|
|
|
A challenge to all genuine skeptics from a Holocaust revisionist by Alexander Baron This is a challenge to all genuine skeptics who, unlike Michael Shermer, are prepared to confront Holocaust Revisionism with both an open mind and objectivity. A brief introduction is necessary; I have been a Holocaust skeptic for a shade over thirty years, and a dedicated Revisionist since the 1990s. I have published two full length books on the so-called Holocaust, both of which can be downloaded free. (1) I have also published a number of pamphlets and articles from a pro-Revisionist perspective. (2) Eleven years ago I published a critique of Michael Shermer’s methodology, to which he did not deign to respond, or if he did, I didn’t hear about it. In my critique I alluded to the testimony of the Polish Jewess Sophia Litwinska regarding the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz. This short dissertation is concerned both with her testimony and the evidence of another Jewess, Regina Bialek. It is my belief that any honest skeptic who confronts the testimony of these two vitally important witnesses will of necessity develop serious doubts about the existence of both the alleged Nazi extermination programme, and the veracity of all the claims made by other witnesses concerning the use of homicidal gas chambers to exterminate people en masse in any of the alleged Nazi extermination camps. As confirmed skeptics I ask you to respond only with rational, clearly thought out, and logical arguments. Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority or to emotion, hysteria, innuedo, name calling, righteous indignation, shaming language, smears with guilt by association, or simple ridicule, do not constitute rational argument, and are no substitute for it. If you are able to refute the arguments I advance here, I await your response. If however you are not able to refute them, then common decency not to mention your professed commitment to historical and scientific truth demand that you acknowledge both that I am right, and that Shermer is wrong. At the four links immediately below you will find four PDF files; these contain two documents. I had intended to combine them into one, but the smaller sizes make them easier to load, and you will if you wish be able to view two or more pages simultaneously easily with this layout. WO 235/13, page 169 These documents are from the first Belsen Trial. More specifically they are scans of photocopies of original documents; both the photocopies and the scans thereof were made by me. The originals are deposited with the Public Record Office at Kew (the National Archives it is now to be called). I copied these documents in the 1990s but only got round to scanning them much more recently. There is a £40 fee for publishing such original documents on-line; On March 1, 2011, I paid that fee. (3) I needn’t have bothered because the entire transcript had already been published on-line at http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/ (4) But I decided to go ahead and publish these documents because a neatly processed HTML transcript is no substitute for the real thing. Now, some background. Although it was not the first trial of alleged Nazi war criminals, nor even the first trial of concentration camp staff, it was and remains one of the most important. In spite of its name, the Belsen Trial was concerned not simply with the trial of staff who had served at Belsen, but also with those who had served at Auschwitz. Some of the defendants had served at both camps; for example, Josef Kramer, had been Commandant of Auschwitz-Birkenau prior to his transfer to Belsen. Due partly to this, but also in large part to both sloppy journalists and cynical propagandists, there has been and continues to be a great deal of confusion about both Belsen camp and this trial over the decades since the end of World War Two. It should though be stressed here that it has never been claimed by serious historians and chroniclers that Belsen was any sort of extermination camp, although emotive photographs of its burial pits and emaciated victims continue to be used as unique proof of both white wickedness and of the evils of some nebulous ideology known as racism. And of Nazi anti-Semitism, of course. I stress again that I am not concerned here with Belsen, or with racism, or indeed even with Nazism, but only with the existence or otherwise of homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz camp, and by implication, in other alleged Nazi extermination camps. If you read about Holocaust Revisionism in the mainstream media, and certainly if you read about it from Jewish sources, or even in scholarly books and journals written by accredited academics, you will find it is greeted with anger, cynicism, dismay, horror, outrage, ridicule, satire, indeed with all manner of negative emotions. This hasn’t always been the case; for many years, decades, there was no comment on the Revisionists at all; in short, they were given the silent treatment. Since about 1974 this has not been possible, and of course with the rise of the Internet, the total suppression of any idea, ideology or publication has become virtually impossible, even if same is considered anathema by the overwhelming majority of the population. Holocaust Revisionists have therefore been subjected to all the above tirades. To these should be added both legal persecution in some jurisdictions, and occasionally by illegal persecution, including naked violence. In December 2006, an international conference was held into the veracity of the Holocaust and the claims of the Revisionists. This took place in Tehran, the capital of Iran, a country whose régime is treated with scorn and disdain by the Western media and by much of the Western political establishment. Iran’s charismatic leader, President Ahmadinejad pointed out that in the West, it is possible to deny the existence of the Prophet Muhammad, or even of God himself, but “…if someone were to deny the myth of the Jews’ massacre, all the Zionist mouthpieces and the governments subservient to the Zionists tear their larynxes and scream against the person as much as they can.” (5) Whether or not you agree with the Revisionists, whether or not you like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it is difficult to take issue with this claim. Although Revisionists have come to accept these reactions from the mass media and academia, some of us have been extremely disappointed by the reaction of the Skeptics Movement, which has been basically to parrot the establishment line. Those skeptics who deign to mention us at all usually allude to us as Holocaust Deniers – the epithet popularised by Deborah E. Lipstadt, an academic who is so confident of her position that she will not even debate Revisionists – because in her arrogant opinion there is no debate – in other words, everyone – including you – must take what she says as Gospel. Some skeptics compare us with flat-Earthers or with people who believe in flying saucers. This is truly ironic, because while they reject all evidence of flying saucers, these same people accept all evidence relating to the Holocaust for exactly the same reasons: there are numerous witnesses, documents, physical evidence, and surely the whole world can’t be wrong, can it? I think it is fair to say that only one skeptic, certainly one prominent skeptic, has even dared to look at the evidence and arguments adduced by the Revisionists, the aforementioned Michael Shermer, and what a shamefully pitiful effort he has made.(6) I do not propose here to document the numerous proven lies about the Holocaust that have been and continue to be perpetuated by both the mass media, and by certain Jewish organisations. I and others have done this elsewhere, and I would refer you in the first instance to my aforementioned books on the so-called Holocaust. (1) As stated, I propose to focus solely on one particular lie – that of the mass gassings that were said to have taken place at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I mentioned flying saucers above. Would it surprise you if I were to say that I could make out a stronger case for the existence of flying saucers than can Michael Shermer and his chum Alex Grobman for mass gassings at Auschwitz? Okay, here goes: It has been reliably estimated that there are somewhere in the region of seventy sextillion stars in the Universe, every one of them is a sun like our own. The Sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old; the Universe is over 13 billion years old. At the time of writing, over five hundred exoplanets have been detected, including a new solar system. Though we are in the realm of speculation, it is intelligent speculation nevertheless that there are countless stars which have planets similar to our own Earth on which life may have evolved. Leaving aside God, it is possible that the “purpose” of the Universe is to create life. If life is abundant throughout the Universe, and if intelligent life evolves naturally in a tiny fraction of these instances, it is possible, indeed likely, that there are thousands or even millions of civilisations “out there” somewhere, and that many of them are far more advanced than ours. It is therefore possible that some of these civilisations have developed technologies far superior to ours, and that some have managed to bridge the gaps between stars, or even galaxies, and that some have visited this planet but for whatever reason have chosen merely to observe us without initiating contact. All that is possible. The alternative hypothesis is of necessity that Man is alone in the Universe, with whatever implications, spiritual or metaphysical, that has. What is not possible is the testimony of Litwinska. What is also not possible is the evidence of Bialek. First the deposition of Regina Bialek, please refer in particular to the document belsen-trial-wo-235-14-108.pdf at paragraph 3 where she claims she was sent to the gas chamber on Christmas Day, 1943. Bialek says there were seven gas chambers in Auschwitz, although she does not reveal how she knew about the existence of this supposedly top secret extermination programme. What she thought she knew, surmised or was told is not important; what is important is her testimony as documented here. Bialek describes in graphic detail how she was deposited in this alleged gas chamber, how when the room was full, a hissing sound was heard to come from the floor, and after she had been in this gas chamber for ten minutes, people’s faces began turning blue, they foamed at their mouths, and their faces began to bleed. In most testimonies – the ludicrous nonsense of Kitty Hart, for example, the gas pellets are thrown in through a hole in the roof. It has been reliably estimated that there are somewhere in the region of seventy sextillion stars in the Universe, every one of them is a sun like our own. The Sun is approximately 4.6 billion years old; the Universe is over 13 billion years old. At the time of writing, over five hundred exoplanets have been detected, including a new solar system. Though we are in the realm of speculation, it is intelligent speculation nevertheless that there are countless stars which have planets similar to our own Earth on which life may have evolved. Leaving aside God, it is possible that the “purpose” of the Universe is to create life. If life is abundant throughout the Universe, and if intelligent life evolves naturally in a tiny fraction of these instances, it is possible, indeed likely, that there are thousands or even millions of civilisations “out there” somewhere, and that many of them are far more advanced than ours. It is therefore possible that some of these civilisations have developed technologies far superior to ours, and that some have managed to bridge the gaps between stars, or even galaxies, and that some have visited this planet but for whatever reason have chosen merely to observe us without initiating contact. All that is possible. The alternative hypothesis is of necessity that Man is alone in the Universe, with whatever implications, spiritual or metaphysical, that has. What is not possible is the testimony of Litwinska. What is also not possible is the evidence of Bialek. First the deposition of Regina Bialek, please refer in particular to the document belsen-trial-wo-235-14-108.pdf at paragraph 3 where she claims she was sent to the gas chamber on Christmas Day, 1943. Bialek says there were seven gas chambers in Auschwitz, although she does not reveal how she knew about the existence of this supposedly top secret extermination programme. What she thought she knew, surmised or was told is not important; what is important is her testimony as documented here. Bialek describes in graphic detail how she was deposited in this alleged gas chamber, how when the room was full, a hissing sound was heard to come from the floor, and after she had been in this gas chamber for ten minutes, people’s faces began turning blue, they foamed at their mouths, and their faces began to bleed. In most testimonies – the ludicrous nonsense of Kitty Hart, for example, the gas pellets are thrown in through a hole in the roof. Then, a miracle happens, Dr Mengele – the Angel of Death himself – calls out her name, and she is led from the gas chamber. Just like that! The testimony of Litwinska is even more remarkable, and this was not a mere affidavit but actual court testimony. Again, she is in the gas chamber in the process of being gassed, when she too hears her name called, and she is taken out of the gas chamber by SS Man Hoessler, put on his motorbike and taken to the hospital, where she spends six weeks recovering. Litwinska said when she was in the chamber, the gas made her cough, tears streamed from her eyes, and she felt as though she would be asphyxiated. These testimonies are incredible, but they are not simply incredible, they are physically impossible. In her 1925 book INDUSTRIAL POISONS IN THE UNITED STATES, Alice Hamilton writes of Zyklon B – the alleged killing agent – that “The indiscriminate use of this very dangerous gas by persons quite unfamiliar with it led to the accidental death in Cleveland of four persons who inhaled hydrocyanic acid gas with which a restaurant under their apartment was being fumigated”. Zyklon B rises, which is presumably why it was said – in the case of Bialek – to have come up through the floor. Even more incredible in the case of Litwinska, because as stated, this testimony was given in open court, and was not substantially challenged, not because – as some Revisionists allege – this was a show trial, but because at that time no defendant or defence counsel thought to ask the right questions, for which they can hardly be blamed considering the conditions under which this – and other so-called war crimes trials – were held. (7) Also, most defendants thought it best not to question the veracity of the allegations but to pass the buck. For whatever reason, SS Man Hoessler didn’t give credence to Litwinska’s ludicrous claim about him saving her life, but he did seize the opportunity to paint himself as a good guy – which he may well have been. When he took the stand, he responded: “…it was someone else whom I took out from the gas chamber. Those who had been selected were in trucks and went down in the direction of the crematorium. I was on the road when one of these trucks passed by, and I saw a woman whom I recognized in the back of the truck. Suddenly two women came and implored me to save her. I saw a motor cyclist near the block facing me, and I told him to go and fetch the woman and take her to the hospital, which he did. She had not been inside the gas chamber.” (8) Perhaps, unlike Litwinska, he had some basic knowledge of the laws of physics? Let us not forget that these gas chambers were said to contain hundreds of people. How could Hoessler or anyone have opened the door, gone inside and dragged out Litwinska or anyone else? This is ludicrous, but we have been here before! Back in the 1970s, the courageous Professor Faurisson exposed similar nonsense relating to other testimonies; the resulting uproar is still reverberating around the world to this day. Now I would like to repeat a statement I quoted in my previous polemic against Shermer. Every skeptic is surely au fait with the following quote from the great philosopher David Hume (1711-76); these words were first published in 1748, and are just as relevant today as they were then, perhaps even more so considering the nonsense with which we have been bombarded since: “...no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish ...” Both the evidence of Bialek and the testimony of Litwinska are indeed miraculous. What they claimed happened cannot have happened the way they claimed it did. This is not to say that apparently miraculous testimony cannot be true. As I pointed out in an earlier work, a young child or a feeble-minded person who witnessed an adept magician apporting an object might testify sincerely to such a materialisation, and then the handkerchief disappearing back into the ether. Indeed, we have probably most of us witnessed similar sleight-of-hand at times. But that will not do here! Skeptics, genuine skeptics, must find some way of reconciling thes testimonies with the physical process of mass gassing. There are two such testimonies here, but if there had been two thousand or even two million, they would still be unworthy of belief. Unless you want to argue with David Hume! If you cannot reconcile these testimonies with the physical reality of mass gassing, then you must concede that I am right and Shermer is wrong; that the Revisionists are right and the Exterminationists are wrong. That we are right, and the rest of the world is wrong. And, among other things, we demand a sincere and heartfelt apology from all those academics and others who have not only denounced as as cranks, liars etc and ad nauseum, but have impugned our motives, and have themselves contributed to the falsification of history. I will close this dissertation with a few quotes that may put you on the right track in your honest quest for a truthful explanation: “On one scaffold stood the condemned Sorceresses, a scanty band, and on another the crowd of the reprieved. The repentant heroine, whose confession was read out, stuck at nothing, however wild and improbable. At the Sabbaths they ate children, hashed; and as second course dead wizards dug up from their graves. Toads dance, talk, complain amorously of their mistresses’ untidinesses, and get the Devil to scold them. This latter sees the Witches home with great politeness, lighting the way with the blazing arm of an unbaptised infant…” (9) Regarding witchcraft, William M. Best commented: “Some of them present the extraordinary spectacle of individuals, not only freely (so far as the absence of physical torture constitutes freedom) confessing themselves guilty of these imaginary offenses, with the minutest details of time and place, but even charging themselves with having, through a demoniacal aid thus avowed, committed repeated murders and other heinous crimes.” (10) And finally, again, confessions relating to physically impossible crimes: Issobell Gowdie confessed to renouncing her baptism to the Devil and being baptised in his name. She said she had killed more than half a dozen people. She and her accomplices had sexual relations with the Devil and he was “abler for them sexually than any man could be. His members were exceeding great and long, but he was as heavy as a sack of malt and as cold as ice.” She travelled with the Devil in the shape of a cat and a crow, among others. Her confession, which lasted for four days, was entirely voluntary and corroborated by her accomplice, Janet Breadheid, who confirmed her story about killing all the male children of the Laird of Parkis by roasting clay images of them. (11) Exactly how is copulating with the Devil or riding the night skies with him in the form of a cat any different from the “confession” of Sophia Litwinska that SS Man Hoessler rescued her from a crowded gas chamber after the wicked Nazis had begun administering the Zyklon? As far as I can see, the only difference between the witch trials in Britain, Salem, et al and the war crimes trials of concentration camp staff is that in Germany at least, it is now a criminal offence to claim these impossible acts did not in fact happen. Shamefully, this sort of legal tyranny has even reared its ugly head in Britain; in October 2008, the Australian scholar Dr Fredrick Töben was arrested at Heathrow Airport and thrown into Wandsworth Prison on a request from the German authorities. He spent several weeks behind bars before the case was dropped. In this supposedly so enlightened age, the “civilised” West persecutes witches the same way as did Matthew Hopkins, and indicts dissidents in the same way as the Catholic Church once indicted Galieo. I rest my case. Notes And References (1) My first book on this supposedly so difficult subject can be downloaded from here; and the second from here. These are in compressed Portable Document Format. The uncompressed versions (which are of slightly better quality) can be found here here and here. Comments:2
Posted by Rollory on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:50 | # 1) Two people saying “yeah, me too!” doesn’t invalidate the piles of bodies that were found, or the large numbers of Jews who lived in Germany prior to the war being nowhere to be found afterward. 2) Personal testimony of any sort is a lot more unreliable than generally recognized. People can testify to something, swear that it is true, believe it absolutely, in spite of its being utterly physically impossible. This is not an unusual occurrence, and one would have to have little experience of human beings to believe so. The best-documented example I know is the dive bomber attack in the battle of Midway, where, upon debriefing, each and every squadron instisted that they were the first of the dive bomber squadrons to arrive in the vicinity of the Japanese, there were no other American planes in sight, none of the Japanese ships were smoking, and they attacked the largest one they saw. In actuality, they arrived one after another over the space of a dozen minutes and sank three different carriers, of which one was significantly smaller than the other two. Eyewitness testimony resulted in accounts that were absolutely false. Yet nobody tries to claim that the Japanese ships weren’t sunk. That’s what you’re doing here. 3) If it wasn’t true, why the hell didn’t the captured Nazis make an issue of that at the time? What benefit was there in letting themselves be accused of something they knew was untrue? 4) All contemporary accounts I have read - accounts written by people who were functional adults in the 1940s - take it absolutely for granted that the extermination happened. There simply was not time to set up the sort of monumental conspiracy that would be necessary to brainwash all these people. “Revisionism” did not really get going until, as you say, 30 years later - when dumbasses with no personal knowledge of the matter could be relied upon to run their mouths. Confusion about which camps were for holding people as opposed to the death camps? Sure. Convenience of how all the death camps were in the Soviet occupied zone and thus not easily inspected? I’ll give you that. No policy on the part of the Germans to rid themselves of a hated minority? No trains getting filled up with people in France and in other occupied countries and going off and none of those people being seen again? That’s just monumental wishful thinking, and the only possible way to engage in it is willful separation from reality. This whole argument reminds me of HIV/AIDS skeptics. They point to one specific piece of data, point out some flaws in how it was measured or defined, say that it can’t possibly be true, and thus HIV can’t cause AIDS. What they don’t do is address all the rest of the evidence and repeated experimentation across a wide array of points which taken together forms a consistent whole leading one to a reasonable conclusion: that HIV does indeed cause AIDS. It is not possible to argue rationally with someone who does not want to be rational. 3
Posted by Hail on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:52 | # Reading this piece, I am again reminded that the Holocaust is a religion. No one has ever put it quite as elegantly as this:
A new religion, with its own dogmas, which its subjects are heavily propagandized to believe and often compelled to believe by powers-that-be, a new religion with its own commandments, rituals, shrines, prophets and priests, martyrs, and, of course, economic/financial structures. [Source]. (See also: 10 Commandments of Holocaustianity). Further, as many people have pointed out, it is not some odd underground cult, this Holocaustianity. No, Holocaust mythology is very powerful, and largely defines morality for today’s Westerner. Holocaustianity is much, much more powerful in its religion-like hold over the (post)modern Western mind than is Christianity or anything else. As such, there can be no “skeptics”. Blasphemy. “Alexander Baron is a blasphemer, and should be socially ostracized, financially ruined, and if possible imprisoned or exiled”, is the idea. 4
Posted by Hail on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:31 | # Rollory, as a Holocaust believer, you have fallen for a lot of the fallacies the OP mentions. You have not given Revisionist positions a fair hearing in your own mind, as you repeat so many of the easily-refutable claims that believers tend to make. 1a.) “piles of bodies”—The photos of the large numbers of emaciated corpses piled up were taken at Bergen-Belsen upon its liberation. As the OP mentions, no one has ever claimed exterminations occurred there. The reason those poor souls died is well-known and was not extermination. It was due to the German infrastructure collapse that began in earnest in late Fall 1944. The pinch began in December 1944, and death camps for these imprisoned masses jumped. By contrast, not even one body was ever produced which was shown to have been gassed. The mythmakers concocted* all kinds of stories about happened to these millions of magically-disappearing bodies, none of which are technically possible for various reasons. [*—It is a little unfair to say these were “concocted”. The crematoria of course did exist and did cremate bodies of those who died, which—in a camp of 100,000+ slaves being worked in tough conditions, as at Auschwitz—would have been a fair number. 1b.) “the large numbers of Jews who lived in Germany prior to the war being nowhere to be found afterward”—Most German-Jews emigrated prior to the war, as Hitler and co. were eager to have them do. This is all documented and admitted by even Exterminationists. What happened to Poland’s Jews is more complicated, but the short story is that most ended up in the USSR, with a significant share dying from various causes during the chaotic war years. A significant share of all nationalities west of the Rhine died during that “chaotic period”, of course. (There is no evidence that any Polish-Jews were “gassed”). 2.) “Personal testimony of any sort is a lot more unreliable”—Exactly, and if a story is based pretty much entirely on witness testimony (as is the case with the allegations of gassings), then what? Especially with the camps of Treblinka, Sobibor, and Majdanek, the case rests pretty much entirely on a handful of “eye-witnesses” whose inconsistencies, unreliability, and sometimes the absurdity of their claims, have long been exposed. Unreliable testimony + Lack of any physical evidence + Lack of serious documentary evidence + Technical impossibility on various grounds = No Holocaust. 3.) “Why didn’t the captured Nazis make an issue of that at the time?”—You refer to the Nuremburg trials and others. Many of the defendants did vigorously deny any such thing took place, or to their knowledge of it. Thus, two dozen or so of the “first Holocaust deniers” were hanged in 1946 at Nuremburg. Another strategy, employed by a significant minority of captured Nazis, was to passively collaborate, that is, to cede the premise that “exterminations occurred” to try to win the good graces of the Americans. This is what Alexander Baron above calls “passing the buck”, and the much-popularized “I was following orders” nonsense. 4.) “All contemporary accounts I have read…take it absolutely for granted that the extermination happened.”—That is because accounts like those of early revisionist Paul Rassinier (Socialist French MP, Resistance fighter, and after capture a concentration-camp inmate) tend to be ignored, go unpublished, and are never to be found in libraries these days because of the power of the Myth. In Europe, of course, the books are officially banned, and their authors legally prosecuted for writing them. But there are plenty of first-hand accounts that “deny” these things occurred. Further, there are only a certain number of people who could have had any knowledge of the events we call the Holocaust. Someone who lived out the war as a civilian in Amsterdam, for example, would have had no knowledge at all what did or did not happen 1,000 km to the east in camps. That is to say, 99% of people were simply following “what I heard”. Also, the idea that “the masses accept something therefore it is true” is one of the most basic logical fallacies of all. 5
Posted by Hail on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 07:46 | # Two careless typos in the above: 1a.) Should read: “The pinch began in December 1944, and death rates AT THE camps for those imprisoned jumped.” 1b.) Should read: “A significant share of all nationalities EAST of the Rhine died during that “chaotic period”, of course.” 6
Posted by Mitaclina on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:59 | # The entire myth of mass gassings is founded on similar nonsense, as dedicated Revisionists applying the scientific method have ably demonstrated, but Shermer isn’t interested in them, he is interested only in some old guy who called in to a radio station to whitter on about the Protocols Of Zion. 7
Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:56 | # Mr Rollory, You are falling into the trap Lyle Burkhead warned against: The point at issue between the revisionists and other historians is not whether the Holocaust happened. If the Holocaust is “thousands of events,” then yes, obviously, some of it happened. Dr. Shermer tries to pretend that the revisionists are “deniers” who “deny the Holocaust” as a general phenomenon. In fact, as he knows perfectly well, no one denies the Holocaust as a general phenomenon. Of course the Nazis rounded up Jews and sent them to concentration camps, where many of them died. That doesn’t need to be proved, since it is obvious and acknowledged by everyone. Of course “it” happened, in that sense. The point at issue is how much of the Holocaust story is true. Furthermore, the other claims you make are either irrelevant or untrue. Piles of bodies - such as you’ve seen from the Belsen photographs - do not prove Jews were gassed in Auschwitz “Personal testimony of any sort is a lot more unreliable than generally recognized. People can testify to something, swear that it is true, believe it absolutely, in spite of its being utterly physically impossible.” Therefore it is true? Come on! “All contemporary accounts I have read - accounts written by people who were functional adults in the 1940s - take it absolutely for granted that the extermination happened.” Again, not true; C.H. Douglas made an analysis at the time; Burg and Rassinier researched and wrote shortly after the War; other lies were proven at the time. “There simply was not time to set up the sort of monumental conspiracy” - oh yes, that wonderful word conspiracy again. Check out the Hinducaust! The incident of the drinking statutes in 1995; there were thousands of witnesses to this all over the world, not illiterate Paki peasants but doctors, engineers, accountants…was that a conspiracy, or were they simply wrong? As for HIV/AIDS, you are on really dangerous ground here; HIV does not fulfil Koch’s postulates for causation; check out some of the excellent videos on Youtube to which high powered scientists have contributed These two for starters: 8
Posted by john on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 14:10 | # Don’t care how many jews died. Certainly good news for them about there being no evidence for homicidal gas chambers. Maybe an apology and refund and compensation is in order. The three points of revisionism; no Hitler order, no evidence for homicidal gas chambers and no six million killed are no longer controversial. 9
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:38 | # Mr. Baron, You have obviously put in a lot of work on this subject, and are to be respected for such. I have not read this piece carefully. I apologize; perhaps I will. But what is the point of Revisionism? It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to justify rather than deny the Holocaust. Why deny it? How does that help to save the white race? And might there not be better ways to spend our time; say, in organizing activist groupings to go out and distribute literature on cars and in mailboxes about the costs of immigration? I agree about the religious overtones of all this. But doesn’t that mean we should tread extra carefully then? People are more irrational over the Nazi period than over discussing immigration. But stopping immigration is infinitely (literally) more important than revisiting the Holocaust issue. Can’t we postpone the reinterpretation of the Third Reich until after we’ve ended the invasion? First things first. 10
Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:45 | # For me, the point is that most of Western society is based on lies, that is what really is important. Lies like homosexuality is “gay” And so many, many more. We are at one minute to midnight, and our civilisation, indeed the entire planet is going down the tubes. 11
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:31 | # A.Baron: “only one skeptic has even dared to look at the evidence and arguments adduced by the Revisionists, the aforementioned Michael Shermer” This is a surprising assertion. I would expect Jewish activists to have produced their own “experts” to disparage the evidence and arguments when revisionists have been brought on trial. “There are two such testimonies here, but if there had been two thousand or even two million, they would still be unworthy of belief.” I suppose you have to refute them one by one. — According to semitically correct literature, newspaper editorials, school textbooks and so on : 1. the Germans were very organized and efficient in the way they systematically killed Jews. They just didn’t realize that a bullet in the back of the neck was a faster method than concentration camps equipped with hospitals and gas chambers. 2. Every German atrocity was coldly and meticulously recorded by the German administration. If makes the lack of evidence about gas chambers all the more surprising. 3. Everything was carefully planned in advance by the Germans. It means that the laws against racial mixing, the expulsion of Jews, and the efforts to help them resettle in Palestine, were clever tricks to make people believe that the objective was not to kill every Jew. 12
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 18:40 | # John: “The three points of revisionism; About point number 1 : The Jewish insistence that the Germans deliberately decided to kill every Jew does not simply amount to a claim that Hitler gave the order to kill the Jews. It is in fact a collective accusation against the Nazis, against the Germans, and against White people. There were millions of Nazis in Germany. Obviously, not all of them had exactly the same views. Millions of white people had similar views in other European countries. But the Jewish dishonest objective is to equate Nazism with the ideology of killing 6 million Jews. They will raise a media stink if you say that the Nazis were usually decent people. Non-Germans who were sympathetic to Germany are also depicted as moral monsters. It would be very frustrating for Jewish anti-white activists if Hitler was seen as the only person responsible for the death of many Jews. The Jewish objective, as much as possible, is to spread the blame around among white people for the “deliberate, carefully-prepared, and systematic” murder of “all” Jews, including through the use of “gas chambers”. This has to be compared to their rejection of any Jewish collective responsibility, not only in genociding Ukrainians and starting WW2, but in the current race-replacement crisis. 13
Posted by Armor on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 19:00 | # Leon Haller: “It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to justify rather than deny the Holocaust.” You are called a Nazi if you say that you want to preserve the collective existence of white people and send the immigrants back to their home countries or give them a separate piece of land. If you help people realize that there has been of lot of defamation going on, and that European nationalists in the 1930s were usually not raving lunatics intent on killing Jews, it may help somewhat. I think we would be better off if every Jew lived in Israel. But if you start arguing that killing Jews is a reasonable solution, it won’t help the white cause. 14
Posted by Silver on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:23 | # But what is the point of Revisionism? It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to justify rather than deny the Holocaust. Why deny it? Many do justify it. Others maintain that there was no organized attempt at mass extermination, certainly not by gassing, but stress that if it did all occur as is claimed it’s nothing to be concerned about. That was Revilo Oliver’s position. It would have just been a bit of “house cleaning,” that’s all, according to him. Of course, the reality is anyone can take an interest in Revisionism. One doesn’t have to be a Nazi or a WN or even white. And it’s really more about questioning the holocaust (or aspects of it) than “denying” it. Essentially, it comes down to intellectual freedom. Any freedom-loving individual (as trite as that phrase is starting to sound) would surely find it at least disturbing, if not outright infuriating, to be told he must believe it, exactly as it is told to him. To then learn one can be hauled off to court for daring to dissent is intolerable. Now, it seems clear to me that the great majority of those doing the dissenting are Nazis, or are sympathetic to Nazism, or have come to be sympathetic to Nazism as a result of first dissenting. This means if you hate Nazis but love truth, as I do, you’ve got a real problem. On the one hand, fining people or sending them to prison for daring to dissent is (a) no way to run a free society, and (b) prima facie evidence that you have something to hide. On the other hand, well…these people are Nazis, dammit! One way to resolve the dilemma is to recognize that the Nazis were bad enough without the official account of extermination/gassings necessarily being completely correct. I’ve found that allowing that it’s quite possible there was never any attempt at mass extermination hasn’t fundamentally lessened my distaste for what the Nazis were “all about” (ie the militarism, expansionism, supremacism, racial hatred etc. I mean, you wanna love your race with all your heart and all your soul, hey, fine, go ahead. I just can’t quite grasp why that must mean someone like has to get penalized for it. You know: bombs rained down on me; country invaded; enslaved or “transferred”; that sort of thing.) Non-Nazi WNs could resolve it by realizing that that the effect of endless “Holocaust awareness” campaigns is not to merely discredit Nazism but to discredit the desire to secure ongoing white racial existence (and associated desires, like a sense of white racial community and fellow-feeling, a common culture etc), which, strictly speaking, need have nothing to do with Nazism (ie in the fascist sense—militarism, expansionism, supremacism, racial hatred, etc). 15
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 23:59 | # Leon Haller: “It seems that neo-Nazi anti-Semites should be trying to justify rather than deny the Holocaust.” If you help people realize that there has been of lot of defamation going on, and that European nationalists in the 1930s were usually not raving lunatics intent on killing Jews, it may help somewhat. I think we would be better off if every Jew lived in Israel. But if you start arguing that killing Jews is a reasonable solution, it won’t help the white cause. (Armor) I understand the modern ideology behind race-replacement. I think we should be combatting that replacement on its own terms, without diluting our moral message by trying to rehabilitate one of the more repulsive regimes in history, one which spoke in the name of Aryan civilization, but also killed a lot of (non-Jewish) whites, as well having been run in gangster fashion. Remember, most true conservatives of the period, who were much racially harder core than the tepid, postwar Reagan/Thatcher types, correctly regarded communism as a greater threat than Nazism, but disliked the Nazis, too. I’ve been called a Nazi many times simply because I believe in the pragmatic likely necessity of white revolution, as well as the need for a Racial State, if our race is to endure. I don’t particularly want bloody revolution. I just don’t think the white race will be saved without it, unless we adopt my plan of peaceful foreign demographic conquest through WN immigration to a small sovereign country. The ensuing ethnostate would be so globally hated that it would have to ‘morph’ into a state with a telos, that is, one so constituted that saving the race becomes its central organizing principle. As such, it will be a great deal more authoritarian by today’s lights than any current Western nation - though as capitalist efficiencies will be required to maximize national wealth (in turn to maximize defense funding), it could be argued that it would also be more free, at least economically, than today’s Western regulatory/welfare states. Basically, we need a sovereign state which looks something like a pre-WW2 Western nation: libertarian (within national defense limits) on economic issues, but socially/racially authoritarian. Much less state interference in the economy, much more regulation of personal life to ensure both over-reproduction, as well as proper cultivation of the character and beliefs of the young. Come to think of it, we need a White Israel. Israel’s central principle is Jewish preservation. If the Jews can have their own country, surely whites can have one of our own, too? 16
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 00:07 | # Silver, I agree with what you have written here. Many serious racialists do as well. Saving the white race is a conservative endeavor, the ultimate expression of conservatism. Dragging in the morally problematic Third Reich is as unnecessary as welfare liberals wasting their time trying to apologize for, or deny the crimes of, communism. They achieved what they did without whitewashing communism. We can do the same wrt Nazism. Keep Hitler and his ilk in the trash can of history. Some of us have a race and civilization to save. 17
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 02:09 | # But what is the point of Revisionism? Attack the enemy’s stronghold. I’ve found that allowing that it’s quite possible there was never any attempt at mass extermination hasn’t fundamentally lessened my distaste for what the Nazis were “all about” (ie the militarism, expansionism, supremacism, racial hatred etc. Yeah… No other human beings are similar. No other groups of people have been about militarism and expansion except mid-twentieth century Germans. Jews want to believe there are special evil people that the must fight with their special goodness when the truth is that we are all just humans. 18
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 02:58 | # Keep Hitler and his ilk in the trash can of history. Some of us have a race and civilization to save. Are Germans (some alive at the time of WWII) not part of that race and civilization? We must defend the dead since they are incapable of that feat. 19
Posted by Silver on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 10:15 | # Yeah… No other human beings are similar. No other groups of people have been about militarism and expansion except mid-twentieth century Germans. Of course peoples throughout history have waged war on and exterminated each other. (And while it was usually political leaders urging it on, the masses were generally pleased to hear that victories had been won in their name and certainly didn’t think there was anything morally questionable about the practise, so it makes sense to refer to entire peoples.) But at the same time peoples throughout history have also sought to find common ground and make peace. Nazism tilts the balance toward the former and ideologically all but rules out the latter. The Nazis more or less declared this is what the Germanic race is going to stand for, now and forever more; onwards to glory! How can you hope to ever peacefully coexist with creeps like that, creeps who find your very existence on planet earth objectionable? Jews want to believe there are special evil people that the must fight with their special goodness when the truth is that we are all just humans. I don’t know about an especially evil people, but as outlined above there is good reason to consider Nazism—“biological nationalism”—a unique evil. At the very least it’s uniquely risky, once it has penetrated the fibre of one’s being (as adherents’ own words demonstrate). You say “we’re all just people.” Sure. But what does that imply? That we should devote ourselves to, firstly, finding reasons to despise each other, and then, that established, to conquering and killing each other? No thanks. I prefer a middle way between total group self-abnegation (“there’s nothing good about my group”) and total group self-affirmation (“there’s only good in my group, and good only in my group”), one that recognizes that peaceful coexistence is a two-way street. That principle would allow us to go about establishing a set of “Arm’s Length Accords” which, if adhered to, would see us each secure and safeguard our own group’s place in the world by helping other groups do the same. Nazis and other old-style nationalists are unlikely to see much value in that. They probably prefer to think that if their group existence can’t be secured by old-fashioned means it doesn’t deserve to be secured at all. Dunno about you, but I think that’s a pretty big gamble, especially considering that the payoff at this point doesn’t appear anywhere on the horizon. Oh, and this: Attack the enemy’s stronghold. Seriously? Where the enemy is strongest? Sun Tzu would have your guts for garters. 20
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 11:01 | # Are Germans (some alive at the time of WWII) not part of that race and civilization? We must defend the dead since they are incapable of that feat. Being a good half-German at least, and told by many that I look German, I am second to none in my opposition to Jewish-fanned Teutonophobia. I am very proud of my German background, as well as German-American heritage. I think we must also remember the Allied crimes against the Germans, especially the grotesque firebombings in spring ‘45, as well as the ghastly treatment of the disarmed German POWs following the war. I’m very big on revisionism on those issues!! But why should we dilute those laudable qualities of being German and genuine historically neglected matters by associating them with the Nazi murderers? The Nazis cannot be rehabilitated, and even if they could be, there is an order of ideological progression in democratic modernity, which essentially holds that the masses just do not accept too radical revisions to settled beliefs, except over time. The exception occurs where the ostensibly radical change really only involves replacing one elite with another under a condition where the bulk of the people are latently already amenable to change. The great modern example of this was the 60s social-liberation movements: feminism, sexual loosening, civil rights and racial integration. The intellectual, cultural and ideological groundwork for this type of politics had been laid over many previous decades of attitudinal change (some might say degeneration). I think immigration, given its incredible costs and utterly minimal benefits, is a classic example where white majorities desirous of positive change already latently exist in most of our nations. On the other hand, an infinitesimal number of whites are willing even to hear pro-Nazi or Holocaust revisionist arguments. And what is more achievable as well as important: stopping immigration, or changing the conventional interpretation of the Holocaust? Whether on strategic or mere tactical grounds, the answer is obvious. 21
Posted by Hamish on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 13:15 | # How can you hope to ever peacefully coexist with creeps like that, creeps who find your very existence on planet earth objectionable? You coexist with ‘creeps’ who find your very existence on planet earth objectionable at that race/hist blog, even kissing up to them like a little house wog time after time. What a hypocrite you are! I prefer a middle way between total group self-abnegation (“there’s nothing good about my group”) and total group self-affirmation (“there’s only good in my group, and good only in my group”), one that recognizes that peaceful coexistence is a two-way street. That principle would allow us to go about establishing a set of “Arm’s Length Accords” which, if adhered to, would see us each secure and safeguard our own group’s place in the world by helping other groups do the same. What exactly are you proposing? 22
Posted by Alexander Baron on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:06 | # You are missing the point. This is not about ideology. This is about facts and evidence. Ian Huntley is a truly despicable human being. Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were two innocent young girls. But however you dress it up, Ian Huntley did not kill Genette Tate because it would have been physically impossible. It really is as simple as that. Forget ideology. Forget both philo-Semitism and Nazi apologetics, and examine the evidence. The evidence, and in this case the laws of physics, say not only that mass gassings didn’t happen, but they couldn’t. Nuff said. 23
Posted by Armor on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 15:32 | # Alexander Baron: “It really is as simple as that. Forget ideology. Forget both philo-Semitism and Nazi apologetics, and examine the evidence. / The evidence, and in this case the laws of physics, say not only that mass gassings didn’t happen, but they couldn’t. “ This is very interesting. After all, facts matter. But it is unlikely that anyone on this forum is going to examine the evidence and try to disprove you. So, even though I am missing the gas chamber point, I will continue my off topic discussion with Silver :
Who is it exactly that the Nazis wished to exterminate: Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, cripples? French, Italians, Arabs, Africans, as well as the Japanese? You need to be more precise. I’m sure that most officials in the Nazi party didn’t wish to exterminate anyone. As for war, what I have read is that Hitler didn’t want a war with England and France.
I think much of the Nazi propaganda merely encouraged people to have a positive view of themselves, of rural life, family life, sport, science, European art, traditional morality, sexual moderation, the traditional work ethic, altruistic idealism… I think those European values were already under attack at the time. Today, our judeo-leftist media and governments hold all of that in contempt and stand for atomistic individualism, mass immigration, interracial sex, TV watching… And onwards to glory! How do you think this is going to end? 24
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:10 | #
For that matter, I don’t think Hitler even wanted war with Poland. I’m only beginning to study the matter, but I suspect the war lust there lay primarily with Lord Halifax. Sorry to wander off topic, Mr Baron. I’ve spent a lot of time debunking the myth of the six million. It seems that logic is of no avail in this realm. People have unwittingly been led into this fantastic belief system by emotional imagery. It’s not a logical problem and they can’t be liberated by logical means. Its very sad. I’ve been meaning to go back into Mein Kampf and reread what Hitler wrote about the Jewish psycho-pathology of the Big Lie. I think it was something to the effect of what I have written above. People simply can’t fathom a lie of that magnitude, so no matter how much it’s disproved, a part of their psyches will continue to insist that a kernel of truth must remain. There’s no reason to believe that. It’s a result of Pavlovian conditioning. I doubt it will ever be overridden by anything short of witnessing even larger stacks of cadavers while listening to a hypnotic counter-meme. 25
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:36 | # Of course peoples throughout history have waged war on and exterminated each other. Point conceded then. But at the same time peoples throughout history have also sought to find common ground and make peace. Nazism tilts the balance toward the former and ideologically all but rules out the latter. Not true. The Nazis were pragmatists and negotiators as well as aggressors just like the Russians. They weren’t special or especially hell bent on world domination. They wanted continental hegemony and this raised spectacularly hypocritical indignation in the English. The Nazis more or less declared this is what the Germanic race is going to stand for, now and forever more; onwards to glory! Every race does and did it from ancient Greece onward. How are modern Americans any different? How can you hope to ever peacefully coexist with creeps like that, creeps who find your very existence on planet earth objectionable? A much better example of this kind of mentality is that of the Yankees during the American Civil War. They were much creepier than the Nazis. There were actual calls for complete desolation, annihilation and Southern genocide coming from all quarters of Northern society. However, even they and their carpet-bagging children didn’t actually lay waste to the country outside of the awful amount of destruction that Sherman caused. I don’t know about an especially evil people, but as outlined above there is good reason to consider Nazism—“biological nationalism”—a unique evil. At the very least it’s uniquely risky, once it has penetrated the fibre of one’s being (as adherents’ own words demonstrate). There is no such thing as “unique evil” and I find the term laughable. Upon introspection is where we should uncover “unique” evil. Hell, most people on the far right (and far left - the extremes touch after all) don’t believe in “good” and “evil” in the traditional sense. Why waste your time appealing to it? You say “we’re all just people.” Sure. But what does that imply? That we should devote ourselves to, firstly, finding reasons to despise each other, and then, that established, to conquering and killing each other? No thanks. It implies that we will, inevitably, engage in both aggressive and reconciliatory behavior. You cannot wipe evil of the face of the Earth. Do you realize you sound like George W. Bush when you talk like this? one that recognizes that peaceful coexistence is a two-way street. It isn’t. It is the stronger condescending to allow the weaker an existence and praying that when they are the weaker the new stronger remembers the kindness of the new weaker. That principle would allow us to go about establishing a set of “Arm’s Length Accords” which, if adhered to, would see us each secure and safeguard our own group’s place in the world by helping other groups do the same. What a load of utopian bollocks! They probably prefer to think that if their group existence can’t be secured by old-fashioned means it doesn’t deserve to be secured at all. That is what Darwinism plus traditionalism reduces to no? Dunno about you, but I think that’s a pretty big gamble, especially considering that the payoff at this point doesn’t appear anywhere on the horizon. Hard telling not knowing. Seriously? Where the enemy is strongest? Sun Tzu would have your guts for garters. Yes. Seriously. You can’t attack where he is weakest because he bludgeon you from where he is strongest while you try to attack where he is weakest. That is the beauty of ideology trumping fact. You are missing the point. This is not about ideology. Yes it is about ideology. You might wish it was about facts but it isn’t. Facts are always pre-interpreted within the territory of our collective psyche which makes everything about ideology. You aren’t challenging people’s “facts” but their ideas. It is the same thing when you challenge people’s views on 9-11, certain medical hypotheses, organic food, the environment, soil health, etc. One finds one is coming up against ideology or faith rather than a collected body of facts. 26
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:48 | # In case people don’t know what Jimmy is talking about, this is from a Lyle Burkhead page which can be found here: http://www.geniebusters.org/what-is-national-socialism.htm
27
Posted by danielj on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 17:55 | # A perfectly great modern example of the Big Lie in action is the movie V for Vendetta. Here is the relevant quote:
This takes place within the broader context of a movie that essentially alleges that 9-11 was a government operation by right-wingers hell bent on instituting a form of religious fascism! Not an operation by foreigners and their left-wing enablers hell bent on reshaping the world in the image of the Pepsi Generation and turning Arabs into hipsters! 28
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:32 | #
This is the boring truth of BUGS and the Mantra. The secret lies in getting people’s undivided attention first. Meticulous research has shown that nothing works better than three Sieg Heils. 29
Posted by Apex on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 21:27 | # “50 later, new data surfaces about Eichmann trial” By RON FRIEDMAN http://www.jpost.com/home/article.aspx?id=210263
30
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:09 | # The major reason most people believe in the Holocaust tales is how many “Jewish survivors” promote these tales. Throughout the US are “Jewish survivors”, and almost none of them condemn this all as a lie. Regular people can’t imagine that so many could all be lying. It’s easy to believe a big corporation is lying to you but not that so many next-door-neighbors are. 31
Posted by Frank on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:24 | # I’ve long been wary of it, though obviously Jews were killed, in much smaller numbers and not via “gas chambers”. It should be explained in relation to all of the other horrors going on. Germans were bad, sure… but so was everyone else. What’s an excellent introduction to the absurdity is how 6 million allegedly perished in WWI as well! I’m curious how many times 6 million Jews have allegedly been killed. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 05 Mar 2011 23:45 | #
LOL 33
Posted by BB Wolfe on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 04:17 | # Times journalist Douglas Reed said in his book The Controversy of Zion : Typical of Englishmen of my generation, I had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler’s deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews. All these statements are false. The measures against the Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; the Jews were involved in a much larger number of others. The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but in the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No “burning of Jewish books” was ordered; I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of “Marxist” books was burned, inc1uding the works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers (my books, had they then been published, would undoubtedly have been among them); the bonfire inc1uded some Jewish books. the “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio of the population. Nevertheless this false picture, by iteration, came to dominate the public mind during the Second War. At the time of my resignation, which was provoked solely by the “policy of appeasement” and the imminent advent of “the unnecessary war”, this other hindrance to faithful reporting was but a secondary, minor annoyance. Later I discerned that the motive behind it was of major importance in shaping the course and outcome of the Second War”. When I came to study the story of Mr. Robert Wilton I perceived that there was a1so a strong resemb1ance between my experience and his. He sought to exp1ain the nature of an event in Russia and thus was inevitably led into “the Jewish question”. Twenty years later I observed that it was in fact impossib1e to draw public attention to the misreporting of the nature of the persecution of Germany and to exp1ain that the Jews formed only a small fraction of the victims. Do Reed’s observations ring true with your research, Al? 34
Posted by the krauts debased themselves? on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:14 | #
Good stuff, Leon. Keep it up and you really will get on the shit list of the English. 35
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:47 | #
I keep looking, but the redcoats seem not to be coming ? ? ? 36
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 13:57 | # Posted by the krauts debased themselves? on March 06, 2011, 05:14 AM | # Good stuff, Leon. Keep it up and you really will get on the shit list of the English. Um, Ok. Have I been trying to get on the English shit list? Should I be concerned? The English behavior (possibly also American) during and after the war was worse than that of the Germans. The Germans were scrupulous in observing traditional laws of war when it came to the Western powers, though they were genocidal towards everybody in the East - which was one of their many mistakes. The firebombings under “Butcher” Harris were one of the greatest collective crimes against our race in history. 37
Posted by krauts: the root of all evil on Sun, 06 Mar 2011 20:11 | #
Keep rolling with the force of a Panzer division towards Dunkirk, and you’ll get there. 38
Posted by Discount Art on Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:27 | # I cannot be absolutely certain that he never said any such thing. However, judging by what I know about Goebbels, the statement is totally out of character. http://go2museum.com/ Post a comment:
Next entry: Marine 23%, Sarko 21%, Aubry 21%
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Jimmy Marr on Fri, 04 Mar 2011 05:55 | #
This is an interesting project. Thanks for initiating it.
The following excerpt appears redundantly in the body of posted text: