this day they keep teaching them in their synagogues, he challenges his readers to wake up and see the danger which according to his opinion, the Jews Zionists hold for them. They are the ones he mentions and condemns and not the Jews in general, as nation and race. It is nevertheless noteworthy that also the Jews in religionwitnesses Veniamin Albala and Abraam Reitan, after taking an oath on the Holy Bible, speaking of Talmud, with evasive expressions, avoided to declare expressly if they condemn or not above teachings» !!! (underlined by us).

In other words the judge not only adopts the authenticity of the extracts of the Talmud cited by the anti-Semite and not only adopts his accusations against Talmud but also blames the Jewish witnesses in the trial for not disapproving it. This is de facto anti-Semitism and is revealed as such in the following extract of the indictment which incriminates as no other his writer for the offence of racist insult:

«Jew (in religion) and human are contradicting terms, that is, the one excludes the other. According to their standard tactic, the Jews conceal their origin, which usually is identical to their religion».

The judge writes in relation to this extract: «It is obvious that the writer refers to the citations from the holy books of Talmud as analyzed previously in his writing, which unquestionably include intolerant and antichristian teachings, against any sense of humanism and therefore he notes justifiably, that the Jew who adopts them, obviously is deprived of humanism» (!!) (underlined by us).

Commenting on the following repulsive praises of the nazi for Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the SS, included in the book and in the indictment: «ADOLPH HITLER (1889-1945): The tragic leader of the Third German Reich is absolutely the most impressive leading feature of modern age... The history of humankind will charge Hitler with the following: 1. He didn’t got rid of the Jews in Europe though he could. 2. He didn’t use the special chemical weapons which only Germany possessed in order to win... As a result of Germany’s defeat, the White Race and Europe are now in danger... The day will come when the Europeans will either prevail or be destroyed. In both cases they will admit that Hitler was right”... “JOSEPH GOEBBELS (1897-1945): One of the brightest minds of the century. A philosopher and fighter with a deep understanding of mass psychology, on every battlefield he vanquished Jewish Bolshevism and headed his country's all out war”.

The judge of a European court 60 years after the most cannibalistic and genocidal war of all times writes:

«The above views of the writer, even if they are considered extreme (underlined by us), still voice his own political belief and world theoretical view on the historical political systems of democracy and national socialism, as well as his opinion for the historical persons who were the protagonists of World War II».

In other words according to the judge it is possible that such ultra-racist and naziviewsmay not be considered extreme while the national socialism, that is nazism, namely the worst racism-cannibalism has the repute of an historical political system such as democracy!

It is characteristic that commenting on this call made in the book: «Messrs Jews go to your Country and relieve us of your presence ...The White Race want no Semites in Europe, because its biological interest dictates that», the judge claims that the writer here simply «adopts the political view of the Nazis, without having aim of insult or provocation to acts of violence, that the White Race does not want Semites in Europe».

 In accordance with thehistorical political system of racism”, surely it would not be an insult or provocation to acts of violence to call for the expulsion of the Jews from Europe. All the above were stated by the judge while at the same time not a word was included in the text to disapprove the pro-Hitler positions of the writer not only commenting the above citations but all the horrifying extracts.  

Therefore it is finally inevitable that the judge supports the defendant also regarding the extracts of the indictment referring to denial of the Holocaust which the judge questions as she writes:

«The above also voice the political positions of the writer, who attempts with documents described in detail in his book, to question the extent of the Holocaust, which, he claims concerns only 66,000 to 350,000 Jews, according to the official data of the International Red Cross and not 6,000,000 as the Zionist movement, invokes for reasons of interest. His above views even though they are not completely accurate (underlined by us), in any case it is not proved that the writer knowingly cites inaccurate events and data and therefore they do not bear penal consequence since they refer clearly to political beliefs and to narrative of historical facts, under the influence and under the prism of the world view of the writer».

If these «views» are notcompletely accuratethen they are definitely “relatively accurate”. In other words according to the judge, the 6,000,000 dead of the Holocaust are not an indisputable historical fact.

At that, let’s see what the judge replies to the following cynical extracts of the nazi included in the indictment:

“The concentration camps, the “ovens”, the “soap”, and the tortures were and still remain the most favorite themes used by the anti-nazi propaganda...”, “You get affected and impressed by movies, such as the “holocaust”, by the so-called “tortures” the Jews went through 60 years ago...” (underlined by us)

 The judge answers: «In these extracts it is obvious that the writer, irrespectively of the issue if he questions the Holocaust or not, supporting his opinion with references to historical sources (underlined by us), according to which, there were presented different each time versions of the number of the Jews killed, in the World War II, who were estimated to be from 60,000,000 to 350,000 (in accordance to data of the International Red Cross, see pages 1382-1383 of the book in question), what he wants to highlight is that although the Jews claim being victims of the war and the Nazis, the same today commit the same crimes in Palestine, which is not far from the truth (!) (underlined by us), and the citation of such extracts is not made with intention of insult and provocation to acts of violence against the Jewish people, solely for reasons related to their national and racial origin, but with the intention of historical substantiation of the views of the writer » (!)

The allegation that the Hitlerians committed the same crimes with these of Israel against the Palestinians is the most condensed way of demeaning and relativization of the extent and quality of hitlerian crimes, especially having to do with the reversal of the roles of Perpetrator-Victim, used by all the pro-nazi and anti-Semites worldwide today.


Towards the end of the text summarizing her conclusions the judge writes:

ς:ικαστεξον Παυτ……………………………….ι «All above extracts of the book in question are supported by historical resources of the specific periodwhich the writer mentions in his book in detail), showing the required, for the scientist historian, diligence» (underlined by us).


1. Public Prosecutor L. Lazarakos

2. Public Prosecutor Sp. Mouzakitis

3. Public Prosecutor P. Matzounis

4. Appeals Court Judge M. Pagouteli