"netvegetable" <netvegetable@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15.03.32.03.12989@fastmail.fm>.. .
> Recently, we had that "Hitler: Rise of Evil" miniseries on television here
> in Australia. I assume it's also played in other countries.
>
> What I find annoying about the concept is the fixation on the personality
> of Hitler himself. The very title "Rise of Evil" implies that it is
> pandering to popular notion that Hitler alone was responsible for the
> attrocities of the Third Reich.
>
> Without doubt, Hitler's personality had a tremendous effect on the savage
> nature of the regime. But it was not Hitler himself who drove the trains
> to the concentration camps. It was not Hitler who personally pulled the
> levers on the gas chambers.
>
> In short, people committed these attrocities, not Hitler himself. It is
> the purpose of history to explain why, in the hope of preventing it
> happening again. And to imagine that they were magnetized by Hitler's
> personal powers of mass hypnosis is not really, in itself, adequate.
>
> To do this, it is necessary to examine human nature, against the
> background of the social, political, and economic circumstances from which
> the Third Reich emerged.
>
> Other comments ......
>
> Robert Carlysle over acted as Hitler, possibly at the orders of the
> director. He presented Hitler as a constantly neurotic, tense, twitchy
> paranoid.
>
> In reality, we know from the accounts of people who met him (including
> Loyd George) that Hitler came across as quite pleasant, charming, and
> relaxed. Indeed, the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will" depicts
> Hitler mingling casually with community type people in between speeches at
> the 1934 Nuremburg Rally, and that is the way he seems.

Sort of like our-college-frat-boy-hail-fellow-well-met President?
I'll bet Hitler would have been one hell of a fund raiser, too.

Does any of this seem familiar?

>>>>
SPQR
<<<<


>
> This is significant, as the fact that he managed to charm many people
> helps explain his rise to power. Thus the miniseries fails to explain the
> "Rise" of Hitler in atleast one important aspect.

SPQR wrote in message <2baf42ad.0307150319.73ef4d65@posting.google.com>. ..
>"netvegetable" <netvegetable@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.07.15.03.32.03.12989@fastmail.fm>.. .
>> Recently, we had that "Hitler: Rise of Evil" miniseries on television
here
>> in Australia. I assume it's also played in other countries.
>>
>> What I find annoying about the concept is the fixation on the personality
>> of Hitler himself. The very title "Rise of Evil" implies that it is
>> pandering to popular notion that Hitler alone was responsible for the
>> attrocities of the Third Reich.
>>
>> Without doubt, Hitler's personality had a tremendous effect on the savage
>> nature of the regime. But it was not Hitler himself who drove the trains
>> to the concentration camps. It was not Hitler who personally pulled the
>> levers on the gas chambers.
>>
>> In short, people committed these attrocities, not Hitler himself. It is
>> the purpose of history to explain why, in the hope of preventing it
>> happening again. And to imagine that they were magnetized by Hitler's
>> personal powers of mass hypnosis is not really, in itself, adequate.
>>
>> To do this, it is necessary to examine human nature, against the
>> background of the social, political, and economic circumstances from
which
>> the Third Reich emerged.
>>
>> Other comments ......
>>
>> Robert Carlysle over acted as Hitler, possibly at the orders of the
>> director. He presented Hitler as a constantly neurotic, tense, twitchy
>> paranoid.
>>
>> In reality, we know from the accounts of people who met him (including
>> Loyd George) that Hitler came across as quite pleasant, charming, and
>> relaxed. Indeed, the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will" depicts
>> Hitler mingling casually with community type people in between speeches
at
>> the 1934 Nuremburg Rally, and that is the way he seems.
>
>Sort of like our-college-frat-boy-hail-fellow-well-met President?
>I'll bet Hitler would have been one hell of a fund raiser, too.
>
>Does any of this seem familiar?
>
>>>>>
>SPQR
><<<<
>
>
>>
>> This is significant, as the fact that he managed to charm many people
>> helps explain his rise to power. Thus the miniseries fails to explain the
>> "Rise" of Hitler in atleast one important aspect.

A couple of years ago I researched Hitler for a story I was writing.
Here are a few of my findings.

1. There wasn't anything altogether abnormal about Hitler's upbringing
considering the era.

2. Hitler was loved by his mother and treated harshly by his father.

3. His mother, a devout Catholic took Hitler to church regularly.
Hitler later had ideas about joining a Monastery, but instead wanted to
become a famous artist.

4. Hitler only had one good friend who later said that Hitler used perform
speeches to him.

5. Hitler was a sickly child and because of his illnesses managed to avoid
conscription.

6. It seems that Hitler underwent a profound change in his early twenties.
This change would suggest the onset of schizophrenia.

7.On the onset of WW1 Hitler enlisted in the Army. During the war he managed
to survive as a messenger when the average life of a messenger was only a
day. Subsequently he was awarded two Iron Crosses.

8. At the end of WW1 a combination of ingredients allowed the proliferation
of a vocal, highly decorated madman. Without one off those ingredients
Hitler probably would have ended up in a Lunatic Asylum.

Those ingredients were:
Schizophrenia overcame Hitler just before he enlisted in WW1.
After enlisting and against tremendous odds he survived the war.
He was awarded two Iron Crosses, making him a hero.
He was an excellent public speaker and when he did falter it was put down as
shell shock.
Germany was devastated and conditions were perfect for Hitler, the young,
highly vocal, charismatic hero.
And yes, in the turmoil the fact that Hitler was insane went largely
unnoticed.

Bevan

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:55:46 +0000, Ernest wrote:


> I have not seen the series itself yet, but a few points in general on
> the above.
>
> Hitler gathered together people who would do anything he said and then
> gave them instructions to do what he wanted. Hitler then used them to
> create the environment that would allow them to operate freely. Anyone
> who did not do as they were told got killed or totured or something
> similar. Many people were not aware of what was happening until well
> after the fact, many of those involved were just as evil as Hitler, but
> a larger portion of those involved did not like what was happening but
> were too scared to to do anything about it, and those who weren't scared
> were not in a position to take any effective measures against it.
>
>
If I may, the essence of your argument here is that the majority of people
didn't know how violent and extreme Hitler's bigotry was?

If so, in the case of the Final Solution to the Jewish problem, which
started circa 43, you are correct. The majority of Germans *probably* did
not realize that Jews, as well as other people classified as
"undermenschen", were being starved, worked to death, and slaughtered by
the tens of thousands with cold industrial efficiency.

But German people were well aware of the Nazi's bigotry, well before they
came to power in '33. It was clear from Hitler's speeches, it was clear
from the regular pogroms by the SA against against the Jews.

Yet by '34, Hitler was apparantly already top of the pops. A plebiscite to
approve his actions of assuming the powers of the late President
Hindenburg, received 90% of the vote. Thus it could be argued Hitler was
made Feuhrer by a popular mandate.

I don't mean to villify the German people in anyway. But my thesis here is
that democracy is something that is dependant upon economics. In a
nutshell, people who really know hunger, poverty and impotence don't give
a rat's about rights, justice, etc. They are more likely than not to ask
you how you cook them.

And it is no coincidence, that Germany reached the trough of the
Depression in 33, and started emerging around 34 (after Hitler had
arrested all the union leaders). To these people, Hitler's methods as
distasteful as they were, appeared to offer hope.

> Personally, I think that Lenin and Stalin both made Hitler look like a
> pre-school starter. But Hitler was the first to do those sort of things
> in large numbers, affected most of the world and had most of it go
> public on him. Lenin and Stalin hid most of what they did, as Hitler did
> during the war. Most of the atrocities carried out under all three have
> only come to light well after the event when the leaders who issued the
> orders were no longer in control and people were less afraid about
> speaking up.
>
Bear in mind that we actually know relatively little about what was really
going on in Soviet Russia at this stage. The collapse of Weimar Republic
and the emergence of Hitler, however, gives us a rough model of how a
democracy can just slip away.

Another significant difference, is that many historians agree that Stalin
was not really popular until the "Great Patriotic War" started when the
Nazis invaded. Hitler's esteem in Germany was absolute long before that.

> Ernest

Bevan <Bevan2003@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 6. It seems that Hitler underwent a profound change in his early
> twenties. This change would suggest the onset of schizophrenia.

I doubt it. Schizophrenia is an incapacitating illness. He would hardly
have survived four years in the trenches of WW1 if that had been the
case. He was psychologically robust enough to avoid getting battle
fatigue which turned lots of soldiers in similar circumstances into
gibbering wrecks.

He may have been schizoid or semi-autistic, but even that is
speculation. In Freudian terms, he seems to have transferred or
'sublimated' his love of his mother and, some have suggested, the other
women in his life, on to his adopted country. He aspired to do that via
his art originally, but was deprived of that outlet at the very time his
need was greatest (when his mother died), so he needed to find another
object for his repressed loyalty and devotion. He was prepared to die
for his country, and expected everyone else to be willing to do the
same. His total lack of doubt is what empowered him as a speaker.

In the absence of other information, that seems to sum Hitler up. (Try
to picture 'fasgnadh', the wannabe fuhrer of aus.politics and multiple
xposted newsgroups, and you'll get a feel for the type of personality he
was ;-)

"netvegetable" <netvegetable@fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.07.15.03.32.03.12989@fastmail.fm>.. .
> Recently, we had that "Hitler: Rise of Evil" miniseries on television here
> in Australia. I assume it's also played in other countries.
>
> What I find annoying about the concept is the fixation on the personality
> of Hitler himself. The very title "Rise of Evil" implies that it is
> pandering to popular notion that Hitler alone was responsible for the
> attrocities of the Third Reich.

I normaly, as a nationalist, don't agree with you on many things but I
see some but only some common ground in this.


>
> Without doubt, Hitler's personality had a tremendous effect on the savage
> nature of the regime. But it was not Hitler himself who drove the trains
> to the concentration camps. It was not Hitler who personally pulled the
> levers on the gas chambers.

The people driving the trains were not driving them to be gassed or
killed or murdered. It was just a camp full of hundreds of thousands
of other internees, partisans, some, POWs, internees, forced (but well
fed and nominaly paid labour), some christians and extremist
communists during the war etc, All of the concentration camps
supplied labour to make sometimes quite sophisticated machinery.
There was no indication to the guards or the drivers.

At a time when hundreds of thousands could be dieing in firebombing
raids and your children or son could be dieing on the front this is
not so suprising. The US and UK intered many thousands of people and
some were treated very poorly.


>
> In short, people committed these attrocities, not Hitler himself. It is
> the purpose of history to explain why, in the hope of preventing it
> happening again. And to imagine that they were magnetized by Hitler's
> personal powers of mass hypnosis is not really, in itself, adequate.

I have the gravest doubts over the holocuast orthodoxy: free
intellectual inquiry can;t be said to exist and the stench of hysteria
sorounding as well as the xepolotiation of the issue helped to send me
down the path of ultra-nationalism, however assuming that the
holocaust is true it is easy to understand why.

Many of the guards came not from parts of eastern europe where up to
1/4th of the population had been murdered: Lthuania, Latvia the
Ukrain. You can actualy find that jews were over proprtiunatly
represnted in the Checka (Society secret police). Solzehenitsan says
2/3rds. Ive seen around quotes as low as 12%. There was a palpable
sense that Jews were responsible for the genocidal collectivisations
and expulsions.

Secular Jews I think saw communism as a progressive force that would
up turn society they saw as against them but imagine the Ukraine where
maybe 0.5% or less of the population was jewish suddenly expereincing
a very obvious famine enforced by police which was between 12% to
perhaps 60% jewish.


>
> To do this, it is necessary to examine human nature, against the
> background of the social, political, and economic circumstances from which
> the Third Reich emerged.

20 million German extracted from the Austo-Hungarain empire and
germany inorder to break her up. This was against the armistice and
enforced by a blockade of 9 mmonths that starved nearly 1 million
Germans (the blockade was also agains the armistice and was supposed
to cease immediatly) Now Woodrow Wilson principle of self
determination might have worked but for the ghastly behaviour of
Polish nationalists and Czechs. A swiss style conferation could have
been created for the German minorties but what we got (and this is
documented in thousands of documents by the league of nations was
school closures, exclusions form the civil service and confiscations
of property without compensation.

Now look at aspects of the Versailes treaty: no amplier radio valves
could be built, german radios like those by blaupunkt had to be
crystal sets. The treaty of Versailes contained a guild clause
blaming the Germans for everyting (clearly not true) and consider the
war time propaganda to get the UK into war:
1 german troops were mass rapeing Belgium women as policy.
2 german troops were throwing babies in the air an onto bayonets
3 germans were turning beligium prisoners into soap.


>
> Other comments ......
>
> Robert Carlysle over acted as Hitler, possibly at the orders of the
> director. He presented Hitler as a constantly neurotic, tense, twitchy
> paranoid.

The kind of man no one would be charmed by yet we know that he
retained loyalty even when he became sick. Clearly he had lost it by
1944.


>
> In reality, we know from the accounts of people who met him (including
> Loyd George) that Hitler came across as quite pleasant, charming, and
> relaxed. Indeed, the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the Will" depicts
> Hitler mingling casually with community type people in between speeches at
> the 1934 Nuremburg Rally, and that is the way he seems.


Indeed there are many such reports, not oft aired. He was charming,
well spoken, considerate, would cock his little finger whne drinking
tea, a vegetarian who loved animals and ensured that cruelty to
animals and vivisection was punished severly.

Portraying him as a ranting lunatic reinforces the "specter of the
holocaust haunts" is usuefull to those who want to
1 Discredit leftists who are appaled by what is happening to the
palentinian people and see that power comes out of the pro-zionist US
2 Discredit nationalists who want to end immigraion.


>
> This is significant, as the fact that he managed to charm many people
> helps explain his rise to power. Thus the miniseries fails to explain the
> "Rise" of Hitler in atleast one important aspect.

It is easy to understand his rise to power.

He put his people first. Not sham refugees, not corporate elites, not
marxist unions who wanted a hell hole of class warfare and cultural
change, not immigrants not anything but his own people. He offered a
vision in which capital and labour would be reconsciled, he introduced
public health meausrues,
As far as Jews go that is interestinng. Hitler got his Iron Cross
(which requires great valour) bu recomendation by his jewsh commander
in WW1.

I think there was no intention at Genocide; it was expulsion and they
has plans for this or radical assimilation. (the commander of the
Bismark was jewish as were many soldiers in WW2).


The holocuast happened when WW2 became an unbelievable mess.

Hittler fought against the communists who wanted a revolution (people
knew what happened in the USSR) and very succesfull seemingly jewish
marxist elites who mocked German national aspirations as a people in a
competitive world. Were there jewsh elites really doing this? I
believe they were very prominent. whether this is due to inclination
are just shear talent I leave open.

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:11:48 +0900, "netvegetable"
<netvegetable@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:55:46 +0000, Ernest wrote:
>
>
>> I have not seen the series itself yet, but a few points in general on
>> the above.
>>
>> Hitler gathered together people who would do anything he said and then
>> gave them instructions to do what he wanted. Hitler then used them to
>> create the environment that would allow them to operate freely. Anyone
>> who did not do as they were told got killed or totured or something
>> similar. Many people were not aware of what was happening until well
>> after the fact, many of those involved were just as evil as Hitler, but
>> a larger portion of those involved did not like what was happening but
>> were too scared to to do anything about it, and those who weren't scared
>> were not in a position to take any effective measures against it.
>>
>>
>If I may, the essence of your argument here is that the majority of people
>didn't know how violent and extreme Hitler's bigotry was?
>
>If so, in the case of the Final Solution to the Jewish problem, which
>started circa 43, you are correct. The majority of Germans *probably* did
>not realize that Jews, as well as other people classified as
>"undermenschen", were being starved, worked to death, and slaughtered by
>the tens of thousands with cold industrial efficiency.
>
>But German people were well aware of the Nazi's bigotry, well before they
>came to power in '33. It was clear from Hitler's speeches, it was clear
>from the regular pogroms by the SA against against the Jews.

They knew he did not like Jews Gypsies etc, but most
thought he would just have them shipped out of the
country not killed etc. Many people in the USA in the
late 1800's and early 1900's did not disagree with the
Klu Klux Klan about Afro Americans, but when the clan
started killing children as well as 'trouble makers' a lot
stopped supporting the Klans and some became active
in bringing the Klans down.

This is mostly about what peopel thought he would do
being greatly different from what he did do.
>
>Yet by '34, Hitler was apparantly already top of the pops. A plebiscite to
>approve his actions of assuming the powers of the late President
>Hindenburg, received 90% of the vote. Thus it could be argued Hitler was
>made Feuhrer by a popular mandate.
>
Correct.

>I don't mean to villify the German people in anyway. But my thesis here is
>that democracy is something that is dependant upon economics. In a
>nutshell, people who really know hunger, poverty and impotence don't give
>a rat's about rights, justice, etc. They are more likely than not to ask
>you how you cook them.

Generally appears so, but I think it is more a case of
tunnel vision, when your concentrating on the loaf
of bread one metre away you have difficulty seeing
what is happening 200 metres down the street.
>
>And it is no coincidence, that Germany reached the trough of the
>Depression in 33, and started emerging around 34 (after Hitler had
>arrested all the union leaders). To these people, Hitler's methods as
>distasteful as they were, appeared to offer hope.
>
Some of his methods did, many were beneficial.
Remember much of what he did in the mid 1930's
did improve the conditions within Germany and
very few people were physically hurt. The big
problems with his actions came after he started
to get really rolling.

>> Personally, I think that Lenin and Stalin both made Hitler look like a
>> pre-school starter. But Hitler was the first to do those sort of things
>> in large numbers, affected most of the world and had most of it go
>> public on him. Lenin and Stalin hid most of what they did, as Hitler did
>> during the war. Most of the atrocities carried out under all three have
>> only come to light well after the event when the leaders who issued the
>> orders were no longer in control and people were less afraid about
>> speaking up.
>>
>Bear in mind that we actually know relatively little about what was really
>going on in Soviet Russia at this stage. The collapse of Weimar Republic
>and the emergence of Hitler, however, gives us a rough model of how a
>democracy can just slip away.
>
>Another significant difference, is that many historians agree that Stalin
>was not really popular until the "Great Patriotic War" started when the
>Nazis invaded. Hitler's esteem in Germany was absolute long before that.

Few wanted Stalin but none were able to get rid of him.
Another point is that we now know that Stalin orchestrated
the deaths of millions in the Ukrains and other areas by
manipulating the food in areas with drought etc. The total
killed by Stalin exceeded Hitler's by a large margin.

Even during WW2 both Hitler and Stalin killed millions
of Ukrain citizens because they were inconvenient.

>
>> Ernest

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:32:05 +0900, "netvegetable"
<netvegetable@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>Recently, we had that "Hitler: Rise of Evil" miniseries on television here
>in Australia. I assume it's also played in other countries.
>
>What I find annoying about the concept is the fixation on the personality
>of Hitler himself. The very title "Rise of Evil" implies that it is
>pandering to popular notion that Hitler alone was responsible for the
>attrocities of the Third Reich.
>
>Without doubt, Hitler's personality had a tremendous effect on the savage
>nature of the regime. But it was not Hitler himself who drove the trains
>to the concentration camps. It was not Hitler who personally pulled the
>levers on the gas chambers.
>


KAS: Welcome to American Dissident Voices, Mark Weber.

MW: Hello, Kevin.

KAS: What is the Institute for Historical Review, of which you are the
director?

MW: The Institute for Historical Review is more than twenty years old,
and what we try to do is, as we say, to "bring history into accord
with
the facts." That's quoting Harry Elmer Barnes, who is a kind of ideal,
or mentor, for the IHR. The IHR is most famous -- or, in some eyes,
infamous -- for what we've done with regard to the so-called
"holocaust"
-- the Jewish "holocaust" during World War II.

Over the years, the IHR has published quite a lot in its Journal, and
in
books, and at conferences to show that much of what the public has
been
led to believe about the fate of Europe's Jews during World War II is
wrong or exaggerated or distorted. And that has just enraged groups
like
the ADL [the Jewish "Anti-Defamation League" of B'nai Brith -- Ed.],
and
the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and so forth.

But that's not all the IHR does. We try to deal with a number of other
issues as well.

KAS: You call yourselves revisionists? Is that correct?

MW: That's right.

KAS: The word sounds odd to many listeners, I'm sure. It sounds you're
trying to revise history. Don't we already know what happened in
history? Why should it be revised?

MW: Right. It's a sorry thing that the word "revisionism" has taken on
the connotation it has. "Revisionism" just comes from the Latin "to
look
again at things"; and all good history is revisionist in the sense
that
always an effort is made -- and should be made -- to examine the past
in
the light of new information, of new research, and new insights. And
that's what the IHR does.

But the main point of revisionism is that it's skeptical history. It's
unofficial history. What people call, oftentimes, "standard" history
is
really just official history. And what revisionism tries to do -- and,
again, it is a term that many people, as you point out, have trouble
understanding -- revisionism means to take a skeptical new look at the
past based on what we know. But many people who are fearful of the
term
"revisionism" don't realize the extent to which they themselves are
victims of a kind of "official" history, that history can actually
change in our encyclopedias and our standard books and so forth. And
people think that whatever the "official" version is, is the "correct"
one. Hardly anyone who's studied history can fail to be surprised at
the
extent to which Americans are taught today a version of our own
history,
as Americans, that's very different from the version of history that
was
taught to our grandparents and great-grandparents fifty, sixty, or
seventy years ago, for example.

KAS: So you're saying that, over time, the "official" version changes.
And does it also change geographically, depending on where you are,
what
the "official" version actually is?

MW: Of course, yes. Just about everyone would be in favor, for
example,
of the kind of revisionism that took place in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union after the fall of Communism. The official history
presented
the Communist past in a way, of course, that was in keeping with the
Communist regime, and after the fall of the Communist regimes in
Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union there was an enormous process of
revisionism
-- that is, of re-examining history on the basis of information that
had
been suppressed for many years. By the same token, in American history
for example, during World War II the Soviet Union was an ally of the
United States. And so the Soviet leader Stalin and the Soviet Union
were
presented in a positive way, in keeping with the wartime alliance.
After
the Cold War began and during the 1950s, the portrayal of the Soviet
Union and Stalin was a very different one. There are many, many
examples
of that. And revisionism is simply part and parcel of the natural and
important process of constantly re-examining our past based on new
insights and information.

KAS: If you're questioning the "official" version, doesn't that put
you
at odds with certain very powerful interests? Have these interests
tried
to retaliate in any way against you?

MW: The most obvious is that by calling into question this
almost-icon,
this mantra about the "holocaust," this endless emphasis about the
suffering or fate of Europe's Jews during World War II, the IHR has
enraged the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, the
World Jewish Congress, and other powerful Jewish organizations -- and
the state of Israel -- and their helpers. But the IHR really doesn't
care very much what they think. We just assume that's the attitude
they'll take. At the same time, we try to do our work in a way that is
responsible and sober. The IHR has succeeded, for example, in getting
what's called 501c3 status with the federal government; that is, it's
recognized by the federal government as a legitimate public-interest
educational enterprise, and people can donate money to the IHR and
deduct the amount for income tax purposes. Now, when the IHR got that
status, Tom Lantos, a very prominent Jewish Zionist member of
Congress,
screamed and yelled about it. The ADL issued a news release denouncing
it. And, on the basis of that, they sent another IRS agent out here to
go through our books, but they were unable to find any pretext to deny
us that.

But the most dramatic opposition to our work has come from Jewish
terrorists. In the late 70s and early 80s, there was a whole series of
drive-by shootings, bomb attacks, harassment, and violence against
employees that culminated on July 4th, 1984 in an arson attack on the
IHR offices that destroyed the IHR office and warehouse and resulted
in
immense damage. But since that time, it's been relatively peaceful.
It's
been rather peaceful.

KAS: That did not stop you, did it?

MW: No, it didn't. And it was very gratifying to see the tremendous
rallying that took place by people in the aftermath of that 1984 arson
attack.

KAS: We've gotten a sketch of what you do, and the fact that you have
some powerful enemies who don't want the facts of history to be looked
into. Who are you? Who are the leading personalities of the Institute?

MW: I'm the director; I've been employed full time since 1991. The IHR
Journal has an Editorial Advisory Board that is made up of scholars
from
many different countries who are distinguished in one way or the
other.
But probably most high-profile has been the support which the IHR has
received at its conferences. Two years ago, one of the speakers was
former Congressman Pete McCloskey, who was noted, during the time he
was
in Congress, as quite a liberal. He was the first Republican
Congressman
to call for the impeachment, years ago, of Richard Nixon. But we've
had
other prominent supporters who have been, as it were, conservative. At
the recent IHR conference we held in June, Joe Sobran was the banquet
speaker, and he's noted for his conservative views. For years, he was
a
senior editor at National Review. Also Professor Tony Martin of
Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who was actually born in the West
Indies -- and he's Black, spoke at the same conference. So the IHR has
support from people who are recognized, sometimes prominent: writers,
scholars, and thinkers of different political backgrounds. And one of
the points of the IHR is to get support for the work that we do,
regardless of people's political, racial, and other background.

KAS: What are your qualifications for the work that you're doing, for
directing an institute such as the IHR?

MW: Well [amused], I don't know about my qualifications? I was born
and
raised in Portland, Oregon; I went to school at Portland State
University; I have a Bachelor's degree from Portland State, but I
studied at the University of Munich in Germany; I studied at the
University of Illinois in Chicago; and I went to graduate school at
Indiana University in Bloomington where I got a Master's degree.
That's
sort of my qualifications, but in one sense the qualifications are not
one's degrees. It's one's commitment to what I regard as this enormous
struggle for truth in history, because much of what we are told in our
society is a version of history that is not only wrong and skewed and
distorted, but dangerously so.

KAS: What do you mean? Why is it dangerous, and who's doing the
skewing?

MW: The most obvious expression of this, and one that the IHR and I
have
spoken about and we've written about quite a lot -- especially in the
last several years -- is Jewish, Zionist power. In the United States,
Jews wield immense, tremendous power and influence, way out of
proportion to the tiny percentage of the population that they make up.
And this affects not only our policy, especially in the Middle East,
but
how we look at history. And this is manifest, perhaps most obviously,
in
the enormous way that the so-called "holocaust" is presented and
emphasized in our schoolbooks, in our schools, in our television, in
our
motion pictures, and so forth. And this presents just a very skewed
version of history in which Jews are presented as innocent victims,
people who deserve and should be given great support and help, and
that
the "lesson," so-called, of the "holocaust" is never do anything that
Jewish groups object to.

KAS: I've often noted that Americans in general, and American students
in particular, can always give you the "six million" figure for Jewish
losses in World War II. But if you ask them how many Russians died, or
how many Americans died, or how many British people died, they just
give
you a blank stare.

MW: Yes, it's a point I've made many times: the "six million" figure
is
repeated incessantly. It's an inaccurate and it's a mythical figure.
But
it's repeated constantly. Americans have no corresponding
understanding,
or almost no Americans have any corresponding knowledge of the
suffering
of other people. It's all part and parcel of what I call a kind of
"victimization hierarchy" in America, in which Jews are sort of number
one, and then other groups, depending on their status in society, are
further down the list. It's a dangerous and skewed version of history
that clouds everything that we do.

KAS: So you would definitely state that Jewish groups have distorted
and/or exaggerated their losses during World War II?

MW: No question. At the conference, for example, two years ago, former
Congressman McCloskey went into great detail about how the
Anti-Defamation League in particular does everything that it can to
suppress, silence, and shut up anyone who speaks about history in a
way
that Jewish groups regard as contrary to their interests, particularly
on the Middle East. It's more and more obvious, I think, to people
around the world just how skewed America's policy -- but not only
policy, but its perception of the world -- is because of Jewish
Zionist
influence in our mass media, in our educational system, and in our
political system.

KAS: Are there any falsehoods about the "holocaust" which stand out as
particularly absurd or particularly worthy of correction for our
audience today?

MW: Well, it's almost like shooting fish in a barrel. One story that
is
still told sometimes is this fable that the Germans made bars of soap
from the corpses of murdered Jews during World War II. And this story
has been given tremendous life over the years. It's appeared in
textbooks; it's appeared in important speeches. It's given great
prominence. It's utterly untrue. It's very lurid, it's ghastly -- but
completely untrue. And it's admitted to be untrue now, even by Jewish
groups -- if you press them on the matter. But the fact that it took
on
this tremendous life for so long is just typical of the way in which
the
most defamatory, horrible stories can be told about Germans or about
any
other non-Jewish group that's in disfavor at the moment -- without
correction, without fear of contradiction.

In the years right after World War II, and at the Nuremburg Trials, it
was claimed that people were killed in gas chambers in camps all over
Europe, including Buchenwald, Dachau, Auschwitz, and so forth. Many of
these claims have just been quietly abandoned over the years: No one
seriously claims anymore that anyone was gassed at Dachau or
Buchenwald
or at camps in Germany proper. One of the interesting aspects of this
is
that the so-called "eyewitnesses" and testimony and evidence for these
claims is therefore obviously not true.

KAS: And yet people were punished for those alleged crimes.

MW: Right. People were punished for those alleged crimes. This is just
part and parcel of this distortion; there are numerous examples. For
years, at Auschwitz, it was officially claimed that four million
people
were killed there, and that was supposedly proven at the Nuremberg
Trials in 1945-1946. In recent years, the numbers have been
drastically
reduced. They're still dropping down. Oftentimes the response to that
is
to say "So what if it's one million or four million or 100,000 or even
two?" There's an argument to be made for that, but the essential point
isn't over quibbling about numbers or anything like that, although
that's what historians are supposed to do. The essential point really,
I
think, is the way in which there's this tremendous political capital
made out of one chapter of history, designed to gain sympathy and
support. And the result has been a massive shakedown, kind of a
blackmail that's resulted in billions of dollars extracted from
Switzerland, from Germany, from European corporations, and from
American
taxpayers.

KAS: It's a kind of moral blackmail, I think.

MW: And some Jewish writers have even used those very terms. One of
the
striking things -- and Americans, I think need to understand this --
is
that the views of history that we are very used to, and comfortable
with, are not universal. The view of Middle East history that comes
from
the movie Exodus or the insights on European history that come from
the
movie The Sound of Music are gross distortions. They're just
perversions
of the truth. They may be very comfortable for many Americans to
believe, but they're not only perversions of the truth: Around the
world, there's an increasing awareness that how America looks at the
world and the Middle East is just out of line. Unfortunately, many
Americans still haven't "gotten it." Fortunately, millions more
Americans, I think, are "getting it." It's obvious, I think, to anyone
who has spent much time living overseas, that how the Middle East
situation is presented in the daily press is very different than it is
here in the American press.

KAS: In a moment, I'd like to talk about the linkage between Holocaust
Revisionism and the present situation in the Middle East, but first
I'd
just like to say that when you talk about "the 'holocaust'" it seems
to
me that the objection that should be raised is not so much to the word
"holocaust" but to the word "the" -- the article that precedes it. As
if
it's the only suffering of any national group in history!

MW: Yes, that's right. You know, the word 'holocaust' when used to
apply
collectively to what happened to Europe's Jews in World War II, didn't
come into popular usage until the 1970s. Normally, with the passage of
time, particularly horrible or gruesome or dark chapters of history
tend
to recede into the past and recede in importance. But just the
opposite
has happened with regard to what's called "the holocaust." You're
right,
even the very use of this term in this way is to give a kind of label
to
what was really a lot of individual things that happened rather than
some overarching phenomenon.

KAS: It seems to me that the suffering of the Germans after World War
II
certainly exceeded in scope anything that happened to the Jews. And
also
what happened to the Ukrainians in the pre-war period was horrific.

MW: I think the evidence is clear that more Germans than Jews were
killed during World War II. One of the things that was an important
beginning experience in my life was, when I was living in Europe, to
learn for the first time about the tremendous suffering, killings, and
expulsions that took place -- the victimization of Germans and other
Eastern Europeans in what is now Poland, in Czechoslovakia, and so
forth
in 1945 to 1948. We hear almost nothing about that in America. And
again, that's just part of the tremendous distortion, perversion, and
skewing of history that we see.

KAS: Isn't it true that in some parts of the world -- many parts of
the
world, perhaps -- it's actually a crime now to question the Jewish
view
of events during World War II?

MW: This is a point that the IHR has publicized a lot. In some
countries
-- Germany, France, Holland -- it's a crime to, as they say, "deny the
holocaust." The amazing thing is that it's only one chapter of
history:
For the sake of argument, suppose for a moment that the so-called
"holocaust deniers," the revisionists, are wrong. Justice is not
justice
unless it's applied equally. To criminalize dissident views about just
one chapter of history, and not others, is a form of injustice. People
today in Europe have been, and are, fined, exiled, imprisoned, for
expressing skepticism or dissident views on this chapter of history.
It's an outrage. The very fact that it's hardly known in America is in
itself an expression of the tremendous power that put those laws into
effect in the first place.

KAS: It's a strange kind of "truth" that has to be protected by laws
and
guns and prisons.

MW: Indeed, yes.

KAS: There is something going in Australia now. The Adelaide Institute
Web site is being forced off?

MW: Just the other day, the Federal Court in Australia ordered
Frederick
Töben, who runs something called the Adelaide Institute -- it's a
Holocaust Revisionist Web site -- to shut down the site and to
eliminate
everything on his site and on any other site that questions whether
people were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz, that questions
whether
the "holocaust" occurred -- I think I'm quoting from the language of
the
court ruling. It's outrageous. This was considered a violation of the
so-called "Racial Discrimination Act" in Australia. Töben tried to
argue
that the Act shouldn't apply because Jews constitute a religious
group.
But the Jewish organizations insisted that Jews should be regarded as
a
racial group. That alone is rather interesting because, when it is to
the advantage of Jewish groups, they will insist just the opposite.

And the law in Australia is similar to the laws in other countries: It
merely requires that one or two Jews claim to feel offended, and the
law
goes into effect. Well, a lot of things on the Internet are offensive
to
a lot of people. The fact that it's applied in this way, and that
Jewish
groups take advantage of it in this way, and that the courts uphold
their protests, is again an expression of the kind of special
treatment,
the privileged treatment, that Jewish groups receive in Australia and
everywhere in the Western world.


On our next program, we will continue our conversation with Mr. Weber
with a discussion of the impact of Jewish power -- and Jewish history
distortion -- on American Middle Eastern policy and on the looming war
in that region. Be sure to be listening one week from today.

If you'd like more information on the Institute for Historical Review,
you may write to IHR, PO Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659, or visit
the
Institute's Web site at www.ihr.org <http://www.ihr.org>.

Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on
thinking free.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe

==> TO BE REMOVED send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Unsubscribe

==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

To comment on this broadcast, please write to: national@natvan.com To
report typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, please
write to: webmaster@natvan.com

To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946

The National Alliance: <http://www.natvan.com>
<http://www.natall.com>



www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:48:12 GMT, rander3127@rogers.com wrote:


>
>Part of the propagandistic fiction put forth by some out there is that
>Hitler was an inhuman monster. Truth was, he was a human and like
>so many others, was capable of unspeakable acts.


by Theodore J. O'Keefe

Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust
story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes US troops
discovered
when they entered German concentration camps at the close of World War
II.

At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates,
emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising stories of
torture and
slaughter, and backed up their claims by showing the GIs crematory
ovens, alleged
execution gas chambers, supposed implements of torture, and even
shrunken
heads and lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin
flayed
from dead inmates.

US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the
atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the Allied
propaganda
directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to "document" what the
GIs had found
in the camps. Prominent newsmen and politicians were flown in to see
the harrowing
evidence, while the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the
scenes
for posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones
of horror,
but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown, and
Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as
names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history of this
planet.

For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased,
the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of torture and
terror -- became the
basis not simply of a transitory propaganda campaign but of the
conviction that,
yes, it was true: the Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most
of them in
lethal gas chambers.

What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for
the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the German people
by
destroying their national pride and their will to a united,
independent national state,
imposing in their place overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and
political
impotence. And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg
Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust
could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of
the most proven historical episodes in the human record.

A Different Reality

But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American
authorities were aware that the real story of the camps was quite
different from the
one in which they were coaching military public information
officers, government
spokesmen, politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.

When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the
spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and
securing any evidence of German war crimes.

Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's
Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team, Dr. Larson
performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German camps,
examining
on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim work at Dachau, he
was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.

Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've
heard is that six million Jews were exterminated.Part of that is a
hoax." And what
part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his biographer that to his
knowledge he
"was the only forensic pathologist on duty in the entire European
Theater" of Allied
military operations, confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas
uncovered."

Typhus, Not Poison Gas

If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and
Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or deliberately
starved? The
answers to these questions are known as well.

As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death
at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease, above all typhus,
an old and
terrible scourge of mankind that until recently flourished in places
where
populations were crowded together in circumstances where public health
measures
were unknown or had broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded
internment camps in Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures
as
systematic delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the
dead, the virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to
catastrophe.

Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in
the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., a
professor of
preventive medicine and epidemiology at the Harvard University School
of Public
Health, who was with US forces in Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon
reported in
1948 that "The outbreaks in concentration camps and prisons made up
the great
bulk of typhus infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon
summarized the
causes for the outbreaks as follows:

Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a
mixture of humanity travelling this way and that, homeless, often
hungry and
carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in chaos. The destruction of
whole cities
and the path left by advancing armies produced a disruption of living
conditions
contributing to the spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade,
public utilities
were seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was
inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere lacking. Still
more
important, a shifting of populations was occurring such as few
countries and few
times have experienced.

Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist
of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with British forces
as a young
medical student in 1945. Barton, who volunteered to care for the
diseased
survivors, testified under sworn oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985
that
"Thousands of prisoners who died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration
camp
during World War II weren't deliberately starved to death but died
from a rash of
diseases."

Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of
deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue after
inspecting the well
equipped kitchens and the meticulously maintained ledgers, dating back
to 1942,
of food cooked and dispensed each day.

Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary,
no researcher has been able to document a German policy of
extermination
through starvation in the German camps.

No 'Human Skin' Lampshades

What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their
tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other artifacts?
What of the
innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks," whipping posts, gallows, and
other tools
of torment and death that are reported to have abounded at every
German camp?
These allegations, and even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet
prosecutors,
found their way into the record at Nuremberg.

The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed
by journalists the "***** of Buchenwald," who was reported to have
furnished her
house with objects manufactured from the tanned hides of luckless
inmates.

But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany,
who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in Washington:
"There is no
convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch] selected inmates for
extermination in
order to secure tattooed skins or that she possessed any articles made
of human
skin." In an interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about
the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a
fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German jail in 1967.

It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi
atrocities. That there were instances of German cruelty, however, is
clear from the
testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a legal investigator attached to the
Reich
Criminal Police, whose statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg
have never
been challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr.
Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and
corruption on the part of camp personnel.
As he explained in sworn testimony at Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen
investigated 800
such cases, resulting in more than 200 convictions. Punishments
included the death
penalty for the worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt,
commandant of
Lublin (Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of
Buchenwald.

While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment,
such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and it was
required that a
camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be
disciplined, and
then be on hand at the actual beating. After all, throughout most of
the war the
camps were important centers of industrial activity. The good health
and morale of
the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced
in a January
1943 order issued
by SS General Richard Glücks, chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for
exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the
detainees."
Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst
offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the guards but
the
prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same stripe as those who
populate
US prisons today committed many villainies, particularly when they
held positions
of authority, and fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat
their many
political enemies among the
inmates, eliminated their foes with Stalinist ruthlessness.
Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon W. Fleck and Edward A.
Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances in the camp before its
liberation.
In a detailed report submitted to their superiors, they revealed, in
the words of
Alfred Toombs, their commander, who wrote a preface to the report,
"how the
prisoners themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi
terror."

Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:

The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the
power of life and death over all other inmates. They could sentence
a man or a
group to almost certain death ... The Communist trusties were
directly responsible
for a large part of the brutalities at Buchenwald.

Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government
in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an article
published in an
American magazine shortly after the war. Colonel Robinson wrote
succinctly of the
American investigators' findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who
agreed with
the Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."

Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E.
Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and Detentions
for the
US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of Dachau. Spackman,
later a
professor of history at San Bernardino Valley College in California,
wrote in 1966
that at Dachau "the prisoners were the actual instruments that
inflicted the
barbarities on their fellow prisoners."

'Gas Chambers'

In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward
J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in
Alsace. They submitted their findings to their superiors at the
headquarters of the
US 6th Army Group, which subsequently forwarded their report to the US
War
Crimes Division. While, significantly, the full text of their report
has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that
the two investigators were careful to characterize equipment exhibited
to them by
French informants as a "so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it
was
"allegedly used as a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)

Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective
suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the confusion,
and the blaring
publicity that accompanied official reports of alleged gas chambers at
Dachau. At
first, a US Army photo depicting a GI gazing at a steel door marked
with a skull
and crossbones and the German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger!
Don't
open!," was identified as showing the murder weapon.

Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely
a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and another alleged gas
chamber, this
one cunningly disguised as a shower room, was exhibited to American
congressmen and journalists as the site where thousands breathed their
last. While
there exist numerous reports in the press as to the operation of this
second "gas
chamber," no official report by trained Army investigators has yet
surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the
function of the shower heads: Were they "dummies," or did lethal
cyanide gas
stream through them? (Each theory has appreciable support in
journalistic and
historiographical literature.)

As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda
about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far not a
single detailed
description of the murder weapon and its function, not a single report
of the kind
that is mandatory for the successful prosecution of any assault or
murder case in
America at that time and today, has come to light.

Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that
there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany after all.
(We are now
told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps were located exclusively
in what is
now Poland, in areas captured by the Soviet Red Army and made
off-limits to
western investigators.)

Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History,
which is funded by the German government, stated categorically in a
1960 letter to
the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen
nor in
Buchenwald were Jews or other prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi
hunter"
Simon Wiesenthal stated in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."

Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving
world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, is now
described
in the brochure issued to tourists at the modern Dachau "memorial
site" in these
words: "This gas chamber, camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."

The Propaganda Intensifies

More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and
other German camps, and trained American investigators established the
facts as
to what had gone on in them, the government in Washington, the
entertainment
media in Hollywood, and the print media in New York continue to churn
out
millions of words and images annually on the horrors of the camps and
the infamy
of the Holocaust. Despite the fact that, with the exception of the
defeated
Confederacy, no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and
devastating defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the
politicians
and bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps
continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort,
through ignorance or malice, the facts about the camps.

Time for the Truth

It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about
Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time they let the
American public
know how the inmates died, and how they didn't die. It is time that
the claims of
mass murder by gassing are clarified and investigated in the same
manner as any
other claims of murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups
have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end
the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans, eastern
Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime
leadership of America and Britain, either for their alleged role in
the Holocaust or
their supposed failure to stop it.

Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the
camps, facts they have a right to know, a right that is fundamental to
the exercise
of their authority and their will in the governance of their country.
As citizens and
as taxpayers, Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have
a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by
those in positions of power to be significant in determining America's
foreign and
educational policy, as well as its selection of past events to be
memorialized in our
civic life.

Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world.
The truth will be decided only by recourse to the facts, in the public
forum: not by
concealing the facts, denying the truth, stonewalling reality. The
truth will out, and it
is time the government of this country, and governments and
international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the
German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945, so that we may put
paid to
the lies, without fear or favor, and carry out the work of
reconciliation and renewal that is
and must be the granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples
and of a
peace based on justice.

Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the
wartime German concentration camps have since been corroborated by
all
subsequent investigators and can be summarized:

1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a
German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of epidemics
of typhus and
other disease brought about largely by the effects of Allied aerial
attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into
handbags and lampshades for their private profit or amusement were
sick lies or
diseased fantasies; indeed, the German authorities punished corruption
and cruelty
on the part of camp commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and
martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the truth; indeed,
most of the
brutalities inflicted on camp detainees were the work of their fellow
prisoners, in
contravention of German policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing
camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they were used
to murder
Jews or other human beings is a contemptible fabrication. Orthodox
historians and
professional "Nazi-hunters" have quietly dropped claims that inmates
were gassed
at Dachau, Buchenwald and other camps in Germany. They continue,
however, to
keep silent regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as
to evade
an open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz
and the
other camps captured by the Soviets.


Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659




www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.altermedia.info/ www.nowarforisrael.com