Thursday, September 29, 2011

USC Student replies to CODOH letter to Daily Trojan

Sat, 24 Sep 2011

Dear Mr. Rucker,

Re: The Trojan protects you from what?

I support intellectual inquiry and healthy debate. But though you claim to be making the case for both, I don't see you using either. To discuss the unfortunate plight of Palestinians in Israel (who despite their mistreatment, generally live in better conditions than Palestinians in Arab-majority countries) is reasonable. But to dismiss the suffering and/or brutal murder of millions of innocent Jews through central and eastern Europe is derangement.

The ADL / Hillel manual for action is not a Zionist script to stifle free speech, as you may make it out to be. It's a simple defense against hate speech, such as yours; against overgeneralized, misinformed statements that people like you make with your "minimalist" ads. I am especially disgusted by your following comments:

1."invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs" - are you saying that Jews never lived in Israel, for example, in the time of the Bible? And regardless, Muslim Arabs are still allowed to live, to earn a living, to vote, and to serve in elected positions in Israel.

2. "upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine"- do you mean the UN Mandate establishing the State of Israel? Or the 1948 War in which Israel was attacked by 3 countries simultaneously? Or is that history also fabricated.

3. "under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy"- if you're lamenting the unfortunate circumstance in which a country under constant threat from extremist terrorists has to have soldiers providing security at shopping malls, I agree with you on that. And yes, Israel receives financial support from America. As do scores of other countries; probably most of the developing world, in fact, receives direct or indirect support from America. Israel also provides America with technological innovation. Ever read Startup Nation?

4. "the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel"- again, Palestinians are allowed to live in Israel. And, yes, there are bound to be unintended casualties when fighting against terrorists that use civilians for protection. Israel tries to minimize such casualties. In fact, Israel's ratio of civilians killed to armed enemies killed is the envy of American generals in Iraq for its lowness. Again, if there weren't terrorists attacking Israel, then the Israeli army could completely avoid killing civilians.

5. "soil of Palestine"- I understand that by using this name for a strip of land bounded by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea, you are trying to establish that the land belongs to Palestinians. I agree that they have a right to live there. They have a right to economic opportunity there. They have more there than they have available in most Arab countries. But Jews have a right to live there, too. To deny the latter fact is as cruel and inhumane as to deny the former.

6. "Their schooling... force of arms."- are you lamenting that young people are prejudiced against Nazis? That does not require any schooling. A heart and a history book are sufficient for that. Even if you can't have the former, you should try to access the latter.Prejudice against Germans is inappropriate. For the most part, as is true for most peoples, they are respectable. But prejudice against Nazis is actually support for human rights, for equal opportunity, and against discrimination.

7."Steven Spielberg's monument to retributive hatred"- I dare you to find a single scrap related to the Shoah Foundation that promotes retribution or hate. On the contrary, the Shoah Foundation states as its goal "to overcome prejudice, intolerance, and bigotry through visual history testimonies." It is a shame that you have so obviously not watched any of their videos, which cover not only Jewish suffering, but the suffering of others, such as a survivor of Rwandan genocide, too.

An attack on ADL and Hillel is one thing. But I cannot stand the casual dismissal of the suffering of my friends' grandparents. It is indicative of uneducated and misinformed hate, which you are very good at displaying. Your flippant remark about sending the young off to war equally displays ignorance in your over-generalization of a situation that is already unfortunate. The less wealthy in our society are more likely to end up dodging bullets in foreign countries. That is a tragedy. But that is not related to the main thrust of your ignorant remarks about the Holocaust, so I'd rather not venture into that discussion.

I hope this gives you and Mr. Bradley Smith pause before the next time you try to spread your hate.


Dmitry Galkin

Master of Planning, 2012

University of Southern California

The End of Debate: Playing the "G" Card

A book by Edward Herman published last year catalogs examples since World War II that argue that calling the deeds or effects of political opponents "genocide" is the chief weapon by which the US and its allies stain their images indelibly and at the same time shut off all debate or analysis that might in any way ameliorate their guilt or the magnitude of their purported crimes. The book further identifies the United States as the chief abettor, enabler, and instigator of the massacres in question in every case.

Herman's choice of time frame enables him to include a genocide of Palestinians that he marks as having begun in 1948 and continuing to the present day. It also enables him to exclude what people on both sides of the debate might call the "mother of all genocides," that in Europe from 1939 to 1945. In this 2007 blog post, Herman dismisses Paul Rassinier and Arthur Butz as "cranks," perhaps to mollify the terrible forces massed in defense of the Holocaust legend, but to my reading leaving open the possibility that with that word, he expresses not his own verdict, but rather the comparative impotence of these writers vis-à-vis popular opinion.

Despite his ducking the seminal instance of his subject, Herman's study and commentary are of great relevance also to people who do not regard Rassinier and Butz as cranks.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Another "Denier" Bites the Dust

The war against open debate claimed another victim recently, the British Palestine Solidarity Campaign, who, under Zionist pressure, recently decorated their Web site with this declaration:
"Any expression of racism or intolerance, or attempts to deny or minimise the Holocaust have no place in our movement."

Notice how "intolerance" and "deny or minimize the Holocaust" are put in the same sentence, in this case without quite saying that they are the same thing. Clever.

Affiliated with the PSC? Run afoul of this proscription, and those two unrelated things may come crashing together - with your name right in the space between them.

The Nakba, of course, remains fair game - deny and minimize all you like.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist

John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist

By Jeffrey Goldberg

Sep 23 2011,

Gilad Atzmon is a jazz saxophonist who lives in London and who has a side gig disseminating the wildest sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. He is an ex-Israeli and a self-proclaimed "self-hater" who traffics in Holocaust denial and all sorts of grotesque, medieval anti-Jewish calumnies. Here is a small sample of his lunatic thoughts:

(Gilad Atzmon)

I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evidence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.

Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents' plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity...

...The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Was Adolf Eichmann kidnapped by Mossad for his involvement in the Holocaust?

First Published in
Inconvenient History Blog

Was Adolf Eichmann kidnapped by
Mossad for his involvement in the Holocaust?

By Wilfried Heink

On 11 October 2008 an article appeared in junge Welt, a German daily, titled “Er galt als Amispizel und mußte aus dem Weg geräumt werden“ (He was considered to be an American agent/spy and had to be eliminated), featuring a picture of Adolf Eichmann (I was unable to access the original junge Welt article at this time, available here but for a fee ,

the following a link to a copy ).

The headline continues to say that the article is an interview with Gaby Weber about the mass murderer Adolf Eichmann and that he knew too much about the tripartite dealings (Dreiecksgeschäft) concerning the Israeli atomic bomb. Weber has written a book about what she had uncovered titled chatting with Socrates and followed this up in a radio show on Deutschlandfunk on 4 March of this year (2011). This suggests that here, too, the official version differs from actual events.

Before addressing the Weber research results, let’s review some background on what was known about Adolf Eichmann, and when. He came into prominence at the IMT when, on 14 December 1945, an affidavit by Dr. Wilhelm Höttl was introduced as evidence (Document 2738-PS; Exhibit USA-269), in which Eichmann was mentioned. Here is part of ....

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Letter to the Editor of the The New University at UC Irvine

Gregory Yee, Editor in Chief

The New University


26 September 2011

To the Editor:

Responding politely to our applications to buy a small ad in your newspaper, New U’s Advertising Manager Natasha Monnereau wrote, “We are unable to accept requests having any association with Bradley Smith.” In another, she included a full copy of New U’s advertising policy, which emphasizes your right to reject any advertisement that doesn’t suit you, but leaves unmentioned your right to accept advertising that might not suit other powers holding sway over your publication.

Powers, for example, like the Anti-Defamation League and the Hillel Foundation. Perhaps Natasha, or even your entire staff, have already received a friendly warning from a representative of your campus chapter of the Hillel Foundation, in accordance with the instructions on Page 16 of the ADL/Hillel publication “Preventing Holocaust Denial on Campus: A Manual for Action.” Those instructions include marching orders for keeping ads from my Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) out of your paper, and in the event one slips through, how to punish those who have allowed it to happen.

The Manual is a remarkable document. You can inspect it at to see what fate you have been spared. You are, for whatever reason, punctilious about complying with the censorship imposed by the terms of this Manual, and to my mind this raises the question as to whether you comply with it when you make editorial decisions as well. That question will be answered, of course, if you fail to carry this letter in your pages as a letter to the editor.

In any case, New U continues to support the interests of Israel warmly, as may be noted on Page 4 of your May 31 issue, in which the avid reception of the Fourth Annual iFest Week of Anteaters for Israel is noted with the rousing headline “It’s a Celebration.” In the face of the strife that has torn your campus since Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech there February last, it is impressive to see that you remain quite fearless about promoting at least his side of the contretemps.

The Great Seal of UC Irvine displays the uplifting motto, “Let There Be Light.” I regret that your paper does not better uphold it.

Bradley R Smith

Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

PO Box 439016

San Ysidro, CA. 92143

Desk: 209 682 5327



Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Letter to the Editor of the Daily Trojan

The Daily Trojan

University of Southern California



17 September 2011

To the Editor

The Daily Trojan does indeed provide protection. Its General Ad Policies recite the goal of “safeguarding USC’s Principles of Community,” in the copy kindly provided to the Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH) in rejecting the paid advertisement we sought to place in its pages.

In providing this protection, it also provided (unsought) protection to the student body from Open Debate of a body of history much called upon by the only nuclear power in the Middle East to claim over $3 billion per year of American taxpayers’ money, plus the additional billions paid to repressive client regimes in neighboring countries to bribe them to protect this invader in an area previously populated by Muslim Arabs.

And thus, it protects the USC community from the MTD (Mentally-Transmitted Disease) of an accurate understanding of the history upon which Israel excuses not only the bloody process by which it established itself in Palestine, but of the still-bloodier process by which it expands and tightens its hold on peoples (Jews and Arabs alike) under the guns of its American-supplied military supremacy.

Principles of Community? USC is home to students from Israel. It is home to students from Palestine and other Arab countries whose citizens appear to sympathize with the plight of Palestinians displaced (or slaughtered) by the Zionist project in Israel. USC is home to thousands of American students, many Jewish, most not, thoroughly schooled in the sanctity of this very “controversial” novelty on the soil of Palestine. Their schooling likewise, pursuant to the law in many of their states, instructed them prejudicially on Germans before and during World War II and Germany’s National Socialist regime that America and its allies “changed” through devastating force of arms. And it is home to Steven Spielberg’s monument to retributive hatred, the Shoah Foundation.

What Principle of Community, then, might it be that the Trojan is protecting by rejecting a text link that reads, “The Holocaust. The Power of Taboo” The link, of course, goes to the Web site of CODOH. Below you will find the link to the ADL/Hillel Manual For Action detailing how to prevent or punish college student newspapers for carrying ads from -- CODOH

I trust USC would—if it were aware of it—be grateful for the protection its Daily Trojan affords it. The young need protection. So they’ll march off to war when we tell them to.

On Principles of Community, of course.

Jett Rucker (American veteran, age 68)



Fighting Holocaust Denial in Campus Newspaper Advertisements


The ADL/Hillel Manual for Action: A Crime against Thought

Thursday, September 15, 2011

The ADL/Hillel Manual for Action: A Crime against Thought

by Jett Rucker

It’s a Plan. What to do if you care about Israel above anything else (über alles), and Bradley Smith and his Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH), manages to get the student newspaper on your campus to carry one of his minimalist ads. Israel, according to the script, is to be defended against any and all who might attack, or even attempt to reason with it, or the widely held beliefs upon which its command of so much sympathy on the part of Americans is based. Americans, after all, constitute the heart and mind of the world’s 800-pound gorilla, Israel’s benefactor, enforcer, legitimizer, and Godfather.

The Plan is disseminated through those outposts of subservience to Israel on American campuses, the chapters of the Hillel Foundation, and its goal is to prevent those few inquiring (young) minds on American campuses from prying into the factual basis of the story of the Holocaust (the Martyrdom of the Jews). Bradley Smith’s CODOH engages in the annoying practice of placing advertisements in campus newspapers that tempt respondents to be exposed to alternative views of the Story and the findings of (some, proscribed) investigators who have looked into the matter.

The investigators CODOH favors, undeniably, are those who attend primarily to “forensic” evidence—archaeology and documents from the period, much of it recorded by those (Germans) who are held to have perpetrated that Holocaust. Indeed, many of the investigators, though by no means all of them, are themselves Germans—all too young, of course, to have numbered among the perpetrators themselves.

Back to the campus newspapers. Hillel and its “big brother” in the larger society beyond the campus, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), somehow, react to such initiatives in a way that clashes conspicuously with the ostensible spirit of enlightenment at institutions of higher learning—that ideas are to be considered on their merits, and in particular, that allegations as to historical fact are to be considered on the basis of the evidence for or against them, with quality of evidence taking precedence over quantity, popularity, or the weight of coercion employed for their defense or enforcement. Examples such as that of Galileo are sometimes called upon to depict the dynamics in play in such cases.

Hillel and ADL, then, undertake to oppose these insidious little ads from CODOH not with rejoinders of facts, but rather with that essential tool of the Inquisition, charges of blasphemy (or, more recently, “hatred” of the victims or of those who today claim to be descended from them, or to run a country that “protects” them). Their Manual for Action encourages—in chilling detail—a confrontation of fact with “force” that would make Torquemada cheer. That is, the Manual at no point even admits any possibility of engaging Bradley Smith’s side with argumentation, fact-based, morality-based, or otherwise. It instructs in the methods of marshalling the force of institutionalized opinion against his invitation to partake of the fruit of knowledge—a modern-day reincarnation of the hoary sin of Blasphemy, resplendent in all the reeking Medieval rags of superstition and persecution for Wrong Thought.

Far be it from what any Jewish organization besides the Jewish Defense League would recommend to entail violence: the Manual even suggests that activists refrain from confiscating or destroying existing copies of a campus newspaper carrying an offending ad—leave this to the contrite perpetrators themselves as they come to grips with the enormity of the offense they have committed in light of the “firestorm” of official and popular rebuke, igniting which is the main focus of the instructions in the Manual. Let Jewish hands always remain clean, at least insofar as visible physical acts are concerned.

Meantime, those acts that are not necessarily visible to all remain at center stage: complain and threaten, and do it where it counts: with the Administration. This issue of visibility illuminates an interesting attribute of the Manual as it has thus far been distributed. It is, in all its repressive glory, visible to all on the Web site of the ADL. One might think, in view of its reason-phobic character, that it might have been distributed to its adherents as at least a semi-secret communiqué—something short of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, for example, but nonetheless discreet to at least some extent.

But no. It’s There for All to See on the ADL Web site, at least for now. And in the thoughtful, such as your correspondent is pleased to see himself, this raises a question: why so public about all this? Two possibilities come to the mind of your thoughtful, but cynical, correspondent: first, that the instigators of the Manual are so filled with a self-impression of such unimpeachable, universal righteousness that they have no inkling of the crime against thought (not to be confused with thought-crime) they are committing; and second, that they are so grossly overfunded for their obsolete mission of combating anti-Semitism that they must contrive even this improbable project as a means of creating the impression that they are putting their surfeit of pelf to good use despite the paucity of targets against which they could direct it. Take your pick. Maybe it’s both, but in either case, it’s grotesque, when you step back to contemplate it.

The treatment it advocates for Bradley Smith’s invitations to inquiry does, indeed, imply some sort of criminal intent in the advertiser, despite the fact that there is as yet in the United States no official thought-crime on the books such as stops the mouths, if not the minds, of Germans, Austrians, Swiss, French, and people in a growing list of countries headed, of course, by Israel.

The matter at issue in the case of CODOH’s paid advertisements in student newspapers is a slight twist of the standard issue of freedom of speech for students (and faculty) on campus. It has, rather, to do with freedom of hearing or, more broadly, freedom of information (including “lies,” notwithstanding the protestations of Hillel/ADL). Censorship by the university administration is still censorship even when it is inspired by the righteous indignation of Hillel and ADL, and just as well for a paid advertisement as for any other part of the newspaper.

Wrapping itself in sheep’s clothing, the Manual cleverly couches its assault on students’ informational rights in terms of those very rights, diverting attention by urging its executors to remind student editors that they have the right to reject any advertisement that agents provocateurs like ADL/Hillel may make it too uncomfortable for them to carry. And they certainly do, but naturally ADL/Hillel make every exertion to avoid the obvious implication that rejection of a free-information-proffering ad such as CODOH’s itself limits the rights of the readership to receive information, not to mention the newspaper’s right to collect the admittedly minor fees that CODOH always pays up front. Propaganda is always about controlling the subject.

The Manual at no point discloses the ulterior motive of its campaign, which is, ever and always, suppressing criticism of the actions of the state that excuses its very existence on a sort of restitution for the “Holocaust” visited upon Jews and other enemies of Nazism in Europe before and during World War II. The linkage, again, is to be found on a Web site, in particular that of Hillel, which declaims:

Israel advocacy is a central force in promoting a positive Israel agenda on campus and for developing a cadre of articulate Israel activists. This is an outstanding opportunity for student leaders to affect the culture of Israel on our campus. Through their knowledge of and passion for Israel, we have the ability to have a profound impact on our campus community.

The “profound impact” referred to in this passage not only includes dissemination of a thorough whitewash of Israel and its actions in the real world, but suppression of any inquiry into those portions of history that happen to bear on its founding mythology and the basis of ongoing excusal of the depredations it continues to commit on those peoples and countries with which it shares the world.

Inevitably and vociferously, it conflates CODOH’s opposition to suppression of free expression into hatred of a people and/or a religious group. This shrill calumny, long the stock in trade of parties who have no substantive argument to mount in their own defense, is wearing thin.

Just how thin can be tellingly gauged from the laundry list of repressive, vengeful, fearsome list of measures detailed in the forty pages of the ADL/Hillel Manual for Action.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Gigantic Fraud Carried Out for Wiesel Nobel Prize

First published in

Elie Wiesel Cons the World

Gigantic Fraud Carried Out for Wiesel Nobel Prize

By Carolyn Yeager

Proof that the man in the famous Buchenwald photograph is NOT Elie Wiesel.

With the help of the New York Times and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Elie Wiesel and his backers did not shy away from criminal deceit by purposely misidentifying an unknown face in this famous photo as belonging to Elie Wiesel.

The above high-resolution photograph of Buchenwald survivors was first published in the New York Times onMay 6, 1945 with the caption “Crowded Bunks in the Prison Camp at Buchenwald”. It was taken inside Block #56 by Private H. Miller of the Civil Affairs Branch of the U.S. Army Signal Corps on April 16, 1945, five days after the Buchenwald camp was liberated by a division of the US Third Army on April 11, 1945. None of the men in the picture were identified at that time.

The U.S. Army photographer was in block #56, not #66

The U.S. Army photographer said he was inside Block #56. The “children’s block” that housed the so-called “boys of Buchenwald” was #66. This was not a typo. Note that these men are not children or teenagers, except for the youngster on the lower left who has been correctly identified as 16 yr. old Myklos (Nikolaus) Grüner, and a couple others. These adults appear to be a mixture of sick individuals suffering from a wasting disease (Grüner learned after liberation he had TB), along with basically healthy men who were also in that block for some reason five days after they had been freed. As we have read from many Buchenwald inmates, they moved about at will from the day of liberation onward. In Elie Wiesel’s book Night, he even says that some of the boys in his block went to the city of Weimar the very next day to steal potatoes and rape girls.

The true facts of this photograph have never been told and perhaps are not known. (Grüner has written inStolen Identity that he left a procession of youths being led to the camp entrance on the morning of April 11, scurried into the nearest barracks and jumped into an empty bunk space. It turned out to be this one.) But because of the man standing there stark naked except for ....

Continue Reading

Saturday, September 10, 2011

Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP

First Published in

Inconvenient History

Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP

By Veronica Kuzniar Clark

What exactly did the NSDAP (National Socialist German Worker's Party) represent and who were its founding members? Why and how did Adolf Hitler transform the party from an unimpressive proletariat workers’ party to a full-fledged political machine that obtained absolute power in Germany? Perhaps more important, how was it funded? We answer these questions in this introduction. But first, we begin with an examination of the early stages of the NSDAP and its recruiting process. One must understand how this process unfolded if one is to understand the NSDAP’s position on(National Socialist German Worker's Partyand Freemasonry as well as the prevailing social and political order of the day. Naturally, we also reveal some of the other important aspects of its early development, which necessitates a fair amount of myth busting about Hitler, including who actually gave him money.

Triumvirate: Leadership, development and unity

Adolf Hitler, contrary to his own self-myths and the myths of others, was not poor—at least not until he had drained his savings and entitlements gallivanting in Vienna. Many historians have written that Hitler simply lived day-to-day wasting both his money and time, but in so doing they overlook Hitler’s experiences and ‘life education’ that later played such an important role in the development and direction of National Socialism as well as the Second World War. The development and direction of both can be traced to Hitler’s experiences during ....

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

New Evidence on Elie Wiesel at Buchenwald

First Published in


New Evidence on Elie Wiesel at Buchenwald

By Carolyn Yeager

Another official transport list of the youths sent to France from Buchenwald in summer 1945 has come to my attention. Can it possibly be the “smoking gun” to prove that Elie Wiesel in not one of the “boys of Buchenwald?”

On June 14, I posted a blog on this site questioning “What Happened to Waltzer’s Book about the ‘boys of Buchenwald?’” Professor Ken Waltzer of Michigan State University wrote a comment to that blog in which he stated, “Elie Wiesel was there (in Block 66 at Buchenwald) with other boys from Sighet, who knew him; he was interviewed by military authorities after liberation, in order to permit departure from the camp; andhe went after liberation in early June, 1945, to France, to Ecouis…. one among 425 boys who did so.”

Prof. Waltzer has for years been firm in his insistence that Elie Wiesel was on the transport to France from Buchenwald, as one of the “boys of Buchenwald,” a legend in the making. This is largely based on a document containing the name of Lazar Wiesel of Sighet, born Oct. 4, 1928, on the transport list of over 500 Jewish “orphans” from Buchenwald to Paris dated 16th July, 1945. (Note: Elie Wiesel’s official birth date is Sept. 30, 1928)

Page 9 of this list, as well as the cover page, as received by Myklos (Michael) Grüner from the BuchenwaldGedenkstätten (Archival Records Office) is viewable on Elie Wiesel Cons The World under “The Evidence” on our menu bar (click on “The Documents” and then the link at #14). You will notice ...

Continue Reading

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

David Irving

First Published in
Inconvenient History

David Irving
by Jett Rucker

This may be Inconvenient History’s first Profile of a living subject. David Irving (born 1938, England) is not only living, but—very happily for the rest of us—working at a pace that would tire anyone half his age, at this moment on a biography of Heinrich Himmler. His only career after a stint as a millworker in Germany’s renascent steel industry after World War Two has been researching, writing, and publishing history, all of it placed within Europe in the Twentieth Century. His distinguished and strife-torn career, then, is already about twice as long as any “average” career, and his productivity exceeds all norms by a large multiple. While his aggressive interpretations of the evidence he examines produce books that read like novels (with footnotes), not one of his titles, neither in English nor in his equally fluent German, is fiction.

Two virtues distinguish David Irving from other historians. First, he is quite innocent of formal education, or training, in history. In fact, he claims no college degree whatsoever, though he obviously commands erudition vastly in excess of the secondary education he received. Concerns for a secure and respected career as an academic historian have, therefore, never affected his pronouncements. Second, he bases his historical findings entirely on original sources—writings in most cases, and direct personal interviews in others. His application of this policy is rigorous—he in fact eschews not only translations, at least of German sources, but he also avoids even purported transcriptions. A striking example of this practice appears in the extensive personal diary of Joseph Goebbels, who wrote the journal in his own neat, but archaic handwriting, quite illegible to native readers of German today. Irving has painstakingly trained himself in deciphering this script to a level of accuracy probably attained by no other person since Goebbels’s death. His biography of Goebbels appeared in 1996.

he research, writing, and publication of Goebbels—Mastermind of the Third Reich, in fact, provides a good example, from among many, of the Sturm und Drang that have characterized Irving’s tumultuous career. By the time (1992) he completed what turned out to be the first version of his biography under contract with Scribner, a complete set of microfilms of Goebbels’s diaries had ....

Monday, September 5, 2011

A Premature News Report on a "Death Camp" for Jews

First Published in
Inconvenient history

A Premature News Report on a "Death Camp" for Jews
By Thomas Kues

An alleged revisionist forgery

In 1990 German revisionist Udo Walendy published an issue of his journal Historische Tatsachen (Historical Facts) entitled Der Fall Treblinka (The Treblinka Case) that focused on the numerous absurd allegations surrounding this supposed “pure extermination camp”. On one of the first pages of this publication Walendy has reproduced in facsimile a newspaper clipping from the Polish-language London newspaper Dziennik Polski (The Polish Daily) dated 11 July 1942, together with a German translation of a part of an article appearing in said clipping, together with a brief commentary on it. The part of the facsimile offered in translation appears to have been either rendered clearer and/or slightly enlarged or retyped and inserted on top of the facsimile (cf. Illustration 1).
Walendy’s introduction, translation and commentary read as follows in English translation:1

“On 11 July 1942 the Polish Daily, a newspaper of the Polish government in exile in London, reported on a press conference held by the British Minister of Information on 9 July 1942, quoting the exile-Polish Minister of the Interior S. Mikolajczyk word for word under the heading 'The Slaughter of the Jews':

‘...All in all 2,500 people were murdered this night, while the remaining 25,000 people were brought to camps in Belzec and Tremblinka. In Izbica Kujawska 8,000 individuals were driven away in an unknown direction. In Belzec and Tremblinka the people are reportedly killed with poison gas.’

One thing is certain, however, namely that it was only on 23 July 1942 – that is 14 days later! – with the arrival of the first transport of Jews from Warsaw that the Treblinka camp was opened!!

As demonstrated by the above described press conference, the lie about ....

Thursday, September 1, 2011

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

First Published in
Inconvenient History

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

by Adam Tooze, Viking Press, New York, 2006. 799pp.

Ezra MacVie

It is a well-worn truism that hunger is a weapon in war, and starvation may claim more victims in war than disease, cold, and the stupendous efforts of each side to kill members of the other side. But in mortal struggles between nations and their respective peoples, hunger and allied deprivations are also an “enemy within”—a consequence of the logic that he who fights cannot farm, nor bring fuel, nor administer medicine. The unforgiving logistics of life on earth become cruel and wrenching when masses seek to avoid—or impose—subjugation by or upon other masses.

But in the late 1930s, Hitler, for whose perspicacity Author Tooze allows considerable respect to shine through his text, saw that his Germany might face annihilation between the jaws of a vise formed on the west by the victorious Allies of World War I and by the nascent Soviet Union on the east. He details vividly how Hitler saw Germany’s salvation in that very land mass lying to the east of Germany that was occupied chiefly by the same golom of communism that formed the belligerent jaw, so to speak, of the vise. What he saw as the covert motivator of both jaws of this vise was International Jewry, as Tooze makes abundantly clear in his narrative.

Tooze never comments on the effective truth of Hitler’s concerns regarding International Jewry as the enemy of Germany’s “Aryan” civilization, nor does he explore any history bearing on its validity. He is a historian chronicling what amounts, at least in one view, to a titanic industrial contest between Germany and its occupied and allied countries on the one hand and Britain, the US, and the USSR and their allied countries on the other.

Continue Reading